DETERMINING OBLIGATIONS AS BETWEEN THE
MEMBER STATES FOR THE READMISSION OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS
(20790)
12488/99
| Draft Council Regulation determining obligations as between the
Member States for the readmission of third-country nationals.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 63 (3) (b) EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| |
| Department: |
Home Office |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 21 February 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-vii (1999-2000), paragraph 6 (2 February 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further developments awaited
|
Background
3.1 This proposal provides a framework for
the determination of obligations as between the Member States
for the readmission of third-country nationals, including those
who may be returned to a Member State under the terms of any future
readmission agreement concluded by the Community with a third
country. As the proposal builds upon the Schengen acquis, the
UK is able to decide whether or not to participate in the measure.
When we last considered it (in February 2000), we asked the Minister
of State at the Home Office (Mrs Barbara Roche) two questions
about the Government's position, and agreed to keep the document
under scrutiny until further progress had been made in negotiations.
The Minister's letter
3.2 The Minister begins by telling us that
the Portuguese Presidency has indicated that it does not now intend
to pursue this proposal. She says:
"Although not withdrawn,
the proposal is effectively 'shelved' unless any future Presidency
decides to resuscitate it. The Government does not therefore intend
to make a decision on participation at this stage. Should the
proposal be revived, the Government will consider exercising its
opt-in on its re-presentation to the Council or on its adoption.
The Commission has, further, indicated its intention to incorporate
necessary elements of this proposal in any proposals for specific
EC readmission agreements which it brings forward as part of the
Free Movement Chapter work programme. These proposals will also
encompass the substance of the earlier initiative on a model readmission
agreement between the Community and a third country. Further work
on this proposal is also therefore unlikely."
3.3 The Minister then addresses our two
questions. In our first, we queried the Government's view that
the proposal was premature since negotiations on a Community-level
agreement on readmission were still at an early stage, while recognising
that the issue of UK participation might be problematic. We asked
the Minister whether we were right in assuming that the UK was
likely to opt in to both proposals or to neither of them.
3.4 The Minister responds as follows:
"Discussions on the
substance of a model Community-level readmission agreement are
at an early stage and are unlikely to be concluded in the near
future. We have considered it important that the details of the
model EC agreement should be developed before any further work
was considered on the substance of a proposal determining responsibility
for a third-country national between Member States, to ensure
that the latter proposal fully reflected the requirements of the
model EC readmission agreement.
"The UK does not currently operate any readmission
agreements as we have considered that there is the risk of adding
an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to a system of returns. The
Government is examining the proposals and will take into account
the possible effects of non-participation on the UK's ability
to return third-country nationals. The Committee is correct in
its opinion that, as the proposals are linked, the UK would in
principle be likely to decide to opt into both or neither proposal.
However, it remains a possibility that the Government may decide
not to opt into particular readmission agreements with third countries,
even if it were decided to opt into the proposal for a model EC
agreement, should individual agreements hold difficulties for
the UK."
3.5 Our second question related to the timescale
for the UK decision about participation. (The Protocol on integrating
the Schengen acquis gives the UK "a reasonable period"
within which to state its willingness to take part.) The Minister
replies: "We interpret the term 'a reasonable period' to
be three months, although this continues to be the subject of
discussion." (However, given her earlier statement about
the shelving of the proposal, the timetable is not relevant at
this stage.)
Conclusion
3.6 We thank the Minister for her response,
and for informing us about the Portuguese Presidency's decision
not to proceed with the proposal. However, given the sensitive
nature of the issues involved, we will maintain the scrutiny reserve
in case a future Presidency revives the proposal. We therefore
do not clear the document.
|
