35. EUROPEAN MIGRATION STRATEGY GUIDELINES
(8815/99) (ASIM 23)
Letter from Lord Tordoff, Chairman of
the Committee to Kate Hoey MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of
State, Home Office
Sub-Committee F (Social Affairs, Education and
Home Affairs) has considered the Presidency's draft Guidelines
for an EU Migration Strategy and has decided to clear the document
from scrutiny, subject to clarification of two points.
The first concerns the allocation of responsibilities
within the new Commission. Will there be a single Commissioner
responsible for migration policy?
The second concerns the possible replacement
of the Dublin Convention by a Community instrument (paragraph
19). How would this affect the UK if the Government decided not
to exercise its right of opt-in under the Protocol on the Position
of the United Kingdom and Ireland? Similarly, can you explain
the position as regards the Convention if Denmark does not opt
in to Title IV of the EC Treaty?
The Sub-Committee notes that the draft Guidelines
raise important questions as to the scope and direction of an
EU migration policy and would wish to encourage the Government
to consult widely.
22 July 1999
Letter from Barbara Roche MP, Minister
of State, Home Office to Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the Committee
Thank you for confirming that Sub-Committee
F is prepared to clear the European Migration Strategy document
from scrutiny, subject to clarification of two points.
Whereas previously, various parts of the Justice
and Home Affairs remit were split between different Commissioners,
I understand that the intention is that all JHA issues (including
migration) will now be dealt with primarily by Commissioner Antonio
Vitorino. There may still be some overlap, however, with the Enlargement
and Employment and Social Affairs portfolios, and with the new
External Relations Commissioner's area of responsibility.
It is unlikely that a Community instrument to
replace the Dublin Convention will be brought forward for some
time, as the Commission wish first to see a parallel agreement
to the Dublin Convention negotiated with Norway and Iceland. In
the event that a measure were to be adopted which the UK decided
not to opt into, much would depend on the position at the time.
As regards the UK and (together) the other Member States (subject
to the position of Ireland and Denmark), Dublin could continue
as an international instrument. Or it could be ended. There could
be a new international agreement between the UK and the Member
States party to the new measure paralleling that measure. Much
will depend on the content of any Community instrument.
As we understand the operation of Denmark's
Protocol, Denmark may decide to opt in to any new measure under
the new Title IV only where the measure proposed is a development
of the Schengen acquis. Denmark may then give effect to any such
Title IV measure only by means of international law, not as a
Community instrument. Where a Title IV measure is not a development
of the Schengen acquis, Denmark could negotiate a parallel agreement
to any EC instrument replacing Dublin. The Dublin Convention continues
to apply to Denmark in the absence of any alternative international
agreement, unless it agrees to give up such rights and obligations.
Asim 23 has now been revised as Asim 28. I enclose
a copy for your information.
3 August 1999
| 
