Examination of Witnesses (Questions 440-448)
Ms Helen Muggeridge, Ms Patricia Coelho and Dr Bernard
Ryan
5 DECEMBER 2007
Q440 Lord Teverson:
I understand that.
Ms Coelho: That is not to say that we
think that people have actually received their rights at national
borders that are controlled by Member States at the moment.
Q441 Lord Mawson: This
again is for ECRE and the Refugee Council. What, if any, mechanisms
to address humanitarians concerns exist in the framework of Frontex
operations and has there been any progress in establishing "joint
asylum expert teams" to accompany Frontex operations?
Ms Coelho: As I have already mentioned,
Frontex operations allow for rescue at sea to take place when
the need arises, so I suppose that is one aspect. Development
of working arrangements with the UNHCR and IOM may lead to some
mechanisms and relationships that can improve the ability of Frontex
to respond to humanitarian needs and to see how people, once they
arrive at the place where they are diverted to or taken to, can
be dealt with on reception. We think that the presence of a UNHCR
position in the Frontex headquarters in Warsaw is a positive step
towards making suggestions and providing advice on how some of
the humanitarian needs of refugees can be addressed. We are concerned
that his position is not a secure position, that it is only funded
until June and it is actually funded by UNHCR so we would be interested
in how that kind of role can be made more sustainable. In terms
of asylum expert teams we have been disappointed actually at the
lack of progress on those. I think they were proposed in the summer
of 2006 and, once again, in September 2007 we saw that the Justice
and Home Affairs Council urged for there to be some development
of how these teams can be put into place. We think that they have
a lot of potential to actually address some of the concerns we
have been raising and to work in complement with the RABITs. We
have seen a very fast pace in agreeing and starting to implement
RABITs, and we know that this week in Portugal they are having
a testing mission and, on the other side, the asylum expert teams
have not been progressed, so we feel that that has been a bit
unbalanced.
Q442 Lord Mawson: If
they were progressed how would they work in practice; how would
you like them to work?
Ms Coelho: We have not gone into a lot
of detail because we were wanting to see what more detailed proposals
would come from the European Commission and then we would see
how we felt those could be implemented then if we felt those proposals
could be improved. We do have some ideas in terms of the sorts
of people who need to be involved, and it is clear to us that
UNHCR need to have a core role in those asylum expert teams. We
are not just talking about some people being trained and then
forming asylum expert teams, they are people who have longstanding
expertise and mandates from UNHCR and also from NGOs around Europe
that should be involved with State authorities; perhaps they are
a mechanism where some of the very good practices on the national
level that I mentioned could be replicated, for example, but we
have not developed a clear model of exactly how these teams should
function and on what criteria should they be deployed et cetera.
Q443 Lord Mawson: Would
it not be helpful to your cause if actually you did begin to develop
something that was practical, that people could actually begin
to look at and engage with?
Ms Coelho: Yes, I take your point. I
also would like to say that it has been a long hard struggle for
civil society to get some positive reaction to our wishes to be
involved in these sorts of issues. Authorities that work at borders
do not traditionally co-operate on the ground or have a political
dialogue with NGOs necessarily, so I would say we are at the beginning
of a new phase with lots of possibilities, and that is perhaps
why we are looking at some examples on the ground and we have
not as such had the opportunity to envisage that kind of mechanism
and all the opportunities it could offer us at this stage.
Q444 Lord Harrison:
In that case might not Frontex be a beneficial vehicle, for instance,
to transmit the example you gave earlier of which you are going
to provide us evidence about the relations set up with Hungary
and Slovenia, as it were to expand best practice throughout Frontex's
operation.
Ms Coelho: My understanding is that UNHCR
through its dialogue and through its position is very much sharing
that, they are very much at the centre of brokering these kinds
of practices in Central Europe, and I think that conversation
and sharing of information is starting. We would be very happy
to play a role in increasing that kind of sharing of information
and good practice, certainly.
Q445 Lord Teverson:
If we can continue on UNHCR, when we were out in Warsaw we very
briefly met the representative, he had only just recently arrived
and everything was just being set up if I remember. I would be
interested to know what role you think the UNHCR representative,
particularly moving Warsaw alongside Frontex should have, and
more generally. It would be interesting to know if you have any
feedback on how you think that relationship is working so far
and what it should become. Is it sufficient as a major plank of
protecting and getting the interests of refugees and asylum seekers
on Frontex's agenda?
Ms Coelho: I do not feel we are in a
position to comment on how that post is having an impact or not
having an impact and how well that relationship is going, I think
it is for UNHCR to say. For us it has certainly been seen as a
positive step—we learnt of it in September—and we
think that there are lots of possibilities. As I said, the building
of relationships and trust on a very human level is very important
and having the presence of somebody physically in the headquarters
is a first step towards that. I am not sure it is all that is
needed and I think it is very important for the Working Arrangement
that is being discussed at the moment between Frontex and UNHCR
to be concluded and for there to be some exploration of how other
entities or actors or agents could help to implement that relationship
and the bringing in of the protection issues. For somebody there
to improve information-sharing, to provide advice, to provide
training—my understanding is that there would be good possibilities
for training on international refugee and human rights law and
for it then to be considered how operations can respect it—and
help with how people can be better identified during the operations
for example. That is how we would see the role of UNHCR being
useful to Frontex.
Ms Muggeridge: Just on a practical level
to add to that, during conversations with UNHCR they have mentioned
that, for example, in Morocco it would be helpful if UNHCR was
alerted if, for example, a ship or some people were going to arrive
and there may be refugees within that group, both in Morocco and
Libya. It would be very useful for them if they were alerted as
a matter of course. Also, if humanitarian concerns and obligations
could be written into operational plans, not just as an add-on
to a mandate or something, but actually written into operational
plans and for officers to be given real guidance about what they
should do if they encounter somebody who is either vulnerable
or in distress or indeed wants to ask for protection. In Morocco
UNHCR mentioned that the number of refugees compared to the number
of migrants is actually quite small and it would actually be good
to have help from organisations, perhaps civil society organisations,
to assist with the larger number of irregular immigrants so that
people were not all forced into the asylum route as well. With
regards to IOM, given that they do not have a protection mandate
it is difficult to comment on that; our only comment would be
that we understand that IOM is involved in voluntary returns and
we would simply say that returns should be truly voluntary and
not just an option, for example, to get out of poor detention
conditions in certain countries.
Ms Coelho: Can I quickly add to that
that while we have a protection mandate as an organisation we
are extremely concerned about the suffering and violence that
migrants encounter on their journeys and the treatment that they
receive on arrival, and so we would be very much in favour of
there being a more structured look at what organisations need
to be in place, dealing with those humanitarian needs. That may
be IOM, that may be more an organisation like the Red Cross who
provide a lot of humanitarian support on arrival in some countries,
such as in Lampedusa, so we are concerned that the needs of this
large group of people need to be better taken into account.
Q446 Chairman: A question
for Dr Ryan is to ask what your views are on the Advocate General's
opinion which led to exclusion of the UK from Frontex regulations.
It would be interesting to hear your view as a lawyer on that,
and do you see circumstances in which the UK in the future might
be able to opt in to Frontex and other similar arrangements?
Dr Ryan: I have to be a little bit careful
since I know that the Court of Justice is going to give judgment
soon on this case. What I would say, having looked at the Advocate
General's opinion and at the different arguments, there is a superficial
attractiveness to the UK's position, that there is a part of the
Schengen protocol that permits a unilateral decision by the United
Kingdom to participate. Equally, with respect to the Frontex agency,
you could say anyway is this not something the UK could participate
in, without participating in the rest, so it is not somehow central
or integral to the Schengen system. When you look at it in a bit
closer detail, and particularly look at all of the Schengen protocol
and think about all of the Schengen system, it is not quite as
straightforward. On the protocol itself, the other parts of the
protocol which require unanimous consent, if they are to have
any meaning and they are not just a transitional provision, then
it cannot be the case that the UK always has a unilateral right
and if the other provisions are still applicable, then there is
a difficulty with the UK's somewhat selective reading of the Schengen
protocol. As to whether this agency is integral or not, that rather
depends on how the agency is understood. If the agency is understood
as being about the management of the external borders because
there is a border-free zone behind the common external border,
then it is hard to justify the UK being able to participate unilaterally
because the UK is not in that zone and does not have the same
stake in the outcome as regards the agency as the states that
are in the Schengen zone would have. Of course, if the agency
is understood in a somewhat broader sense as just being about
the good management of borders, one might take a different view.
There is certainly a case on the UK side, but there is equally
a good case on the other, and I do not think that the Court of
Justice could be criticised if it turns out that it follows the
Advocate General and says that the UK does not have a unilateral
right in this matter.
Chairman: Thank you very much. I wonder
if I could end with a question of which you have not had notice.
We have listened to your very understandable concerns about the
rights and opportunities for refugees and so on and we understand
all that, but if the rules were changed and circumstances were
changed whereby the people you are concerned about had a much
easier run—you have talked about dangerous journeys, you
have talked about all sorts of legal and physical man-traps which
make it difficult for the people you are concerned about—would
it be fair to accept that if there were changes in that direction
it would inevitably bring with it an increase in illegals, in
undesirables who might have terrorist intentions and the flow
of those sorts of people whom we call overall "illegals"
might increase to a flood. Would that be a situation that could
arise if you were able, by waving a magic wand, to make life a
great deal easier for potential refugees?
Q447 Lord Mawson: Could
I add to that? What are the implications of that for inner cities,
particularly some of our most vulnerable areas?
Ms Coelho: I will try to address those
questions and then defer to my colleague. In terms of if the rules
were changed, the rules are there.
Q448 Chairman: And
the opportunities were changed.
Ms Coelho: Yes, so what you are talking
about if I am right is more the practical implementation of those
rules and how they are adapted to that. I do not accept that premise;
if you bring in good mechanisms, if your asylum systems are good
quality and you are able to screen as you put it people who would
not fall into the category of people in need of international
protection and that might have other intentions for coming here,
I think all the rules and laws are in place to be able to identify
those people—the Refugee Convention has very clear exclusion
rules. Also, there are some interesting ways in which entry for
the people we are concerned about can be explored; one of them
actually put in place by some countries is what is called "protected
entry procedures" where people can go to embassies or consulates,
for example, in third countries and say that they would like to
claim asylum, and there is a pre-screening that takes place on
that territory, and if they are seen as people who would be admissible
for such a claim then their entry is facilitated into the EU.
That would be one way of people being able to bypass these kinds
of journeys, with the checks that need to be in place as to whether
these are people with the right intentions, and those checks can
be applied right at the very beginning. From our perspective—and
I am not saying that is the only solution but I think it is one
mechanism that could be explored—if there are mechanisms
to avoid people taking these kinds of dangerous journeys, with
the right balances and checks, good quality asylum systems that
are able to identify people who are clearly not in any way in
need of asylum, then the problems you raise are dealt with. I
understand that this is a challenge but the development of a common
asylum system at the European level is supposed to be something
which helps EU Member States to be able to do this better in the
future. Your question about inner cities is a very broad question
about integration and how people who come and are recognised as
refugees can be helped to integrate into our societies and make
a contribution without placing a burden on societies may be struggling.
That is a huge area which my organisation is very active on in
terms of looking at how people can be helped to acquire language
skills, to re-qualify, to get jobs, be able to contribute to society
and how society can see the benefits that come from people arriving
and can build up trust and confidence. I would be happy to share
any materials you would be interested in on those issues after
this session.
Dr Ryan: I do not think we have been
arguing for open borders or anything of that nature, we are really
focused on Frontex-originating activities or even just Member
State activity which exposes people to risks of ill treatment
and trying to prevent that from occurring. I would emphasise on
that that of course the primary concern is with those who are
at risk of ill treatment or have perhaps fled from ill treatment
in their countries of origin, and that is a refugee scenario.
But there is also another dimension which is people who, if returned,
are at risk of ill treatment in the countries of transit. I think
both groups are deserving of attention in the design of the system
and in its application. So I do not think we are talking about
open borders or under-estimating the challenges which irregular
migration presents, it is more of a specific set of concerns that
we are bringing forward.
Ms Muggeridge: I would concur with my
colleagues; we are definitely not saying that everyone is a refugee
or everyone should be a refugee, but unfortunately there are still
instances in the world where people will need to flee. All we
are saying is that there should be some opportunity for these
people to be set apart and given protection. Unfortunately, given
that there is no way for an asylum seeker to travel legally as
an asylum seeker to reach somewhere, refugees will have to use
the same sorts of routes. I would just like to mention Article
31 of the 1951 Convention which allows for refugees not to be
penalised for travelling illegally, so what we are asking for
really is that attention be paid to safeguard the rights of that
group of people, whether that is a large group or a small group.
Chairman: Thank you very much for coming,
you have been most interesting and, unlike a lot of witnesses
who give evidence before Select Committees in this building, you
have been admirably concise, for which we are particularly grateful.
We have learned an awful lot and you have given us a lot to think
about; thank you.
|
