As Christian organisations, we hold the fundamentalbelief that those who are threatened with persecution should be offeredsanctuary. We heartily welcome attempts by the European Union to create acommon system that will "[a]bsolutely respect the right to seek asylum....[and] ensure that nobody willbe sent to a country where he faces the renewed risk ofpersecution"1 As the member states affirmed at the Tampere Summit in October 1999: "It would be in contradiction withEurope's traditions to deny such freedom to those whose circumstances leadthem justifiably to seek access to our territory".The European Commission has acknowledged the need to "tak[e] acount ofprotection needs in legitimate measures to combat illegal immigration":the best possible asylum system is of limited value if those individualswho are in need of protection are unable to access the territory in orderto avail of it. In this context, therefore, wewelcome the opportunity to comment on the proposals of the FrenchPresidency regarding the harmonisation of carrier sanctions and penaltiesfor traffickers.2 We offer our commentsas a general statement of principles that also apply to such measures asmay be proposed in this areaby the Swedish Presidency.

It has always been recognised that refugees often do not havetime to acquire the full documentation normally required to enter anothercountry, and the 1951 Convention makes explicit provision for thisscenario3. Those fleeingpersecution may be refused passports and/or exit visas by the authorities;indeed, where those authorities are themselves responsible for the persecution feared, it may be too dangerous toapproach them. Many refugees come from collapsed states where there are nocentral authorities to issue documents. Even where a refugee has apassport, he or she has a further hurdle to overcome in attempting to acquire a visa from thecountry of destination.

We do not believe that the provision for a waiver of the fine inrespect of those migrants who are admitted to the asylum procedure is anadequate safeguard to ensure carriers allow refugees to enter intomember state territory. Carriers’ personnel are untrained in asylum and immigration law,and cannot be expected to decide which passengers have a valid asylumclaim. They have no incentive to ensure that such a person gains access to theterritory, whereas they face a heavy penalty if the person is subsequentlydenied access to the procedure. Making the exemption dependent on a positive outcome in the asylumapplication is even more problematic, as it requires the carrier tosecond-guess a complex determination process.As a result, faced with a would-be asylum-seeker with inadequatedocumentation, it can only be assumed that the carrier would err on theside of safety (for itself) and deny access. The carrier is punished forallowing access to a person with irregular migration status, but is not punished foreffectively carrying out refoulement a refugee, which is a breach ofinternational law.

It is deeply regrettable that the French presidency proposals fail to distinguish between trafficking of migrants, which implies adegree of exploitation, often sexual, of its victims, and betweensmuggling, which is the facilitation of irregular border crossing, absentexploitation.4 The latter may be carried out as a result of deep humanitarianconviction, and indeed, may result in lives saved. Until such time asthere is acommon European asylum system that genuinely facilitates access to theterritory by those with protection needs, many refugees have no other wayof reaching a place of safety.

• To truly tackle the problem of trafficking, we believethat it is necessary to explore other means of ensuring access to theasylum system. To this end, we welcome the European Commission'sexploration of alternatives, such as resettlement5 . However, as the Commission notes, any such system must operate withoutprejudice to spontaneous arrivals of asylum-seekers. In order not to forcesuch spontaneous arrivals to resort to traffickers, it is necessary tofacilitate access;abolishing carrier sanctions is a necessary part of this, but notsufficient in itself to overcome all difficulties. We welcome theCommission's proposals of "facilitating the visa procedure in specificsituations to be determined"6, by which we understandthat visas should be issued where there are evident protection needs. Itis also essential that border officials be better trained and morereceptive to asylum applications; we believe that the Union-wide prevalence of in-country asylum applications isdue to an often justifiable lack of confidence by asylum-seekers in borderprocedures.