Who counts as a "refugee"? What rights and benefits should a recognised refugee receive? And how should we define, and what rights provide for, those who need international protection but don't fall under the category of "refugee"?
These are the basic questions addressed by the Commission's proposal on minimum standards for the qualification and status of refugees and subsidiary protection, part of a series of proposals making up a Common European Asylum System as decided at the Tampere European Council in 1999. I welcome the fact that in its preparation the Commission has consulted extensively with many different actors including the UNHCR and other NGOs, as well as Member State governments. The result is in my view an informed document which is in touch with the many issues affecting the refugees and asylum seekers dealt with by EU Member States today.
My particular perspective concerning asylum, having had contact with many asylum seekers and refugees over the years, is that the EU has an obligation to provide adequate protection to those who need it. For me, it is morally unjustifiable to pursue 'fortress Europe' policies which go against the spirit of international agreements and attempt to restrict access firstly to asylum procedures and then to refugee status. This means that applications for asylum must be considered objectively and fairly, for example by ensuring that asylum authorities base their decisions on up-to-date and accurate information about countries of origin.
In meetings I held recently with UK refugee organisations, one of the main issues raised was that the quality of the information upon which decisions are based is too often very poor. It is crucial that decision-makers take into account regional variations within countries, and also all the characteristics which may affect the likelihood of persecution - for example, a Kurd from Turkey cannot be considered in the same light as a non-Kurd. Equally, our interpretation of the definition of 'refugee' must be full, inclusive and well-informed about the kinds of persecution many refugees may have faced and why.
In these respects the Commission's proposal is very positive, and our job in the Parliament is now to maintain the Commission's strong position on these issues.
I am pleased that key to the proposal is a full and inclusive application of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees. It is embedded in the Convention's philosophy, which aims to ensure that no-one is sent back to persecution (or 'refouled'). The recognition that persecution is often conducted by non-state agents as well as states (eg guerrilla groups) is also to be welcomed, and that states do not always provide effective protection against persecution - for example, in the case of groups such as the Roma or the Kurds where persecution is often entrenched in the system. In addition, the Commission has rightly specified that gender must be taken into account when assessing an applicant's fear of being persecuted, as women can face particular problems.
The Commission's subsidiary protection status proposals may run up against problems with some Member States who do not currently offer any kind of status to those who are not Convention refugees, and are reluctant to do so. However, for me this is a crucial part of EU asylum policy, as I believe we cannot justify refusing to provide protection to all those who face "serious or unjustified harm", which may include torture, life-threatening violence or other human rights violations.
In London I was told of a 16 year-old Kenyan girl threatened with genital mutilation, whom the UK authorities wanted to send back to Kenya. We must remember that the European Parliament last year adopted a resolution calling on Member States to grant residence permits to and ensure the protection of victims of female genital mutilation, and to recognise that people at risk of being subjected to this practice had a right to asylum.
However, there are a number of issues in the Commission document which I find more problematic, for example the idea that a "state-like body" (international organisations and stable quasi-state authorities) can provide the same protection as a State - these bodies are not states and do not have the same international obligations or internal role as States, and therefore should not be treated as such. I also feel that the extent to which those accorded subsidiary protection are granted lesser rights than refugees must be considered carefully. We need to be careful not to exacerbate problems of social exclusion which may be caused by not granting those with this status immediate access to the labour market and training opportunities in the same way as refugees.
A key question is how we assess the success or otherwise of our asylum systems - unless we know what happens to those we decide to turn down and deport, we have little idea as to whether we are making the right decisions on the basis of our definitions. The number of refusals is no measure of accuracy when a Croat can be advised to return to Belgrade, or status refused on the grounds that "if they had really been persecuting you, they would have killed you rather than just shooting you in the leg as you fled" (both true cases).
The EU must show a true commitment to complying with its international obligations in the spirit in which they were intended, rather than trying to wriggle out of them as some would clearly like to do. This is why we in the Parliament must now work to support and strengthen the many positive points of the Commission's proposal.