3Revision of EU rules on reception conditions for asylum seekers
|
Committee’s assessment |
Politically important |
|
Not cleared from scrutiny; further information requested; opt-in decision recommended for debate on the floor of the House together with Council document 11316/16, a proposal for a Regulation on standards for the qualification of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted and amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents and Council document 11317/16, a proposal for a Regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the European Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU; drawn to the attention of the Home Affairs Committee |
|
|
Document details |
Proposal for a Directive laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) |
|
Legal base |
Article 78(2)(f) TFEU, ordinary legislative procedure, QMV |
|
Department |
Home Office |
|
Document Numbers |
(37969), 11318/16, COM(16) 465 |
Summary and Committee’s conclusions
3.1What treatment should individuals fleeing persecution or armed conflict be entitled to receive if they apply for international protection within the EU? Can differences in treatment create “pull factors” which draw applicants to Member States offering more generous conditions, making it harder to ensure a more equitable distribution of asylum seekers amongst Member States?148 The Commission’s proposed revision of the 2013 Reception Conditions Directive seeks to respond to both of these questions by ensuring that all Member States provide “sufficient and decent reception conditions” while an application for international protection is being examined and reducing “wide divergences” in the reception conditions currently provided by Member States. The changes form part of a package of reforms to the common European asylum system—the body of EU laws determining who qualifies for international protection, the procedures applicable to asylum claims and how asylum seekers are to be treated while their claims are being examined—which is intended to guarantee that asylum seekers are treated in “an equal and appropriate manner” wherever they are in the EU.149
3.2The current 2013 Reception Conditions Directive establishes common minimum standards for the treatment of asylum seekers covering access to healthcare, housing, schooling, vocational training and employment. It also sets out the circumstances in which asylum seekers may be detained and the conditions of detention. The Commission considers that further harmonisation is needed to establish more equal reception standards which ensure “dignified treatment” and a fairer distribution of asylum seekers across the EU and to reduce “reception-related asylum shopping and secondary movements” between Member States. The Commission recognises, however, that full harmonisation is neither feasible nor desirable given the “significant differences in Member States’ social and economic conditions”.150 It has therefore proposed a new “recast” Reception Conditions Directive which retains many of the features of the 2013 Directive but also includes new elements which Member States will have to incorporate in their national asylum laws. The changes to reception conditions are the only element of the Commission’s reform package which does not take the form of a directly applicable Regulation. The Commission’s aim is to develop a common European asylum system which is both “effective and protective”, ensures “full convergence” between national asylum systems, reduces incentives for secondary movements, and strengthens mutual trust between Member States.151
3.3The Immigration Minister (Mr Robert Goodwill) notes that all of the proposals forming part of the Commission’s reform package are subject to the UK’s Title V (justice and home affairs) opt-in. He recognises the importance of minimum reception standards for individuals applying for international protection within the EU and sets out the factors which the Government will take into account in deciding whether or not to opt into the proposed Directive. He accepts that there is “some merit” in the argument advanced by the Commission that action at EU level is necessary to ensure greater convergence in reception conditions, reducing the incentives for “asylum shopping and secondary movements”, but suggests that “there is equally an argument that Member States could achieve this individually”.152
3.4The UK’s patchwork participation in EU asylum measures complicates the task of analysing the impact of the proposed Directive on asylum law and practice in the UK. If the Government decides to opt into this proposal on reception conditions, we expect the Minister to provide a full analysis of the changes that would be needed to bring UK law into line with common EU standards, as well as his assessment of their overall impact on international protection standards in the EU.
3.5The Minister accepts that there is some merit in the Commission’s argument that greater harmonisation of reception conditions at a level which ensures the dignified treatment of asylum seekers may contribute to a reduction in “asylum shopping” and secondary movements between Member States. He then adds that “there is equally an argument” that Member States could achieve these objectives individually. In weighing the justification for EU action, we expect the Government to assess the strength of the arguments for and against and come to a clear conclusion on the relative benefits of regulating at EU or national level. If, as the Minister appears to suggest, the Government’s preference would be for the UK to set its own standards, we ask him to explain whether and how unilateral national action would produce the degree of convergence in reception conditions needed to prevent secondary movements on the scale witnessed in the EU in recent months.
3.6It is disappointing that the Minister has so little to say on the substance of the proposed Directive. We note that the provisions on material reception conditions continue to draw a distinction between a level of support ensuring “an adequate standard of living” and more limited support (imposed as a sanction for non-compliance with the conditions set out in the proposal) ensuring “a dignified standard of living”. Does the Minister believe that a meaningful distinction can be drawn between an “adequate” and a “dignified” standard of living and is such a distinction made in the UK’s domestic asylum laws?
3.7Unlike all the other measures forming part of the Commission’s asylum reform package, which take the form of directly applicable Regulations, the proposed changes to reception conditions are included in a Directive which must be given effect in Member States’ domestic laws. The Commission attributes the choice of a Directive to “significant differences in Member States’ social and economic conditions” which mean that it is neither “feasible nor desirable” to seek full harmonisation. It therefore intends to strengthen the role of the proposed EU Agency for Asylum in promoting “a uniform implementation of reception standards in practice”, based on operational standards developed by the Agency and regular monitoring.153 Does the Minister agree that the degree of oversight envisaged for the Agency is appropriate and necessary to secure effective convergence in the provision of reception conditions by Member States?
3.8The Commission emphasises the interdependence of its asylum reform package, with each component forming “an indispensable part” of a comprehensive overhaul of the common European asylum system based on “common, harmonised rules that are both effective and protective” and designed to ensure “full convergence” between national asylum systems within the framework of “a well-functioning Dublin system”.154 Given the scale and ambition of the reforms, and the importance of reception conditions in ensuring dignified treatment of individuals while their applications for international protection are being examined, we consider that the proposed Directive should be included in the opt-in debate we have recommended on the other elements of the asylum reform package. We suggest that the debate should consider the merits of the Commission’s reform package, the legal, practical and political feasibility of opting into some, but not all, of the reform proposals, and the wider implications for the UK once it has left the EU. We would like to hear whether there are any elements of the reform package which the Government would wish to replicate in its own domestic asylum laws or practices once the UK has left the EU and what impact differential rules on reception conditions in the EU and the UK may be expected to have on the UK asylum system post-Brexit.
3.9The proposed Directive remains under scrutiny. As well as providing the information we have requested, we ask the Minister for an indication of the initial reactions of other Member States to the Commission’s reform package and progress reports on any negotiations that take place before the opt-in debate. We draw this chapter to the attention of the Home Affairs Committee
Full details of the documents
Proposal for a Directive laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast): (37969), 11318/16, COM(16) 465.
Background
UK participation in the common European asylum system
3.10The common European asylum system has been phased in over a number of years. The UK participates fully in the Dublin system, a set of procedural rules supported by an asylum database (Eurodac) which allocate responsibility for each application for international protection made within the EU to a single Member State—usually the Member State through which an individual first entered the EU. It also participates in the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). The Commission proposed a first set of reforms in May which focus on changes to the Dublin system and the transformation of EASO into the European Union Agency for Asylum with stronger powers to monitor and improve the overall functioning of the common European asylum system.155
3.11The Commission’s second (and final) set of reforms, published in July, propose changes to substantive EU asylum laws determining who qualifies for international protection, the procedures applicable to asylum claims and how asylum seekers are to be treated while their claims are being examined. The package also includes a proposal for a structured EU resettlement framework which is intended to reduce the flow of irregular migrants by providing safe and legal pathways to the EU for third country nationals who are in need of international protection. Although the UK opted into the first raft of substantive EU asylum laws adopted between 2003 and 2005, it did not opt into (and so is not bound by) further changes to EU asylum laws agreed between 2011 and 2013. It is these later EU asylum laws which the Commission’s recent reform proposals seek to change. All of the proposals are subject to the UK’s Title V (justice and home affairs) opt-in, meaning that the UK will only be bound by them if the Government decides to opt in.
The Reception Conditions Directive
3.12The UK opted into, and remains bound by, the 2003 Reception Conditions Directive but has not opted into the recast 2013 Reception Conditions Directive. The main difference between them is that the 2013 Directive has a broader scope, encompassing individuals whose claim for international protection may result either in refugee status or subsidiary protection status, whereas the 2003 Directive only encompasses individuals applying for refugee status under the UN Refugee Convention unless Member States choose to extend its application to other forms of protection.156 Another significant difference is the absence of any provisions on the detention of asylum seekers in the 2003 Directive. By contrast, the 2013 Directive includes extensive provisions on the circumstances in which an asylum seeker may be detained, the conditions of detention and the rights of a detained applicant. The 2013 Directive also includes more detailed provisions on unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable applicants, the education of asylum-seeking children, access to the labour market, healthcare and other “material reception conditions” covering housing and other essentials, such as food and clothing.
3.13The Commission has consulted Member States and other stakeholders on its asylum reform proposals. It reports that most Member States favour further harmonisation of reception conditions, including a more consistent approach to measures restricting the freedom of movement of applicants for international protection, but views differ on the circumstances in which essential items, such as food and clothing, should be provided “in kind”. Other stakeholders continue to caution against the risk that further harmonisation may lead to a lowering of reception standards and underline the need for Member States to retain the flexibility to provide more favourable reception conditions. They also highlight difficulties in applying the concept of an “adequate” or “dignified standard of living” under the 2013 Reception Conditions Directive and support the development of operational standards and indicators on reception conditions by the European Asylum Support Office. Most stakeholders (including Member States) see some value in reviewing the conditions in which asylum seekers may access the labour market in order to enhance integration prospects and promote self-reliance.157
3.14Based on its consultation, the Commission has rejected the idea of a common EU benchmark for determining the level of financial support to be provided to applicants for international protection for two reasons. First, most Member States use a combination of financial support and “in kind” benefits. Second, the Commission notes that current levels of financial support are in most cases “well below all the possible benchmarks or thresholds examined (at risk of poverty threshold, severely materially deprived threshold, and minimum income threshold)”. Harmonising support levels would therefore mean increasing the level of support in many Member States and could result in more favourable treatment being given to applicants for international protection than to Member State nationals facing destitution or who are otherwise economically disadvantaged.158
The proposed recast Directive
3.15The changes proposed by the Commission are intended to ensure greater consistency in reception conditions across the EU and in Member States’ capacity to guarantee “dignified treatment” at all times, even when confronted by a disproportionate influx of individuals seeking international protection.159 They also complement the Commission’s proposed revision of the Dublin rules by making an individual’s entitlement to the full range of reception conditions conditional on being present in the Member State responsible for examining the substantive application for international protection.
3.16The changes included in the proposed recast Directive are informed by a “reception conditions mapping exercise” undertaken by the European Asylum Support Office earlier this year which revealed considerable variation in Member States’ understanding of material reception conditions, the way in which they are provided, and the reasons for reducing or withdrawing them, as well as differences (ranging from one to nine months) in the time frame for allowing access to the labour market.160 In the following paragraphs, we summarise the main changes proposed by the Commission and their intended purpose.
Further harmonisation of reception conditions
3.17The proposed recast Directive would, as now, apply to all third country nationals and stateless individuals who apply for international protection within or at the external border of a Member State. It would, however, introduce a number of changes which are intended to promote greater convergence in the treatment of applicants for international protection. The changes include:
- Removal of the right to access full reception conditions if an individual is in a Member State other than the one designated as responsible for his or her asylum application under the Commission’s proposed reform of the Dublin system: one of the principles underpinning the Dublin reforms is that asylum applicants do not have a right to choose where their application is lodged or examined. The revised Dublin rules would accordingly require irregular migrants (those whose entry is unauthorised) to apply for international protection in the Member State of first entry; those who have entered the EU lawfully would be required to apply in the Member State in which they are legally present.161 The proposed Directive would sanction non-compliance with the Dublin rules by removing the right to access education and schooling, the right to access the labour market and vocational training, and the right to other material reception conditions, including housing. Despite these restrictions, Member States nevertheless remain under an obligation to ensure “a dignified standard of living” for all applicants, as well as access to healthcare and to “suitable education activities” pending a transfer to the responsible Member State designated by the Dublin rules.162
- Guarantees that any exceptions to the material reception conditions specified in the proposed Directive must, in any event, ensure access to healthcare and “a dignified standard of living”: Member States may, as now, apply different reception standards for individuals who have special reception needs or to overcome temporary housing shortages, but the proposed Directive introduces a new requirement to report any exceptional measures to the proposed EU Agency for Asylum and to ensure dignified treatment.163
- Extension of the definition of family members to include relationships formed after leaving the country of origin but before arriving in the Member State in which international protection is sought: the change would ensure consistency with the proposed revision of the EU Qualification Directive and, the Commission believes, reduce the risk of irregular movements between Member States for the purpose of family reunification.164
- An enhanced role for the European Asylum Support Office/EU Agency for Asylum: the proposed Directive would introduce a new requirement for Member States to “take into account” any operational standards, indicators or guidelines on reception conditions developed by the EASO/Agency and to cooperate with the new monitoring and assessment role envisaged for the Agency which is intended to identify deficiencies in Member States’ implementation of the common European asylum system and seek to address them as early as possible.165
- Contingency planning: Member States would be required to draw up (and update every two years) a contingency plan demonstrating how they would be able to ensure adequate reception conditions in the event of a disproportionate number of individuals applying for international protection. The proposed EU Agency for Asylum would have to be notified of the plans and their activation, and would have a role in monitoring their adequacy.166
- Special reception needs: the definition of an applicant with special reception needs would be extended to include any individual requiring special guarantees to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations set out in the proposed Directive.167 The proposal would require Member States to assess on a systematic basis whether each applicant for international protection has any special needs. The initial assessment should be undertaken as early as possible in the asylum procedure by trained personnel and may include a referral to a doctor or psychologist.168
- Appointment of a guardian for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children: the proposed Directive would require a guardian to be appointed within five working days of the date on which an application for international protection is made and stipulates that guardians should not be placed in charge of a disproportionate number of children.169
Reducing incentives for secondary movements
3.18The Commission considers that “wide divergences” in reception conditions have made some Member States more attractive for asylum seekers and contributed to secondary movements within the EU. The proposed recast Directive would introduce a number of restrictions on free movement in an effort to ensure that applicants for international protection remain in the Member State responsible for examining their application. The changes proposed include:
- Early provision of information on rights and obligations: Member States would be required to provide information as soon as possible (and, at the latest, when lodging an application for international protection) using a standard template developed by the proposed EU Agency for Asylum. The information should make clear that applicants are only entitled to access material reception conditions in the Member State designated by the Dublin rules as responsible for examining their asylum application.170
- Restrictions on freedom of movement: whilst the proposed Directive would maintain the right to move freely within the host Member State or within an assigned area, it would extend the grounds on which a Member State may require an applicant to reside in a specific place and, in such cases, makes the provision of material reception conditions (housing, food, clothing and other essential items) conditional on actual residence in the specified place. The new grounds for restricting movement are intended to facilitate the “swift processing and effective monitoring” of applications for international protection and/or the Dublin procedures for determining the responsible Member State and to prevent applicants from absconding once the responsible Member State has been determined. Member States may also impose reporting obligations on applicants considered to be at risk of absconding.171 The proposed Directive includes a new definition of “absconding” and of applicants at risk of absconding. The definition is intended to encompass “both a deliberate action to avoid the applicable asylum procedures and the factual circumstances of not remaining available to the relevant authorities, including by leaving the territory where the applicant is required to be present” under the Dublin rules. 172 Any decisions restricting freedom of movement must be based on an applicant’s “individual behaviour and particular situation”, set out the reasons in fact or law which are relied on, and be subject to appeal.173
- Clearer grounds for obtaining a travel document: applicants for international protection would only be entitled to a travel document for “serious humanitarian or other imperative reasons” and its validity and duration would be similarly limited. According to the Commission, “other imperative reasons” could include essential travel for work purposes.174
- A broader and more consistent definition of material reception conditions: the definition of material reception conditions in the 2003 and 2013 Reception Conditions Directives includes housing, food and clothing provided in kind, as financial allowances or as vouchers, as well as a daily expenses allowance. The Commission notes that some Member States also provide non-food items, such as sanitary products, whereas others do not. The proposed Directive would include essential non-food items within the definition.175
- More limited flexibility to reduce or withdraw material reception conditions: the proposed Directive would make clear that Member States may not reduce or withdraw an applicant’s entitlement to accommodation, food, clothing and other essential items if present in the Member State designated as responsible for his or her asylum application under the Dublin rules. It does, however, expand the circumstances in which Member States may reduce or (exceptionally) withdraw an applicant’s daily allowance or provide material reception conditions “in kind” rather than in the form of financial allowances or vouchers.176
- A limited expansion of the grounds on which an applicant may be detained: the proposed Directive would allow Member States to detain an applicant if he or she has been instructed to reside in a specific place and his or her non-compliance creates a risk of absconding.177 The Commission makes clear that the applicant must have been made aware of the consequences of non-compliance and that detention on any of the grounds envisaged in the proposed Directive is only justified on the basis of an individual assessment and if other less coercive measures cannot be applied effectively.178
Enhancing integration and self-reliance—improved labour market access
3.19The 2003 Reception Conditions Directive envisages that applicants for asylum should have access to the labour market within a year of making their claim, but leaves it to each Member State to determine the conditions of access. The 2013 Reception Conditions Directive requires Member States to provide labour market access within nine months of lodging an application for international protection and, in determining the conditions of access, to ensure that it is “effective”. The Commission considers that early access to the labour market helps to reduce dependency and reception costs, encourages self-reliance and enhances integration prospects. The proposed Directive would therefore require Member States to grant access to their labour markets within six months of lodging an application for international protection unless the application is being examined under an accelerated procedure on the grounds that it is likely to be unfounded.179 The Commission suggests that access should be granted sooner—within three months—if the application is likely to be well-founded.180 The proposed Directive makes clear that labour market access should be “effective” and in full compliance with labour market standards. Member States would be required to ensure equal treatment with Member State nationals in relation to working conditions, health and safety requirements, freedom of association and affiliation, education and vocational training (but excluding grants and loans for this purpose), recognition and validation of qualifications, and social security. Member States may impose some restrictions, including on access to family and unemployment benefits.
Legal base and subsidiarity
3.20The proposed recast Directive is based on Article 78(2)(f) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which provides for the adoption of EU measures establishing “standards concerning the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum or subsidiary protection”. The Commission considers that action at EU level is necessary to address “large differences in reception conditions between Member States and a lack of operational standards for dignified treatment of applicants” which contribute to “reception-related asylum shopping and secondary movements” within the EU. The Commission adds:
“More equal reception standards set at an appropriate level across all Member States will contribute to a more dignified treatment and fairer distribution of applicants across the EU.”181
The Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum of 8 September 2016
3.21The Minister explains that the UK opted into and remains bound by the first Reception Conditions Directive, adopted in 2003, but did not opt into the recast 2013 Reception Conditions Directive. As some provisions of the latest Commission proposal replicate those already enshrined in the 2013 Directive, the changes (if the Government were to decide to opt in) would be more extensive for the UK than for other Member States already bound by the 2013 Directive.
3.22The Minister does not attempt “an exhaustive discussion” of all aspects of the proposed recast Directive but sets out the Government’s view on “the main thematic areas”.
Further harmonisation of reception conditions
3.23The Minister “recognises the importance of minimum reception standards for applicants for international protection”, with national authorities determining how they should be provided.182 He welcomes the inclusion of additional provisions on the reception of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, noting that the obligations concerning the appointment and monitoring of guardians “are in line with UK policy”.183
Reducing incentives for secondary movements
3.24The Minister notes that “the migration crisis has highlighted the challenges presented by large scale secondary movements of asylum seekers” and welcomes measures to discourage such movements. He highlights, in particular, the possibility of requiring an applicant for international protection to reside in a specific place, adding:
“We note that a decision to assign such residence may be required when an applicant has not complied with their obligations, for example, if an applicant does not make an application for international protection in the Member State of first irregular or legal entry.”184
Increasing integration prospects
3.25The Minister says that it is Government policy to “prioritise access to employment for those who are lawfully present in the UK”. He continues:
“As the UK remains bound by the Directive 2003/9/EC, the time limit for access to the labour market which applies is twelve, rather than nine months. In the UK, asylum seekers are only allowed to work if their asylum claim, or further submission, has been outstanding for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. Those who are allowed to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list, which was introduced in the last Parliament under the Coalition Government.
“The Government believes that it is entirely appropriate to restrict access to employment to protect the resident labour market for British citizens and those with leave to remain in the UK, including those admitted under the Immigration Rules for employment or business purposes and those granted protection. It also serves to discourage those who do not need international protection from claiming asylum for economic reasons to benefit from employment opportunities that they would not otherwise be eligible for.”185
Subsidiarity
3.26The Minister describes the objectives of the proposed Directive—to ensure greater convergence in reception conditions in the EU, thereby reducing incentives for secondary movements and increasing integration prospects—and recognises that “there is some merit to the argument” that these objectives can be better achieved by action at EU level. He continues:
“There is equally an argument that Member States could achieve this individually. The Government considers that the UK would also be able to set its own standards.”186
The UK’s Title V opt-in decision
3.27The Minister reiterates in familiar terms the Government’s current position on the outcome of the referendum on UK membership of the EU:
“On 23 June, the EU referendum took place and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation.”187
3.28He confirms that the UK’s Title V (justice and home affairs) opt-in applies to the proposed Directive and that the three month opt-in deadline for notifying the UK’s opt-in decision is expected to expire on 8 December (time starts to run from the date on which the last language version is published). The Minister sets out the factors that will help to inform the Government’s opt-in decision, adding that “the Government is committed to taking all opt-in decisions on a case-by-case basis, putting the national interest at the heart of the decision making process”. The main factors are:
- “the extent and likelihood to which we think the proposal could be improved and whether any unacceptable elements could be removed during negotiations, if we do opt in;
- “our opt-in decisions on the asylum reform package as a whole, which includes Dublin, Eurodac and EU Agency for Asylum proposals published earlier in the year;
- “the implications of being partially, but not fully, involved in a reformed Common European Asylum System;
- “the implications of not opting in for our broader relationship with the EU and its institutions, and with other Member States bilaterally—in particular for our ability to promote our own agenda in EU fora and to secure co-operation and support from other Member States on immigration and wider areas of Justice and Home Affairs; and
- “the result of the referendum on the UK’s relationship with the EU and negotiations on the UK’s exit from the EU.”188
Timetable for negotiations
3.29Following a “high-level presentation” of the key features of the proposed Directive to the Council in July and a short exchange of views, detailed negotiations are expected to begin in September. The Minister considers than an agreement is unlikely to be reached this year. He explains:
“It is clear that discussions of this text will of necessity run in conjunction with those for the other Commission proposals presented at the same time by the Commission and also those presented in May, in particular concerning the reform of the Dublin and Eurodac Regulations, which have procedural elements (the Dublin Regulation representing a procedure that is part of the overall asylum procedure).”
Previous Committee Reports
None on this document, but see our earlier Report on the Commission Communication, Towards a reform of the Common European Asylum System and enhancing legal avenues to Europe: Thirty-third Report HC 342-xxxii (2015–16), chapter 3 (11 May 2016) and our Reports on the first package of EU asylum reform proposals (proposed Regulations on the Dublin rules, Eurodac and the EU Agency for Asylum): Sixth Report HC 71-iv (2016–17), chapter 1 and chapter 2 (15 June 2016) and Seventh Report HC 71-v (2016–17), chapter 1 (6 July 2016).
148 The term “asylum” and “international protection” are used interchangeably in this chapter. They encompass claims which result in the conferral of refugee status under the UN Refugee Convention and other forms of subsidiary protection which are not a direct result of individual persecution but where an individual would be at risk of “serious harm” (including from armed conflict) if returned to his or her country of origin.
149 See p.2 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Directive.
150 See p.6 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Directive.
151 See p.2 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Directive.
152 See paras 16–17 of the Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum.
153 See p.6 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast.
154 See p.3 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed Regulation.
155 See our Sixth Report HC 71-iv (2016–17), chapter 1 and chapter 2 (15 June 2016) and our Seventh Report HC 71-v (2016–17), chapter 1 (6 July 2016).
156 See the UN Refugee Convention chapter1 which explains the difference between refugee status and subsidiary protection status.
157 See pp.7–8 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Directive.
158 See p.8 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Directive.
159 See the Commission’s infographic on the main changes proposed in the recast Directive.
160 See pp.8–9 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Directive.
161 See our Sixth Report HC 71-iv (2016–17), chapter 1 (15 June 2016).
162 See Article 17a of the proposed recast Directive.
163 See Article 17(9) of the proposed recast Directive.
164 See Article 2(3) of the proposed recast Directive and p.11 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposal.
165 See Article 27 of the proposed recast Directive and our Seventh Report HC 71-v (2016–17), chapter 1 (6 July 2016).
166 See Article 28 of the proposed recast Directive.
167 See Article 2(13) of the proposed recast Directive. It includes a new illustrative list of individuals who may have special reception needs.
168 See Article 21 of the proposed recast Directive.
169 See Article 23 of the proposed recast Directive.
170 See Article 5 of the proposed recast Directive.
171 See Article 7 of the proposed recast Directive.
172 See Article 2(10) and (11) of the proposed recast Directive and p.13 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposal.
173 See Article 7(7) and (8) of the proposed recast Directive.
174 See Article 6 of the proposed recast Directive and p.14 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposal.
175 See Article 2(7) of the proposed recast Directive.
176 See Article 19 of the proposed recast Directive. The new circumstances include non-compliance with Dublin rules requiring an individual to apply for international protection in the Member State of first entry (if an irregular migrant) or of legal entry, evidence of absconding, failure to take part in compulsory integration measures, and a serious violation of the rules of the applicant’s accommodation centre or seriously violent behaviour.
177 See Article 8(3)(c) of the proposed recast Directive.
178 See p.15 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Directive.
179 See Article 15 of the proposed recast Directive.
180 See p.15 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Directive.
181 See p.6 of the Commission’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Directive.
182 See para 23 of the Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum.
183 See para 25 of the Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum.
184 See paras 26–27 of the Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum.
185 See paras 28–30 of the Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum.
186 See paras 16–17 of the Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum.
187 See para 18 of the Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum.
188 See paras 20–21 of the Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum.
© Parliamentary copyright 2015
16 September 2016