EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/204

(2004/C 70 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3049/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Electronic tagging of asylum seekers

According to an article in the British newspaper ‘The Independent’ on 28 September 2003, the British Home Office and the Immigration Service are holding talks with the firm Securicor on ways of electronically tagging asylum seekers and illegals in the United Kingdom, with a view to better monitoring of the immigration and asylum problem. In the United States, Florida and Alaska have been using a similar system since the Department for Homeland Security was established. British Home Secretary David Blunkett, a Socialist, explaining these radical plans, has himself admitted to not knowing how many asylum seekers are presently in the United Kingdom. That accounts for the British proposal for electronic tagging of asylum seekers, possibly by means of an ankle bracelet, in order to prevent them from absconding while their asylum applications are being processed. The pressing problem of asylum and the increase in illegal immigration in all Member States demand coordinating measures at European level, however, since the draft Constitution proposed by the Convention lays down that immigration and asylum policy would become a mainly European area of competence.

Is the Commission acquainted with these British plans? Does the Commission share the British Socialist Home Secretary's concern at the dramatic way in which asylum policy has gone out of control in the United Kingdom and, by extension, in most other EU Member States?

If so, is the Commission prepared to endorse such measures, with a view ultimately to introducing the proposed electronic tagging arrangements in all Union Member States?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Notwithstanding the article in ‘The Independent’ on 28 September 2003, the Commission is not aware of any plans to electronically tag asylum seekers in any of the Member States. The Commission itself envisages no such measures at Union level.

The Treaty of Amsterdam provides the legal framework for a common policy on immigration and asylum and measures to introduce a common approach have already been agreed or are under discussion. For example, the Eurodac system which allows the comparison of the fingerprints of all asylum seekers in the Union has been operational since 15 January 2003. Eurodac was set up to support the operation of the Dublin Convention (and its successor, the Dublin II Regulation (1) which entered into force in September 2003), which helps determine which Member State is responsible for determining an asylum claim and prevent multiple applications, by allowing individual asylum seekers to be identified.

In February 2003 the Council agreed on minimum standards for reception conditions. Minimum standards on asylum procedures and a common definition of a refugee are still under discussion. In July 2003, the Thessaloniki European Council set a deadline of the end of 2003 for the agreement of those instruments. That was further endorsed by the Brussels European Council on the 16/17 October 2003. The Commission issues a biannual review of progress in this area which details the stages reached in negotiations of all the measures needed to attain the objectives set by the Treaty of Amsterdam (2).

The Commission does not consider that asylum policy has gone out of control in any Member State, however in the Commission Communication ‘On the common asylum policy and the Agenda for Protection’ (3) the Commission noted that abuse of asylum procedures is on the rise as are mixed migratory flows (often maintained by smuggling practices) involving both those who require protection and those who do not. In the Commission Communication ‘Towards more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems’ (4) the Commission concluded that there is a manifest need to explore new avenues to complement the common approach required by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Note that, under this new approach, measures combating illegal immigration should comply with human rights (5). While new approaches would encompass a range of responses which build upon a global perspective of the international protection system, the priority in the first instance should be meeting the deadlines on the different building blocks of a common policy outlined above. New approaches would also include partnership with and between countries of origin, first asylum and destination and the need to fully respect international human rights obligations. The Thessaloniki European Council asked the Commission to further explore how more orderly and managed entry to the Union for those requiring protection can be assured and how protection capacity in the regions of origin can be enhanced. A comprehensive report is to be presented before June 2004.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, OJ L 222, 5.9.2003.

(2) COM(2003) 291 final: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament ‘Biannual update of the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of’Freedom, Security and Justice‘in the European Union (first half of 2003)’.

(3) Second Commission report on the implementation of Communication COM(2000) 755 final: COM(2003) 152 final.

(4) COM(2003) 315 final.

(5) COM(2003) 315 final.