Mr. Michael Shotter:

I thank members for those pertinent questions. I should clarify a comment I made. By not explaining what a crisis is, I can create misunderstandings. We want to have special rules for a defined concept of "crisis". That is what we set out in special legislation covering crisis situations. As a legal construct, we have set these situations as being exceptional because we accept that, where there is a mass influx of such a scale in a crisis that it not only jeopardises the overall functioning of a national system but also places the wider European system in question, we need to have tailor-made rules. They will be at a high level rather than a low level. We envisage that the exceptionality will mean that there will be shorter deadlines for certain matters and longer ones for others because the system will be under so much pressure. We believe the net may need to be cast wider in terms of the kinds of person who will be eligible for solidarity support because of the scale of the crisis.

I wish to clarify my comment on this matter. When I speak about the crisis, it is a legal definition. A person drowning in the Mediterranean is a tragedy. Each life lost is a tragedy and I do not want my comment in any way to be taken as meaning it should be seen as a normal situation. Of course it is not something that we can accept. Nor do we. There is a special focus in our pact on search and rescue activity, which is not a specific competence of the EU. It is a national competence. Member states are signatories to the relevant international conventions. While saying that, I do not want to give the impression that the European Union has nothing to do in this area. We have acknowledged that we do. We see the close proximity between search and rescue activities and obligations and migration policy. Therefore, we have found it relevant and necessary to say something in this field. For example, we have issued a recommendation to try to bring member states together on this subject and we intend to set up a special contact group between member states, with civil society organisations and shipping companies able to participate. For example, a Danish vessel picked up migrants in distress in the Mediterranean during the summer. It saved their lives, then found itself in limbo because of the difficulty in finding a place to disembark them.

We understand that we should have a role, even if it is not our legal competence, and we intend to play a role in bringing member states together as much as we can and avoiding a situation where persons lose their lives because they cannot be rescued. We have produced guidance to make it clear that rescuing people at sea is not something that can be criminalised under EU law. There is important and necessary EU legislation that is intended to tackle smuggling activity, but a provision contained therein has given rise to some debate. We have come forward with guidance to make it clear that people should not be criminalised under EU law for activity that is mandated by international law. That seems straightforward and obvious, but we felt the need to make it crystal clear because there was a discussion around this subject. We give special acknowledgement in our legislation to the difference between persons disembarked after search and rescue activities and those arriving irregularly simply by crossing the border. In a number of ways, we have seen the importance of helping to give extra clarity and support in the area of search and rescue activity.

The situation on the ground in Lesbos has been mentioned. It is difficult to accept. We are working with the Greek authorities to improve the situation, including under our existing framework of rules. We have set up a task force with them to try to improve the situation on the ground. We must work closely with them to do that. We can only do something like this by working with national authorities.

The difficult situation in March at the border between Greece and Turkey was also mentioned. We cannot be naive in our policy. We must work with Turkey, just as we must work with other partner countries. It is not an option to build a frontier and then believe we can neglect or not work with our partners. We must work with them. That is the world in which we live. However, we should also have effective border protection and control and a way of managing our border that enables us to avoid being in a difficult situation like the one that occurred in March. That said, it is a difficult balance to achieve. We must respect our international obligations, which include giving access to asylum to those who need asylum. I accept that we must do this in a way that does not lead to us being instrumentalised in this process.

Irish solidarity and how to ensure that solidarity promises are translated into action were mentioned. Ireland has proved to be solidaire. It has stepped up. We acknowledge that, even though it was not obliged to, Ireland has come forward.

In the voluntary setting we have put out calls for member states to provide support following search and rescue disembarkations, as I mentioned earlier. Ireland has stepped forward on a regular basis on that, which is very much appreciated. I also draw a distinction, as I mentioned, between voluntary and compulsory. With legal pathways, whether humanitarian in the form of resettlement or other legal pathways, we also acknowledge there is a more voluntary approach when member states step forward and volunteer pledge. For example, in the area of resettlement, this works rather well. We would like to see the leadership in resettlements spread more widely among member states but the process works rather well.

For the solidarity we envisage for times of pressure, this would be in the form I mentioned of compulsory solidarity. There, the regulation itself would impose requirements. There would be some flexibility but there would also be correction guarantees that I mentioned. There would be an obligation under EU law to provide the solidarity that has been committed to and pledged in that way.

There was mention of the rapidity of the system and we want it to work as quickly as possible. When there is pressure on the ground, although falling short of a crisis, as I mentioned earlier, but still not a position with which we should be comfortable, we need to step in with solidarity in an efficient and rapid way. We try to make processes as swift as possible while also making this something to bring member states along rather than just issuing a diktat. We do not want to do that but instead have the process owned by the member states.

There was a question on return sponsorship, which is an innovation. It applies if a member state is under pressure and has persons to which a return decision has been given. These people have gone through the process and been identified as not having a right to stay; they have legitimately been issued with a return decision. This may have been appealed but the return decision would have stood. Such persons should be returned. The member state providing the solidarity, or the sponsoring member state, would offer for a number of such persons with return decisions to help the member state under pressure to return those persons to the third country concerned. That may involve voluntary return support or reintegration support. It could involve using diplomatic or other connections in the area.

The objective is to do this from the benefitting member state, so there would not be a transfer within the European Union to the sponsoring member state. Sometimes it is difficult for a return to be carried out, and there may be a number of reasons for this, including a difficulty with the third country. We have also acknowledged that to provide support to the benefitting member state, after a certain period has elapsed - we have put eight months in our proposal - there can be a transfer to the sponsoring member state. We are interested in relieving the pressure on the benefitting member state. If we cannot relieve the pressure by the primary route, which is to carry out the return from that country to the third country, then after this period, as a sort of backstop or guarantee, the person would be transferred at that point. After that eight-month period has elapsed, it would involve the sponsoring member state.

On the European asylum dactyloscopy database, EURODAC, issue, it is the way with legislation that when it is reviewed we can find elements that can be improved. This is indeed what we have identified at this point and the system can be improved. We need a good system in place to effectively monitor how the asylum system is working, track persons and avoid abuse, as the system can be abused. We should not be naive about that. It is true there has been a certain openness, in some respect, to playing the system. It is one aspect we want to tighten and improving the EURODAC regulation is part of that reform we think is useful and necessary. We would like the EURODAC regulation to be adopted as quickly as possible.

An earlier question concerned the way ahead for member states. One of the big political issues between member states is the package approach, with nothing agreed until everything is agreed. That is understandable. When there is a balance between responsibility and solidarity, we need to see that balance across instruments. We understand a certain linkage between the different proposals on the table set on in the puzzle slide. Having said that, we would like, if we can, to make progress and be able to move ahead with individual proposals on a pragmatic basis. The European Union asylum agency is one example and we would like to move forward and adopt it as quickly as possible. EURODAC is another good example where we should be able to move it forward quickly, recognising that there is a linkage with other parts of the pact.