A single response to situations of migratory pressure and disembarkations of people rescued at sea, whereas the European Commission proposed two separate systems; a new ‘Dublin’ criterion for siblings, but only when they are minors and with reinforced proof of the existence of family ties; a new mechanism for preventing arrivals and the reversal of the burden of proof in order to help the so-called countries of first entry.
These are the main amendments to the report to be presented on Tuesday 26 October in the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties by Tomas Tobé (EPP) on the regulation on migration and asylum management, the main instrument of the ‘Pact on Migration and Asylum’ presented in September 2020 (see EUROPE 12566/1) by the Commission and intended to replace the old revision of the Dublin Regulation and organise solidarity in times of migratory pressure. On the same day, Fabienne Keller (Renew Europe, France) will also present her report on asylum procedures, including border procedures.
The Swede explained to EUROPE, in the margins of the second October plenary in Strasbourg, the main objectives of his report which, despite the apparent hardening of the Commission’s text, aims to make a real difference in solidarity on the ground between the concern to facilitate the text, the emphasis on cooperation with third countries, and alleviation of pressure in countries of first entry.
See the draft 'Tobé' report: https://bit.ly/3jDIXTZ (Interview by Solenn Paulic)
Agence Europe — The regulation for which you are responsible is the basis of the entire architecture of the Pact on Migration and Asylum. How can it make a difference when discussions between Member States remain particularly difficult?
Tomas Tobé: I do hope that my proposal will be a bridge builder to break the political deadlock that we have had in the Council, because I do think that we are in a crossroad: we either continue on the path that we’re on now, with all the challenges that we see where we have too many irregular migrants coming to Europe, where we don’t have control of our external border, where we don’t make a big distinction between refugees and economic migrants, where we don’t have swift asylum procedures, and where we don’t share the responsibility in Europe. And we still have a situation where people are dying in the Mediterranean Sea, big profits for the smugglers. We either can continue on this path or we make the choice to try to tackle this together.
We have to do it now, because it will not be easier in two years or 5 years or 10 years, and I hope to show that the European Parliament is ready to find a pragmatic solution.
One of the first objectives will be to make solidarity much more effective for countries of first entry and to reduce the number of arrivals.
How can we make this solidarity more impactful without insisting on the concept of compulsory relocation, as you envisage?
Making compulsory relocation the main idea of solidarity will not work, but it cannot be abandoned without strong solidarity in return for the countries of the South.
Yes, we will have voluntary relocation, but there must be confidence that it will be in sufficient numbers to cope with high numbers of arrivals under pressure.
I think it is also important for Europe to work on returns (of irregular migrants, editor's note), because no Member State is currently successfully managing returns. And capacity building (in terms of human resources, field experts, or infrastructure) will be essential. We need to strengthen them here in Europe, but also in third countries (the rapporteur does not, however, propose that third countries build more centres or take up the idea of outsourcing asylum policy, editor’s note).
To prevent arrivals, much more work needs to be done upstream. I think that the Commission does not focus enough on prevention. Its proposal is very much focused on what will happen when we have migrants on European territory. Of course, we have to find solutions for this. But we also need to work more on prevention. I would therefore propose that the Commission present a five-year strategy (with detailed annual reports).
A new prevention mechanism will also be needed. Instead of having a mechanism where Member States say they are already under migratory pressure, they would anticipate this migratory pressure and give an alert to the Commission. It can then take an initiative to avoid this situation, and this will mean that it will have to interact with third countries and take action.
I am convinced that we can only achieve true European migration management, if we are able to reduce irregular migration to Europe.
I will also combine the two mechanisms proposed in the text (migratory pressure and search and rescue operations) into one tool, one single measure, because I do not think we should distinguish between them. This will remain on a voluntary basis, which does not mean that nothing will happen if a Member State does not act, as the Commission will always have the possibility to ask for a relocation contribution, for example.
I also generally want Member States to present their assessments and solidarity responses much earlier.
On prevention, is what the Commission is doing with key third countries not enough?
I think we need to work with a broad toolbox. We have development aid, the new Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI). The most important thing is really to try to build a partnership with our African neighbours.
And that means that we have to tackle the root causes of migration, that we have to work on creating jobs. Today, what I see is that people arrive on European territory, they enter the asylum procedure, they get a negative decision at the end. For economic migrants, we must ensure that the decision is taken very quickly.
Most economic migrants who have arrived in Europe will not find a better life in Europe. We need to ensure that they have better opportunities in their home countries. Of course, this is easy to say and difficult to do. But I think it is the only solution.
‘Capacity support’ seems to feature prominently in your response to pressure situations, but isn’t there a risk that some countries just want to do that and won’t help otherwise?
There must be flexible options for Member States, but we must have compulsory solidarity in the sense that each Member State must contribute. And I think that if you are going to do capacity building, it has to be in sufficient proportion.
When I talk to the frontline Member States, I see that they have very important needs for economic and operational support. I know that there are different views among Member States, but my assessment is that we will have enough Member States to do voluntary relocation, we will have Member States that are ready to work on returns. And, yes, there will also be Member States that focus more on capacity building. But this cannot be a way out of the European migration policy.
I will also make a proposal to shift the responsibility (from the countries of first entry to the Dublin criteria, editor’s note). If a migrant arrives in Greece and if, upon registration, it is clear to Greece that the migrant should be handed over to Denmark, then the burden of proof is on Denmark to prove that it is not the one to process the asylum application. If it fails to provide the proof, Denmark will be the country responsible.
Now it is up to Greece to provide all the documents to argue that it is Denmark’s responsibility. I think it can make a real difference. (The rapporteur deletes the new Dublin criterion related to visas and diplomas, editor’s note.)
You seem to think that a way out is possible on the Pact, but even in the European Parliament, sensitivities sometimes seem very divergent...
There are, of course, very, very different views within Parliament. But we want a solution. Parliament will not be the problem. The problem is in the Council and I am not naive, I can see that we will not have a political agreement very quickly.
But I think it will happen during this term. I have had many bilateral talks, and it is clear to me that there is a very strong majority that wants to move forward.
And yes, there are difficult discussions to be had. But I think there is an opportunity, I really hope that we will make some steps during the French Presidency (of the EU Council at the beginning of 2022, editor's note). There will of course be an important election in France. I understand that, but I also see a very strong commitment on the French side and I hope that this will allow us to progress.