12 Obligation to provide information
on asylum and immigration
| (26914)
13215/05
COM(05) 480
+ ADD 1
| Draft Decision on the establishment of a mutual information procedure concerning Member States' measures in the areas of asylum and immigration
Commission staff working document: impact assessment
|
| Legal base | Article 66 EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 19 December 2005 and 23 June 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-x (2005-06), para 14 (16 November 2005)
|
| Discussed in Council | 2-3 June 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Previous scrutiny
12.1 In November 2005, we scrutinised this draft Decision.[36]
It proposes that Member States should have a duty to provide the
Commission and other Member States with the following measures
on asylum and immigration if the measures "are susceptible
of having an impact on other Member States or on the Community
as a whole":[37]
i) draft legislation;
ii) draft international agreements;
iii) the final texts of legislation and international
agreements;
iv) decisions of courts or tribunals which apply
or interpret national legislation; and
v) administrative decisions on asylum and immigration.
12.2 Member States would be required to transmit
the information via a web-based network to be developed and managed
by the Commission.
12.3 Any Member State or the Commission would be
able to ask for further information. The Member State which received
such a request would have a duty to provide the further information
within two weeks.
12.4 The Commission would be able, on its own behalf
or at the request of a Member State, to organise an exchange of
views between Member States' national experts on information provided
under the draft Decision. The Member State which provided the
information would have a duty to be represented at the meeting.
12.5 The Commission would be required to evaluate
the functioning of the Decision after three years and "regularly
thereafter".
12.6 According to the Commission's explanatory memorandum,
the Decision is needed because asylum and immigration measures
taken by one Member State may affect others or the whole Community.
For example, the introduction by one Member State of a very restrictive
immigration policy might divert migrants to other Member States.
12.7 The Government told us that there would be some
benefits from the Commission's proposal. Every Member State would
obtain access to a wide range of information about other Member
States' policies and intentions which could be useful in benchmarking
their own policies and tracing developments elsewhere in the EU.
But there were some points of concern. For example, the draft
Decision did not say how Member States should decide which measures
would have an impact on other Member States or the Community as
a whole; and it did not say how disputes would be resolved about
whether a Member State did or did not have a duty to transmit
information.
12.8 We noted that the Decision would not apply to
the UK unless the Government opted into it. We asked to know the
Government's intention.
12.9 We could see the potential benefit of timely
and economical exchanges of information about legislation, international
agreements and decisions on asylum and immigration. But Member
States had some reasonable questions about the proposal. We asked
the Government to tell us the answers it received and to provide
us with reports on the negotiations.
The Minister's letters of 19 December 2005 and
23 June 2006
12.10 In his letter of 19 December 2005, the Minister
of State at the Home Office (Mr Tony McNulty) told us that the
Government had decided to opt into the Decision.
12.11 In his letter of 23 June 2006, the Minister
of State at the Home Office (Mr Liam Byrne) says that there was
no progress in the negotiations on the draft Decision until May,
when a compromise text was produced. The Justice and Home Affairs
Council agreed a general approach on the revised text at its meeting
on 2-3 June. The main changes from the original text are as follows:
- the duty to provide the information
would apply only to measures which would have a significant
impact on several Member States or the Community as a whole;
- the Member State originating the measure would
be the judge of whether the information would have a significant
impact; and
- the Commission would be required to evaluate
the functioning of the Decision after two years, rather than after
three.
12.12 The Minister says that the revised text is
less rigid and bureaucratic. It is acceptable to the Government.
Conclusion
12.13 We note that the Government intends to opt
into the Decision. We are grateful to the Minister for explaining
the amendments that have been made to the draft Decision. We note
that the amendments do not include a definition of "significant".
We think this may lead to difficulties but that must remain a
matter for speculation until there is practical experience of
the operation of the system. We are glad, therefore, that the
Commission's evaluation is to take place after two years rather
than three. We shall scrutinise the report of that evaluation
with especial rigour. Meanwhile, we are content to clear the document
from scrutiny.
36 See headnote. Back
37
The quotation is taken from Article 2(1) of the draft Decision. Back
| 
