10 Implementation of the Directive on
reception standards for asylum seekers
| (29216)
15802/07
COM(07) 745
| Commission Report on the application of Directive 2003/9/EC laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 14 January 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 16-vii (2007-08), chapter 9 (9 January 2008)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date fixed
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Previous scrutiny of the Report
10.1 When we considered this Report in January 2008, we noted
that the Council had adopted four Directives on asylum.[39]
One of them — the Reception Standards Directive of 2003
— sets minimum standards for the assistance asylum seekers
should receive while their applications are being considered.
Member States may introduce or retain higher standards if they
wish. The standards cover such things as the applicant's rights
to information, documents, free movement, education, health care
and access to the labour market.
10.2 The Directive requires the Commission to evaluate
the implementation of the Directive and report its findings by
6 August 2006. In the event, the Commission did not publish the
Report until November 2007, over a year late. It gave no explanation
for the delay.
10.3 The Commission found that the Directive had
been transposed satisfactorily in the majority of Member States
but identified some failures. It asserted that some of the UK's
arrangements were not compliant (for example, it said that the
UK did not apply the Directive to asylum seekers kept in detention
centres).
10.4 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 14 December
2007, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office
(Meg Hillier) rejected the Commission's criticisms and questioned
the accuracy of nearly all the Report's references to the UK.
She said that the Government would take up the points with the
Commission.
10.5 We welcomed the Minister's frank and robust
assessment of the Commission's Report. We asked her to tell us
what response she received from the Commission and to obtain an
explanation for the Commission's failure to comply with the statutory
timetable for the production of the Report. We decided to keep
the document under scrutiny pending the Minister's reply.
The Minister's letter of 14 January 2009
10.6 On 18 June, we received a reply to our questions.
It was written by the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration
at the Home Office (Mr Phil Woolas) and was dated 14 January 2009.
Neither we nor the Home Office can explain why we did not receive
the letter last January.
10.7 The Minister apologises for the delay in providing
the information for which we had asked. He says that the Government
had told the Commission its concerns about the Report's inaccuracies
and that:
"The Commission's position is that they have
noted our concerns but will not issue a corrigendum at this stage,
as they do not perceive any substantial implementation problems
in the UK (if they did, they would start infraction proceedings
against the UK). We are also aware from discussions that other
Member States have had similar concerns about the accuracy of
information in the Report."
10.8 In response to our question about the reason
for the Commission's failure to meet the statutory timetable for
the production of the Report, the Minister tells us that, according
to the Commission, the delay:
"was because the Commission at first put the
report forward as a Commission Staff Working Document which could
be issued in English only. However, the Commission then decided
that it should be issued as a Communication meaning that it required
translation into 22 languages which took additional time."
Conclusion
10.9 Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that the Commission's
Report contained inaccuracies. In our view, such evaluations are
devalued if they contain factual errors. It is also unsatisfactory,
in our view, that the Commission has not issued a correction.
We suggest that the Government should seek an assurance from the
Commission that, in future, it will send Member States the drafts
of factual reports and that any necessary corrections will be
made before publication.
10.10 In our view, the reason for the delay in
producing the Report reflects poorly on the Commission's administrative
competence.
10.11 We have no further questions to put to the
Minister and we now clear the Report from scrutiny.
39 See HC 16-vii (2007-08), chapter 9 (9 January 2008). Back
| 
