Léon Gloden is Luxembourg’s Minister for Home Affairs. For Agence Europe, he talks about his work to raise awareness of the difficulties encountered by border workers every day at Schengen’s internal borders. He also explains his support for new EU regulations to reduce the flow of irregular migrants. (Interview by Solenn Paulic)
Agence Europe - On 6 December you published an op-ed condemning the Commission’s inaction on internal border controls in the Schengen area (see EUROPE 13768/4). What are the difficulties?
Léon Gloden - First of all, it is with great satisfaction that we have just learned this afternoon of the German Chancellor’s announcement that the controls will soon come to an end.
You need to understand our context, and that’s what I’m always trying to explain to my German colleague Alexander Dobrindt: we’re in the middle of three countries - France, Germany and Belgium - and we have 230,000 cross-border workers every day.
Proportionally, this is the largest influx of cross-border workers in Europe, and Luxembourg needs this workforce. Every day, 52,000 people come from Germany. And if these people stopped coming to work, we’d have a serious problem.
Schengen is also, of course, a very emotional subject, because it’s where we live. But also, when I’m abroad, I hear what a paradise on earth this area of free movement is. For the people who work, the millions of tourists who arrive.
We really need to support this idea of an open Schengen area. Things have improved slightly, but the biggest problem remains on the motorway to Trier, 15 km from the border, on German territory around Dicke Buche. The traffic is confined to one lane, at 20 or even 30 km/h; there are police officers parked there, there are traffic jams every day, and we receive complaints every day.
The justification for these checks is that thousands of irregular migrants are allegedly intercepted at them, but we doubt these figures.
Did the Commission hear you at the JHA Council on Monday?
I feel that Magnus Brunner (European Commissioner for Home Affairs) is listening to me, but the fact is that the Commission should already have issued an opinion on the necessity and proportionality of these controls, and we are still waiting for that opinion...
Under the current Schengen Code, Germany would have to notify and assess extensions every six months. The Commission should also have carried out unannounced checks and issued an opinion.
According to DLWI, the Luxembourg-German Economic Association, 78% of commuters suffer recurrent delays. Almost 31% regularly lose more than 30 minutes a day; 44% have had to adapt their working hours, and almost 34% are seriously considering changing jobs; 53% of the companies surveyed feel operationally constrained, and 72% report significant delays to ‘Just in Time’ deliveries. This has a negative impact on the economy, but also on trade. And I’m a little upset, because Luxembourg is a good partner when it comes to migration issues.
We have also reached out to the German authorities to modernise our police cooperation treaties. We understand the internal problems linked to the AfD, but we still haven’t had an answer.
Do you approve of the controversial regulations adopted on Monday on returns and the concept of ‘safe third countries’?
Luxembourg pursues a responsible and supportive immigration policy. We must succeed in integrating people who meet the conditions and send the others back as quickly as possible. There’s no point in keeping these people for two or three years with false hopes.
I introduced a voluntary return system and we were able to double the number of returns by 2024. The system runs in parallel with the examination of the application for protection. We also offer between €3,500, €4,000 and €6,000 to these people depending on their situation. And we work with local agencies to try to integrate them in their country of origin or in another ‘safe third country’. It is in our interest for these people to find a degree of stability in another country.
I believe that the first step is to extend a hand, but if the person concerned does not accept that hand, then forced return must of course be the other side of the coin. The text approved yesterday reflects this logic.
We also have no problem with compulsory mutual recognition of return decisions, which in principle will happen in four years’ time, as we already have such a system within the Benelux countries.
If we want to remain an open Europe - all the Member States need foreign labour - and if we want to maintain cooperation and aid to developing countries, these countries must accept that there are clear and precise rules for people who come here illegally.
Would Luxembourg be interested in ‘return hubs’ and the application of the ‘safe third country’ concept?
We can live with both concepts and it is perhaps regrettable that we do not have a list of ‘safe third countries’, but human rights must always be respected. This concept is not something we are going to use. As far as ‘return hubs’ are concerned, I’ve discussed this with some of my colleagues. Luxembourg, which remains a small country, could possibly join an agreement supported by other member states, but it is still very early days. And we cannot predict the results of these ‘hubs’.
Does the EU still need to come up with new ‘innovative’ ideas?
It took us years to negotiate the ‘Asylum Pact’, so now we need to focus on putting it in place, making sure that everything is in place, from screening to the related procedures, which require staffing. We need to focus on implementing the Pact, the ‘return’ regulation and voluntary return. These are the three priorities.
The ‘Pact’ is the first solidarity mechanism. Where is your country located?
I was unpleasantly surprised because this report congratulates Luxembourg on its work - we have doubled bed capacity over the last ten years, introduced voluntary return, we are one of the five countries with pressure linked to secondary movements - but we are in the bottom category (no aid or possibility of deductions in contributions). My colleague in charge of Family Affairs and I have written to Commissioner Brunner.
The Commission has not drawn the right conclusions or taken account of the regionalisation criteria. Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and France are in the same category, but not little Luxembourg surrounded by these countries!
The Commissioner told us that this would change in the next report, in June.
Luxembourg is currently home to almost 700 ‘Dubliners’ (asylum seekers who should be sent back to Italy, Spain or Greece); fifteen relocations and €1.04 million in aid are being requested from Luxembourg. Together with our Italian, Greek and Spanish colleagues, we have already planned to compensate for these relocations in part with the people who are already with us.