---

European Union (Amendment) Bill

moved Amendment No. 3: 3: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after ““excluding”” insert— ““(i) Article 2, paragraph 65, relating to border checks, asylum and immigration; and (ii) ”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said of a previous appearance of mine on another Bill that I was making my cameo appearance. I just want to say that this is my cameo appearance on this Bill. Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 tabled in my name are based on those that were tabled in Committee but were withdrawn because of lack of time. Amendment No. 3 is a probing amendment to discuss the issues of borders, asylum and immigration. There is not a huge amount in the Bill on these matters; indeed, there are only two small clauses, but they cover an extremely important area. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 focus more specifically on the two areas where we feel that the Government have failed to provide clarity or sufficient reassurances on the future development of European Union policy in these areas. Regardless of the differing opinions that noble Lords will have on the benefit of the changes, I am sure that no one will disagree with me when I say that the changes that the treaty of Lisbon will make to the implementation of the UK’s asylum and immigration policy are both fundamental and wide-ranging. The UK will no longer have a veto over the new treaty objectives to develop a common European asylum system and a common European immigration policy. Moreover, the European Court of Justice has extended its remit extensively, especially over asylum cases. These changes will have a very real effect not only on the procedures that will govern proposals at the EU level but also on how our national asylum and immigration policy will have to be implemented from day to day. Many of these changes relate to issues that, as with so many of the concerns that noble Lords have raised today and in Committee, the Government themselves raised while the constitution was being drawn up. I do not have much hope of receiving a meaningful response as to why the Government have changed their tune in these areas, but I feel that a few questions should be raised anyway. One of the concerns was around the status of third-country nationals seeking asylum. The Government sought to resist the new uniform status that will be valid throughout the Union. It was considered by Peter Hain to be a ““fundamentally important amendment””, as the provision would go against the United Kingdom’s previous understanding about how the European asylum system would operate. Therefore, it was at government level that the concern was raised. There were other concerns, too—on asylum burden sharing, on the end of the veto on legal migration and on the possibility of EU interference in asylum seekers’ access to labour markets and social security. On all these, the Government failed to have their own amendments accepted, yet they now refuse to acknowledge that our continuing concerns have any foundation. The Government claim that the red lines will hold by means of the opt-out possibility. However, as my noble friends have made clear, what safeguards remain are not easy or often even desirable to implement. There are already clear indications that in the future the United Kingdom will be forced to make some unpalatable decisions as a result of the loss of our national veto. For example, the Government wish to remain part of the Dublin II agreement, which brings with it benefits such as the ability to deport 100 asylum claimants a month back to the country from which they first entered the European Union. However, last November, Commissioner Franco Frattini made clear his intention to update the agreement to include burden sharing, which we understand the Government do not wish to participate in. Can the Minister give us any indication of whether the Government will opt out of this agreement entirely, or will they reluctantly submit to the EU deciding the UK’s involvement in interstate transfers of immigrants and financial support? Similarly, will the Government opt out of the reception conditions directive, which sets minimum standards on the treatment of asylum seekers, or will they accept the Commission’s plans to insist that asylum seekers have the right to work? Finally, I would like to probe the extended remit of the European Court of Justice. Geoffrey Hoon identified that weakening the safeguards around a claimant’s right to appeal, in his words, "““might be an opportunity of further complicating our existing asylum and immigration process””." What steps do the Government plan to take to prevent this from happening? I beg to move.