2 Cooperation on asylum policy and practice
| (27309)
6520/06
COM(06) 67
+ ADD 1
| Commission Communication on strengthened practical cooperation — New structures, new approaches: improving the quality of decision making in the common European asylum system
Annexes to the Communication
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 17 February 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 22 February 2006
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 6 March 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | April
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee
|
Background
2.1 In 1999, the European Council approved a five-year programme
on justice and home affairs (The Tampere Programme). The European
Council:
"agreed to work towards establishing a Common European
Asylum [Policy]… .
"This System should include, in the short term, a clear
and workable determination of the State responsible for the examination
of an asylum application, common standards for a fair and efficient
asylum procedure, common minimum conditions of reception of asylum
seekers, and the approximation of rules on the recognition and
content of the refugee status. It should also be completed with
measures on subsidiary forms of protection offering an appropriate
status to any person in need of such protection. … .
"In the longer term, Community rules should lead to a
common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those who are
granted asylum valid throughout the Union."[6]
2.2 In 2004, the European Council adopted the Hague Programme,
a further five-year programme on justice and home affairs. The
European Council described the work that had been done under the
Tampere Programme as the first phase of the establishment of a
Common Asylum System. The Hague Programme says that:
- in the second phase, the Community will establish a common
asylum procedure and a uniform status for people granted asylum
or subsidiary protection;
- in 2007, the Commission should complete the evaluation of
the legislation on asylum adopted during the first phase;
- the Commission should propose the legislation required for
the second phase of establishing the Common Asylum System in time
for the Council to adopt it by the end of 2010;
- "appropriate structures involving the national asylum
services of the Member States" should be created "with
a view to facilitating practical and collaborative cooperation";
- these structures could help Member States develop:
- a procedure for the assessment of applications for international
protection;
- the joint compilation, assessment and application of information
about asylum-seekers' countries of origin;
- ways of dealing with the particular pressures on some Member
States' asylum systems because of their geographical location;
and
- after the common asylum procedure has been established, the
structures for cooperation should be transformed into a European
Support Office for all forms of cooperation between Member States.[7]
2.3 The main Council Directives on asylum which have already been
adopted concern:
- the determination of which Member State is responsible for
examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States
by a third country national (Dublin II);[8]
- reception conditions for asylum seekers;[9]
- minimum standards for the qualification and status of third
country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons
who otherwise need international protection;[10]
and
- common minimum standards on procedures for granting or withdrawing
refugee status.[11]
The document
2.4 The Commission's Communication makes proposals to give effect
to the Hague Programme's agenda for asylum policy.
2.5 The Commission argues that practical co-operation between
Member States will enable them to understand each other's systems
and share best practice, paving the way for the convergence of
asylum decisions. The Commission says that greater co-operation
will lead to a "common tool box" to help
asylum authorities in their day-to-day work.
2.6 The Commission says that it intends to set up an Asylum
Cooperation Network. It will be managed by the Commission
and will provide a means to exchange information, promote best
practice, contribute to completing the implementation of the first
phase of the Common Asylum System and help lay the foundations
for the second phase.
2.7 Some Member States, such as the UK and the Netherlands, already
have a single procedure under which the authority
that decides whether an applicant for asylum qualifies under the
Geneva Convention as a refugee also considers whether the applicant
is entitled to subsidiary protection on grounds such as fear of
torture, the death penalty or inhuman treatment. The applicant
is not required to make separate applications for different types
of protection; the authority makes one decision either denying
protection or granting it on any of the possible grounds; and
there is a single appeals process.
2.8 Some other Member States have one procedure for considering
applications for refugee status and other procedures for applications
for other types of protection.
2.9 In 2004, the previous Committee considered a Communication
in which the Commission advocated the adoption of a single procedure
throughout the EC.[12]
The Communication outlined a preparatory stage, in which the Commission
would consult on and evaluate Member States' existing procedures,
followed by proposals for legislation.
2.10 Annex B of the present Communication sets out in detail
the work the Commission will do before proposing legislation to
establish a single procedure.
2.11 Information about countries of origin (COI)
is used by asylum authorities to verify what they are told by
applicants about their need for protection. The Hague Programme
called for co-operation between Member States to compile, assess
and apply COI.
2.12 To this end, the Commission proposes the creation of a
"common portal", through which all Member States
could have electronic access to each other's COI, legislation
on asylum and case law. The Commission may also propose guidelines
on the production of COI. Moreover, in 2007, the Commission
will carry out a study of the costs, benefits and legal implications
of creating a single EU COI database. It recognises
that the database would be a major and expensive undertaking and
one for the longer term.
2.13 Details of the Commission's proposals on the common portal,
the guidelines and the EU COI database are given in Annex C of
the Communication.
2.14 Annex D discusses why and how the Community should support
individual Member States who are faced with particular pressures
on their asylum systems because of, for example, a large and unexpected
influx of asylum seekers. The Commission proposes that the Asylum
Cooperation Network should consider the possibility of setting
up expert teams to provide support for such things as emergency
accommodation, medical care and the processing of asylum applications.
2.15 The Commission adds that, in the medium to long term, it
will be necessary to ensure that more financial support from the
EC can be given more quickly to Member States facing exceptional
pressures. It intends to propose amendments to the European
Refugee Fund for this purpose.
2.16 The Commission says that common training for
the staff of asylum authorities is central to the implementation
of the Common Asylum System.
2.17 Looking to the longer term, the Commission says that it may
be necessary, after a common asylum procedure has been introduced,
to set up a European Support Office with responsibility
for all forms of co-operation between Member States.
The Government's view
2.18 The Minister of State at the Home Office (Mr Tony McNulty)
tells us that the Government supports practical co-operation between
Member States. But the Government:
- has reservations about the Commission's proposal to harmonise
the collation of country of origin information unless the harmonisation
could be done without compromising the UK's present standards
and without excessive cost;
- would not favour the creation of mechanisms to redistribute
asylum seekers within the EC States as a means of alleviating
pressure on particular Member States; and
- notes that the Commission's proposals for a "tool box",
the Asylum Cooperation Network and the Common Portal are not yet
clear.
2.19 The Minister adds that, when the Communication was discussed
in a Working Group in February, there was broad support for it
from all Member States but concerns were expressed about, for
example, the need for the Council, not the Commission, to take
the leading role. He says:
"The UK's position of emphasising gaining confidence
in each others' [sic] asylum systems, maintaining cooperation
through a non-legislative format and concerns about the inter-relation
of the Network with existing structures were well received and
backed in particular by Germany. Our concerns about COI were shared
in particular by the Netherlands."
Conclusion
2.20 The EC has already adopted legislation establishing common
minimum standards and conditions for asylum. We can well understand
why the Government believes that the emphasis should now be on
voluntary and practical co-operation between Member States.
2.21 It appears to us that the Government's pragmatic approach
differs sharply from that of the Tampere and Hague Programmes,
which look forward to yet further legislation to establish a common
asylum procedure which must be followed by all Member States and
a uniform status for everyone granted asylum and valid anywhere
in the Community. In our view, the concept of a common European
asylum system raises questions which go to the heart of national
sovereignty.
2.22 It is true that the UK would not be bound by EC legislation
to establish such a system unless it decided to opt into it. But
this Communication invites the UK and other Member States to endorse
proposals leading to a uniform system. We recommend, therefore,
that the document be debated in European Standing Committee in
time for the Government to take into account of the views of the
House during the Council's discussions of the Communication.
6 Tampere European Council, 15-16 October 1999, Presidency
Conclusions, Tampere Milestones, paragraphs 13-15. Back
7
Hague European Council, 4-5 November 2004, Presidency Conclusions,
Annex 1, section 1.3, pages 10 and 11.
Back
8
OJ No. L 50, 25.2.2003, p.1. Back
9
OJ No. L 31, 6.2.2003, p.18. Back
10
OJ No. L 304, 30.9.2004, p.12. Back
11
OJ No. L 326, 13.12.2005, p.13. Back
12
See (25831) 10471/04: HC 42-xxx (2003-04), para 15 (9 September
2004). Back
| 
