VOLUNTARY RETURN
(a)
(21042)
6283/00
(b)
(21206)
6283/2/00
|
Draft Council Recommendation on voluntary return.
Revised draft Council Recommendation on voluntary return.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 63 (3) (b) EC; consultation; unanimity [but see
paragraph 6.7 below]
|
| |
| Department: |
Home Office |
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 18 May 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| (a) HC 23-xiii (1999-2000), paragraph 13 (5 April 2000)
(b) None
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| (both) Not cleared; awaiting further information
|
Background
6.1 This proposal is concerned with encouraging
Member States to implement voluntary return programmes for third
country nationals through co-operation protocols. When we last
considered it (in April), we found it so lacking in coherence
that it was difficult to discern its basic features. We were,
therefore, pleased to learn that it was likely to be substantially
revised, and asked the Minister to address our questions in the
Explanatory Memorandum she undertook to provide on any new text.
The document and the Government's views
6.2 A revised text (document (b)) has now been
deposited. In her Explanatory Memorandum, the Minister of State
at the Home Office (Mrs Barbara Roche) discusses the extent to
which our questions are answered by the new document.
6.3 In relation to our request for clarification
about the scope of the proposal, she says:
"The scope of the proposal
remains vague. However, the current wording would allow Member
States to decide which categories of third country nationals should
be covered by the proposal. The measure could therefore be tailored
to fit each Member State's individual needs and could be interpreted
as widely or as narrowly as was considered appropriate."
6.4 We also asked about the nature of the support
envisaged, and why applicants for voluntary return should not
be granted "continuous assistance". The Minister replies:
"The proposal does not
specify the type of support envisaged. This would enable individual
Member States to decide the most appropriate support for different
programmes and how support is to be provided. The question of
'continuous assistance' ... has been redrafted and now refers
to 'successive entitlements to assistance' which we consider to
be clearer. It is important that beneficiaries of such schemes
do not abuse the assistance on offer by making a series of applications
in different Member States."
6.5 Finally, we asked why the Government was
concerned about the proposed involvement of Europol. The Minister
tells us:
"The original proposal
suggested the involvement of Europol in a system of information
to prevent abuse of the system of voluntary returns. This proposal
has now been removed as it was not considered that this task was
appropriate to Europol's remit. The text now refers to 'consultations'
between Member States, which is satisfactory. Any exchange of
information will be conducted in accordance with data protection
legislation."
6.6 More generally, the Minister says that there
are a number of points which the Government will continue to discuss
in the working group. She considers that the proposal is worded
over-prescriptively for a Recommendation, citing as an example
the requirement that Member States "must also envisage the
carrying out of publicity campaigns".
The legal base
6.7 The Minister tells us:
"The legal basis for
the proposal is not cited within the document. The issue of the
return of illegal immigrants falls within Article 63(3)(b) TEC;
however, since the document refers to both legal and illegal immigrants,
recent discussions have suggested that the proposal should be
taken forward as a Resolution of representatives of the Member
States meeting within the Council, ie a proposal outside the Treaty.
If the document is subsequently presented in that form, Parliamentary
scrutiny procedures will not apply. The Government nevertheless
considered it appropriate to keep the Committees informed of the
progress of this proposal."
Conclusion
6.8 We thank the Minister for addressing our
questions.
6.9 However, we still consider this an unsatisfactory
proposal. Far from agreeing with the Minister that it is over-prescriptive
in manner, we find it so lacking in clarity and specificity (especially
in relation to the target groups and the kind of support envisaged
for them) that it is difficult to see what value the measure can
have. Although we share the view that Europol should not be involved,
it could be argued that the dropping of that proposal removes
one of the few concrete items in the text.
6.10 We have a number of questions arising
from the Minister's comment "since the document refers to
both legal and illegal immigrants, recent discussions have suggested
that the proposal should be taken forward as a Resolution of representatives
of the Member States meeting within the Council, ie a proposal
outside the Treaty":
(a) Why does the document
refer to legal immigrants at all? Does this category cover failed
asylum seekers? What other people might be included, and why?
(b) Is the inclusion of legal immigrants the
only reason for the suggestion that the proposal might be taken
forward as a Resolution of representatives of the Member States
meeting within the Council?
(c) If it is so taken forward, what will the
UK's position be? (We note that the Minister does not give any
indication of whether the UK intends to opt in to the measure
if it proceeds as a Recommendation.)
6.11 We recognise that scrutiny procedures
will not apply if the document is presented as a Resolution of
representatives of the Member States meeting within the Council.
Nevertheless, we expect the Minister to answer our questions and
to inform us of any such change in the nature of the proposal.
Meanwhile, we do not clear the documents.
| 
