Diane Abbott
Main Page: Diane Abbott (Labour - Hackney North and Stoke Newington)Department Debates - View all Diane Abbott's debates with the Home Office
European Union Agency for Asylum
Diane Abbott Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I volunteered to do this because I think the immigration challenge that Europe faces is no laughing matter. I have more junior colleagues in my Home Office team who were available to do it. Our constituents want to see us take the issue seriously.
Mr Goodwill
When the hon. Lady started her career in the Home Office she was involved in this particular area, as a fast-streamer, so I am sure that her expertise will be useful as she brings it to bear during the debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset for his opening words. I can reassure him that I did not feel any need to agonise over the decision—it was a fairly simple one—and I apologise for any part I may have played in any delays. I am sure he is aware that a lot has been going on, both in the Government and in Europe, since 23 June.
I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for selecting these important measures for debate and apologise for the late tabling of the motion and any inconvenience caused to the Committee by the change in date. The three measures under consideration—the reform of the Dublin regulations, the reform of the Eurodac regulation, and a proposal for a new EU asylum agency—represent the first wave of a package of proposals to reform the Common European Asylum System, or CEAS.
A wide-ranging package of reforms to CEAS was proposed by the European Commission in a communication published in April of this year. The migration crisis led to the Commission identifying priorities for addressing perceived structural shortcomings in CEAS: Dublin reform; reinforcing the Eurodac fingerprint database, which supports the operation of the Dublin mechanism; providing a stronger mandate to the European Asylum Support Office, or EASO; and further harmonising asylum systems. The proposals on harmonisation are not before us today.
It is undoubtedly necessary to develop an asylum and migration framework in the European Union that works to control illegal migration, deter abuse and prevent unwarranted secondary movement. That does not mean, however, that the Government agree with all the policy options that the Commission suggests. The Government have already decided not to opt in to the proposed EU agency for asylum. I apologise that the Committee did not have the chance to debate the proposal before the opt-in deadline, but I suspect it would have supported our opt-out.
The UK participates in the European Asylum Support Office, but there were several problematic areas in the proposal for a new agency which, in my view, would outweigh any benefits to the UK. The Government’s key consideration was the significant oversight that the agency could have had of the UK asylum system if the UK had decided to participate. Although we respect that our European partners may wish to pursue greater commonality in their asylum systems, we remain firmly of the view that the functioning of national asylum systems is a sovereign issue. The Government are, of course, committed to running a high-quality, effective asylum system. We will continue to support EASO and member states that face particular pressures, as well as to share our expertise widely within the EU.
Turning to the Commission’s proposal to reform the Dublin regulation, Dublin IV maintains the traditional, recognisable “Dublin” concepts to determine responsibility for examining an asylum claim. That includes provisions on family unity and the best interests of the child. The proposal introduces some procedural changes—for example, to time limits—and increases obligations on applicants to co-operate with asylum authorities by claiming in the first member state. The Government strongly support the “first safe country” principle, but within the proposal lies a corrective fairness mechanism based on a distribution key that allows for adjustments in the allocation of responsibility in certain circumstances. Essentially, it is a mandatory relocation mechanism.
The Government remain opposed to the use of relocation to address the migration situation in the EU. We have been crystal clear in all our engagement with European partners—both before and since the publication of the Dublin IV proposal—that we see no reason why a mandatory redistribution, relocation or corrective mechanism should be part of a single proposal under the Dublin regulation.
In that context, it is worth noting that the Commission was very clear when it published the proposal that should the United Kingdom not opt into the revised Dublin IV regulation, the Dublin III regulation would continue to apply between the UK and member states—a direct result of our engagement—so I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. As such, we believe that there is no risk that we would lose our current powers to return people to other EU member states as a result of this proposal. There is a clear precedent for two Dublin regimes operating in parallel, as seen with regard to relations with Denmark between 2003 and 2006, when different rules applied between states. Finally on Dublin reform, it is obvious that the legislative proposal will require significant negotiation, given the well-known divergence of views across the EU towards mandatory burden-sharing schemes.
Turning to Eurodac—the fingerprint database that supports the application of the Dublin regulation—we agree with the Commission that member states must be provided with appropriate fingerprint evidence to facilitate the operation of the responsibility mechanism and to enhance its role into other areas to address illegal migration and facilitate returns. The Eurodac III proposal includes new provisions to store data on persons found illegally present and to store facial images in addition to fingerprints. It enhances the personal data associated with the biometrics to include, for the first time, the name, nationality, date and place of birth of the data subjects and it stores the details of any travel documents held. It also lowers the age threshold for the transmission of data from 14 years of age to six to enhance the safeguarding of children.
By increasing the capture of data on illegal migrants, Eurodac III will become more of a tool for managing illegal migration, and we welcome that. Its enriched data sets are also of significant value in terms of law enforcement access. I welcome the endorsement of the Government’s position on Eurodac and Dublin.
Ms Abbott
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am glad to be able to speak in this important debate. We know, because the polling tells us, that immigration is very high up our constituents’ list of concerns. Whether it is the people in contact with me daily who are frightened by the tenor of the immigration debate—a fear that has been reinforced by the election of Donald Trump in the United States—or whether it is the people who believe that immigration is the source of many of their problems, we can all agree that this subject should be taken seriously.
The Opposition argue for an immigration policy that is based on the facts, which puts the good of the economy and our GDP first, and which emphasises the kind of society we want to be—an immigration policy that speaks to the historical values of the British people. We welcome the draft regulations in principle. We believe they are long overdue. More than 1 million refugees arrived in southern Europe last year. In the first six weeks of this year, the rate increased tenfold on the same period in 2015. Sadly, the number of missing children in Europe has far exceeded 10,000.
Earlier in the year I visited Lesbos, which is the first port of call for tens of thousands of refugees who have crossed the Mediterranean. From meeting the people who run the facilities for refugees and from meeting the refugees themselves, I was struck by what a huge burden the issue is on a country such as Greece, which has many economic problems. I was struck that even in the middle of what is obviously a crisis for the people of Lesbos, they were trying to do their best to welcome the refugees: many residents of Lesbos are people who sought refuge in Greece from other parts of the Mediterranean and other parts of the middle east.
I was struck by the inadequacy of Europe’s response to the refugee issue. It cannot be right that a country such as Greece, which, rightly or wrongly, has been through so much economically in recent years, is taking such a huge burden of our response to the refugee challenge. The Minister has said that the Government have sent half a dozen or a dozen Home Office officials over there. I was on Lesbos and I saw no evidence of a substantive British response or substantive British support for the challenge the Greeks are facing. I was also struck—on Lesbos and while visiting other refugee camps in Lebanon and, of course, Calais—by how ruthless the people smugglers are. I therefore welcome the regulations, the aims of which are to achieve an organised and humane response, and to tackle the people smugglers.
As hon. Members might imagine from a former Home Office civil servant, I believe in the Dublin III regulation. I believe that refugees should be processed at their first point of contact with Europe. However, it is grossly unfair to expect Greece and Italy to struggle on as they have been doing. The Dublin III regulation has been very difficult to enforce, yet if we do not enforce it, it will be not the countries of Europe but the people smugglers who decide where refugees and economic migrants go. That is why we must have a level of European co-operation and a framework that will work in a way it has not up to now. I hope that we all agree that the Dublin regulation is in need of update and reform to fit our current reality.
The UK has long benefited from the arrangements, as one of the few member states that transports more asylum seekers across its borders than are received under the Dublin regulation. I believe, and I think that Opposition Members strongly believe, that whether or not we are in Schengen and whether or not we are formally in the EU, we are part of the European family of nations. We must take our fair share of the responsibility. We should be opting in to a regulation that makes sharing the burden as equal as possible. On Eurodac, it is clearly important that we have a robust system of processing asylum seekers and determining their entitlement to be refugees. The regulation to improve and expand Eurodac goes some way towards meeting that need.
Michael Fabricant
I am following the hon. Lady’s speech with great interest and I agree with much of it, but she began by saying, quite rightly, that she is aware that immigration is a major issue in the minds of many of our constituents. She also said—and I have some sympathy with this—that the United Kingdom must take its fair share and should remain a part of the scheme after leaving the European Union. How does she reconcile those two concepts when, as she will know, of the 52% of the population who voted for Brexit, many are believed to have done so because of overall net immigration to the UK?
Ms Abbott
I am well aware of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I can only repeat what I said at the outset. Our immigration policy should be based on the facts, not on urban myth. It should be based on what is good for the economy and good for society, and it should be based on our values as a country. If that means that we have to go out and argue and campaign for that position, I for one am willing to do so. Anything else leads to a downward spiral of anti-immigration rhetoric, and we can see the consequence of that downward spiral in the result of the recent presidential election in the United States. The US electoral college has spoken, and of course the American people are entitled to elect the President of their choice, but we should never legitimise Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-women rhetoric, and we should be aware that one of his first appointments was of Steve Bannon, who runs the website Breitbart, which is largely regarded as anti-Semitic. We must work with our oldest ally as we have always done, but we cannot legitimise a political narrative of that kind.
Mr Goodwill
Would the hon. Lady clarify something? From what she said earlier, she appears to support a mandatory relocation measure in the EU. Is that indeed the position of the Labour party?
Michael Fabricant
The hon. Lady said just now that she would wish that after we leave the European Union we continue within this scheme—or is she now saying that she does not wish that to be the case?
The Chair
Ms Abbott
If I knew what the Government’s plan was in relation to Brexit, I could respond to what the hon. Gentleman said. I can only say that the first principle, which is an important principle, is the maximum amount of European co-operation, whether that takes place formally within the EU or just on the basis that we are part of the European family of nations. Anything else, anything other than the maximum European co-operation, leaves literally hundreds of thousands of people across Europe and in the middle east in appalling conditions, hopeless and helpless.
To return to the question of Eurodac, in extending its capabilities we must note that in recent years member states have developed a habit of putting “anti-terror” in front of legislation and sometimes using that as a licence to implement unnecessarily draconian measures or surveillance practices. We must protect our security. Our constituents expect us to do that; it is probably the first responsibility of any Member of Parliament. However, we can do it while respecting our commitment to all human rights and civil liberties. We must also take into account the sensitivity of minors when considering fingerprinting from the age of six.
On the European Union agency for asylum, Labour Members agree with the European Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs, who said in May:
“The time has come for a reformed and more equitable system, based on common rules and a fairer sharing of responsibility.”
It is not clear to me who would argue with that. There are no walls, there is no barbed wire and there is no militarisation of the police that can in the end halt the weight of migration that we are seeing in the current era. Only fair regulations, properly implemented, and European co-operation can bring some order to the situation, which has hitherto been characterised by a high degree of disorder, which feeds public fears but also leads to the very tragic plight of the refugees whom we see, and I have seen, in refugee camps all over Europe.
I note that there is much debate about the manner in which we should make these arrangements, given our imminent departure from the European Union. As I said, the plan is not clear. Recent papers that have been leaked from Government emphasise even more a lack of clarity about the plan. However, even if we leave the EU—that was the democratic vote of the British people—the British Government must work with the European family of nations on a sustainable migration policy that remains in place, as other arrangements in relation to security will have to remain in place. We need mechanisms by which legitimate asylum applicants can ask for protection without having to pay with their lives or their life savings. Those routes need to be not only safe and legal, but efficient and effective.
Europe’s refugee crisis will not end overnight, and our moral obligation does not end when we leave the European Union. With the lack of transparency in the Government’s Brexit plans, it is difficult, in closing, to be more specific than I have been. However, I can set out the broad principles with which I will approach the immigration debate: to take it seriously, not to use it as a weapon for short-term party political advantage, to always have the interests of the country and society at heart, and also to always, whatever the pressures and whatever the international context, speak for an immigration policy that speaks for the values of British people.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will be mercifully brief. The humanitarian crisis that has reached Europe would at any other time have been quite upsetting enough, but the debates going on here in the United Kingdom have meant—with no disrespect—that the issue has unfortunately been sent off to a European Committee when a debate on the Floor was what was recommended. I share the concerns outlined at the start of the debate about one of the opt-out deadlines already having passed.
Stuart C. McDonald
I absolutely agree. My party also supports the broad thrust of the proposals outlined in the documents, although not entirely and without qualification. A supranational crisis like this requires a supranational response, and solidarity with the front-line states is essential. That is why my party supported the Commission’s proposals for relocation, and we voted for them back in December when we did have a debate on the Floor of the House. We regret how ineffective member states have been in implementing them.
This is another attempt at fairly sharing responsibility in times of emergency. I return to the question that I posed during our question session: if not this model, then what alternative do the Government have in mind to share responsibility more equitably at times of intense migratory pressures? I am not convinced that the Government have offered a realistic alternative. The most recent situational briefings from the likes of the International Rescue Committee and others remind of us how grim the situation is in Greece and around there. The simple fact is that the situation is far more readily dealt with if we share responsibility rather than leaving a handful of frontline states to face responsibility themselves.
Mr Goodwill
These figures have come from the UK as part of our overseas development budget. I can give my hon. Friend some clarification on whether any of that money has been channelled via the EU, but as far as I am aware, this is money from the UK Exchequer, not European money.
Start Network non-governmental organisations were given £11.5 million, £1 million was given to the IOM and more than £1.8 million of essential supplies were provided. They included 3,100 tents for over 15,600 people, 60,000 blankets, 8,000 sleeping bags and other basic items, including direct support for the German Government with returns and donating 40 ex-Ministry of Defence Land Rovers to the Bulgarian border police to help them patrol the green border with Turkey.
The key message on Dublin is that the Government maintain their position: we support the existing principles of the Dublin regulations, but do not agree to a mandatory redistribution mechanism as part of a revised Dublin regulation. I am still slightly confused about the Labour party’s position on that. Indeed, Dublin is important, as it prevents asylum shopping and reinforces the first safe country principle; redistribution does not.
Mr Goodwill
As I have shown, our response to this crisis has been to step up to our obligations as part of Dublin, to go over and above our obligations by incorporating the Dubs amendment into the Immigration Act 2016, and to give the humanitarian and practical help that I have just listed. Given all the ways we are helping people in the region—I was in Jordan last week to see how that money was being spent, putting clean water into some of the refugee camps, helping with the registration of refugees and helping with the education of children in those camps—I think the Government can be proud of our record in that regard.
I have followed the debate with great interest and I thank those who have contributed. It is the Government’s position that it is necessary to develop an asylum and migration framework in Europe that works to control illegal migration, deters abuse and prevents secondary movement. That does not mean, however, that the Government agree with all the policy options suggested by the Commission or that they are right for the UK. These opt-in decisions will be fully in line with the national interest.
Question put and agreed to.