Today's Date:

The French tradition of asylum is rooted deep in our most distant past. In the darkest times there were already sacred clearings, inviolable sanctuaries, a refuge for outlaws.

The Church codified these customs, but it was the Constituent Assembly of 1793 which opened France's doors "to foreigners banished from their native land for the cause of freedom". This sacred right is enshrined in the Preamble to the 1946 Constitution, to which the 1958 Constitution makes reference.

Yes, our country is a land of asylum, even if its doors have sometimes closed, when the face of France was disfigured.

Yes, for the persecuted, the resistance fighters and the intellectuals who refuse to be silent in the face of injustice, intolerance or oppression, France remains a haven of hope.

Yes, in this world of uncertainty and violence, the persecuted need a place of refuge more than ever before. France, who has particular responsibilities, could not possibly fail in this sacred duty. The report of the Commission des lois [Senate committee responsible for renewing legislation] stresses that "the right of asylum has contributed to our country's influence in the world and to the credit it enjoys as a defender of freedom and democratic principles, a major theme of our foreign policy".

True to her tradition, France ratified the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951. In 1952 she established the Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (OFPRA) [French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons] and the Commission des Recours des Réfugiés (CRR) [Refugee Appeals Commission], associating the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees with those bodies – we must be the only country to have done that. Asylum within the meaning of the Geneva Convention was supplemented in 1998 by the Réséda Act and new forms of protection: constitutional asylum, granted to anyone persecuted for actions to promote liberty; and territorial asylum, offered to foreigners under threat in their own country or subject to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Now, this sacred right, this fundamental freedom, this value of the Republic, is in crisis, deep crisis, according to the very terms of the Commission des lois report.

This crisis concerns the reality, not the principle: France has every intention of remaining a land of asylum. But earnest references to the great revolutionary texts or to the Geneva Convention no longer suffice. They are hardly an adequate response to the daily difficulties faced by asylum seekers, to the distress of the voluntary organizations which look after them, and discouragement felt by officials who are the custodians of this tradition of which our country is proud. Honourable politicians have a duty to act firmly and clear-sightedly. Asylum must once again become a reality.

It was this reality principle which led the Brussels European Council of 16 and 17 October to invite the Justice and Home Affairs Council to complete by the end of the year its preparation of the asylum qualification and procedures directives, to enable the Union to "tackle asylum abuse and inefficiency while fully respecting the Geneva Convention and its humanitarian traditions". This reality principle is also the preferred approach of the Senate's Commission des lois, which notes that "this text is informed by considerations different from those which underlie the Bill on controlling immigration" and that it "seeks to render the right of asylum fully effective". Finally, it is this principle which has led the government to submit to you, after its adoption in first reading by the National Assembly, this Bill to reform our right of asylum.

The diagnosis is well known: redundant procedures, clogged asylum machinery, intolerable delays, overwhelmed reception centres, refugees unfairly left in situations of insecurity for months on end.

The causes and effects of these anomalies are closely interlinked: the machinery is not equipped to deal with the flood of applications; processing times are growing ever longer; too many asylum applications are unfounded; costs are sky-rocketing.

First difficulty: the large number of applications.

In 1980 the number of asylum seekers was under 20,000. By 1992 it had risen to 47,380. To deal with this influx, legislators kept on amending the order of 2 November 1945. Between 1993 and 1996, these measures led to a relative decline in the number of applications.

The pickup in asylum applications following the events in Algeria has continued to the present. In 2002, OFPRA registered 50,500 applications, and there were a further 30,000 applications for territorial asylum filed with prefectures. This is a Europe-wide phenomenon. Asylum applications across the Community rose from 50,000 in 1983 to 700,000 in 1992. In 2002, the EU received 65% of all applications world-wide. This is why a new EU right of asylum is now being negotiated in Brussels, a right which will have to be incorporated into our national law. But we must act now, without waiting for final agreement on the EU directives.

The second inevitable difficulty is the increasing length of time taken to process applications. This is no surprise: OFPRA, CCR and the Ministry of the Interior are overwhelmed, despite the new resources made available in the past eighteen months. Applicants for asylum, many of whom have been through hell, have to face the uncertainty and anxiety of a wait which may exceed eighteen months. That is unfortunately the average period of time between the lodging of an application with OFPRA and the final decision of the Refugee Appeals Commission. For territorial asylum the wait is even longer. During this period of waiting, what living conditions do we offer these women and men? The precariousness of their situation brings with it suffering, uncertainty, and vulnerability to every sort of anomaly – as well as the attention of criminal gangs. The reception centres are full to bursting, and many asylum seekers resort to the emergency arrangements provided for the homeless.

The third difficulty arises from the increasing misuse of our procedures. This does of course point to the worsening of human rights violations in some countries. Men and women have no other solution than to flee their country to escape from degrading treatment, torture or death. But people suffering genuine persecution are far from being a majority of asylum seekers. Whereas until recently OFPRA was granting refugee status in one case out of five, the figure now is less than 13% for territorial asylum, and in 2002 the rate of favourable decisions was barely 0.3%.

Thus, in the majority of cases, it is a complete waste of time for people to take this route, since their applications are based on economic and social motives which have nothing to do with the right of asylum.

Aside from Algerians, almost 90% of applicants enter our territory illegally. These candidates for economic asylum use clandestine immigration routes to reach France by land or air: of the hundreds of asylum applications filed at Roissy, only a few get the green light from the Foreign Ministry.

Many applicants seek to misuse our asylum system, not in order to obtain our country's protection but to remain here as long as possible thanks to the length of the back-to-back procedures of conventional asylum and territorial asylum, which enables them to stay in our country for three years before their application is definitively rejected.

This really is a misuse of the procedures, but when their applications are finally turned down, by which time they may have married and had children or otherwise established themselves, how can we expel them?

The first to suffer from these abuses are the genuine asylum seekers, those who have suffered persecution, as the Commission des lois report makes abundantly clear. Should we continue to allow a mission grounded in Constitutional values to be hijacked in this way so that it becomes a means of illegal immigration? Let us be clear about this: it is the social and Republican covenant which is endangered.

The fourth difficulty, finally, is the escalating social cost of dealing with asylum seekers. Those applicants who do not yet enjoy refugee status have no access to the labour market. Instead of quickly finding a proper place in our society, they are relegated to the byways of public assistance until such time as their situation is regularized.

Dependent as they are on our aide sociale system [provides benefits for persons not enjoying full social security cover], they are contributing to the destabilization of its funding. In four years, the cost of dealing with applications for asylum has risen from EUR 150 to 496 million, not counting State medical assistance, which is estimated at 700 million.

If nothing is done, this trend will gather pace, accumulating all its drawbacks: an ever higher financial cost, an ever worsening situation for the refugees, a daily heavier burden of uncertainty – the more so as we are not in a position to provide everyone with acceptable accommodation at reception centres. Your Foreign Affairs Committee notes that "the centres are filled to capacity and an increase of the order of 25% would be desirable". Those we are unable to accommodate are steered towards the general-purpose machinery for housing people with no fixed abode, which they are contributing to destabilizing, when they are not temporarily lodged in hotel rooms or even left to fend for themselves with an exiguous welfare allowance.

All this is destabilizing for the applicants, and hardly conducive to the defence of their rights, since the casual nature of their housing means they are soon lost sight of by OFPRA, the prefectures and social services which need to be able to call them in for interview. This makes them even more vulnerable to abuse.

This situation can no longer continue. It is increasing the moral suffering of men and women who are already sorely tried. It is discouraging the voluntary organizations. It is harming our image. By allowing it to go on and on, we are not defending the right of asylum, we are weakening it.

All in all, what do we see? Two regimes, two offices – OFPRA for one type of applicant, prefectures for the other – two procedures. All arcane, parallel or indeed competing procedures, which arouse incomprehension and impatience and are an incitement to abuse.

Asylum in France means not just waiting, anxiety, vulnerability, but also opportunism. In five years, the total number of applications, in all categories, has quadrupled. In 2002, OFPRA granted asylum to 6,500 people and the Interior Ministry to a few dozen. This number is constant in absolute terms, but is declining in relative terms: there are no fewer genuine refugees, there are more people seeking to immigrate. That is the reality: over 90% of applications have had to be rejected because they were based on economic and social motives, which doubtless deserve to be taken into consideration but have nothing to do with the right of asylum.

There is no question that, faced with economic distress, poverty, global exclusion, the rich nations have to come to the aid of destitute peoples. This duty is not called asylum but solidarity, development assistance, cooperation, humanitarian action: President Chirac and the government have made these things a priority, they have set a firm course towards increasing our official development assistance.

The confusion between a choice, immigration, and a right, that of asylum, is making a nonsense of our policies. It is encouraging the misuse of official procedures and aide sociale, and penalizing those who have the greatest need of France's protection. Disorder is compounded by injustice. President Chirac said as much on 14 July 2002, when he described our system as absurd and intolerable.

We must remedy this by finding the balance between strictness and generosity. It is by remaining true to our tradition of asylum, while combating the abuses, that we shall furnish effective and lasting solutions.

Submitted to the Council of Ministers on 25 September 2003, the reform now being proposed to you modernizes our right of asylum.

It strengthens the guarantees offered to asylum seekers.

To apply the Geneva Convention more effectively and strengthen the protection of asylum seekers, the government is proposing to abandon the criterion of the State origin of persecution linked to the courts' interpretation of Article 1 of the Convention. Refugee status may be granted even if the persecution is practised by non-State agents, as is more and more frequently the case. This is a change long desired by the UNHCR, as well as by the aid associations. But the Geneva Convention does not take into account all the kinds of violence which lead its victims to flee their country. Hence the introduction of territorial asylum into our law with the 1998 Réséda Act.

Today we are proposing to substitute subsidiary protection for territorial asylum, "subsidiary" because it will be considered only if the applicant does not meet the conditions of conventional asylum provided by the Geneva Convention. OFPRA will verify whether this applies to the applicant, before considering the alternative of granting subsidiary protection.

The criteria for subsidiary protection are more specific than those for territorial asylum, which should reduce the risk of arbitrary decisions. This establishment of a definite hierarchy of criteria makes it clear that the government has no intention of marginalizing the Geneva Convention. Moreover, whereas with territorial asylum the Interior Ministry enjoyed a wide measure of discretion, OFPRA will be bound to grant subsidiary protection once the criteria are met.

OFPRA's protection officers, specialists in asylum law, independent in their judgements and having a good knowledge of the countries of origin, will henceforth be responsible for examining applications. Appeals may be made to the Refugee Appeals Commission, with suspensory effect, which is not today the case with appeals to the administrative courts (1).

A second aim of this Bill is to rationalize the procedures. As a one-stop shop, OFPRA will have sole jurisdiction in regard to conventional asylum and subsidiary protection. A single procedure: OFPRA will determine the nature of each asylum application when processing the case, thus precluding the submission of successive applications for the same reason but on different legal grounds. There will be a single appeal, to the Refugee Appeals Commission.

This rationalization of our asylum system will expedite the processing of applications, without reducing the protection afforded asylum seekers. Their uncertainty will be of shorter duration. The reform will disadvantage only those who were counting on the length of the procedure to stay on as long as possible on our territory, in violation of our law.

Guarantees to asylum seekers will be extended, notably as concerns consideration of the merits of their application, the presence of counsel at hearings, and judicial appeal with suspensory effect for both types of asylum.

The question of calling asylum seekers in for interview is still in urgent need of resolution. Thanks to the debate in the National Assembly, applicants are now guaranteed the right to argue their case. But your Commission des lois proposes to adopt the principle of asylum seekers being called for interview, with clearly specified exceptions. I welcome this input, which will reassure those who were worried about the government's intentions.

Simpler and more efficient, a single procedure for the examination of applications will be introduced.

As before, prefectures will be authorized to receive asylum applications, regardless of their nature, and to grant applicants permission to stay. Every applicant will be heard by an official from the appropriate department of the prefecture. Many European Union countries consider this stage equivalent to formal interview: we offer a better quality of service.

Consideration of the validity of applications will henceforth be the sole responsibility of OFPRA. As your Committee notes: "France is the only one of the Fifteen European Union member States where applications for asylum are considered under the supervision of the Foreign Ministry."

A third feature of this Bill is that it takes account of the realities of the law of asylum in a spirit of EU harmonization.

The example of Sangatte has shown the drawbacks of having different asylum policies in different members of the EU. Lack of coordination in the treatment of the right of asylum would destabilize the EU, and differences within the Schengen area would inevitably be reflected in secondary migration flows, which we must avoid.

We made a start with the Treaty of Amsterdam. The EU directives still under discussion, which the European Council of 16 and 17 October said it would like to see finalized by the end of 2003, introduce a number of concepts which strengthen protection because they are more grounded in reality.

First of all, the criterion of the State origin of persecution is to be abandoned.

Since the signature of the Geneva Convention in 1951, the source and the nature of the acts of violence which justify the right of asylum have changed. Whole regions are now beyond the control of States. Local population groups may be under the sway of militias which terrorize them. These kinds of violence are poisoning society, these incursions by criminal gangs often linked to terrorism are resulting in "grey" or lawless areas.

From now on, refugee status may be granted even if the threats of persecution come from non-State agents.

A second concept, internal asylum, will allow OFPRA not to entertain an asylum application from a person who would have access to protection in a part of the territory of his or her country of origin and could reasonably be sent back there without fear of harm. In many places, international or regional organizations provide protection for endangered population groups in areas which have been made secure, as in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Côte d'Ivoire and the Democratic Republic of Congo. France has shouldered her responsibilities by contributing to the success of these missions.

We must welcome the emergence of this new form of collective security, based on the legitimacy of the United Nations. Would it not be inconsistent if we mobilized the international community to establish safe havens, and then rejected the idea that people could find refuge there? How can we expect our fellow citizens to understand us contributing to peacekeeping operations, but refusing to accept the implications for the management of the right of asylum of the population groups concerned?

To show our confidence in this new form of security, let us act to ensure that people remain where they are once they are no longer in danger. Granting them asylum would send a signal to the persecutors who are just waiting for the international community to pull out. This would mean cutting people off from their environment, from their roots. It would mean that once peace had returned, those people would again face the uphill struggle of reintegration in society. Granting them asylum would mean encouraging the flight of the lifeblood of the region, making its reconstruction more difficult.

I could never bring myself to believe that asylum elsewhere is preferable to asylum in one's own country. The notion of internal asylum is used by most of our European partners as well as in the United States, Canada and Switzerland.

The third concept is that of the safe country of origin, i.e. States under the rule of law where acts of persecution could not be committed, authorized or remain unpunished.

Everyone understands that an asylum application is treated differently depending on whether it comes from a State under the rule of law or from a dictatorship. It is a mechanism comparable to that of the so-called "cessation clause" of the Geneva Convention, which OFPRA applies to refugees whose country has again become safe and which in 1993 was extended to apply to asylum seekers entering France.

This is not a matter of systematically rejecting asylum applications from nationals of safe countries of origin, nor of considering them inadmissible, but of processing these applications according to an accelerated procedure, the so-called "priority" procedure, with the guarantee that every case will be considered on its merits in conformity with our Constitutional provisions.

At European level, we must quickly draw up a joint list of countries presumed to be safe, on the basis of agreed criteria which can easily be revised to take account of changes in the international situation. The recent meeting of Interior Ministers in La Baule confirmed this principle, and the urgent need to act on it.

This list will probably be annexed to the directive now in preparation. By that time, the governing body of OFPRA, which includes UNHCR and civil society representatives, will have been instructed to draw up a provisional list.

Funding for additional personnel for OFPRA and the Refugee Appeals Commission was committed in the 2003 Finance Act.

This effort is ongoing. I endorse the conclusion reached by your Foreign Affairs Committee when it stressed that "it is essential to continue the productivity effort already set in train and to guarantee the human and material resources devoted to rights and to current applications".

At the end of 2002, 35,000 cases were outstanding, compared with just over 15,000 by the end of this year. This means that the number of cases decided by the OFPRA rose from 40,000 in 2001 to over 65,000 in 2003. At this rate, OFPRA will soon be processing applications in four months on average, compared with more than eight months at the end of 2002. We shall reach the target of two months set by the President Chirac in summer 2004.

This would not have been possible without the concerted efforts of OFPRA's staff, or without additional funding. After an increase of 125% in three years, the subsidy to OFPRA and CRR will reach EUR 36.2 million for 2004. This amount covers among other things the creation or consolidation of 196 extra posts. I know I can count on your watchful support, as expressed in the reports of your two Committees.

Your Foreign Affairs Committee rightly considers that "the overall cost of the asylum policy must be better known". It proposes to create specific schemes in the programmes of each ministry involved in dealing with asylum, and to set up a centralized interministerial policy project, under the direction of the Foreign Ministry. Whatever ministry may be chosen to lead this effort, I take note of this constructive proposal which is in line with the spirit of goal-oriented management of the institutional act relating to the Finance Acts.

This reform is designed to restore the full scope and significance of France's tradition of opening her doors to the oppressed. Aside from considerations of efficiency and equity, I consider it to be a matter of honour for our country.

Two centuries ago, the Constituent Assembly undertook a commitment before men and before history. The fighters for liberty, the victims of oppression, the banished must be received with dignity. And it is no longer tolerable that their arrival in our country should be synonymous with waiting, anxiety and injustice.

The failings of our asylum machinery must no longer be allowed to generate uncertainty and insecurity. Restoring the strength of the right of asylum will enhance France's standing in the world. It will confirm our country's commitment to freedom in all its forms. Breathing new life into the right of asylum means affirming before the world that France continues to live by her values and her traditions, that she remains committed to the principle of justice which should be our guide as we build the new world.

(1) From her past, France has inherited two types of court. When the State, a local authority or a public service is involved, the administrative courts have jurisdiction, the Conseil d'Etat being the highest one. All other disputes are referred to the ordinary, i.e. civil and criminal courts./.