3. We have given further
consideration to the first of the following. We maintain our
opinion[12]
that it raises questions of legal and political importance, but
now make no recommendation for its further consideration. We
consider that the second of the following raises questions of
political importance, but make no recommendation for its further
consideration:-
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION
(17290)
8204/96
COM(96)234
| Amended draft Regulation on operations to aid uprooted people (refugees, displaced persons and returnees) in Asian and Latin-American developing countries.
|
(17867)
5477/96
COM(97)6
| Re-examined draft Regulation.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 130w; co-operation; qualified majority voting.
|
Background
3.1 The aim of this draft
Regulation is to provide a specific legal base for existing Community
action. An early version[13]
included a preamble which stated that no displaced person must
be forced to return to his country of origin and that any repatriation
must accord with the wishes of the person concerned, although
that reference was not included in the Common Position. In her
earlier Explanatory Memorandum (dated 12 July 1996), the Minister
for Overseas Development (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) noted
that the Government was concerned that this should not be interpreted
to preclude provision of assistance to refugees who had been forcibly
repatriated. That interpretation could, for instance, cause difficulties
with regard to the repatriation by the Hong Kong Government of
Vietnamese "boat people". When we considered the document
on 16 October 1996, we decided not to clear it until the legal
implications had been clarified and we had seen the text to be
put to the Council for final adoption.
The re-examined proposal
3.2 In this re-examined
proposal the Commission, following an amendment put forward by
the European Parliament, has included the following recital at
(6b) of the preamble, which reinstates the disputed point:
"Whereas
there is need to uphold the 'non-refoulement'[14]
principle and the proper legal resolution of violations of human
rights;"
The Government's view
3.3 In a letter (dated
18 February) the Minister noted that the European Parliament had
again proposed inclusion of a preambular reference to non-voluntary
repatriation and this had been included in the Commission document.
In her attached Explanatory Memorandum, the Minister says that
this has once again been deleted, following discussion at official
level in Brussels.
Conclusion
3.4 Although the text
before us today is not the final version, we are content that
the preambular reference will not appear in it and that the earlier
concerns of the Government have been satisfactorily dealt with.
We clear both documents.
12 (17290) 8204/96; see HC 51-xxix (1995-96), paragraph 7 (16 October 1996). Back
13 (17290) 8204/96; see HC 51-xxvi (1995-96), paragraph 3 (17 July 1996). Back
14 Non-voluntary repatriation. Back
|
