Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-63)
PROFESSOR DR
ELSPETH GUILD,
MR FLORIAN
GEYER, MR
NEIL O'BRIEN
AND MR
PAUL STEPHENSON
21 NOVEMBER 2006
Q60 Chairman: We do not necessarily
think that this unqualified reciprocation is the right principle.
Professor Dr Guild: There is a
whole series of agreements in EU Member States regarding football
supporters and their right to move and restrictions on that right
reached at EU level. This is not a unilateral UK restriction on
the movement of supporters. There are serious questions about
the extent to which it is proportionate, but this is certainly
not a field that I want to enter into. At EU level the UK has
argued very strongly for full freedom of movement rights for all
British citizens. Therefore, the Government has not seen fit to
pursue at EU level restrictions that we may personally think ought
to be placed on some people.
Mr Geyer: I also think that football
hooliganism is a specific topic and is also dealt with by certain
legislation at European level. Every Member State does it as an
exception to the rule. In this case we agree that there should
not be free movement of people. It is not that the free movement
directive does not allow governments to deport or expel. It is
possible to restrict re-entry, so it is not the case that it would
open up everything, but the crime or public security threat must
be of a certain kind and level. Not every insult or criminal behaviour
or misdemeanour would lead to such a reaction. For certain crimes
there is, as before, the possibility of restricting and expelling
individuals.
Q61 Martin Salter: How do you feel
about organised neo-Nazi groups being able to travel across Europe
to attend each other's rallies, because often they have the same
membership as organised groups of football hooligans? I argue
that it is not just football about which we need to be concerned.
Belgium has an annual meeting for such groups at a place called
Diksmuide. Some of the worst football supporters in Europe are
from Feyenoord in Holland which I understand does not operate
such a rigorous system as that in Britain. I very much support
what the Chairman said. We do not regard this as an exception
that proves the rule but it is commonsense and part of being a
good neighbour to our European partners not to export some of
our problems.
Professor Dr Guild: We are perhaps
straying a bit into the question of the right of freedom of speech
and the right of freedom of assembly versus the due duty of states
to place restrictions on those freedoms in certain circumstances
as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and our
understanding of that. Once we get into specifics perhaps we need
to move into expertise in that field.
Q62 Chairman: I want to ask a question
similar to that raised by Mr Streeter in the field of criminal
justice. Immigration is an area where the UK is participating
only partially in some of the European agreements. Can you point
to a specific example of how this country's own interests have
not been well served by the decision to be a partial participator
in European Union decision-making structures as opposed to being
a full member of Schengen and so on?
Professor Dr Guild: Absolutely.
The classic example, which I raised with your colleagues in the
House of Lords recently, is our decision not to join in the directive
on rights of long-term resident third-country nationals. Under
that directive a third-country non-EU national who has lived and
worked lawfully in a Member State for five years has the right
to seek work and exercise economic activity in other Member States.
By refusing to enter into that directive the UK has prevented
third-country nationals living here—US citizens, Australians,
Indian nationals and so on who have been here for five years—from
moving to take up appointments with companies in other EU Member
States. They are stuck with the work permit scheme which may or
may not enable them to further their careers or to get experience
that they want in another Member State. Therefore, our third country
nationals are blocked here, whereas everybody else's can move
around. It also makes our third country nationals infinitely less
attractive as employees to multinational companies that require
their staff to have experience in a number of different Member
States. Part of the population here is, therefore, in a highly
disadvantaged position compared with third country nationals in
other Member States; and that also has consequences for our businesses,
because UK businesses cannot send third country nationals to other
Member States with the same facility as other Member States. That
is just one example.
Q63 Chairman: That is a very specific,
clear case. Mr O'Brien, what do you say?
Mr O'Brien: I make two points.
First, if this is the most serious problem that we encounter as
a result of not being full participants in this area, in terms
of the calculation of costs and benefits that would not be a clincher
for me. Second, there is a flip side to what has been said. A
lot of different Member States have regularised the position of
a very large numbers of people from third countries in recent
years, and that is a trend which seems set to continue because
of the pressure that pushes migration across the Mediterranean.
If one got rid of that rule all of the people whose position had
been regularised in these other countries would also be free to
come to the UK. If you think about the way that that debate is
playing out in the US along the border with Mexico, that is a
very controversial idea. We are talking of hundreds of thousands
of people being given the right to travel around within the Schengen
zone.
Chairman: That little exchange encapsulates
some of the issues that we will pursue in our inquiry in the months
ahead. I thank all of the witness very much. In this first session
all of you have been tremendously helpful in setting the scene.
I know that Professor Guild flew in early this morning—I
do not know whether Mr Geyer did so as well—but we thank
you for making the effort to come.
| 
