My Lords, I thank noble Lords again for speaking to this group of amendments. I appreciate the thoughtful and well-meaning intent of Amendment 68, but we cannot accept it. The definition of “persecution” is well established and must be on the basis of a refugee convention reason—namely, race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. It is reiterated in Clause 30(1)(c) that persecution can be committed by
“any non-State actor”
where the state is
“unable or unwilling to provide reasonable protection”.
Given the level of protection afforded to EU nationals, through fundamental rights and freedoms, EU countries are inherently safe, and individuals are exceptionally unlikely to be at risk of persecution. If individuals experience discrimination, they can seek protection from within their country of nationality.
That said, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, might be comforted to have it confirmed that our processes already acknowledge that it may not be appropriate to apply inadmissibility to EU national claimants in exceptional circumstances. The list of exceptional circumstances included in the provisions is not exhaustive; it looks to protect individuals in the very rare circumstances that a member state is at risk of a serious breach or where there exists a serious and persistent breach of the values under the Treaty on European Union, including equality.
5.30 pm
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned the EU. Poland and Hungary have already had Article 7 proceedings commenced against them. We would therefore not make those claims inadmissible until the criteria in the provisions are no longer applicable.
The amendment could see the UK accepting more claims from EU nationals coming from fundamentally safe countries. This would place more pressure on our asylum system and reduce our ability to focus our efforts and resources on those most in need of our help and protection. If EU nationals do not want to return to their home country, they are free to exercise their treaty rights in other EU member states. They should seek to do that rather than travel to the UK to claim asylum. It is right that we place that expectation on EU nationals to reduce pressure on our asylum system.
These provisions to consider asylum claims from EU nationals as inadmissible are part of a well-established process in the UK. This was previously provided for under the “Spanish protocol”, which provides that EU nationals claiming asylum in other EU member states can be considered inadmissible, and is currently provided for under our Immigration Rules. Parliament had the opportunity to scrutinise these measures when they were placed in the Immigration Rules, and considered them to be fair and just.
This Government are clear that people should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach rather than making dangerous journeys to the UK to claim asylum here. On that point, let me address at this juncture the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that no one could come here as it would not be the first safe country. They can fly here directly, of course, or apply through safe and legal routes; the right reverend Prelate should have a copy of those in his inbox. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about joining family members, refugee family reunion is perfectly possible under several different Immigration Rules.
I understand the spirit of Amendments 69, 69A and 73A in seeking to define a safe third state to ensure that an individual removed to that country is provided with adequate protection, and that their individual rights as a refugee are recognised under the refugee convention.