THE RIGHT TO FAMILY REUNIFICATION
(20806)
—
COM(99)638
|
Draft Directive on the right to family reunification.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 63(3)(a) EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| |
| Department: |
Home Office |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 26 April 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-vi (1999-2000), paragraph 3 (26 January 2000) and
HC 23-xii (1999-2000), paragraph 1 (15 March 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 We have considered this document on
two previous occasions. Last time (in March), we decided not to
lift the scrutiny reserve because, although the Minister of State
at the Home Office (Mrs Barbara Roche) had answered the majority
of our questions, there were still some outstanding issues.
2.2 As the legal base of this draft Directive
falls within Title IV of the EC Treaty, the UK has three months
from the formal publication of the proposal in which to decide
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).
The Minister's letter
2.3 The Minister has now written to tell
us that the Government has decided not to opt in to the proposal.
She says:
"We have given full
and careful consideration to the UK's position and took into account
the comments of NGOs and the Scrutiny Committees. We reached the
decision not to opt into the proposal because of concerns that
doing so would remove the UK's ability to formulate and adjust
policies in relation to family reunification as a matter of domestic
law.
"I can, however, assure the Committee that in
remaining outside this proposal it is not the Government's intention
that the UK should be seriously out of line with our European
partners in this important area of immigration policy. For that
reason we shall continue to participate fully in discussion of
the text."
Conclusion
2.4 We thank the Minister for informing
us about the Government's decision not to opt in to this proposal.
As, however, this is the first time that we have been given formal
notice about such a decision under 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
have a number of questions about the procedure and about the decision
itself:
(1) under the Protocol,
the UK is required to notify the President "within three
months after a proposal or initiative has been presented to the
Council" about its decision. Is the expectation that this
timescale will be rigorously observed? Did the UK notify the President
about the current proposal within the three-month timescale?
(2) if the Government does not wish to
opt in to the measure, why is it continuing to participate fully
in discussion of the text? And why is it concerned not to be seriously
out of line with other Member States in this "important area
of immigration policy"? (It does not appear to have such
concerns about the maintenance of its frontier controls.)
(3) if the Government does not opt in
to the measure, how will it ensure that it stays in line with
other Member States in this area?
2.5 We remind the Minister that we are
still waiting for a response to the questions we raised in our
last Report about the situation for British nationals exercising,
and not exercising, Treaty rights (paragraph 1.9 of that report).
She also undertook to let us know the comments of the NGOs who
were consulted on this proposal.
2.6 We will keep the document under scrutiny
until we have received all the information we have requested.
| 
