UNITED NATIONS MIGRANTS COMMITTEE MEETS WITH COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION, REFUGEES AND POPULATION
This afternoon the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families held an exchange of views with members of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as well as with a representative of the International Labour Organization, focusing in particular on the issue of ratification of the United Nations Convention by Council of Europe members.
In opening remarks, Abdelhamid El Jamri, Chairperson of the United Nations Migrants Committee, noted that most of the countries that had ratified the United Nations Convention were countries of emigration, and were countries of the South. For States that were countries of emigration and immigration, as well as of transit, migration in their States had an impact on their whole region. Therefore it was of the utmost importance to build a rights-based framework in both States, as well as regions. He also underscored the importance of working together with the Council of Europe Committee, noting that Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Azerbaijan were members of both the Council of Europe and of the United Nations Convention.
Mevlut Cavusoglu, Chair of the Subcommittee on Migration of the Council of Europe Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, also in introductory remarks, outlined his Committee's three main priorities as strengthening the rights affecting migrants, refugees, asylum-seekers and displaced persons; promoting intercultural dialogue; and managing migration, including regular and irregular migration. Guiding instruments included the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers, which sought to ensure that migrant workers residing in a member State were treated no less favourably than nationals of that State. However, that Convention only applied to member States and did not cover irregular migrants. The next meeting of his Committee would be on 11 and 12 December in the Canary Islands to look at issues relevant to the arrival of boat people and handling the arrival of asylum-seekers and irregular migrants, and he extended an invitation to the members of the United Nations Migrants Committee to attend.
Painting an overall picture of the current global situation of migrants and their rights, Patrick Taran, a Migration Specialist at the International Labour Organization (ILO), noted that in Western European countries the foreign-born proportion of the work force was 10 per cent or more and that increasing numbers of jobs in industrialized economies simply could not be filled by native-born workers. He cautioned that regulation providing protection for migrant workers could not be left to market mechanisms alone, which led to exploitation of workers, trafficking, increasing anti-immigrant sentiments, and, ultimately, communal violence. In that context, he identified three instruments – ILO Convention 97 on Migration and Employment, ILO Convention 143 on Migration for Employment, and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families – as an international charter on migration, providing a broad and comprehensive framework covering most issues of treatment of migrants and of inter-State cooperation on regulating migration.
In the ensuing discussion, Experts and Parliamentarians looked at the issue of ratifications of the United Nations Convention by Council of Europe Member States, in particular how to encourage ratification and the situation in specific countries; what constituted a "family" for migration law purposes; the situation of irregular migrants and their rights; the connection between irregular migration and crime; and the possibility of the two Committees holding a joint conference.
When the Committee next convenes in public, at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 27 November, it will meet with High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay.
Statements
ABDELHAMID EL JAMRI, Chairperson of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, introducing the work of the Committee, noted that the Committee comprised 10 elected members from States parties, acting in their personal capacity. The Committee had a twofold role: monitoring the implementation of the Convention nationally; and promotion of the Convention, which had now been ratified by 39 States. The Committee promoted the Convention both in international forums and through urging promotion of the Convention by States parties in country reviews.
The Committee had now considered several reports from States parties. It has also worked with non-governmental organizations and United Nations bodies, in particular by the International Labour Organization (ILO), with which the Committee had a natural connection, as well as with International Organization for Migration (IOM). The Committee had also discussed reform of the treaty bodies system, through participation in the Inter-Committee Meeting among others, and discussed emerging issues in migration in other migration forums. The Committee had also made a contribution to the High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development, held by the United Nations General Assembly in 2006, and since then it had been taking part in the World Forum on Migration and Development, including the most recent meeting in Manila.
Mr. El Jamri noted that most of the countries that had ratified the Convention were countries of emigration, and were countries of the South. So far, during its reviews of State party reports, the Committee had seen that migrants were living in very difficult conditions, and specifically that their physical integrity was often in jeopardy. For States that were countries of emigration and immigration, as well as of transit, migration in their States had an impact on their whole region. Therefore it was of the utmost importance to build a rights-based framework in both States, as well as regions.
Finally, Mr. El Jamri underscored the importance of working together with the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, and noted that Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Azerbaijan were members of both the Council of Europe and of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
MEVLUT CAVUSOGLU, Chair of the Subcommittee on Migration of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, noted that the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population was made up of 84 members coming from the national parliaments of the 47 members of the Council of Europe. The Committee had three subcommittees dealing with the separate issues of migration, refugees and population. Within its mandate, the Committee also covered humanitarian law and humanitarian issues including the issue of missing persons. The Committee worked closely with relevant European and international organizations, as well as non-governmental organizations at both the national and international levels, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The Committee was currently preparing reports or opinions on a number of topics, Mr. Cavusoglu said, including on detention of asylum-seekers and irregular migrants in Europe; improving the quality and consistency of asylum decisions in the Council of Europe Member States; and the human rights and democratic concerns for the integration of migrants. Of particular interest in the context of today's meeting was the forthcoming report: "Working Migration and Diasporas: Individual Rights and Governmental Responsibilities".
The Committee had three main priorities, based on the Declaration and Action Plan adopted in Warsaw in May 2005: strengthening the rights affecting migrants, refugees, asylum-seekers and displaced persons; promoting intercultural dialogue, fostering tolerance and ensuring integration of migrant communities; and managing migration, including regular and irregular migration, while ensuring effective access to a fair asylum procedure for persons in need.
Guiding instruments of relevance for the Committee included the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers, adopted in 1977. The aim of that Convention was to ensure that migrant workers who were residing in a member State were treated no less favourably than workers who were nationals of that State. However, the Convention only applied to Council of Europe member States and thus did not cover irregular migrants. A consultative committee examined periodically the reports with information on the application of the Convention, and seven reports had been considered so far.
Another important instrument devised by the Council of Europe was the Revised European Social Charter, which had been ratified by all member States, Mr. Cavusoglu said. The Charter contained a chapter on the rights of migrant workers who were nationals of a party to the Charter, as well as a non-discrimination provision. The European Committee on Social Rights had been prepared to interpret the Charter to include certain rights to irregular migrants, as had been seen in the collective complaint of the IFHR against France, which had concerned the right to health care of children of irregular migrants in France. However, the extent to which they could develop such rights appeared to be extremely limited and changes would be needed to the Charter to make it an effective instrument for tackling the issue of irregular migrants.
Also worth mentioning was the Kyiv Declaration on "Economic Migration, Social Cohesion and Development: Towards an Integrated Approach", which had been adopted by the Council of Europe Conference of Ministers in September 2008. The Declaration contained a number of principles and measures in respect of work migration, as well as an Action Plan to reinforce social cohesion and integration of migrants; to enhance the contribution of migrants to their receiving and origin societies; to continue to develop measures to promote and protect human rights, especially of vulnerable migrants; and to devise an integrated approach to economic migration, development and social cohesion and to assist Member States in its implementation.
Mr. Cavusoglu mentioned a few other reports that might be of interest, including a 2007 report on temporary employment agencies, which sometimes made a profit at the expense of the most basic rights of temporary workers. More and more evidence indicated that numerous "rogue" temporary employment agencies practiced totally unacceptable methods, exposing workers to substandard conditions that would neither be offered nor accepted by local trade unions.
Finally, Mr. Cavusoglu invited members of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers to attend any future meetings of his Committee. The next one would be held on 11 and 12 December in the Canary Islands and would be looking at issues relevant to the arrival of boat people and handling the arrival of asylum-seekers and irregular migrants.
PATRICK TARAN, a Migration Specialist at ILO, said that ILO estimated that 95 million of the total 200 million people living outside of their countries of birth or citizenship were engaged in the world of work. In Western European countries, the foreign-born proportion of the work force was 10 per cent or more, nearly 15 per cent in Ireland and some 40 per cent in Luxembourg. Due to economic, demographic and technological changes, increasing numbers of jobs in industrialized economies simply could not be filled by native-born workers. Ageing of native work forces combined with declining populations was an important factor. By current projections, the population of Italy would be 25 per cent less in 2050 than in 2000, and Ukraine's population would decline to the level it was at in 1900. Fertility rates in most of the European Union were or soon would be at or below replacement. The current projection for Europe was that while today the average social security dependency was two retired persons for seven economically active, the ratio would rise to four per seven by 2050, which would mean either twice the contributions per working person, or halving the income for retirees.
However, experience showed that regulation providing protection for migrant workers could not be left alone to market mechanisms, Mr. Taran observed. When highly competitive and globalized market pressures were brought to bear in the absence of protections and appropriate regulation, migration was characterized by abuse and exploitation of workers, trafficking, fear of loss of jobs blamed on immigration, increasing anti-immigrant sentiments, and, ultimately, communal violence. A tension between highly skilled well-paid work and cheap, flexible labour – and the attendant divisions in societies between haves and have-nots – was an increasingly generalized feature of Western societies.
Migrant labour in both developed and developing countries largely filled the "three-D" jobs: dirty; dangerous; and degrading. Those sectors commonly included agriculture, food processing, construction cleaning and maintenance, the sex industry and others. Indeed, immigrant labour had long been used as a low cost means to sustain economic enterprises and sometimes entire sectors of economic activity that were only marginally competitive. Moreover, with few options available for legal migration, irregular migration channels had become the only alternative, presenting lucrative "business" opportunities for helping people arrange travel, obtain documents, cross borders and find jobs in destination countries. Such illegal migration meant such workers remained confined to jobs in informal sectors in irregular work and under exploitative conditions. In contrast, ILO research underlined that legal labour migration channels contributed to both reducing trafficking in children and women and the smuggling of migrants, Mr. Taran underscored.
Turning to migrant-specific instruments, Mr. Taran noted that ILO Convention 97 on Migration and Employment, ILO Convention 143 on Migration for Employment, and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families comprised an international charter on migration, providing together a broad and comprehensive framework covering most issues of treatment of migrants and of inter-State cooperation on regulating migration.
Mr. Taran observed that it had long been evident that, despite these instruments and others, such as the 1951 Convention on Refugees, explicit, coherent policy and administration on migration remained lacking in many if not most countries. In the past five years, several global efforts had made important contributions in compiling international guidelines on managing migration, including the Berne Initiative initiated by the Swiss Government and managed by the IOM, and the Global Forums on Migration and Development.
Here, Mr. Taran highlighted that the objective of the non-binding ILO Multilateral Framework was to provide practical guidance to governments and to employers' and workers' organizations with regard to development, strengthening, implementation and evaluation of national and international labour migration policies. The ILO Multilateral Framework was important as the only comprehensive collective of principles and guidelines on migration policy and management which was firmly grounded in international instruments and best practices; in that took a positive perspective on labour migration; and in that recognized the role of social dialogue and value of social partners participation in migration policy.
In conclusion, Mr. Taran said that maintaining social cohesion in the context of inevitably greater diversity and migration required advancing a policy framework that assured respect for migrants' rights, dignity and equality of treatment in law and practice. That required adhering to basic international human rights standards, addressing labour market needs and composition, ensuring decent work opportunities for all, enacting legislation and measures to combat discrimination and promote integrating and elaborating practical measures to do so.
Members of the Council of Europe Committee then raised a number of issues and asked questions, including what constituted a family, noting that that determination had huge impacts on migrants rights, including for family reunification; the legal position of the United Kingdom, which did not allow persons whose asylum cases were on appeal to work, to speed up the procedural process for deporting them from the country; and the situation of Croatia.
Members of the United Nations Migrants Committee asked why the United Kingdom and many of the other countries represented here today in the context of the Council of Europe had not ratified the United Nations Convention. It was also asked if they could explore joint conferences.
Responding to questions, Mr. El Jamri, the United Nations Committee Chairperson, highlighted that the various instruments in the realm of migrant rights were all working to the same end, and should be seen as working synergistically together and not against each other.
On the issue of what constituted a family, Mr. El Jamri said that was defined by the law in the country concerned. It was not up to the Committee to decide. Another member of the Committee added that family was defined quite clearly in the Convention, in article 4.
With regard to the ratification of the Convention by United Kingdom, and whether current practice in the United Kingdom would be in contravention of the Convention, Mr. El Jamri pointed out that migrant policy was a matter for the State, not the Committee. However, countries that were parties to the Convention were bound by its provisions. For his part, he did not see any obstacle to the ratification of the Convention by European countries. It was something the European Parliament had called for. Perhaps it was just a matter of one country taking the lead.
Mr. Taran, responding in turn to questions, said that the ILO review of Portugal had proved that there were not juridical obstacles for European countries to joining the United Nations Convention, and that was particularly true for the 11 European Council countries that were members of one or both of the ILO Conventions in this area.
Mr. Taran also noted that the current global financial crisis, and falling prices, would likely have a direct impact on the situation of migrants.
Mr. Cavusoglu said he would be happy to have a joint conference with the United Nations Committee. That was a practice that the Council of Europe Committee had already used widely, and it had generally adopted joint declarations at the end of such meetings.
A Swedish parliamentarian noted that, historically in Sweden, labour matters were regulated by the trade unions and the Government had stepped back. While Sweden had a very good record of accepting refugees and asylum seekers, there had been almost no economic refugees, as the trade unions had put a strict limit on that. However, with the advent of a new law on labour migration which had just been passed, the Swedish Government was currently reviewing ILO Conventions on the subject.
A United Nations Committee Member was particularly concerned about the situation of irregular migrants and the guarantee of their rights in Council of Europe countries, to receive social services and education in their mother language for their children.
A European Parliamentarian raised the issue of assigning financial responsibility to countries for having created migrations, either through wars or through discrimination against certain population groups. When people asked for asylum they were almost always leaving behind them assets or property in the country they were fleeing.
Specifically answering the issue about whether it was legal for the United Kingdom to deny asylum-seekers on appeal the right to work, Mr. Taran could not give a definitive legal answer, but he did feel that it was a good question and that that practice ran counter to the universally recognized human rights standards which would seek not to leave an individual in a state of limbo, without the ability to live in conditions of dignity.
On the relationship between irregular migration and crime, Mr. Taran said he would tend to discourage looking at those two phenomena together. Migration was a natural phenomenon. What it was important to say was that by creating a situation of great demand and then restricting the supply encouraged criminal activity to fill the gap. Also it should be underlined that no human being was illegal and illegality was not a helpful concept here, as it tended to blame the victims.
In brief concluding comments, Mr. El Jamri noted what had been said on promoting ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and welcomed any opportunities for working together in future.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CMW08013E