---

Asylum: EUC Report

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"—" I emphasise those words— ""at this time as they undermine the migration pact"." 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, ""invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution"." 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.