35 TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS
(30513)
8151/09
COM(09) 136
+ ADDs 1-2
| Draft Council Framework Decision on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims, repealing Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA
Commission staff working documents: impact assessment and summary of assessment
|
| Legal base | Articles 29, 31(1)(e) and 34(2)(b) EU; consultation; unanimity
|
| Department | Home Office
|
| Basis of consideration |
Minister's letters of 24 August and 28 September 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report |
HC 19-xviii (2008-09), chapter 11 (3 June 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Previous scrutiny of the document
35.1 When we considered the draft of this Framework Decision in
April,[128] we noted
that the JHA Council had adopted a Framework Decision in 2002
which defined the offence of trafficking in human beings and required
Member States to ensure that, for example, the penalties for an
offence are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and that special
protection is given to children who are victims of the trade.
We also noted that, in 2005, the Council adopted an Action Plan
to support and supplement the implementation of the Framework
Decision.
35.2 We recalled that, in 2008, the Commission published
an evaluation of the implementation of the EU legislation and
Action Plan. Its main finding was that Member States had transposed
the Framework Decision into national law but there was a serious
gap between what the national legislation said and what Member
States were actually doing.
35.3 In 2005, the Council of Europe adopted a Convention
on trafficking in human beings. The Commission staff working document
annexed to the draft Framework Decision (ADD 1) said that the
Convention is regarded by experts as constituting the highest
international standard to date, since it provides a comprehensive
framework for prevention, investigation, prosecution, victim support
and cooperation between Member States; and that implementing such
measures would lead to significant improvements. The Commission
staff working document also said, however, that the Convention
contains weaknesses: for example, some of its provisions are not
binding. At that time, 11 Member States, including the UK, had
ratified the Convention and a further 14 were in the process of
ratifying it.
35.4 In the light of its evaluation of the implementation
of the 2002 Framework Decision, its views about the Council of
Europe Convention and its consultations, the Commission has proposed
this new Framework Decision to:
- re-enact some of the provisions
of the 2002 Framework Decision;
- amend some of the others; (for example, on the
length of prison terms for offences);
- create new requirements for, for example, the
prevention of trafficking, assistance to and protection of victims
and training for police and others concerned with the investigation
and prosecution of offences; and
- repeal the 2002 Framework Decision.
35.5 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 14 April 2009,
the Minister of State at the Home Office (Mr Phil Woolas) told
us that the Government's preliminary view was that the Commission's
proposals were broadly in line with existing UK policy on trafficking.
But the Government would ask the Commission for clarification
of some of the proposed Articles.
35.6 In the Conclusion to chapter 11 of our Report
of 29 April, we expressed surprise that the Commission was proposing
new legislation when, according to the Commission's own recent
evaluation, Member States were not implementing the legislation
they have enacted to transpose the 2002 Framework Decision and
when fewer that half the Member States had ratified the 2005 Council
of Europe Convention. We put a number of questions to the Minister
about this and other matters.
35.7 In his letter of 12 May, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Home Office (Mr Alan Campbell) replied to all
our questions. Most notably, we had asked:
"Might concentration on full implementation
of the 2002 Framework Decision and the Council of Europe Convention
be a more effective way to counter trafficking in human beings
and help victims than creating new legislative requirements?"
In reply, the Minister told us that, in the Government's
view, the Council of Europe Convention is one of the most important
international instruments on trafficking in human beings and that
its widespread adoption would represent a major advance. But the
Government is sympathetic to the idea that the existing Framework
Decision should be updated to take account of developments in
human trafficking since 2002. All Member States would be obliged
to give effect to the updated Framework Decision. In negotiation,
the Government would seek to ensure that any proposals to go further
than the Council of Europe Convention add value and do not create
unnecessary regulation.
35.8 Having answered our other questions, the Minister
went on to offer to provide us with progress reports on the negotiations.
35.9 In our further Report on the document,[129]
we said that we retained our doubts that the proposed new Framework
Decision would be a more effective means to counter trafficking
in human beings and help its victims than the proper implementation
of the existing EU legislation and the Council of Europe Convention.
We noted the Minister's answers to our other questions and drew
them to the attention of the House. We thanked the Minister for
his offer to keep us informed about the negotiations. Pending
his progress reports, we kept the document under scrutiny.
The Minister's letters of 24 August and 28 September
2009
35.10 In his letter of 24 August, the Minister told
us about the minor amendments to the text which have been agreed
during the further negotiations. The Government was broadly content
with them.
35.11 We concluded that the amendments did not significantly
change the substance of the proposal. In our view, the only issue
of importance had not changed since the Committee first scrutinised
the document in April: namely, would the proposed Framework Decision
be a more effective means to counter trafficking in human beings
and help its victims than proper implementation of the existing
EU legislation and the Council of Europe Convention? So we wrote
to the Minister to say that we should welcome any further comments
he would like to make on the point and to ask for a further progress
report on the negotiations.
35.12 In his reply of 28 September, the Minister
stresses that the Government agrees with us on the importance
of Member States implementing existing EU legislation and other
international instruments. In the Government's view, any new legislation
should add value by covering new ground or strengthening existing
provisions where necessary. For the reasons summarised in paragraph
35.7 above, the Government considers that the proposed Framework
Decision would meet those criteria.
Conclusion
35.13 We are grateful for the Minister's reply.
On balance, we continue to doubt that the proposed Framework Decision
is to be preferred to the proper implementation of the EU legislation
of 2002 and the Council of Europe Convention of 2005. But we can
understand why the Government takes the contrary view. Both views
are legitimate and we do not think that there is more that can
usefully be said on either side. We have decided, therefore, to
clear the document from scrutiny on the understanding that the
Government will not agree to it at the Council — and will
inform us — if, in the remaining negotiations, any
amendments are adopted which would significantly change the substance
of the Framework Decision.
128 See HC 19-xv (2008-09), chapter 3 (29 April 2009). Back
129
See HC 19-xviii (2008-09), chapter 11 (3 June 2009). Back
| 
