MOBILITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FOR STUDENTS,
PERSONS UNDERGOING TRAINING, YOUNG VOLUNTEERS, TEACHERS AND TRAINERS
(20960)
5600/00
COM(99) 708
|
Draft Recommendation on mobility within the Community for
students, persons undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and
trainers.
|
| Legal base:
| Articles 149(4) and 150(4)EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: |
Education and Employment |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 6 November 2000, SEM of 7 November 2000 and Minister's letter of 13 November 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-xxvii (1999-2000), paragraph 4 (25 October 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| 9 November 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
Background
22.1 When we last considered this document
(three weeks ago), we considered that there were too many outstanding
issues for it to be cleared. We hoped that we would be able to
see the revised text before the November Council Meeting. In addition,
we raised a number of points with the Minister for Education and
Employment at the Department of Education and Employment in the
Lords (Baroness Blackstone).
22.2 The Minister subsequently wrote to
say that the official text was unlikely to be issued until immediately
before the Education Council on 9 November. She recognised that
the situation, which she said was becoming a feature of the French
Presidency, was unsatisfactory. However, she provided a further
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum which addressed our points,
and updated us on the progress of negotiations. Following the
Council meeting, the Minister has written to us again, reporting
that the Recommendation was adopted.
The progress of negotiations
22.3 The Minister told us:
"The proposed recommendation,
which aims to overcome obstacles to mobility within the EU, recommends
that Member States take appropriate measures to encourage mobility
for all the target groups covered by the text, with specific sections
addressed to measures for students; those undergoing training;
young volunteers; teachers and trainers.
"Although supportive of the principles underlining
[sic] the proposals, the UK had considerable difficulty with the
text as initially drafted even allowing for its non- binding nature.
Particular concerns were the references to taxation, third country
nationals and specific social security measures.
"Final negotiations on the recommendation took
place last week and we understand that a draft common position
on the text has been reached which would be acceptable to the
UK. In particular all references to tax systems have been removed
from the recommendation, the social security text has been revised
along the lines of an alternative, more general text submitted
by the UK and references to third country nationals are now limited
to those participating in Community programmes. Our concern that
a non-binding recommendation, with an insufficient legal base,
was being used to address these controversial items has thus been
allayed."
The Minister's response to our points
22.4 In our last report, we expressed surprise
that the Government was so concerned about a non-binding instrument.
The Minister's comments quoted above make it clear that it was
the attempt to address controversial items through such an instrument
with an insufficient legal base that caused the concern.
22.5 We asked for clarification of the phrase
"voluntary implementation", which was used in the first
Explanatory Memorandum provided to the Committee. The Minister
tells us that the phrase referred only to the non-binding nature
of the measure.
22.6 More substantively, we asked the Minister
to explain the Government's view that the proposed legal base
was inappropriate for the extension of provisions to third country
nationals, and asked how she considered the EU could best take
forward the Tampere Conclusions in this respect. She responded:
"The Government considers
that measures concerning the free movement of third-country nationals
are appropriately adopted under Title IV of the Treaty, rather
than under Articles 149 or 150. However, it accepts that in certain
limited cases such measures may fairly be regarded as an incidental
part of action under Articles 149 or 150 (for instance measures
designed to encourage the mobility of third-country nationals
who already participate in a relevant Community programme), and
to that extent may be included in the proposed legal base.
"The Tampere Conclusions are concerned with
the fair treatment of legally resident third country nationals.
They do not imply full parity between third country nationals
and EU citizens, nor do they extend to freedom of movement between
Member States. We fully support the programme of work being undertaken
by the Commission in furtherance of the Conclusions and will participate
fully in the measures they bring forward provided that they do
not conflict with our separate frontiers position."
The Minister's letter of 13 November
22.7 The Minister reports that the proposed
Recommendation was adopted at the Council meeting. She adds:
"I regret that the Committee
was not able to meet on the 8 November to consider the memorandum
before the Council meeting. However, in this case I think it would
have been unreasonable to delay agreement since the text that
was presented to the Council did address all previous UK concerns.
I will arrange for my officials to send a copy of the final text
to the Committee when it is published."
Conclusion
22.8 We thank the Minister for her further
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, which addressed our points
and updated us on the progress of negotiations. We recognise that
this was probably the best she could do under the circumstances.
However, we deplore the fact that the document, which had apparently
changed considerably since we last saw it, was adopted at the
Education Council on the basis of a new text which is not yet
available to Parliament. Organisation of Council business in such
a manner not only prevents scrutiny by national parliaments but
makes it doubtful that Ministers themselves can adequately consider
proposals, giving rise to a risk that poorly-drafted legislation
will be agreed.
22.9 On the basis of the Supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum, we presume that the Government's concerns
about the relation between Regulation 1408/71 and the proposal
were allayed by the "alternative, more general text"
along the lines of that submitted by the UK. It would have
been helpful to have seen the UK's text, or had a fuller description
of it.
22.10 We note the Government's view that,
in certain limited cases, Articles 149 or 150 may be appropriate
bases for measures concerning the free movement of third-country
nationals. On the broader question of the Tampere Conclusions,
we query whether the Minister's statement that the Conclusions
"do not imply full parity between third country nationals
and EU citizens" fully reflects the wording of the Conclusion
itself.[82]
We are, therefore, pleased to learn that the Government fully
supports the programme of work being undertaken by the Commission
in furtherance of the Conclusions.
22.11 Notwithstanding our comments above,
we accept the Minister's reasons for lifting the scrutiny reserve
at the Council. We thank her for writing so promptly to inform
us of the decision. We now clear the document.
82 "A person, who has resided legally in a Member
State for a period of time to be determined and who holds a long-term
residence permit, should be granted in that Member State a set
of uniform rights which are as near as possible to those enjoyed
by EU citizens; eg the right to reside, receive education, and
work as an employee or self-employed person, as well as the principle
of non-discrimination vis-a-vis the citizens of the State of residence"
(paragraph 21). Back
|
