Examination of Witnesses
Alice Lucas and Dr Hanne Beirens.
Q18 The Chairman: Welcome to both of you, and welcome back to Hanne Beirens. It is very good to see you here again. We are towards the beginning of a rather interesting and important inquiry into asylum. A number of us are going to Norway next week to talk to the Norwegians about how they manage a situation that could be, in some ways, similar to what we may find ourselves faced with outside the European Union. We are very grateful to both of you for coming and giving evidence to us.
Perhaps I could ask you to introduce yourselves and your organisations, just to put us properly in the picture.
Dr Hanne Beirens: Good morning. I am the Acting Director at the Migration Policy Institute Europe, based in Brussels. We are an independent think tank and research organisation supporting policymakers across Europe. We are grateful for and honoured by this invite. Thank you for that.
Alice Lucas: I am the Advocacy and Policy Manager at Refugee Rights Europe. We are a human rights advocacy organisation defending human rights for refugees and displaced people across Europe. We work collaboratively across civil society, and feed information and evidence submissions into EU institutions, national-level Governments and UN mechanisms. We are seeking to contribute to a wider human rights-based narrative across Europe. Echoing Hanne, I am very grateful to be here today on this really important topic.
The Chairman: Thank you. I should say that this is a public session, so it will be recorded. We will send you, at the end of the session or shortly thereafter, a transcript of evidence so you can correct any points of fact that you need to.
Perhaps I could begin by setting the scene and asking how you think EU institutions and member states view our current asylum and refugee policies. Is the UK is considered by others to be doing its fair share of providing protection to asylum seekers and refugees?
Dr Hanne Beirens: The UK has always occupied a special position in the area of asylum and migration, because the Lisbon treaty allows it to opt in or out of initiatives in the area of asylum and migration. When it came, for example, to the establishment of the Common European Asylum System and the first round of legislative instruments was adopted, the UK decided to opt in. When, a number of years later, those legislative instruments were reconsidered, it decided to opt out.
From the perspective of the EU, this type of action from the UK, as well as other member states, is problematic because it undermines the good functioning of a common migration and asylum area. The idea had always been to lay down minimum, if not common, standards for international protection regimes. There, the idea would be that all asylum seekers have due access to international protection but also that we avoid a situation where asylum seekers move through Europe in search of a better future elsewhere. The idea is that, if we reach common standards across Europe, it will prevent people moving around and at least allow our judicial systems to conclude that you can send somebody to another EU member state if they first entered there.
From the EU perspective, these kinds of discrepancies within the Common European Asylum System—for example, different standards in relation to reception or a different chance of getting international protection—are quite problematic. In that sense, the UK has occupied a specific place.
When it comes to the fair share, this is a difficult one to answer. It is a really important question, though, because, at present, there is a lot of debate within the European Council on what it means to do your fair share in relation to asylum, so it will be an important one to consider in the upcoming negotiations. So far, member states do not agree on this issue. The UK has been an active partner in multilateral initiatives such as the European Migration Network and the intergovernmental consultations. It has contributed, with other member states, to FRONTEX and EASO operations. It has also, for example, set up and agreed to resettle 20,000 Syrians through its resettlement scheme, but when it comes to the relocation scheme from Italy and Greece, with the more recent arrival of boats and the discussion among member states, it has not participated.
The Chairman: Alice Lucas, do you want to add to that or make your own comments?
Alice Lucas: As an organisation, we can speak only to the situation on the ground, and the conversations we have had with civil society partners and displaced people in our research. Generally, it is our understanding that there is a feeling among the people we have spoken to, who are in front-line states and delivering aid, that the UK is not doing enough or taking on its fair share. The slow processing times for family reunion cases are an issue, where you have children trapped in potentially harmful environments in Greece, Italy and northern France in particular. There are also the delays that Safe Passage spoke about last week in terms of Section 67 of the Immigration Act.
Based on our understanding of what is happening and the conversations we are having, there is generally a feeling that the UK ought to be doing more to ensure that the family reunion process is speedy and, as Hanne alluded to, taking a fair share of responsibility. I know the negotiations on the Common European Asylum System are stuck at the moment but, when, we hope, it is negotiated, we would like to see the UK take a fair share and take responsibility for those with a link to the UK.
The Chairman: Can I ask a further question? If you were sitting in Brussels and looking at the EU as a whole, including the UK, would you single out the UK as being unhelpful, or would you say that this is a very difficult issue for the EU as a whole and a number of countries are not doing all they might, including the UK? In other words, I am trying to put us in the perspective of the EU as a whole.
Dr Hanne Beirens: We could not single out the UK as being particularly unhelpful, but within the context of the EU we see quite striking discussions when it comes to this idea of fair responsibility sharing. This issue has really come to the fore and the frustrations are quite high at the moment when it comes to asylum reform, with the question of what it means to do your fair share and how you then make sure all member states duly apply it.
There are very different ideas of what it means to do your fair share. On the one hand, countries at the external border of the EU say, “Responsibility sharing means relocation mechanisms and the ability to take pressure off the asylum system”. Italy and Greece are really pushing on relocation. On the other hand, countries in western Europe say, “Responsibility sharing is also about making sure you register all those who come in at the border, do security checks and prevent people moving forward”.
There are very different ideas of what it means, and the frustration is so high that member states are now willing to resort to quite drastic measures; for example, Italy saying, “No more boats in our harbours”, and some western European countries actively contemplating rethinking the Schengen system and saying, “Let us make participation in it contingent or conditional upon people doing their fair share on asylum”. It is a really important question and it will come to the fore in the next year or two. We think it will determine the relationship and the co‑operation agreements that will be struck with the UK in this area.
Alice Lucas: I agree with Hanne, in that I would not necessarily single out the UK as being worse than others. That would be a difficult thing to judge in this instance, but as a whole there needs to be a renegotiation of the Common European Asylum System. With the first country of entry criterion, as Hanne has alluded to, large numbers of people seeking protection are arriving in front-line states such as Greece and Italy, and reception and humanitarian conditions are extremely poor. Currently, on the Greek islands, there are people who are not allowed to leave those islands[1]. They are not given adequate shelter. They do not have access to healthcare. There are severe mental health problems. That is an issue we are also seeing in the overcrowded hotspots in Italy. It is very important that protection needs and human rights are at the core of any future negotiations between the UK and the EU on the Common European Asylum System.
Q19 Lord Watts: A number of countries have warm words about this issue but the delivery, as you have said, is not as good as it could be. How much do you think countries such as the UK deliberately slow the process down in order to make Britain less attractive to people who may consider coming here? It seems to me that that is exactly what they are doing here, and in other countries. Is my view a widely held view or is that unclear?
Alice Lucas: To clarify, by “deliberately slow the process down”, do you mean in terms of Dublin processing times?
Lord Watts: Yes.
Alice Lucas: Yes. “Deliberate” is not a term we would use, but there is definitely much to be improved upon in family reunification processing on the UK side. I know that Safe Passage spoke in detail last week about the burden of proof that is required by the Home Office, which is not in line with the Dublin regulation, and we are also very concerned about that. In our opinion, speeding up and making family reunion processing efficient is in the best interests of the EU and the UK. Rather than spending increasing funds on more border security and fences, ensuring that people with direct links to the UK are able to reach here safely will ensure that the UK can uphold its human rights commitments, will mean that people are less likely to make unauthorised and life-threatening crossings, and will also be financially more efficient for the UK.
Lord Watts: If it is not deliberate and people have identified the blockages in the system, why would it take this length of time to resolve those blockages and to unblock the present system?
Alice Lucas: I cannot speak for the Home Office in particular, especially because I am not in the Home Office, but I would say that there is a lack of political will on this issue. That is how we would describe it. There is a lack of political will to ensure that these things are processed efficiently and quickly. We, along with other civil society partners, have been calling for more efficient family reunion processes and for the remaining Dubs places to be filled, for the last three years, and we are still struggling to get that across. There is a lack of political will within the Home Office.
Q20 Lord Haselhurst: Alice, in the written evidence you very kindly supplied, you say in the conclusion, “In view of its withdrawal from the EU, the UK has a unique opportunity to support and implement policies which will protect the rights of refugees and displaced people arriving in Europe, whilst also strengthening co-operation with other EU states”. In view of all the concerns we have about the fact that we are detaching ourselves from the EU and that there may be more difficulties in continuing our obligations, what do you mean by “unique opportunity”?
Alice Lucas: Certainly, there are concerns. The main concern is that, once the UK leaves, our influence within the EU institutions is going to be limited. That will affect our ability to influence the policy direction and the narrative. But, if the UK is going to be renegotiating certain aspects of Dublin in bilateral agreements, there is an opportunity for there to be improvements in the way that happens. That is what we mean by “unique opportunity”. If these things are going to be renegotiated, there is an opportunity for a more humane response there.
I am not entirely sure at this stage how UK involvement as part of the Common European Asylum System post Brexit will work and what that relationship will be. How the relationship will work and what kind of influence we will have is still being decided.
The Chairman: We will come back to some of those issues as we go through.
Q21 Lord Soley: This is a question to Alice Lucas initially, but you might want to answer it as well. In your written evidence, you say that, “externalisation of EU asylum is gaining traction”. I am assuming that that means the idea of processing them before they arrive at the border is gaining traction in the sense of Governments being more interested. We have been told in the past that it is a good idea to do it external to the EU, if you can. First, what does that phrase mean? Have I got it right and would you like to redefine it as clearly as you can? I will then have follow-on questions from that.
Alice Lucas: Yes, externalisation is precisely what you say. It is the outsourcing of EU asylum systems to third countries. I know that one question that might be in the follow-up is to do with controlled centres and regional disembarkation platforms, which was a policy proposed by the European Commission last year. The idea would be to have disembarkation platforms, outside or inside the EU—there is some vagueness there—where asylum claims would be processed. The idea would be to distinguish between what the EU considers to be admissible or inadmissible claims to international protection outside of European territory.
We are very concerned about this. We do not believe the externalisation of asylum should be implemented. Everyone who arrives to claim asylum in Europe has a right to have their assessed on European territory. That right is set out within international law.[2] We are also very concerned that a lot of the co‑operation agreements with these third countries are leading to a weakening of protection standards. There are serious concerns about the agreements the EU has made with Libya. The reports that are coming from Libya, which I am sure you are aware of, are particularly harrowing.
Any externalisation or any agreements with third countries must be with countries that adhere to human rights law in practice and that are party to the Geneva Convention and its 1967 protocol. It is absolutely fundamental. The externalisation issue really needs to be looked at, and the UK needs to ensure that any co‑operation it partakes in with third countries is subject to a human rights impact assessment undertaken by an independent party.
Lord Soley: Before you go on, let me play devil’s advocate in this. What about the refugee who comes from Syria and maybe gets into Lebanon? Would it not be better to deal with it there rather than wait until they try to cross the Mediterranean?
Alice Lucas: That is a slightly different proposal; with a refugee in Syria, for example. I am not an expert on the resettlement schemes but, in the resettlement schemes the UK has, there are routes potentially available there. When we are talking about the externalisation of European asylum processes, we mean in places such as Libya and Turkey.[3] The controlled centres, for example, would be closed centres, where people are kept.[4] We would argue that that would be a deprivation of liberty, which would be against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[5] There are serious concerns there about whether human rights can be upheld in those closed centres, given that we already have a hotspot approach.[6] As I have already alluded to, there are huge rights violations going on in the hotspots. A closed centre would be extremely problematic.
Lord Soley: I understand your concern particularly about Libya, where what is happening in some of the camps is appalling by any standard, but I am still a bit puzzled because letting them find their way across the Mediterranean is not safe either. Why are you not saying that we need to do more to make sure the camps in Libya are safe? We could do that, and I am not quite sure why there is not an outcry about the need for the European Union to make sure that the camps are properly policed and guarded. Would that not be a better route than saying, “Let them get across to Europe and then we will look at it”, which is really what you are saying on the externalisation, is it not?
Alice Lucas: We would always call for the expansion of safe legal routes. The issue of externalisation is that you are trapping people. You are not allowing them to have their claim assessed on European soil, so you are potentially trapping people in very harmful situations in Libya, for example.[7] We know that the detention centres in Libya, where people are often held, are extremely poor. There are reports of torture, there are reports of rape, and there have been reports of slavery coming from the detention centres in Libya.
In light of that, we do not think there should be a policy of trapping people within those situations. That does not mean we do not think there should be expanded safe legal routes for people to reach Europe—that certainly should be part of the policy proposal—but the externalisation, where people have to stay within those harmful environments, is not something that the UK or the EU should be supporting.
Dr Hanne Beirens: The focus of the EU, especially in the wake of the large inflows, has really been about the externalisation of migration management, so it is even broader than the asylum system, in the sense that you ask for greater collaboration by countries in the European region to either prevent people coming or, if they do, to manage it in a more orderly and safer manner. One part of it is, indeed, the outsourcing of the asylum system, the external processing idea, but there are a number of issues there. Last year, as Alice referred to, the idea was had at the summit to set up regional disembarkation centres in Africa and controlled centres in the EU.
The idea was to work better together, but there are a number of issues there. There is the issue that you are expecting countries to be involved in this that have very limited or are only beginning asylum systems. The EU has tried to invest in capacity building for these systems, so you are already expecting them to co‑operate and do things. Next to that, both of these constructs hinge on the idea, as Alice said, that you can bring people to one single spot, where you give them reception and quickly process their claims.
We know from evidence in Europe that processing asylum claims can take a lot of time. As Lord Watts was referring to, that may sometimes be a deliberate strategy or as a result of limited resources, but some claims are just very difficult to process and require time. If you then work with a system where you presume that people will come in quickly and be able to flow out quickly, that system may be flawed because people will be stuck and you will not really know where you can bring them to as a result.
That is why, in the Council discussions, the idea of controlled centres or temporary arrangements is under a lot of pressure and question. It is a really great idea on paper but you risk creating more warehouses, as we have seen in the hotspots, where people are stuck. It is problematic.
Lord Soley: We do not have time to pursue it further. This is a very important area. A lesson from history, in a way, comes from when we managed Hong Kong and the Chinese were coming across the water. We had what we called the touch base policy, where, if you made it to the labour office, you could get a labour certificate and you were in. If you were caught anywhere between the border and the labour office, you were no longer a refugee but something else. It might be worth looking at that.
What should the UK’s involvement be in regional disembarkation platforms and controlled centres? To some extent, your answer is implied in your earlier ones but, if you would like to say anything about that, it would be good.
Dr Hanne Beirens: As we are saying, neither construct has materialised for the moment. The African Union and the separate African countries have said, “One of those regional disembarkation centres will not be in my back yard”. When it comes to controlled centres, that is also not being discussed for the moment. The principles underpinning it are still being discussed. The idea that we need a single mechanism that allows us to deal with incoming flows, which consist of migrants and asylum seekers or refugees, is a really important one. It is one of the key lessons drawn from the large inflows in 2014 and 2015.
It is really important that this is done, in the external border states, in a way that is swift and results in qualitative asylum decisions. It is really important. Whether the UK should participate in that is more a question of stepping back and asking, “What is the added value here?” If the UK maintains its controls in Calais, it may have limited interest in being involved in terms of migratory movements to the UK.
However, in a broader package deal between the UK and individual member states or a group of member states, it may be of interest to show solidarity, which goes back to our earlier discussion about fair responsibility sharing. There may be expectations from other EU member states: “If you want to have access to important justice and home affairs co‑operation tools such as data sharing or some kind of follow-up to Dublin, we would like you to take up a fair share in dealing with the pressure that member states experience at the external borders”.
Q22 Baroness Pinnock: We have already touched on changing views towards migration within EU member states. Could you expand on those changing attitudes? If you could identify different countries where more extreme changes of mind are taking place, that would be helpful. Then, if you could comment on what impact you think those different changing views have on any future UK-EU co‑operation on asylum, it would help paint a picture.
Dr Hanne Beirens: The most recent Eurobarometer, which looks at those kinds of issues, is really clear that, since 2014, migration has become a very big concern for EU citizens and one of the more salient ones. We see that across Europe. However, more recently, it has dropped in the list of priorities, especially in northern and western countries. In the Visegrád countries, it continues to be quite salient. This is really important. When any kind of deal is struck between the UK and an individual member state or a group of member states, it will be picked up quite quickly in the media, and we can expect any deal to be meticulously scanned in terms of the implications for migration flow for other EU member states. That is one element.
However, we feel that the political dynamic in national Governments is the one to really look out for, because it is these countries that will negotiate the deals with the UK. As I was saying before, there is a great concern here about fair responsibility sharing. In the current context, if pillars of the EU such as the Schengen system are being considered and reconsidered, it shows just how far member states are willing to go to make sure that, if you are part of an agreement, you do your fair share in the area of asylum co‑operation. For us, that is a key one to look out for.
Alice Lucas: I would echo that in regard to responsibility sharing. That is going to be of vital importance post Brexit. As I have already said, we would like to see the UK taking an active role in any responsibility-sharing mechanism that is agreed.
In regard to individual member states’ attitudes, we have seen a shift across Europe towards anti-immigration narratives. In some instances, this is becoming increasingly hard-line. As alluded to earlier, Italy has just introduced very restrictive immigration and asylum policies, which are likely to see thousands of people becoming homeless, as it has removed the humanitarian permit available for people. A fine has also been introduced for those conducting search and rescue in the Mediterranean.
It is difficult to say how that affects any negotiation, but as more member states take this approach it may limit the parameters for negotiation. It may mean that the opportunity for a more humane response is becoming increasingly difficult to push through within EU institutions. Nevertheless, the UK should continue to push forward a humane and human rights-based approach to migration in the EU. Certainly, the overall trend is worrying.
Baroness Pinnock: Are you saying, then, that, if we leave the EU, any negotiations with member states on asylum and migration could be quite tough for the UK, with expectations of the UK taking a fairer share of responsibility for asylum seekers and refugees?
Dr Hanne Beirens: Yes. Since 2014, there has been a lot of frustration towards the Visegrád countries. That is not a secret. The EU and the Council have been reflecting on what options they have to place pressure on those countries to take a fair share in dealing with the inflows. It is part of the EU acquis. It is not picking and choosing. Certain things are really quite important. They have been thinking, “Maybe we can do certain things in the negotiation of the multiannual financial framework”. For years now, people have been thinking carefully about what they can do in this regard, and now, as I said, Schengen is on the table. In that context, it will be very important that the EU does not send out mixed signals in its co‑operation with the UK, but that it takes these issues seriously.
Q23 Baroness Massey of Darwen: I want to ask about family reunification for unaccompanied minors, which concerns me greatly. As you know, the Government are bound by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to seek an agreement with the EU on family reunification for such minors. Is it in the UK’s interests to seek a broader agreement on future asylum co-operation; for example, interagency co-operation, a mechanism for returning asylum seekers to first-entry countries and so on? Would this benefit the EU as well? Would you like to see any elements of the EU asylum policy and standards reflected in the UK in the future? That is a long question but it is all of a piece, really.
Alice Lucas: We share your concerns on the first issue about family reunification. We are aware that it is part of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, but we are particularly concerned that, at the moment, there do not seem to be, or we are not aware of, any concrete plans to have this implemented. If the UK leaves without a deal, there is a real risk of a gap in provision. There are unaccompanied minors in Europe who will then be unable to reach their family here in the UK, and they will be left in extremely harmful conditions, which I have already spoken about briefly.
We would like to see the Government setting a specific timeframe in which this is negotiated. We would like to see a set time limit legislated in the immigration Bill, which the Government will then have to negotiate, in which there is a route for these unaccompanied children.
It is in the interests of both the EU and the UK to reach broader agreements on future asylum co-operation, not least because the UK has a duty to uphold international and national human rights, and co-operation is needed for the UK to continue to do so. It also makes sense financially, as I have mentioned, for the UK to co-operate on EU asylum to ensure that there are safe legal routes available, as opposed to spending vast sums on expensive border security measures. At the moment, we have seen very little evidence that this addresses the situation in a long-term and humane manner, and it leads to huge human rights costs.
On the Dublin regulation, there are aspects of the negotiated part of Dublin IV that we, as an organisation, would not support. One is that this is the first-country concept, which we believe puts disproportionate pressure on front-line states, leading to the raft of intended or unintended consequences that we are seeing across Europe. I briefly mentioned the situation in Italy and Greece, which is particularly worrying, with poor living conditions and a lack of healthcare. As both Hanne and I have alluded to, we would like to see that focus on responsibility sharing and the UK playing its fair part in that.
The final part of the question was what elements of EU asylum policy and standards we would like to see. There are currently several regulations under Dublin III that are positive, family reunion being one. We are part of the Families Together campaign, which seeks to expand the criteria for family reunion, and it is important for the UK to amend that as we leave the EU. Others include allowing asylum seekers the right to work and a time limit on immigration detention. We would like to see those aspects in UK law.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: Thank you. That is very complete.
Dr Hanne Beirens: On family reunification, as Alice said, when the UK leaves the EU, the question is what kinds of incentives there will be to change national law. On the other hand, the UK will still be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, so cases could be taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court of Justice of the EU has already concluded in another case that child refugees should be able to be reunited with their parents. If a similar case could be taken forward, that is one of the avenues through which change could be pursued, if there is no incentive on the part ofs the Government to change this.
There are three key areas of justice and home affairs where co-operation would be beneficial. They relate to data sharing, to border control in Calais and Belgium, and to a follow-up agreement, as Alice already mentioned. Data sharing is important because the UK is currently participating in about 40 databases. Across Europe, this type of information exchange is considered to be really important when it comes to border management, crime prevention and security issues. It is seen as a very positive outcome of European integration, so it is of interest to all parties that these databases are populated by the most up-to-date information across a wide geographical spread. It is really important that this is pursued.
We will discuss border control later. The final point is about the Dublin follow-up. We know that, for the moment, there is no precedent of a country participating in Dublin without also being a Schengen state. The idea is that, because there is free movement of people, it really has to be clear who is responsible for asylum claims. That will be a really important issue. For the moment, there are far more requests from the UK to EU member states to take people back—about 5,500 last year, and fewer than 2,000 the other way. It will be quite important to come to an agreement there.
The Chairman: Thank you. We have quite a lot to get through still, so we may have to be a little briefer in our questions and answers.
Q24 Lord Ribeiro: Brexit is obviously on all our minds, particularly this week with the leadership elections. I want to ask you for your assessment of the impact of Brexit on UK-French and UK-Belgian border co-operation, particularly with regard to asylum seekers and irregular migrants, because the two are often seen as different.
Dr Hanne Beirens: I think I already alluded to this in the previous answer. This is one of the three areas we consider to be really important. When it comes to crime prevention, security and migratory movements, that kind of co-operation will be really important. The deal with France has already been developed quite significantly. It is a nice example of how deeper integration between two countries is possible, with a willingness to co-operate in this area, and a balance can be found between the interests of the UK and some of the concerns on the part of France. After the Brexit referendum, we saw that France stepped up and Macron said that there needs to be more investment, now that there is going to be greater pressure on this border. We have seen the adoption of the Sandhurst treaty, which was really important.
In my understanding, there were also ongoing negotiations with the Belgian Government until, unfortunately, they fell last autumn. I would expect the Belgian Government to look to the UK for support, because we have problems in the Brussels-North station and people waiting in the coastal towns. There, they would be looking for support in dealing with this issue, which has become quite important lately in the Belgian elections.
Lord Ribeiro: I have a slightly different question for Alice. In your submission, you indicated that it would be a good idea to ring-fence about 10% of the money that goes towards funding the border arrangements, in particular for humanitarian purposes, and specifically social workers and medical staff. Mindful of the pressures on the NHS, which is very dear to people in this country, where do you see the extra staff coming from?
Alice Lucas: I would not feel confident speaking about the relationship between what we are calling for in northern France and the NHS.
Lord Ribeiro: You are requiring that there be these people there, and I am asking where you think they are going to come from.
Alice Lucas: The funding has to come from central government. Where that comes from would be a question for them.
Lord Ribeiro: My point is that the funding is one thing; actual personnel and the time it takes to train them is another. You will have to take people from one area and move them to another. How do you intend to achieve that?
Alice Lucas: For us, it is not an either/or question. It would not be a question of either social workers in northern France or social workers in the UK. We believe there needs to be adequate provision for those here and those in northern France. Yes, there are strains on the NHS here, but, in terms of what we are concerned about, the lack of social workers in northern France is very difficult and very problematic. There are huge numbers of very vulnerable children there sleeping rough at the moment.
For us, it is not an either/or question. These children need support. There are human rights commitments. There are child rights considerations that need to be thought of. That is where our argument is coming from.
The situation in northern France is of particular importance to the UK. People there are seeking to come to the UK and, as we have said, we believe the UK has a duty to ensure there are humane standards in that region and adequate protection standards for people there. There is a responsibility on the UK for those people who are seeking to come here, and we are giving large amounts of funding for border security.
Q25 Lord Ricketts: I will carry on with the situation in northern France, which I have experienced at fairly close quarters, because I was ambassador in Paris during the big surge in migrant arrivals in 2015. First, it is a French rather than a British responsibility to protect people in Calais. The British have to help. The argument that convinced the two Governments that there needed to be strong border security, and asylum claims would be made in France rather than the UK, was that, as soon as you began to treat asylum claims in northern France for the UK, there would be a magnet effect. Instead of 5,000, you would have 10,000 and then 15,000 people flocking to Calais, because they saw it as an open door to lodge their asylum claims in France for the UK.
Therefore, the French Government agreed with us that it was right, if you were in France, that you should be applying for asylum in France and you should be strongly discouraged from trying to get to the UK. Family reunification and minors are one issue, and I agree that there needs to be a humane approach there, but I wondered what attitude you take in your organisations to that argument, which both the British and French Governments were quite united on. I suspect that that would continue after Brexit, although any thoughts on how all this might be affected by a rather angry no-deal Brexit would be interesting.
Dr Hanne Beirens: More recently, France adopted a law that proactively distributes asylum seekers across the French region, because they were really concerned that people would flock—to use that word, which may not be appropriate—to Calais. They wanted to make sure that you would get access to certain benefits only if you stayed in your region.
They have really looked at that issue. It goes back to the conversation we had about controlled centres and regional disembarkation platforms. Exactly the same kind of concern has arisen on that: that it would be an attraction pole for people to come there and then to sometimes be stuck. For the authorities responsible for that platform or for that place, it would mean a lot of pressure on their system to deal with that. They are struggling, of course.
Across Europe, including in Belgium, the idea of transit migrants is a difficult one. More recently, Belgium has opted for more on-the-ground work in the sense of providing individual, tailored counselling to each of these people. They are trying to take them out of the stations and into some kind of temporary reception arrangement, and talking through either applying for asylum in Belgium, with the risk that they may be transferred to Italy or Greece, or, if they have limited chances of ever getting asylum, opting for voluntary return. There, the approach has been to make sure that people are adequately informed about their opportunities to stay in Belgium or to be transferred back. That is the Belgian approach.
Lord Ricketts: Alice, would your organisation accept that, in the end, the primary responsibility for people in Calais is a French one rather than a British one, and that we ought to be working in co-operation with them? Perhaps a no-deal Brexit would be a real threat to that.
Alice Lucas: There are several aspects to that, which I will try to go through succinctly. Given the situation in northern France at the moment, it is clear that the current response is not working. There has been a decade-long approach of continued uprooting of displaced people in the area. There are numerous reports of police violence and aggression towards people in the area. People do not have access to shelter or healthcare and the situation is very dire.
On the question of responsibility, these are people who are staying in the area. Some of them have made asylum applications in France. The asylum system is very overstretched in France, so some people are not able to access housing and are remaining on the street. There is a duty to provide humane standards in that situation, and what we are doing at the moment is not working.
That is our argument, and it is why we are saying that, if you are going to be funding security and building walls and wire fences, money also needs to be available to ensure that people’s rights are being upheld. The asylum claim should then be processed accordingly.
When we call for the UK to have an involvement in processing these claims, we would like to see family reunion, which you mentioned. In the immediate term, the expansion of the UK liaison officer role—to be able to identify people in northern France, to be based on the ground, and then to feed back—would be really useful. We would like to see the UK, through the routes that are already available, take a more active role in ensuring that people are identified and transferred, if they have the links to come to the UK. That is what we are calling for.
Q26 Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate: We are in Refugee Week at the moment, so it is quite relevant that you are both here. I want to ask you about the number of asylum seekers heading to Europe. I was one of those involved in drafting the Dublin agreements. I have to say that, being realistic about this, Dublin agreements have never managed to achieve sufficient co-operation or sharing, as we put it, between member states. On a personal level, it is going to be very difficult for them ever to do so, including Dublin IV and the rest. Behind it all is the adherence to a 1951 convention, to which this country and others are signed up and which obligates us under the strict criteria for granting asylum.
Over the years, this country and other European countries have slipped away from those criteria by operating immigration policies that have allowed people to claim asylum but not necessarily be granted full asylum and a right to remain. In that context, I believe very strongly in the 1951 convention being the basis. I also believe that refugees should be dealt with at the first safe place that they come to after they leave the place where they are abused or finding their rights being breached regarding that convention and the criteria.
Following Lord Ricketts’ comments, it is important that people are dealt with in the first safe country, and it is inexcusable for any European Union member state, under the acquis or whatever it is, not to offer that facility in full compliance with the 1951 convention. We have had a 15% increase, it is said, in the number of asylum seekers in the last year or so coming to Europe.
I know we are running out of time and I am sorry about this, but it is important to get you to react to this. First, on the extra 15%, have you any comments on the source of those people? Have you any comments on the nature of their movements that allowed them to end up in the European Union?
If there is time, and I am not sure whether there is, this is the third part of the question. Looking at the future and the United Kingdom arguably outside the European Union and outside these other provisions, which are currently not working terribly well but are at least in place, how do you see this increase in movements and migration, which is essentially a worldwide phenomenon that will continue for evermore now, being dealt with effectively by the United Kingdom Government while at the same time they maintain compliance with the 1951 convention?
Sorry, that was rather a lot of stuff, but could I have quick remarks on that from both of you?
Dr Hanne Beirens: Indeed, there has been an increase recently in the numbers. The arrivals in the Mediterranean are going down, but we are seeing a rise in applications from people coming from Central and Latin America. We are also seeing a rise in people coming from Turkey and Georgia.
To be very succinct, the idea here is that, if this trend persists, the main sources of asylum seekers could be countries that have set up a visa-free regime with the EU, because it has become so difficult to come to Europe, as was discussed before. That would be a main source. If that is an important development, it will be key for the UK also to co-operate with the EU in making sure there is no exploitation of visa loopholes.
To the second part of the question, what underpins the very idea of the Common European Asylum System is that migration is an international phenomenon and that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for a single state to deal with it. It requires a joint response, and that has underpinned the compacts we have developed over the last couple of years. It is going to be difficult to pursue and it will be really important that, through different means, you co-operate in this area and use, if necessary, judicial systems to pursue certain elements.
Alice Lucas: We do not have a huge amount to add. Spain is an increasing route that people are coming through, as is Morocco, so the western Mediterranean route.
What we are concerned about is the European response to the increase and how the European Union is responding to it. As I have already alluded to, the externalisation of asylum systems, which is a current focus, should not be pushed forward. As Hanne said, there really needs to be focus on co-operation among all member states.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate: An asylum seeker is different from a refugee. Anybody can claim asylum, whether or not they have a legitimate case. What concerns me is that you have mentioned parts of the world that are supposedly subscribing to the human rights agenda. They are supposedly democracies. They are supposedly countries where one would not expect many people to find themselves in a position where they met the criteria of the 1951 convention for refugee status.
Consequently, there is a separation here in the numbers. The number of asylum seekers has increased by 15%, but I would argue that the number of people who comply with the 1951 convention is possibly not increasing and may even be reducing, in which case that is a different problem, is it not?
Dr Hanne Beirens: We would agree. The proportion of people coming from Syria, for example, has drastically gone down in the last year. We see people coming through these visa-free regimes, which are often created on the assumption that the people who go there come from a safe country. It is not necessarily linked but it is one of the options. It is an issue which Germany, for example, has pursued with the Balkan countries through the visa liberalisation regime. France is also very concerned about it at present, because people are coming in that way.
Lord Haselhurst: Is it shown that this increase of 15% can be attributed to some extent to Venezuela and Colombia? Do we know yet what sort of route is being followed? The obvious one would be to Madrid, but are they being more sophisticated than that and coming in via Greece, France or somewhere else? Is there a case for us saying that if this is going to be continuing problem we have to look to our relations with Spain to see how we might play a part in that, when we really have quite a lot to deal with, especially if there is continuing migration from Africa?
Dr Hanne Beirens: For the moment, about 20% of applications are from third-country nationals from Latin and Central America, so that is quite a substantial part of the present applications. Indeed, we see people coming through on a visa-free set-up to Spain and then, for example, moving on to Belgium. Belgium has also received a lot of applications from people from Central and Latin America, so this will be looked at very carefully, and is being looked at within the EU, to see whether anything can be done to address it.
Q27 Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: Dr Beirens, in your evidence you point out that the EU has something like 17 agreements with third parties, particularly in relation to irregularly staying immigrants. It would appear that the UK has adopted a kind of pick-and-mix approach to it. It has picked up on some agreements and made use of them, but post Brexit we will have to negotiate a new set of agreements if we are going to be consistent in our approach.
Could you give us some indication of what you regard as the factors we would have to take account of when we start these individual negotiations with third parties?
Dr Hanne Beirens: To clarify, are you talking about negotiations with different individual EU member states?
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: Yes, I am talking about irregularly staying migrants in this instance.
Dr Hanne Beirens: Importantly, the EU has set up databases over recent years to access information about where people entered, how long they stayed and all those kinds of issues. This has facilitated some of the decisions that are being made in migration and asylum systems within the EU. In that respect, access to that data will be quite important. It will be difficult, because, as I said, at the moment access to EURODAC is connected to Dublin, and Dublin is connected to Schengen.
However, the UK is able to zoom out and create a larger deal where, for example, it offers its expertise in dealing with third countries—not those in the EU but migrant-producing countries. It is strong in infrastructure development and it has a strong relationship with particular countries. We all know how important this is to EU countries. If it can be shown that the UK is supporting or helping the EU in that respect, it might allow us to bring in such elements to the deal, where EU member states might otherwise say, “We’re not sure we want you to access that data”.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: You spoke earlier about delays and the fact that in some instances they could be attributable to a lack of political will. Would the approach that you have just indicated be sensitive to political will? Let me put it this way: what you have suggested would appear to be a rational system of a bureaucratic character, which might be vulnerable to the side effects of a lack of political will to see the cases go through the system in a sympathetic way. Would you agree?
Dr Hanne Beirens: Yes. As an institute, we looked at alternatives to the Dublin system. This is important, given the flows that Lord Kirkhope referred to. It is difficult to make a case, because there is no precedent. We know that Schengen-associated countries do this as part of Schengen, so it is going to be difficult to set a precedent. In that respect, we thought, “Why not be creative and think about what kind of broader deals the UK could offer?” In a context where there is a lot of anti-migration sentiment and the public will look carefully at what kind of deal is struck, it will not be easy, and political will is going to be key there.
Q28 Baroness Janke: My question relates to a no-deal scenario. First, what preparations do you feel the EU has made for asylum co-operation in the event of no deal? Secondly, in the event of no deal, could the UK continue to co-operate with EU countries on family reunification, despite the fact that the legal framework provided by Dublin would presumably not continue? How could that be facilitated?
Alice Lucas: Hanne is better placed than I am to answer on EU preparations, being based in Brussels. I have already said that we are very concerned about the functioning of Dublin in the instance of a no-deal Brexit, particularly with family reunion, in that there will be a lack of provision.
I am not a lawyer, so I am not qualified to comment on the legal aspects of this. From my understanding, the UK would need to negotiate bilateral agreements with member states to ensure that family reunification continued. I assume that that would be a priority in northern France, given that we have just signed the Sandhurst treaty. At the moment, that is functioning under Dublin, so there will certainly need to be an agreement in place in the event of a no-deal Brexit. As I have already said, we are not aware of the extent of those preparations, and we are pushing for them to be made as soon as possible.
Dr Hanne Beirens: I would echo that. The bilateral agreements will be quite important when it comes to asylum seekers. When it comes to child refugees and reunification, as long as there is a willingness on the part of the UK to receive people, a legal deal will not be needed. It is more that people can leave the EU of their own will, as long as they are allowed to come to a third country.
To your broader question about preparation, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. The UK has always had a special position. This will be one of the less difficult areas of the transition, because it already has this strange position and it has already had to deal with opting in and opting out. The EU will be expected to closely monitor what is happening in France, Belgium and Ireland, because those external border-crossing points will become really important.
When it comes to the options, there has been a consistent line that Dublin is participated in only by Schengen-associated countries, so that will be a big question mark.
Baroness Janke: Presumably, though, if there is not a legal framework, it is quite difficult for things to just continue. Sometimes people ask, “Could we not just continue?” Presumably, it would be open to legal challenge if there was no deal and some of these arrangements were to continue.
Dr Hanne Beirens: It goes back to what we discussed before. Given that there is still a perception that you can move irregularly to the UK, and work and live here without asking for asylum or getting a legal status, that trend will probably continue. Given that we know there are more requests from the UK to other member states about taking people back, it is in the interests of the UK for the Dublin agreement to continue, even if it may not be as effective as it should be. There, the UK has a weaker bargaining position in the continuation. That is why, if it wants to persist and find a follow-up, it will have to put other, much broader bargaining chips on the table.
Lord Watts: All the legislation in this area was done some time ago. Given the numbers of people we now see moving and migrating because of the conflicts around the world, is it possible that the system that was devised originally cannot cope with those sorts of numbers?
Dr Hanne Beirens: It is an interesting question but not an easy one. Let us look at what is happening in the EU. A lot of time has been invested in negotiating asylum reform. There were very valid grounds for that. There were problems with reception standards and all those kinds of things, which we do not have to expand on. On the other hand, three years later, we still do not have reform.
I was involved in implementation studies for the European Commission. Each time, we would look at a piece of legislation and how it is implemented in practice. I did several rounds, and every time we came to the same kinds of gaps. There is a need for legal reform, but there is an even greater need for better implementation and better asylum systems, which can be done without legal reform.
That is about setting aside investment and human resources, training people and adapting procedures. That is exactly what has been done in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and all the countries on the migration route. They have drastically reviewed their asylum systems in the last couple of years, to deal—going back to your earlier question—with how to process asylum claims more swiftly. In my view, that is where we should really invest our input.
Q29 Lord Best: We have our new immigration White Paper from Sajid Javid and Caroline Dinenage. Were you involved in the preparation of this at all? We have heard from the Refugee Council, the Red Cross and Safe Passage. Were they involved? Collectively, is civil society behind this?
Alice Lucas: I can only speak for our involvement, and we were not involved. We were not consulted on the White Paper. We would like to have been and are very open to engaging with the Government on the future consultation, which they have said will take place. We would be really keen to do so.
I cannot speak for wider civil society. It is my understanding that it was not a very wide consultation, but that is just my own understanding.
As a whole and in general, we were very disappointed with the immigration White Paper. There was an opportunity to flesh out a more holistic asylum and migration response as we leave the EU, and there were just two pages. Given that we have run over time here today, it is clear that there is probably a lot more than two pages to be discussed on this subject.
Lord Best: But you may be able to get involved in the consultation exercise.
Alice Lucas: Yes, we are exploring those avenues and we would be very keen to engage as much as possible.
Lord Best: Good luck.
Alice Lucas: Thank you.
The Chairman: Do you sense that the Home Office is closed or open, or wants to negotiate or to consult you? Has that changed at all?
Alice Lucas: I would like to think that there is a growing movement from the Home Office. Civil society partners who have regular meetings with the Home Office say that conversations are being had. I am unable to say whether it is open or closed, but we are very willing and keen to engage as much as possible, because this is a really important issue.
The Chairman: Thank you. Would either of you like to say anything that we have not asked you and which you will regret not saying when you have left the room?
Dr Hanne Beirens: No, thank you.
Alice Lucas: No, thank you.
The Chairman: If there are other points, or if there is anything you want to add or you think we ought to be aware of, please feel free to write to us between now and the end of our report. We would be very grateful for that. Meanwhile, thank you very much indeed, both of you, for coming and giving evidence to us. It has been extremely helpful as we pursue our inquiry.
