CREATING A EUROPEAN REFUGEE FUND
(20948)
5635/00
COM(99) 686
|
Draft Council Decision creating a European Refugee Fund.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 63(2)(b) EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| |
| Department: |
Home Office |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 14 April 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-xi (1999-2000), paragraph 5 ( 8 March 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
Background
8.1 This is the first comprehensive proposal
for funding provision for refugees to be brought forward as a
First Pillar measure. When we considered it in March, we noted
that the Government could choose whether to opt in to the measure,
in accordance with the provisions in the Protocol on the position
of the United Kingdom and Ireland now annexed to the EC Treaty
and the Treaty of European Union. We decided not to clear the
document, but to ask for further information about the Government's
view of the proposal, and its eventual decision about participation.
8.2 Since our Report, the proposal has been
approved, in the framework of the simple consultation procedure,
by the European Parliament — although that body put forward
a considerable number of amendments. It was also discussed at
the March JHA Council, where it was clear that important questions
still remained to be resolved.
The Minister's letter
8.3 The Minister of State at the Home Office
(Mrs Barbara Roche) has now written to us, responding to our questions,
and informing us that the Government has written to the President
of the Council in order to opt in to the proposal. She explains
the reasons for the decision as follows:
"Since my EM, we have
continued to reflect on the merits of this proposal to the UK
and we have participated in preliminary discussions within the
EU. It now seems likely that a financial reference amount, which
would act as a cap on expenditure for the five year period, will
form part of the agreed final decision. This would effectively
reduce the impact of those elements of the proposal which are
less attractive to the UK. It would mean that we were aware of
the maximum liabilities and enable the selection of a management
structure commensurate with the level of funding. I have therefore
decided that the UK should exercise its opt in under the terms
of our protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam."
8.4 She then addresses our first question:
"Turning to your questions,
you noted that the fund would operate more effectively once minimum
standards had been adopted, and wondered whether opting in to
the Refugee Fund would commit the UK to opting in to those minimum
standards. Our decision to opt in to the Fund will not constrain
the UK in relation to our participation in any further measures
setting minimum standards for the asylum process. Although the
fund will operate more effectively with such minimum standards,
it can, and will initially, operate freely without them. Our decision
to opt in to the Fund does not imply that the UK will necessarily
opt in to these later measures. However, as I mentioned in the
EM, our general policy is to opt in to measures which do not impinge
on the maintenance of our frontier controls."
8.5 Our second question related to the distribution
of resources. In her EM, the Minister suggested that relating
numbers of applicants and recognised refugees to the population
of a Member State might more effectively deliver one of the Fund's
objectives than simply considering the average number of applicants
and recognised refugees, as put forward in Article 9 of the proposal.
However, she has clearly changed her mind. She tells us:
"As to your other point,
we have reflected further on the allocation of resources proposed
in article 9. As expected, some Member States have pressed for
a mechanism which reflects numbers of asylum seekers in relation
to population, but we have not supported that approach. It would
alter the allocation of funds only slightly, and would add nothing
in terms of meeting the objectives of the proposal. We therefore
favour an allocation based on article 9 as currently drafted,
whilst being prepared to consider minor adjustments to the formula.
There is an argument that the objective of improving Member States'
reception infrastructure could be met more directly by expanding
the scope of article 4 [which deals with the funding of 'innovatory
actions or actions of interest to the Community as a whole'] to
permit expenditure in these areas. We think there is merit in
that argument, subject to sensible constraints."
Conclusion
8.6 We thank the Minister for her response,
and welcome the Government's decision to participate in this measure.
We note her reluctance to make any commitment to participation
in any further measures relating to minimum standards for the
asylum process, but detect that her caution is couched in terms
which are more positive than negative. Again, we welcome this
approach.
8.7 We are now content to clear the document,
although we will, of course, wish to see any further texts which
may be produced before the proposal is submitted for political
agreement.
|
