| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I have followed this issue and was a member of that sub-committee for several years. I compare the United Kingdom with Denmark in its whole attitude to this: we are fully prepared to co-operate as far as possible provided that we do not have to admit it to our public or our media. What we want to do is to have a large formal opt-out and an awful lot of informal opt-ins which we hope the Daily Mail will not notice. That is what we have done and what we continue to do, and I suspect that the Minister will tell us-not quite so bluntly, though he is wonderfully blunt on occasion-that that is what the Government wish to do on this occasion. It results in increasing confusion and great difficulties for anyone trying to understand, in a paradise for lawyers, and a purgatory for officials. That is the direction in which I fear we are now drifting.
After all, Her Majesty's Government do have options. They can say that they have confidence in the negotiating skills of our Ministers and officials as we move from Commission proposals to agreed directive. We have potential allies-like-minded partners-with whom we can find coalitions to support our preferences, and we have to have a certain willingness to seek mutually acceptable compromises. That is the way in which many of us think we have to work through European and international co-operation.
On the other side there is the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph image that foreigners in Brussels cook up appalling new rules and impose them on the innocent and powerless English. We hear this occasionally from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others in this House. We recognise that at the moment there is a panic over migration in Britain and that the Government suffer almost as much as the Conservatives from pre-election fears of stirring-up fantasies of EU-enforced liberalisation in the press. Thus-I am sure that this does not apply to the Minister-there are many among the Labour Party's spin doctors who are frightened of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and Viscount Rothermere, and even more frightened of Sir Andrew Green.
UK interests are strongly at stake in this. Indeed, I recall Tony Blair, as Prime Minister, saying some years ago that Britain's frontiers are now on the Mediterranean. We know that the trickle of irregular immigrants and asylum seekers comes through Asia Minor and North Africa. When I was in Greece last spring I discovered that it has a camp of illegal immigrants in Patras. People arrive, flooding into Greek islands, but want to get through there to the northern and western members of the EU, including, of course, the United Kingdom.
We therefore have strong interests in working with others for common laws. Not only that, but we do actually work with others very closely. We have liaison officers in every other European member state and in others, and we have Border Agency staff working in France and in other countries. In practice on the
12 Jan 2010 : Column 489
Of course one hears none of that from the Government let alone from the Conservatives. The gap between the realities of co-operation and the sense that we are outside this continental co-operation-with its threats to English common law, English policing and British border controls-is at the root of our problems. I fear that in the run-up to the general election the Government will accept the frightened option of deciding not to opt in, but I hope that the Government, with Ministers of the intelligence and judgment of the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, will accept that it is in our interests to opt in and then to negotiate carefully and positively.
8.58 pm
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am glad that we have had longer to debate the report than we initially thought. I had wondered whether, had we been confined to the dinner hour, I could transfer my time to my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Avebury, who could keep us going on the substantive issues-not only the procedure-for the whole of the dinner hour and longer.
It is a pity that our proceedings do not enable us to hear from the Minister early in the debate so that we could be clear about the Government's current thinking. I am not clear about it from the Explanatory Memorandum and I wonder, picking up on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, whether school students would not find the way we go about these matters slightly back to front. However, I prefer to think of this as the Government still wishing to listen rather than giving a fixed position. I hope the Minister can tell us where the Government have got to.
I have been perplexed by some of the contents of the report-not the way it is framed but by some of the issues that have been raised. If, to use the vernacular, there is an opt-out, it seems a little odd that we are faced with disputes about interpretation and impact. There is something wrong with the procedures-but not in this building-if it is not clear whether the first- phase measure will continue to apply. It would be abundantly clear to your Lordships that these Benches support the committee's recommendations. One might say that what the committee has said is even stronger than a recommendation in its normal meaning. Twice it urges-that is the term it uses-the Government to opt in; I doubt that the committee could have been more forceful.
As has been said, consistency across the EU is of fundamental importance in these issues. The Minister, Meg Hillier, referred to the migration pact. Her statement included in paragraph 21 of the report, which seems to me to be internally inconsistent, reads:
"The UK believes these directives are not necessary"-
12 Jan 2010 : Column 490
I could see that it might be one or the other. I find it difficult to understand that something might be not necessary because it undermines. The argument that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, so clearly put forward about opting-in allowing for subsequent negotiation, answers Meg Hillier's point very clearly. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is important as well. It involves not just negotiation on these particular directives but our future position on the original work.
I intend not to go through every detail but to pick a handful of instances. In response to many of the points in the Explanatory Memoranda arguing against the directives, one must say, "Yes, but what harm does it do?". References have been made to the points about unaccompanied minors. We are told that the changes would reflect the UK's existing practice. I read-today of all days, with news on the court's decision on Section 44-a certain sensitivity about our position in Europe; one can understand that sensitivity.
On Articles 11 and 18, the Government do not like being required to continue protection for people who no longer require it. The memorandum overlooks the need to,
Again, it seems to me that the memorandum has not really picked up the issue in the correct way. On the procedures directive, I have already mentioned the comment that it is not necessary and it undermines. There is a clear difference of view. The committee welcomed the proposal in that it meets the concerns in the first-phase directive. The UNHCR said the directives would contribute to, rather than undermine, the objective of swift and fair decision-making and would improve standards and the application of basic safeguards. As has been said, there are not just powerful arguments; powerful and very respectable organisations are making these arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said of the Explanatory Memoranda that in future the Government must do better. I am afraid I am going to be even more blunt. I think that these Explanatory Memoranda are poorly argued, they make assertions not arguments and they are really rather mean-minded.
9.04 pm
Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, this debate has certainly reflected the complexities of European legislation in this area and the challenges to ensuring proper scrutiny that it throws up. I agree with a number of the previous speakers who have stressed the importance of what we are discussing, and I am grateful for the clarity with which a number of them, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and my noble friend Lord Jopling have set out the issues that we need to be aware of in taking a view on what is in front of us.
There are two sets of issues: procedural issues, and the question of the practical effect of the European directives on our existing asylum procedures and the asylum situation in this country. I shall spend a moment on the second aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, explained with extreme clarity what is involved here
12 Jan 2010 : Column 491
A number of noble Lords have mentioned that while the Government broadly support the objectives of the Hague programme and the intentions to streamline standards and simplify the law, they have not opted in to one previous revision and have a number of reservations about the changes currently proposed through the qualifications directive and the asylum procedures directive. No doubt the Minister will take us into further detail about the Government's reservations and what the proposed revisions could achieve. From our Benches, the worry is that the opposite of simplification and streamlining could be the result.
The Government themselves recognise that many of the proposals would, to quote from the Government's own Memorandum to the committee,
It is fair to say that this anxiety applies in particular to the asylum procedures directive and the proposals in it to place restrictions on the use of accelerated procedures, which would be calculated to prevent the UK from certifying claims as clearly unfounded. We take the view that the powers and procedures to do those two things are deterrents against false claims.
We cannot ignore the situation that we are currently in. There are great pressures on the UK's asylum system. I cannot help feeling that if these further obligations were taken on, it would increase the problems that are already inherent in the way that the Government run the asylum system. The UK receives more asylum applications than any country in Europe other than France. In 2008 this totalled 30,500 applications, including dependants, a 10 per cent increase from the previous year. This is a big administrative burden, which often turns into a judicial one.
The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, referred to this country's proud record of granting asylum. I agree with him and he is right, but we cannot ignore the fact that our asylum procedures and the applications for asylum in this country cause great trouble and that the system is creaking. I shall give an example. One needs only to look at the number of failed asylum seekers in the UK, which is estimated to be between 155,000 and 283,000 people.
The Public Accounts Committee has said that it will take between 10 and 18 years to clear the backlog of asylum cases; other speakers mentioned this and perhaps draw a different conclusion. The Government have said that this backlog can be cleared by 2011. Could the Minister explain the basis for this confidence that the backlog can be cleared so much faster than the Public Accounts Committee thinks it can? Could the Minister say what progress the Home Office Case Resolution Directorate has made in dealing with these legacy cases? Does he accept that, particularly for those who have been in the country for many years,
12 Jan 2010 : Column 492
We can also look at the time taken to process asylum applications. The Home Office's aim is to give half of asylum applicants a decision within one month of application and 80 per cent of applicants a decision within two months. These are very laudable aims. The National Audit Office's analysis last year indicated that the department still has a very long way to go to achieve this. Of the 27,702 asylum decisions made from January 2007 to June 2008, case owners had made a decision within 30 days in 16 per cent of cases and decided a further 17 per cent of cases within 30 to 60 days. I do not suggest that these are dilatory officials. These cases pose great complexity for those trying to decide them.
The Public Accounts Committee has said that the process of coming to decisions on whether to grant asylum is still too slow. It must be right about that, though we have to acknowledge the difficulties involved. This has further increased the backlog of cases that will need to be dealt with. In other words, there is not much evidence that the whole thing is being speeded up.
The UK's asylum system is already under significant pressure. So, the question is: what would the effects of adopting and opting in to these procedures be on an already difficult situation? It is very hard to see how it would do anything other than make it even harder to come to a final decision, given the complex problems that the UK now faces in this area. As the Government themselves acknowledge, the revisions to the qualification directive can result in member states granting asylum to those who are not in any need of EU protection, and the measures on unaccompanied minors could undermine efforts to reduce the scourge of human trafficking. That is something that we cannot ignore. Let me be clear. Our view is that the implications of the proposed changes in these procedures, far from helping, would actually make what is an already bad situation even worse.
The Government have not indicated whether they will opt in to the proposed changes, although they have made clear that they have some quite significant reservations, and certainly on these Benches we have some reservations. The Select Committee is of the view that the Government are more concerned about the asylum procedures directive than the qualification directive. Is this actually the case? Also, could the Minister give your Lordships' House an indication of the extent to which the Government think that the proposals can be improved through negotiation? This is obviously a very key point. It is a point that has been made by other speakers who take the view that you opt in and then get your result through negotiation. I wish I shared the confidence of the committee and other speakers that, by opting in, the UK would get the changes that it wanted and needed.
At issue is this question: which is the best way to protect UK interests? We are all here to protect UK interests and so I hope that we will honour that point between us. What is the right way to do it? If the Government decide to opt out, they will nevertheless
12 Jan 2010 : Column 493
Our position on these Benches is very clear. My right honourable friend David Cameron said that if we on these Benches are elected, we will introduce a UK sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, and resides with Parliament, and that we will negotiate for a return of powers in the criminal justice area. It is particularly important for decisions about asylum to be taken by the British Government. The key part of the Stockholm programme for 2010 to 2014 is a proposed common EU asylum policy. We are on a path here; this is not the end of the road. This would introduce a central processing system for all EU asylum applications, and the quotas for each country would then be set. One has to ask what criteria would be taken into account, and what about the wishes of the individuals concerned? We on these Benches are pretty clear that the ultimate decision on who should be allowed to enter the UK must be made by the national Government.
The Government have said that they are considering the implications of not opting in to these revised directives for their broader, and bilateral, relationship with the EU and other member states, particularly the effect on their ability to secure co-operation and support from other member states on immigration and on wider areas of justice and home affairs. That is a perfectly legitimate point for the Government to take into account, but I come back to the central issue that we must consider here: the effect on asylum policy. Moreover, the UK's asylum policy is already compatible with many of the duties that the Hague programme would impose on it, so does the Minister accept that the UK can very well meet international standards and procedures without the need to give up its power to make independent decisions about asylum?
I am sure most noble Lords would agree that there is a need for greater scrutiny of European legislation, subject to the UK opting in. The procedural Motion laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, arises, as he has said, from undertakings given by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, as Leader of the House during debates on the European Union (Amendment) Act. The Procedure Committee has not yet come to a decision on the procedure to be adopted in the circumstances that we face tonight. I understand that the committee hopes to resolve this at its next meeting on 2 February, and its recommendations will then be put to the whole House for a decision. That is obviously the right procedural order.
It is obviously perfectly appropriate that the House should discuss the directives, so that noble Lords can put on record now their views on the policies concerned and on the recommendations of the Select Committee report before us. That is what I have attempted to do. However, it would not be appropriate for the Motion
12 Jan 2010 : Column 494
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I have a very simple question. When this House approved the Lisbon treaty, did it not approve explicitly the concessions made by the Leader of the House that opt-ins would be debated and taken on an amendable Motion? That is not open to variance by the Procedure Committee. Will she confirm that is the case?
Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, I do not think I am in a position to confirm that that is the case. That is a matter for the Procedure Committee and it is obviously a matter for this House.
Baroness Neville-Jones: Well, we shall see. We do not believe that it would be appropriate for the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, to be pressed tonight, as that would prejudge the Procedure Committee's recommendations and the House's decision on the correct approach to handling such business. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to support the noble Lord, Lord Roper, when he seeks to withdraw his Motion at the end of our debate.
9.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, I am very grateful to the European Union Select Committee for organising this debate and to all noble Lords who have contributed to it. As has already been explained most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, another naval person, this debate is the first of its kind and is intended to enhance Parliament's role in scrutinising the application of our opt-in for justice and home affairs business. As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, stated, this is very important for the House for that reason. With that in mind, I welcome the points made this evening and in the committee's report as a means of informing our deliberations on opt-in in relation to the two proposals for directives on asylum.
The noble Lord, Lord Roper, asked whether there was an opportunity post the eight-week period for any inputs to come in, because it is after eight weeks that the Cabinet committee takes the collective government decision. I reassure him that, because this will not happen immediately on the conclusion of that eight-week period, there will probably be two or three weeks when further influence can be exercised in relation to that committee. But that said, there will be occasions in the future where debates are going on in Europe which mean that we shall need to take very quick decisions. In those cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, concluded, it will be preferable to receive views as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and a number of other noble Lords talked about tightening up procedures and how the procedures should go. I agree with that very good point. This needs to be looked at very
12 Jan 2010 : Column 495
The enhanced scrutiny process does, none the less, reserve to the Government the final decision concerning the UK's participation in such measures and I must say that these directives do cause us real concerns. Consequently we would not be able to support a Motion urging us to opt into them. The key question for us will be whether the directives will help us to maintain the grip that we have now got on the UK's asylum system. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, touched on this. The past few years have seen substantial improvements. Asylum intake is at less than a third of its 2002 peak. We have transformed the asylum system by introducing end-to-end case management by a single case owner. We now conclude more than 60 per cent of asylum cases within six months. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said some kind words about UKBA on that. However, I do not agree with him that a legally binding time limit is the best way of bringing this down even more. I think that probably practical co-operation with other member states is a better way of doing that. The key principle that drives our approach is very simple-those who need protection should get it quickly and those who do not should be sent home.
Our decision-making system was the first in the world to have its quality assurance endorsed by the UNHCR, and where protection is needed, we will provide it proudly. But we need to recognise that the majority of asylum claims are not well founded and are rejected-78 per cent in the last quarter and 72 per cent in the quarter before that, according to the most recently published statistics. Unfounded claims are often abusive claims, and dealing with them diverts resources that would be much better spent on genuine refugees, whom we want and need to support.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |