Migration, Mobility and Security
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Andrew, Stuart (Pudsey) (Con)
† Blackwood, Nicola (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
† Bryant, Chris (Rhondda) (Lab)
† Duddridge, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Green, Damian (Minister for Immigration)
† Hopkins, Kelvin (Luton North) (Lab)
† Horwood, Martin (Cheltenham) (LD)
McCabe, Steve (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
† Rutley, David (Macclesfield) (Con)
Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP)
† Smith, Henry (Crawley) (Con)
† Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
European Committee B
Monday 17 October 2011
[Miss Anne McIntosh in the Chair]
Migration, Mobility and Security
4.30 pm
The Chair: Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a statement?
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss McIntosh. It might be helpful to the Committee if I take a few minutes to explain the background to the Commission communication and the reasons why the European Scrutiny Committee considers debate useful.
The communication forms part of the EU’s response to recent political upheaval in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. The conflict in Libya alone has resulted in the displacement of more than 800,000 individuals, according to the Commission. Since January, it estimates that some 35,000 migrants have sought shelter on the Italian island of Lampedusa and in Malta. The EU and member states have collectively provided more than €102 million of emergency humanitarian assistance. Frontex, the EU’s external border agency, has helped Italy to screen migrants, and Europol experts have been deployed to help identify possible criminal elements.
However, even if displacement on that scale proves to be a temporary phenomenon, the Commission believes that migratory pressures from southern Mediterranean countries are unlikely to abate. Problems of political instability are compounded by long-term structural challenges caused by very high levels of unemployment, especially among the young. The communication suggests a range of measures to help EU member states and countries neighbouring Libya to develop their capacity to manage inflows of migrants and refugees. These include continuing to provide funds for humanitarian assistance, repatriation and increasing the technical and financial resources available to Frontex. The Commission also calls for the establishment of an EU joint resettlement programme, so that each member state pulls its weight in accepting resettled refugees. It advocates greater burden sharing in the EU, so that individuals recognised as being in need of international protection in one member state could be relocated to another member state.
The main focus of the communication is the need to develop a long-term, sustainable dialogue with southern Mediterranean countries that pulls together three inter-related themes: migration, mobility and security. The Commission recommends initiating a dialogue with Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt with a view to agreeing so-called mobility partnerships, which are voluntary partnerships agreed by interested member states and a third country, and which contain a broad mix of policy measures. They reflect the Commission’s belief that partner countries are more likely to co-operate in tackling illegal or irregular migration if there is also a prospect of increased opportunities for legal migration. The Commission says that mobility partnerships should be
tailored to the specific situation in each partner country and should be based on the principle of conditionality. That means that arrangements to make it easier for certain categories of migrants to live and work within the EU—especially students, researchers and entrepreneurs —would be conditional on each partner country demonstrating a strong track record in managing its borders, improving its asylum system, tackling document and identity fraud, combating organised crime and co-operating with the EU on readmissions.The Government told us that they support the creation of long-term strategic partnerships with the EU’s southern neighbours, and broadly welcome the communication. However, they also noted that migration is an area of mixed competence and that great care must therefore be taken to ensure that the EU does not encroach on matters best dealt with by member states. For example, the Government told us that EU member states should be encouraged to establish their own resettlement programmes, rather than setting up an EU one. The Government also said that they oppose the relocation of migrants from one member state to another after they have arrived in the EU.
The Government do not appear to have ruled out the possibility of UK participation in future mobility partnerships with southern Mediterranean countries, but have made it clear that participation will be decided on a case-by-case basis. The Government also told us that mobility partnerships should strike an appropriate balance between the needs of all the participating countries. For example, measures to facilitate legal migration should not have a higher priority than measures to prevent and combat irregular migration.
Our report noted that the Commission’s communication did not propose any new legislative measures and, that if any such proposals were to emerge in the future, they would of course be subject to the UK’s title V opt-in. However, we thought that the subject matter was of particular topical interest in light of recent events in Libya. We also thought that the communication illustrated the broad range of policy tools and resources available to the EU in the field of migration. I hope that today’s debate can explore a number of issues. For example, does the communication respect the division of competences between the EU and its member states? Is there a real need for action at EU rather than national level, and what added value does EU action bring? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views and trust that he will address these important issues.
4.35 pm
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green): It is, as ever, life-enhancing to serve under your chairmanship, Miss McIntosh. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important communication from the European Commission, although events have moved on since it was issued. Even so, the dialogue on migration, mobility and security with the southern Mediterranean countries remains important.
The significant migratory flows that gave rise to the communication were a consequence of a much bigger phenomenon—the Arab spring. Over the course of this year—not least since the communication was issued—we have seen people across north Africa and the middle east rising up and asserting democratic principles and
human rights. This process of deep social and political reform, which the Government warmly welcome and fully support, is perhaps among the most important events we have seen so far this century.To answer directly the point made by the hon. Member for Luton North during his introductory remarks, the European Union is an important player in establishing new partnerships with these emerging democracies in its neighbouring region. The Commission’s plan to develop dialogue and practical co-operation on migration is a critical element of that wider relationship, a new partnership that was outlined in a separate communication and debated by this Committee last month. The Government firmly believe that well-managed migration is vital to creating a stable, secure and prosperous future not only for the region, but for the EU and, therefore, its member states.
The migratory impact of the Arab spring over the past 10 months has been significant. More than 700,000 people have been displaced into neighbouring countries as a result of the conflict in Libya alone. The EU has also seen the arrival of more than 50,000 migrants, predominantly setting off from Tunisia and Libya. Many of these migrants made the perilous journey across the Mediterranean in overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels. Countless others lost their lives in the attempt. What is more, arrivals, notably on the Italian island of Lampedusa, have put considerable pressure on southern EU member states and their capacity to receive and process migrants.
The communication describes the action that has been taken and makes recommendations for short, medium and long-term responses to these challenges. The Government broadly support this approach as a guideline for future EU action on migration with the countries, both in terms of the priorities identified by the communication and of the principles that it sets out.
The communication describes how the EU has responded to the challenge of increased migratory flows. We believe that the joint international response to ease the humanitarian situation, notably at Libya’s borders with Egypt and Tunisia, is to be highly commended. The UK has been among the key players in supporting those efforts. We have funded repatriation for more than 12,700 migrant workers, and provided essential aid to improve the situation at the migrant camps on the borders.
At the European Council in June, the Prime Minister made the case for voluntary, practical co-operation between member states, so we welcome the Commission’s plan to make funding more flexible and accessible, and to strengthen resources such as Frontex to allow member states to manage flows better. However, the Government maintain that any additional financing must be sourced from the re-prioritisation of existing funds within the budget. We have made that extremely clear to our partners.
The communication recommends initiating dialogue with Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt, with a view to concluding comprehensive mobility partnerships. We share the Commission’s view that they should be underpinned by the principles that govern the EU’s relationship with its neighbouring countries. The key ones for us are differentiation, tailoring our partnerships to address the needs and responsibilities of each country individually, and conditionality, ensuring that progress is made to the mutual benefit of both the EU and the partner
country. The Government strongly support the proposal to engage in a practical and sustainable way with these countries on a range of migration issues, as set out in the EU’s global approach to migration. We will, however, always place UK interests at the heart of our decisions, and so consider our participation in these partnerships on a case-by-case basis.The plan for dialogue on migration, mobility and security is both timely and necessary, and the communication’s proposals broadly reflect this Government’s priorities. Partnership for well-managed migration can be a powerful tool for securing British objectives in the region, but only if they can be rendered more effective than they have been in the past. This communication is an important first step in that direction, so I welcome the opportunity to have this debate on the dialogue for migration between the EU and countries of the southern Mediterranean.
The Chair: We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind hon. Members that questions should be brief. Subject to my discretion, it is open to an hon. Member to ask related supplementary questions.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I do not know whether I am allowed to make my nice comments about you now, Miss McIntosh, but I support what the Minister said. Serving under your chairmanship is always life enhancing; in fact, it is the most life-enhancing thing that has happened to me since teatime.
The Government support the amending Frontex regulation, which should assist with some of the issues in relation to tackling the ships that have been going to Italy. When does the Minister expect it to be fully implemented?
Damian Green: That is clearly not something entirely under the control of the British Government. We support in general the strengthening of the competences of Frontex in a way that increases the security of our external border. Incidentally, I have been rude by not welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new position as shadow Immigration Minister—a job that I did for five years. I wish him well and a long life in that job.
Chris Bryant: It will be slightly shorter.
Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman can dream. As he knows, the UK does not participate in the part of the Schengen agreement that refers to the control of external borders—it requires the removal of controls at internal borders—so although we support the work of Frontex, we are inevitably kept at a slight remove from part of Frontex’s activities. Therefore, it is not for us to decide when things—in this case, the full implementation of the amending regulation—come into force. We expect that to come into force sometime around the end of this year or early next year, but as with many of these issues, it may be delayed slightly beyond that, but it will not be too long.
Chris Bryant: I am grateful for the kind comments—and I will keep dreaming. The Minister is right: we did not sign up to the Schengen acquis, which makes it more difficult for us to be part of the process that determines what happens to Frontex. However, it is, as I think he would accept, entirely in our interest for Frontex to be able to do a good job. Earlier this year, there were some anxieties about whether it had the full powers, once it had got people on ships, to be able to move forward.
I had understood that that was why the Council and Parliament would be moving forward at a rather faster pace. Can the Government put any further pressure on all the various institutions to ensure that that is expedited?Damian Green: As I explained and as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because we are not, as it were, full members of Frontex, we are in a slightly difficult position in terms of speeding things up, but I think that we are not far away from full implementation. As well as attempting to improve the work of Frontex—we do try to provide practical assistance, which is one of the things that the British Government can do—we are trying to improve the working of institutions such as the European Asylum Support Office, which obviously in the circumstances that we are discussing works quite closely with Frontex. In general, what we want the EU institutions to be doing is making a practical difference on the ground. As the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware, there is sometimes the temptation for grand declarations and matters of theory and principle to come before practical applications. What we are trying to do with Frontex but also with other institutions in this field is to shunt them in a more practical direction.
Chris Bryant: As the Minister says, we are not part of Schengen and therefore it is more difficult to use leverage; and there are some things that we are not able to participate in by virtue of that, because British officers would not have the powers that it is necessary to be able to implement at border controls and all the rest of it. But in how many rapid border intervention teams have we taken part? Earlier this year, the Prime Minister suggested that we would take part in several.
Damian Green: Precisely for the reason that the hon. Gentleman explained, we do not participate in RABITs. If it came to the use of force, British officers would not have legal cover, precisely because we are not full members of Schengen, so it would be foolish for us to participate in those activities.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Miss McIntosh. It seems only yesterday that we were discussing sustainable sewerage systems together. This probably represents a step up for both of us.
I welcome the Minister’s broad welcome of the document and the Government’s general engagement with European neighbourhood policy, but are not the migration elements of the package such as visa facilitation somewhat grudging, given the positive results that come from person-to-person, professional and student contacts? I speak as the proud recipient of a Libyan flag from some Libyan university of Gloucestershire students, who welcomed their time in Gloucestershire and had no hesitation about going back afterwards. They were part of an overall warming of relations with the previous regime, which we might now regret. Given the possibilities of the European neighbourhood policy and the migration and mobility elements, are not the Government being a little grudging about that area of policy?
Damian Green: I think that that is slightly unfair. We have not been at all grudging. We have certainly provided huge amounts of help for the National Transitional
Council. Particularly through the Department for International Development, we have done tremendous work at the Libyan borders, which obviously benefits many Libyans and citizens of other countries who were working in Libya when the fighting broke out.We are also determined to establish a decent and stable migration relationship with the new Libyan Government, and we are already working towards that. It is clearly important for us not just to provide a decent visa service to Libyan citizens, for example, but to ensure that Libya does not go back to being what it was during some periods under the Gaddafi regime, namely a transit country for many thousands of people from sub-Saharan Africa who found their way into the European Union. Maintaining good migration relationships with the new Libyan Government is hugely important not just in itself but in terms of the control of our borders and EU borders more widely. We are determined to maintain that good relationship.
Chris Bryant: Notwithstanding the points that the Minister made, I was led to believe that the British had taken part in several RABITs in an advisory capacity, although, obviously, they cannot take part in an imposing capacity, for the reasons that he and I discussed. If he cannot answer this afternoon, can he send me a note about it? One of the most important things for us is ensuring that countries such as Greece, Malta and Italy are strong enough to deal with such issues. What support have we been providing in those countries through the European Asylum Support Office?
Damian Green: RABITs should not be seen as a permanent solution. They are a short-term solution to a particular crisis at the border. The sole deployment to date finished on 3 March this year, when Frontex resumed its permanent operation in Greece. That is a reinforced joint operation that UK officials, as the hon. Gentleman said, supported as second-line experts on the screening and debriefing of newly arrived migrants. That is a good example of what we can do. If, as we both agreed, we do not have the legal cover to carry out enforcement operations, we must take such an approach.
On EASO, it is obviously open to member states that are under pressure to seek help from that organisation in dealing with an increasing number of asylum seekers. We are prepared to deploy experts and caseworkers as is required to assist the local response. EASO has not yet had any real involvement in Italy or Malta—two of the countries most affected by this. As the hon. Gentleman knows, EASO is a new body and its executive director has made it clear that it would be prepared to provide help if requested. However, if the truth be told, EASO has not done very much at the moment.
Chris Bryant: I apologise if I have got this wrong, but I thought that a few minutes ago the Minister said that we had not taken part in any RABITs, yet he has just said that we have taken part in a RABIT. Have I got that wrong or has he got it wrong?
Damian Green: No. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. I said we did not have the enforcement capacity, so we do not take part in RABITs. However, we do give advice and support to second-line experts. He may wish to interpret that as taking part, but I do not.
Chris Bryant: So I was right, fine.
To be honest, the papers we are dealing with this afternoon are very old and rather out of date because they refer to May and June. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North referred to 800,000, which I think relates to displaced people just from Libya, and the Minister referred to a figure of 700,000. However, both those figures refer to February this year. Can the Minister update us on the precise figures for the number of refugees, displaced people and asylum seekers from Libya whom he thinks have already knocked or may be knocking at the EU’s door?
Damian Green: There are far fewer. I can write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact figures, but when I do so, they will be out of date because, thankfully, the fighting is coming to an end in Libya and obviously those who were going to get out did so early on. A huge recent surge in numbers has therefore not occurred, either of Libyans or Tunisians. As he will be aware, the bulk of people seeking entry tended to be Tunisians after the Tunisian revolution. On the whole, they wanted to go to France and we detected very few signs of increased activity at Calais, for example, of Tunisians trying to get here. In fact, one of the fears that many people held six months ago has proven to be unfounded: that pressure did not get as far as the UK. If he wants exact figures, I can provide them in writing. However, for obvious reasons given what is happening now on the ground in Libya, those pressures are less than they might have seemed a few months ago.
Martin Horwood: I feel that I ought to ask a rephrased question because the Minister might have interpreted my earlier question as some kind of criticism of our engagement with Libya, which it certainly was not. I am an enthusiastic supporter of Government policy on Libya through both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID. I wanted to draw attention to the kind of comments that are in paragraphs 36 and 46 of the Government commentary on the Commission document. Such comments seem to take a slightly carping attitude to discussions on things such as the visa code, visa facilitation and visa liberalisation. Perhaps for domestic reasons, those comments focus more on the problems with visa liberalisation than the opportunities of the kind I was trying to describe before, which apply not only to Libya, but to a range of different countries in the European neighbourhood.
Damian Green: I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. Friend’s point, but I am unashamedly cautious about these liberalisation proposals. In practical terms, clearly, we need to establish a proper visa system, again, with a new government who will be very different from the Gaddafi regime. That will provide a stable basis on which to proceed. My hon. Friend seeks to widen the debate to include the general approach taken in the communication, which also contains the Government’s response. I must admit that I am unimpressed by the underlying thought behind the Commission’s argument, which—broadly speaking—says that Europe must sort out the demographic crisis by having more immigration to help growth and, in the long term, Europe’s demographic balance. I think that that is a bad analysis for this country, and for the EU. The idea that immigration may be used as a way out of the problem of an ageing
population or an unskilled work force seems to be short-sighted. It is short-sighted in the national context and in a wider EU context. However, I am conscious that I would be stretching the bounds of discussion about the communication if I go down this fascinating route.Kelvin Hopkins: Britain, wisely, is not a member of Schengen or a full participant in Frontex, but we have experience of managing our own borders, so could we not offer advice to other member states on how they might manage their borders more rigorously?
Damian Green: I am always cautious about offering advice to other sovereign countries on how to defend their own sovereignty. I am conscious of the sensitivities in this country, in this House, and indeed in this Committee of other people trying to tell Britain how to do that, and common partnership suggests that we should be equally reticent in return.
In practical terms, the one part of the European asylum system where the border system has broken down is the Greek-Turkish border, and everyone admits that. That is where the European Asylum Support Office could and should be doing important work bilaterally with the Greek Government, and through institutions such as EASO and Frontex. We have offered our expertise. It is noteworthy that even at the height of the fighting in Libya, more people were coming into the EU through the Turkish-Greek border than across the Mediterranean from northern Africa. That is clearly long term, and if Europe is to address the problem of irregular migration, that is the current hot spot that it should address, more so than north Africa.
Kelvin Hopkins: The issue is not just migration; it is about people-trafficking in particular, and the free movement of criminals across national boundaries within the European Union. Already, France has had tensions with Italy about migration from Italy to France, Denmark has considered reintroducing passport controls at its borders with Germany and Sweden, and some countries are quietly imposing passport checks at airports and so on. They are clearly nervous about the free movement principle. Is Britain not well placed to help in overcoming their concerns, or helping them to manage their borders as they seem to want to do?
Damian Green: We have precisely decided not to participate in that part of Schengen. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we did not participate in Schengen at all, but that is wrong because we participate in some elements of the Schengen acquis, but not the migration elements. The country decided—the policy is not controversial, and was adopted by the previous Government as well as the current one—that we wanted to preserve our own borders. Other countries have signed up to Schengen.
There are emergency provisions, as the hon. Gentleman knows, within Schengen, which allow countries to reimpose border controls if there is a manifest emergency, and some have come close to that in recent months. In fact, the newly elected Danish Government has removed border posts, so the high tide of controls within Schengen seems to be receding. This is an area where it behoves any British Government to say that we have done what
we think is in the best interests of the UK, and that it is for other sovereign Governments within the EU to do what is in the best interests of their own people. It is manifestly in our interest that the Schengen system works well, because if there are pressures on the borders of other EU member states, some of those pressures will come this way.Last time I was in Calais, I was watching lorries being inspected, and four Albanians came out of the back of the lorry that I happened to be looking at.
Chris Bryant: Were they put there?
Damian Green: Quite. I was assured that it was not a put-up job by UKBA to show how efficient the scanners were. More seriously and importantly, however, it said that since the Schengen countries removed visa controls with Albania, more Albanians are being found at Calais. None of us will be surprised by that; it is a vivid illustration of how a well working Schengen regime serves our national interest.
Chris Bryant: I want to return to the issue on which I questioned the Minister earlier concerning refugees, displaced people and asylum seekers from Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. Many people flee war, which can lead to mass migration. At the moment, there are enormous economic problems in north Africa, and we should not be complacent for an instant about what may happen to the figures over the next six months to two years. There is not yet a fully stable Government in any of those countries, so will the Minister tell us his thinking about each of them, and also about Morocco where the economic situation has been drastically affected by other problems in north Africa?
Damian Green: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. He is right; nobody would say that there is stability in that part of that world although we can all hope for a better future. There are considerable economic problems in each of those countries but that has not been illustrated by increased pressure on asylum seeking in the UK, although there have been increased pressures in France. Although over the summer there was an increase in asylum applications in the UK, the bulk of those came not from the part of the world under discussion, but rather from those places we get many asylum applications from, such as Pakistan and Iran. So far the situation in north Africa has had less effect on the UK border than one might have thought given the turbulence. We obviously keep a close eye on the situation, which is why the idea of mobility partnerships between the EU and some north African countries is so interesting. It will hopefully lead to a more orderly disposition of migration between north Africa and Europe, and we broadly support that principle.
Chris Bryant: How many Border Agency and Home Office staff will be working in Libya?
Damian Green: They are a handful at the moment, but they will rotate in and out. Obviously we want to set up a proper visa operation as soon as possible, but as
the hon. Gentleman will understand, things on the ground will still be somewhat flexible until the fighting is over. The safety and interests of our staff must be taken into account, and it is impossible at the moment to give a final number for how many people will be based in Libya permanently in the future.Chris Bryant: I asked the question only because a new ambassador has been appointed and the Foreign Secretary opened the new embassy this morning. I presumed that there might be some staff working there.
Finally, the Labour Government decided that they were not able to implement the original Schengen information system because some policy issues, which I think were shared across the House, made it difficult for them to do so. We had hoped to get on board when SIS II came into existence, supposedly in 2009. That has not yet happened, which makes it difficult. There are problems concerning our ability to capture more of those international criminals whom we should be able to capture. When does the Minister think it will be possible to sign up to SIS II?
Damian Green: SIS II is one of those projects that is always going to come in next year. That has been true for at least the last three or four years. It is our intention and hope that we can sign up to it by the end of this Parliament, but there are genuine technical issues with the whole system, so, while that is our current intention, I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman or the Committee by suggesting that that is set in stone. Experience tells me that SIS II is one of those systems that seems for ever to be hovering on the horizon.
Kelvin Hopkins: I think that the Minister made my point for me. I was hinting that if visa restrictions are removed, more people will migrate from countries outside the EU, such as Albania. Are the Government concerned about the mission—nothing has happened yet—of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen? They have a long shoreline and the Black sea is another point of access for, potentially, many migrants, illegal and otherwise. Have the Government thought about that?
Damian Green: Obviously we are concerned with Europe’s borders, as I explained earlier. The date of accession to the Schengen area has not yet been finalised. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is still being discussed under the Polish presidency. The position has not changed with the change of Government. We support Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession to Schengen, provided that all the technical criteria are met. That is an important proviso, because it would mean that the rest of the international community could be confident about those borders.
The European Parliament, and, indeed, the Council, have confirmed that the relevant criteria have been met, which is a significant step forward. It is important that both countries should continue to demonstrate further progress in justice and home affairs. Then confidence will be even higher than it is now. We hope that the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to full Schengen membership will be a sign that they have indeed reached the appropriate international standards, as agreed by the Parliament and Council. However, we shall keep a
close eye on what is happening at their borders and—perhaps even more importantly—at our borders, and on whether there are changes after full membership.Kelvin Hopkins: On that point, I do not want to be too blunt, but there have been concerns about the observance of rules and legal niceties by Bulgaria in particular and Romania to an extent. Is it a matter of concern that those countries might be much more accessible than others to illegal migration, particularly if, for example, money passes hands?
Damian Green: I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman is a little harsh about those countries. The European institutions have done quite a lot of evaluation of the Bulgarian and Romanian borders. It is undeniable that that has led to better border controls. However, as I have said, situations can be fluid. When we consider what has happened in Greece in recent years, it is unarguable that the border situation there has been worse in the past 12 months than previously, so I would hesitate to say that all the problems were solved for all time. Indeed, as one has observed, the UK’s borders have gone through phases in recent years when they have been pretty porous, and we are improving that situation now. It will remain a matter of genuine interest and concern for the British Government, but I do not think that we should be unduly critical of the efforts made by Romania and Bulgaria.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 10784/11, a Commission Communication: A dialogue for migration, mobility and security with the Southern Mediterranean countries; and supports the Government's aim of working with other Member States to strengthen practical co-operation with Southern Mediterranean States on migration.—(Damian Green.)
5.9 pm
Chris Bryant: I was looking forward to another speech from the Minister.
Damian Green: Well you are going to get one.
Chris Bryant: I am now not looking forward to another speech from the Minister.
How Schengen—Europe—patrols its borders is a problem for us. The security and integrity of our borders relies not solely, but significantly, on it. The Minister referred to Turkey and Greece as the place with the most significant problem, and that is all the more reason why there needs to be a resolution of Greece’s economic problems that makes it easier for it to have border patrols at all. We also need a better political settlement in relation to Turkey, to deal with the process of people constantly passing through into Europe and disappearing.
In other areas, the same kinds of numbers might not be coming in, but there are significant additional problems by virtue of effectively porous or open borders. A lot of the heroin trade passes through the Balkans and up into Italy, and for some time the European force that was in Bosnia was able to do a great deal of work in tackling not only the illegal lumber trade but some of the problems of migration patterns there. I worry that the political situation in Bosnia has not improved over the
past two years, and that it is now more difficult for us to project a strong border control all the way up into Italy. Spain is particularly vulnerable, not only because of the easy passage across from Morocco and Tunisia, but because of the Canary Islands. The islands might seem a long way away, but once people arrive there they are a problem for the whole of Spain, and hence for the European Union.It is all the more important, therefore, to do what we can. I agree with the Minister that we cannot go around lecturing everyone else on how to run Schengen. That did not seem to work well for Labour Ministers, and I do not suspect that it will work much better for a Conservative—certainly not for a Liberal Democrat. I sympathise with the Minister; we need several countries to do a much better job on asylum and immigration.
We have referred specifically to Greece, and there are other problems with that country, with its under-supported, under-facilitated and in many ways ineffectual criminal justice system making it more difficult for the proper enforcement of its borders. One could, however, make some of the same accusations about how asylum is dealt with in Italy. The more we are able to provide assistance and capacity-building support in such countries, the better, not least because countries that have to make hefty cutbacks will be tempted to reduce the number of border officers, which might land us with a problem that is more expensive than the saving that has been made.
My impression is that the 1995 Barcelona process, which was designed to deal with the whole Maghreb in forging much stronger relationships—so that one could rely on stronger economies in Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt and so on—expanding the civil rights and democracy movement and trying to resolve some major conflicts, was an utter failure. Not enough energy was devoted to it; only two or three countries ever regularly raised it, and for the most part northern Europe tended to ignore the problems that the Mediterranean members of the European Union faced. That was a mistake, because not only is there a magnet of prosperity in the northern countries that attracts people from sub-Saharan Africa up through the rest of Africa and across the Mediterranean, but in so many places, particularly in Africa, there has been war, famine and pestilence—the three traditional motors of mass migration. One does not have to be an ardent socialist to believe that mass migration can be an enormous problem for the individuals who bring poverty with them, as well as for those who want to be generous and hospitable, but who might find it politically and economically difficult to be. Of course, the Barcelona process has now been completely superseded by the Arab spring, but I suspect we will need a new Barcelona process in some form. It is too early to introduce one, because we do not have stability in the countries involved and, for that matter, because the problems in Syria persist. However, Europe as a whole needs to grasp the central fact that if the Maghreb is always poor and in trouble, there will always be migration problems across the Mediterranean members of the European Union, which will affect us all—we cannot escape that.
Events this year have always shown that the European Union, for all the negative press that it gets, can be a force for good. The evacuation of nationals was carried out not only by the UK—sometimes we assisted other countries, but they sometimes assisted us, too—and it
was very effective in the main. Broadly speaking, the joint operation EPN Hermes extension 2011 has been a success—I assume it is Hermes, and not Hermès; it sounded rather grand when I first started reading about what I thought was the joint operation Hermès extension 2011. It has meant that there has been a significant curtailing of the number of ships coming through to Italy and of the problems my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North referred to on Lampedusa, as well as on Malta. However, in a similar way to the work off the coast of Somalia, these efforts have shown that Europe can work together extremely effectively when it wants to.We need to take the EU’s relationship with the Maghreb much more seriously on migration. In that respect, I have some interesting statistics—I hope they are interesting, anyway. In 2009, there were 606,000 migrants into Germany. The UK came second, with 471,000. However, Spain, which has a much smaller population than the UK or Germany, had 469,000 migrants—just 2,000 fewer than the UK—while Italy had 407,000. That is a significant problem, and the long-term statistics for Spain are even more worrying. The inflow for each between 2004 and 2008 was 749,000 migrants, totalling 3,102,000, and Spain’s population is significantly smaller than the UK’s. That is double the number of migrants who came into the UK in the same period.
Similarly, the Minister mentioned Greece. For centuries, Greece was a country of diaspora; people left Greece to go to Australia, where they ended up in Melbourne making films, or they ended up on the west coast of America and in other places all around the world. The word “diaspora” comes from Hellenistic culture and from Greek. However, for the past decade, Greece has been a country of mass inward migration, despite having poor public infrastructure and a small population. In fact, 8.4% of the population of Greece is made up of foreign nationals, and 11.1% of its population are foreign born, which is a higher percentage than in the UK. That has created significant social and economic problems. There is also the cultural problem of having to come to terms with the country not looking as if it is full of Greeks, as it always did. That is why we need to look at these issues very seriously. Interestingly, the number of foreign nationals in Spain is 5.66 million, and it is 4.24 million in Italy.
There are significant areas where the Opposition agree entirely with the Government about the papers before us. First, any additional efforts that can and should be undertaken on migration issues, either in relation to the Maghreb or to areas within the European Union, must be met out of existing resources. We have often said that the EU devotes far too much of its budget to things that should no longer be its priority. Migration is one of the EU’s priority areas and the EU should be reprioritising its budget and not trying to increase it.
Secondly, the Minister has not referred to this point yet but he did refer to it in his reply to the original paper from the European Scrutiny Committee, and it is the fact that there are those in the European Commission and, for that matter, there are countries, in particular the smaller countries, that believe that consular protection and consular services should be provided as an EU
competence in the future. We wholeheartedly disagree with that view. We believe that it should be for the member states to provide those services. I am not heavily ideological about this issue; it just seems practical that member states provide those services. Of course, there is provision in the treaties already. For example, if an Italian citizen is in Melbourne—I am not obsessed with Melbourne, but I will use it as an example—and there is no Italian representation there but there is British representation, it would be standard for us to provide support for that Italian citizen. But there are very different understandings of what consular protection should be among different member states around Europe and I fear that some of the smaller countries hope that the larger countries will simply take on this responsibility for them around the globe.We have very good relations with many other countries. For instance, in Laos we have no representation. It is covered for us by the British ambassador in Thailand. However, the Australians—normally—and the French—sometimes—have provided consular support for Britons who have got into trouble in Laos. That kind of pragmatic approach makes complete sense.
The third point on which we agree with the Government is that we also do not believe that migrants should be transferred in large numbers from north Africa into the EU and nor do we believe that once they are in one of the countries of the European Union they should be divvied up around all the other countries of the EU. We completely disagree with that approach.
Similarly, the fourth point on which we agree with the Government is that member states should have resettlement programmes and we are perfectly happy to provide advice to other countries that want to develop resettlement programmes, although as the Minister pointed out there are some areas where we have perhaps needed to get some advice from other countries. There should not be one EU resettlement programme. I have one tiny caveat in relation to that. It is that, of course, there will be times of specific problems—normally in an emergency—when Britain might want, on a sort of ex gratia basis, to help out because there is a specific problem. The present situation in which we find ourselves is not one of those situations. We believe that the way that the treaties are written now is perfectly adequate to cope with the present situation.
The last point on which I agree with the Government is that the partnerships that we build up in future years—I hope that there will be more countries involved than the countries that are presently listed, because we need to go further—need to be country-specific. There is no point in having a single attitude to each of the countries in north Africa. We need to have a completely different attitude towards Egypt, not least because of its relationship with Gaza, than the relationship that we have with Tunisia. If anything, one of the problems in relation to the Barcelona process was that there was a belief that we could create some all-embracing policy that would get us all the way from Morocco to Israel and Turkey. That is simply inconceivable and consequently too much ambition ended up meaning that very little was ever achieved.
Broadly speaking, on behalf of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition I must say that we loyally support the Government’s position on all of these key issues, and
we wish them well in trying to ensure that, as we move forward, we have a better policy in relation to migration from northern Africa that really embraces the whole of the EU.5.24 pm
Kelvin Hopkins: I hope that I will not speak for long, but I have a few things to say.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Frontex HQ in Warsaw with the European Scrutiny Committee. Then, 10 days ago, I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, to a meeting on these matters in Brussels, which of course was another pleasure. I put views there that I like to think were helpful, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, who is now our Front-Bench spokesman on these matters. I congratulate him on his appointment. It is a pleasure to speak from the Back Benches with him leading us.
I am concerned about the policing of internal borders. I believe that Europe has got it wrong. Interestingly, although Frontex officials could not speak too politically, I think that they were concerned about it as well. They said that the problem is the shibboleth of free movement—the economic theory that markets work better if labour is free to move wherever it likes. That is all very well, but vast population movements are destabilising and can cause social tensions. We would be wise to remember that when it comes to migration. Clearly though, we want to act in a humanitarian way, and if people are fleeing persecution, that is another matter.
Economic migration is fine when we have labour shortages. After the war, we had low unemployment, rapid growth and labour shortages, and we welcomed people to Britain, particularly from the Commonwealth, to fill the gaps that we could not fill with our own workers. It is different now that we have high unemployment, low growth and serious economic problems. We cannot be so welcoming. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda gave some startling figures about how many people in some countries are unemployed. In Spain, for example, 50% of young people under 24 are unemployed, so they want to retain free movement simply because they think that they can get jobs in Holland, Sweden or wherever. We must pay attention to migration in a way that we have not before.
Greece is a problem, as is the Greek-Turkish border. It is suggested that the Turks are being slightly mischievous in not helping the Greeks resist flows of migrants, but I am sure that the problem will be exacerbated when people know that if they can get to the shores of Bulgaria, they will effectively be in Denmark or France. If they are on the shores of France, they might try to come to Britain as well.
Internal free movement is the problem. If one has an EU passport, it is no problem at all. For those who do not, perhaps some constraint on free movement would be wise. If travellers—particularly people traffickers, criminals and so on—do not have the right of free movement across the European Union, it makes life more difficult for them. They must approach countries directly if they want to get to them. Instead, once they are on the shores of Greece, Bulgaria, France, Italy or wherever, they know that they are inside the whole
European Union, except Britain, due to our restrictions. We ought to press the case for re-establishing passport controls—although maybe quite gentle ones—at internal borders as well.Chris Bryant: But what is gentle?
Kelvin Hopkins: They are already doing this, apparently. Some EU countries have airport checks; those flying there from another EU country have their passports checked. I have come across it myself in Sweden. We thought that we had free movement, but our passports were checked. I am happy for my passport to be checked at any time. In fact, to have difficulty getting through a border makes me more aware of that border. It is a good thing.
I put those points in Brussels and Warsaw, and there was no hostility to what I said, although no one else said it. We must think more seriously about persuading other European Union members to rethink free movement. It might be a nice economic theory for those who believe in rigorous free market economics, but it will not be popular in countries with high unemployment where frictions and tensions between groups are possible. One hesitates to say things in public, but even in my constituency, one third of my constituents come from visible minority communities, and many of them are concerned that their youngsters cannot get jobs because people are coming from eastern Europe. Eastern Europeans are fine and charming people and tremendous workers; they are an absolute delight. The more they come and do very good jobs in my constituency, the less possibility there is for those youngsters who are British citizens to get those jobs.
We would like to create more jobs, obviously, and have a better economy running in a more expansionary way. I would certainly do that myself rather than the current deflationist approach to economics. Even with an expanding economy, we will still have problems with employment over the longer term. We will not overcome that simply by having large-scale migration from abroad over and above what we already have for humanitarian reasons. I have said my piece. I agree with the Government and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, who spoke very well. He raised many important issues. I hope the Government will continue to do what we all think is necessary.
5.31 pm
Damian Green: I am grateful for the Opposition’s support, both Front and Back Benches. It is a rare treat for the Immigration Minister to discover that unanimity is breaking out around him. So I shall seize on these moments when they come. A number of important points were made. In respect of what the hon. Member for Luton North just said, it is important to differentiate between free movement and border controls. I believe in free movement. The Government believe in free movement. All British Governments going back decades have believed in the free movement of people. But that does not mean that we cannot have border controls. We have free movement in and out of Britain, but we keep control of our own borders. That seems to be the important national point.
Kelvin Hopkins: Would the Minister accept that the free movement of EU citizens is one thing, but free movement for all people whether they are EU citizens or not, is another?
Damian Green: And deciding who is which is precisely why successive British Governments have decided to retain passport controls at our borders and we should be thankful that we have taken that route. If others want to take a different route then that is for them. I also think that one of the keys is not so much free movement, but the abuse of free movement—people using the free movement theology of the European Union to go benefit hunting or, worse, to traffick people or commit other criminal acts. It is that abuse of free movement that puts under threat the underlying virtues of having a more flexible labour market. That is something that the Government keep under close watch.
The hon. Member for Rhondda made a point about the Barcelona process having essentially failed. I think that is correct. It clearly did not succeed in its original goals. He made some interesting points about Spain and Italy. One of the lessons I draw from this strongly is that both Spain and Italy had amnesties, saying that they would solve their illegal immigration problems, and they did not work. Both countries had to have multiple amnesties, which is one of the reasons why they have, as he rightly pointed out, so many people from the rest of the world in their countries. Essentially the problem is at least as acute there as it is in this country. He also asked whether we should show some generosity and perhaps take people ex gratia under certain circumstances. I remind him of the very successful gateway programme that does precisely that. We take in refugees from camps in some of the worst parts of the world where suffering is very great. We should never forget that most refugees go into their neighbouring countries. They do not travel across the world. We take in several thousand of those living in desperate conditions in camps under ordered programmes.
Let me also deal with some of the other items that have come up. We have to be clear about the context. We deliver contributions to Frontex training and risk analysis initiatives. In Operation Poseidon, we also have supported screening and debriefing of migrants. That is the extent to which we have participated in Frontex activities. On visa liberalisation, although we are not part of Schengen and are not bound by any EU visa facilitation or visa liberalisation agreements with third countries, we watch such developments at an EU level very carefully because such action can affect migration flows reaching the UK.
On the point made about countries that fail to maintain external border controls, we welcome efforts to strengthen Schengen. For us, this debate is predominantly about controlling illegal immigration in the EU and our confidence in each other’s ability to do that. Although it is vital that we maintain the role of member states in deciding on the re-imposition of borders, member states have a responsibility to each other to maintain their own borders and to address weaknesses in them. For that reason, we support the Commission’s view that there is a strong argument to be made for a mixture of support and sanctions for a member state that fails to maintain its own border controls to the required standard.
Chris Bryant: The Minister referred to illegal immigration. The EU seems to spend most of the time referring to “irregular migration”. Can he persuade the EU to move back to “illegal immigration”?
Damian Green: The honest answer is almost certainly not, but I will keep using the phrase “illegal immigration” scattered among “irregular migration” because that is what it is.
The hon. Gentleman asked about staff in Libya. As he rightly said, the Foreign Secretary is there. The FCO is currently moving staff back into the country now that the new embassy has been opened, although security in Tripoli remains a serious issue. We intend to open a small visa service as soon as possible.
On SIS II, full functionality is expected by 2015. We are planning to come in to the EU central SIS II system in late 2014 so that testing can take place with a view to full operations in 2015.
On displaced persons from North Africa, it is important to continue in deep dialogue with these countries. We are ready to provide further assistance where possible to ensure that migration to the EU, and possibly the UK, is well managed and secure. On a bilateral basis, we have provided operational assistance and training to airlines operating from Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt. We have also provided training for immigration officials in Tunisia.
Chris Bryant: In relation to each of these countries, it is important that we get to a place in which people can be deported after they have failed their asylum application or have committed criminality in this country. Will the Government ensure that we are kept up to date on how those discussions proceed?
Damian Green: Certainly, as the hon. Gentleman says, the ability to return those who have no right to be here is an important and difficult issue. Again, it is very much on a country-by-country basis. As well as all the issues that we have in our own country, there are some countries where we have a smoother system of returns than others. It is quite a significant and important part of my job to try to improve the returns process to other countries as well.
Several hon. Members brought up the Greek situation. Greece has presented a number of achievements in its ongoing work to improve its asylum system including a new database that contains information about the asylum procedure and countries of origin, which has been created in co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It has had training seminars and there has been the translation of the European asylum curriculum modules and a voluntary returns programme funded by the European Refugee Fund. We can see some steps in the right direction, but I will not disguise the fact that there is a huge amount more to be done.
On a final point about Bulgaria and Romania—apart from the immigration issues, which we discussed at length—there are broader non-Schengen justice and home affairs reforms that need to be monitored. There is a co-operation and verification mechanism created to drive this. Progress is being made, but none of those
benchmarks have been met to date. I hope that that addresses all the issues concerned and that we can adopt the measure.That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 10784/11, a Commission Communication: A dialogue for migration, mobility and security with the Southern Mediterranean
countries; and supports the Government's aim of working with other Member States to strengthen practical co-operation with Southern Mediterranean States on migration.