Ms Fiona Hurley:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members for the opportunity to share our observations on the new pact on migration and asylum. Nasc, the Migrant and Refugee Rights Centre, has been working with refugees and asylum seekers for more than two decades. Our view is that the EU migration pact is fraught with significant flaws. We are concerned that procedural guarantees and protections for asylum seekers will be sacrificed for deterrence and creating efficiencies in processing.

Given the time limits, I have confined our comments to three key areas of concern. First, the screening process and accelerated border procedure that would be created by the asylum procedures regulation is detrimental to the freedom of international protection applicants. Those who are processed under the border procedure will not be authorised to enter a state. Instead, their cases will be processed in closed facilities for up to 12 weeks in what is called "blurry soil", that is, in designated facilities close to the border that will not be considered the territory of the member state. Families with children can be held in these facilities, raising serious concerns about the well-being and rights of minors in these settings. The mandatory timeline of just 12 weeks imposed by the asylum procedures regulation to complete applications, appeals and removal decisions is exceedingly challenging and may result in rushed and inadequate assessments that compromise the integrity of the asylum process. I am concerned about the adequacy of legal aid that can be provided under these rushed timelines.

Furthermore, we have found that it often takes weeks or even months for asylum seekers to feel safe enough to disclose traumatic experiences, such as domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, DSGBV, or torture. I am concerned that these accelerated processing times may prevent victims and survivors from fully disclosing their experiences or seeking necessary support. I doubt authorities' ability to identify vulnerable applicants within such tight timeframes. The application of the border procedure to individuals deemed to have misled the authorities poses serious risks to the fairness of asylum procedures and fails to understand that those most at risk of state-led persecution are least likely to be able to apply for national identity documents before fleeing their country. The provisions targeting applicants from countries with low recognition rates risk creating a self-reinforcing cycle of rejection. Accelerated procedures increase the likelihood of negative outcomes for applicants from these countries and the crisis and instrumentalisation regulations allow derogations on procedural standards.

Second, the asylum migration management regulation’s mechanism for solidarity among EU member states is unlikely to achieve its goals. While countries are given options to contribute financially or provide technical support, the likelihood of successful implementation is dubious. Many states may opt for financial contributions to shift responsibility to border states or opt not to implement the solidarity mechanism at all, despite the threat of legal action, exacerbating existing disparities in asylum distribution.

Third, the pact's reliance on externalisation raises serious ethical and legal concerns. By outsourcing border control to countries outside the European Union, including countries with poor human rights records such as Turkey, Libya and Tunisia, we risk not just turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, violence, exploitation and lack of access to asylum procedure, but funding and becoming complicit in these human rights violations.