3 Procedures for granting and withdrawing
asylum
| (31046)
14959/09
COM(09) 554
+ ADD 1
+ADDs 2-4
| Draft Directive on minimum standards for Member States' procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast)
Commission staff working paper: article by article explanation of the draft Directive
Commission staff working paper: impact assessment and summary of assessment
|
| Legal base | Article 63(1)(d) and (2)(a) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Home Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 30 March 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 5-i (2009-10), chapter 3 (19 November 2009) and HC 5-viii (2009-10), chapter 3 (27 January 2010)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Previous scrutiny
3.1 When we considered this proposal in November 2009, we
noted that the Council had adopted a Directive in 2005 on Member
States' procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status.[8]
The Commission's original draft of the 2005 Directive contained
common minimum standards. But, in negotiation, the Council amended
the draft to allow Member States wider discretion. The Commission
believes that this has led to disparate national arrangements
and deficiencies in, for example, the procedural guarantees for
asylum seekers.
3.2 So, in October 2009, the Commission proposed the repeal
of the 2005 Directive and its replacement by a new ("recast")
Directive which would re-enact some of the provisions of the existing
Directive, omit others and amend the rest with the aim of remedying
the deficiencies and moving closer to a truly common asylum procedure
and a uniform status for people seeking protection. For example:
- The draft Directive says that its purpose is to establish
minimum procedural standards for granting or withdrawing "international
protection". It defines "international protection status"
as recognition by a Member State of a third country national or
stateless person as a refugee or person eligible for subsidiary
protection.[9]
- Article 4(2) of the draft Directive contains
a new mandatory requirement about the matters to be included in
the training of officials who examine applications for international
protection.
- Article 17 of the draft Directive contains a
new mandatory duty on Member States to allow applicants who ask
for it an impartial medical examination in order to support claims
of past persecution or serious harm.
- Article 27(6) of the draft Directive reduces
the grounds on which a Member State may accelerate the examination
of an application for international protection.
3.3 When we considered the draft Directive last
November, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home
Office (Meg Hillier) told us that the Government was concerned
that the draft Directive would impede Member States' ability to
tackle abuses of the asylum system. For example:
- The Government did not question
the need for medical reports in some cases, but was concerned
about the proposed requirement in Article 17 for Member States
to allow medical examinations on request because it would encourage
applicants who have not got medical needs to ask for a medical
examination so as to delay the processing of their applications.
- The Government did not believe that the use of
the accelerated procedure for the examination of applications
should be restricted in the way proposed in Article 27 of the
draft Directive.
3.4 We noted that the Government had opted into
the 2005 Procedures Directive and its major reservations about
the Commission's proposals for a recast version of it. We questioned
whether the training requirements in Article 4(2) were consistent
with the principle of subsidiarity. We asked the Minister to raise
the point with the Commission and in the Council working group
and to tell us the response. We also asked her for progress reports
on the negotiations.
3.5 In the reply the Minister sent us in January,
she said that the Government was concerned that the draft Directive
would prevent the UK from operating the Detained Fast Track procedure.
She told us that the accelerated procedure provides fast and fair
decisions and resulted in the removal, between April 2008 and
September 2009, of over 1200 people whose applications for asylum
had not been granted, with 97% of the decisions being upheld on
appeal.
3.6 The Government's discussions with other Member
States indicated that many of them shared the UK's opposition
to parts of the draft Directive. The negotiations were likely
to be long and difficult. There was a real risk that the draft
Directive, when the negotiations have been completed, would contain
provisions which the Government could not accept. So the Government
had not opted into the draft. But the Government would continue
to take part in the consideration of the proposal because, if
the grounds for the UK's objections were removed, the way would
be open for the Government to opt in after the adoption of the
Directive.
3.7 In the report we made to the House on 27
January, we said that we understand why the Government had not
opted into the draft Directive but would continue to take part
in the negotiations on it. We asked the Minister for further progress
reports and kept the draft Directive under scrutiny.
The Minister's letter of 30 March 2010
3.8 The Minister's letter tells us that the discussion
of the draft Directive in the Council working group has underlined
how complex and confusing many of the provisions are. She says,
for example, that "the difference between an "accelerated"
and a "prioritised" procedure in Article 27(5) and (6)
has become increasingly unclear".
3.9 She also tells us that the Government has
put to the working group our doubt whether the training requirements
in Article 4(2) of the draft Directive are compatible with the
principle of subsidiarity. She says that other Member States have
supported our concern and that the Commission has offered to discuss
the matter.
3.10 It is unlikely that the European Parliament
will vote on the draft Directive before September.
Conclusion
3.11 We are grateful to the Minister for her
letter. It shows that, as we expected, the negotiations in the
Council working group are proceeding very slowly and that the
UK is not alone in its concerns about the draft Directive. We
should be grateful for further progress reports and, meanwhile,
will keep the document under scrutiny.
8 See HC 5-i (2009-10), chapter 3 (19 November 2009). Back
9
A refugee is a person who, because of a well-founded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion,
is outside his or her country of nationality and is unable or
unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that
country; or a person who is stateless and unable or unwilling
to return to the country of his or her habitual residence because
of such fears of persecution.
Subsidiary protection
is the status given to people who do not qualify as refugees but
who are at risk of serious harm if returned to their country of
origin.
Back
| 
