Select Committee on European Union Fifth Report



7.  The written evidence received by the Committee raised many important points concerning the substance and the detailed drafting of the proposal, and we commend these comments to the attention of the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council working group negotiating the text. However, given the limited time available to the Committee, our oral questioning of witnesses could not cover all these issues. In the light of the Government's decision not to opt into the negotiations on the proposal, announced in a letter of 7 August, from the Minister Lord Rooker to the Chairman of the Select Committee, this Report too will focus on major issues of policy and principle, rather than providing an exhaustive Article by Article analysis of the text.


8.  It should be emphasised that the present proposal cannot be taken in isolation. To do so would lead only to confusion, as will be clear from some of the comments below. Rather it must be seen as one element of a co-ordinated strategy, directed by the Commission, to implement Title IV TEC within the five-year time-scale agreed at Amsterdam. To get an overview of this strategy one must turn to the biannual "scoreboard" published by the Commission in response to a request by the Tampere European Council[11]. This sets out in tabular form the proposals that have been agreed or are under discussion, as well as the timetable for the presentation of further proposals. It focuses, understandably, on the Commission's strategy, rather than on the Member State initiatives that are also permitted under Title IV.

9.  But while the "scoreboard" indicates the timetable, it gives no detail on how individual proposals relate to each other. It quickly became clear in our present inquiry that the proposed Directive on long-term resident third-country nationals is intended to "dovetail" with various other proposals, which for the most part have yet to be agreed. Thus Article 9(2) includes a cross-reference to the proposed Council Regulation laying down a uniform model for the residence permit for third-country nationals[12], adopted by the Commission earlier this year, and Article 18 (3) cross-refers to the proposal for a Directive on the right to family reunification, which dates back to December 1999, but has yet to be agreed by the Council.

10.  Still more confusing is the dovetailing with instruments yet to be published—there are, naturally, no cross-references to these so far non-existent texts. Instead there are merely omissions—for example, the proposal's failure to cover subsidiary protection, and the initially puzzling lack of any reference to visas or conditions for admission. We discuss these issues in more detail below, and are particularly grateful to Professor Guild for guiding us through this maze (see Questions 19-27). It is notable, however, that the dovetailing of proposals creates particular difficulties for the United Kingdom, in that the Government has to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to opt into a proposal, whereas the Commission sees all the proposals as inter-related and inter-dependent. As a Government witness told us, "Dealing with things in little pockets in this way may be sensible to them but it is not terribly helpful for us" (Q 81).


11.  Chapter I of the Directive contains "general provisions". As stated above, Article 1 sets out the two-pronged purpose of the Directive. The first purpose, according to the Commission's commentary, is "to approximate national legislation and practice regarding the grant of long-term resident status to third-country nationals residing legally". This is intended to "enable all third-country nationals to enjoy long-term status on equivalent terms in all the Member States". The second purpose is "to … determine the conditions in which third-country nationals who are long-term residents within the meaning of the Directive may reside in a Union State other than the one which first granted them the status".

12.  Witnesses agreed that the radical part of the proposal was the attempt to grant rights of free movement to third-country nationals. Advice on Individual Rights in Europe ("AIRE") pointed out that certain groups of third-country nationals already enjoy free movement rights, at least in theory, and have done so in some cases since the 1960s. These include "accompanying family members of European Union nationals exercising a Treaty right", citizens of certain countries with whom the Member States have concluded agreements, notably Turkey[13], and citizens of Members of the European Economic Area[14]. Nevertheless, Professor Guild went so far as to use the word "revolutionary" to describe the attempt to confer such rights of free movement on all long-term resident third-country nationals (p 32, Q 1).

13.  On the other hand Professor Guild suggested that defining the conditions for long-term resident status in internal situations was unlikely in itself to pose major challenges. She commented, "In terms of creating a status which is durable for third-country nationals in Member States, there is nothing radical about this proposal whatsoever". She alluded to the Council of Europe Recommendation (see note 5, above), to which all Member States had agreed, and noted that the research to which she had contributed on behalf of the University of Nijmegen had concluded that "in no Member State did we find that this kind of proposal would be terribly dramatic, except in Greece". In the United Kingdom it would, in the words of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants ("JCWI"), have "minimal impact". In the United Kingdom long-term resident status, known as Indefinite Leave to Remain, is generally available to legally resident third-country nationals after four years, rather than the five years specified in the Directive, and carries very similar rights to the status in the Directive (QQ 1-2, p 41).

14.  However, comparisons with existing domestic provisions are to some extent misleading, in that the Directive would not in itself impose any obligation on Member States to amend them, in so far as they are more generous than those set out in the Directive. The Commission, in its commentary on Article 1, asserts that the purpose of the Directive is to "approximate national legislation" on the granting of long-term resident status. Article 1 itself states even more precisely that the Directive "determines … the terms for conferring and withdrawing long-term resident status granted by a Member State". However, Article 14 states that "Member States may issue residence permits of permanent or unlimited validity on terms that are more favourable than those laid down by this Directive". The limitation is that such residence permits "shall not confer the right of residence in the other Member States". The Government's Explanatory Memorandum confirms their understanding that "the draft Directive would not prevent the UK from granting Indefinite Leave to Remain after four years". Professor Guild drew attention to the confusion that may result from this, as the Directive gives no indication whether the national status permitted by Article 14 would confer the internal rights set out in Article 12 (such as access to employment, education, social protection). In Professor Guild's words, "The Directive is unclear on whether that [national] status can have the effect of triggering rights within the State itself" (Q 1).

15.  It thus appears from Article 14 that the "approximation" of national legislation will be in one direction only. Those Member States currently granting long-term resident status on less favourable terms (for example, Greece, which grants the status only after 15 years' work and residence[15]) will be required to make more generous arrangements in line with the Directive. Those with comparable arrangements, who grant long-term resident status after five years, may decide to replace their domestic arrangements with the procedures set out in the Directive. However, those Member States already granting long-term resident status on more favourable terms (notably Finland, which grants it after two years, and Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom, all granting it after four) would be entitled to continue with their existing arrangements. Their long-term resident status, however, would not confer the right of residence in another Member State. It appears, therefore, that they will be expected to operate two systems—for a national long-term resident permit and an EC long-term resident permit—in tandem, while other countries will presumably operate a single unified system. Mr Brian Caffarey, of the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate, accepted that operating two systems concurrently could create "quite an administrative load". However, the Directive contains no "non-regression" clause, so Governments, should they feel that this administrative burden was excessive, would appear to have the option of revoking their current arrangements in favour of the less generous arrangements set out in the Directive (Q 68).

16.  It is clear that the existence of two systems in tandem, to which different rules would apply, could potentially create considerable confusion for third-country nationals themselves. For example, the Directive would establish a five-year continuous residence requirement in order to qualify for long-term resident status. Continuous residence would not be deemed to be interrupted by absences "shorter than six consecutive months" (Article 5). However, several Member States allow established long-term residents longer periods of absence without loss of status. In the case of Finland long-term residents may be absent for up to two years without losing their status—the same is true of holders of Indefinte Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom. It is therefore possible to imagine that someone granted long-term resident status in Finland or the United Kingdom might take advantage of these generous domestic provisions to return to his country of origin for between six months and two years. This would render him ineligible for the EC status—in effect, the clock would go back to zero. Professor Guild agreed that this was "one of the weaknesses of the proposal", and suggested that it could be overcome by amending Article 5 so that a two-year time limit for absences applied (Q 6).

17.  It will be clear from the preceding paragraphs that the proposal falls short of proposing the mutual recognition of decisions to grant long-term resident status—that is to say, that the granting of long-term resident status in one Member State would be automatically recognised in any other. Professor Guild criticised this omission: "It lacks a beneficial side of cross-recognition of statuses which would be useful, and which would also permit a streamlining of domestic administrative processes". She argued that the proposal should have included a five-year "long-stop" for granting long-term resident status, along with "cross-recognition of the earlier grant of a durable resident status in the Member States". The Government, on the other hand, described this as an "even more radical proposal", suggesting that several Member States would "see difficulties with that" (QQ 1-2, 85).


18.  Article 3 gives the scope of the Directive. Certain classes of third-country nationals are excluded, including those enjoying temporary or subsidiary protection, those awaiting decisions on applications for refugee status, students (other than those studying for a doctorate) and diplomats. Article 3 also provides that the Directive shall apply without prejudice to more favourable provisions found in agreements between the Community and third countries (for example the Association Agreement of 1962 with Turkey[16]) and in a range of international Conventions.

19.  Witnesses challenged most of these exclusions. For example, the JCWI could see "no good reason for withholding the benefits of this status from people granted subsidiary protection". Professor Guild also saw it as a "weakness" of the proposal that those granted subsidiary protection (in the United Kingdom, Exceptional Leave to Remain) would not "start clocking up time until after they have been recognised". This might create further problems—as the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association ("ILPA") noted, those granted Exceptional Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom "will also usually obtain [long-term resident] status after four years". Presumably it would be only after they had been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain that the time required to qualify for the EC resident permit would start. The Commission's argument for excluding subsidiary protection is simple: "The fact that the concept of subsidiary protection is not harmonised at Community level precludes coverage". However, the Commission affirms its belief that such persons should ultimately have access to long-term residence, and promises to "present a proposal concerning subsidiary protection that could extend to access to long-term status for this category of third-country nationals"[17] (p 42, Q 1, p 36).

20.  Witnesses also commented on the exclusion of students, other than students studying towards a doctorate (Article 3(2)(d)). However, according to Article 5(2)(b) periods of residence for non-doctoral study will count for half—that is to say, ten years' residence will be required to establish a right to a long-term resident's permit. This replicates the "long-stop" position that already prevails in the United Kingdom, whereby ten years' legal residence, of whatever kind, creates an entitlement to Indefinite Leave to Remain—a position based on the Council of Europe Convention on Establishment. As Professor Guild pointed out, those most likely to benefit from such a rule are students who "have started at ten or twelve at boarding school and then gone on to do their university studies". In practice no other classes of legally resident third-country nationals were likely to have to have recourse to the ten-year rule. However, both ILPA and Statewatch argued that the exclusion of students in the Directive risked creating anomalies. In particular, there was a danger that those who become students while holding another form of residence status (for instance by enrolling for an MBA) could be excluded (Q 9, pp 37, 45).


21.  We were unable to get a clear sense of the numbers of long-term resident third-country nationals who could benefit under the terms of the Directive. Estimates of the number of legally resident third-country nationals in the EU vary between 13 and 20 million. Of these a substantial proportion, maybe half, might qualify as long-term residents under the Directive. We noted in our Report on A Community Immigration Policy that the lack of reliable or uniform data on immigration and on the numbers of third-country nationals within the EU was creating considerable difficulties for researchers and policy makers[18]. In the absence of such data, however, Statewatch provided a useful, if very approximate, guess at the numbers who might actually take advantage of the right of free movement afforded by the Directive. Only two per cent of EU citizens had taken up their right of free movement—if a similar proportion of long-term resident third-country nationals exercised their right of free movement, one would see "in the order of 150-250,000 persons moving in all". This would be a total movement, not an annual movement. In other words, the numbers are likely to be very small in relation to total movements of persons into, out of and around the EU (p 47).

22.  Such figures are, however, highly speculative—nowhere more so than in the United Kingdom. As Mr Caffarey of the Home Office conceded, "the truth is no-one really knows". Within the United Kingdom, he said, "we do not have any very clear picture ourselves of the number of people who would fall into the category of long-term resident third-country nationals". There were "roughly 1.5 million non-EU foreign nationals resident in the United Kingdom in the year 2000", but there were no figures on how many of these were long-term residents. In 1999 some 97,000 persons had been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain, but the Government does not know how many of these have subsequently applied for citizenship and so ceased to hold Indefinite Leave to Remain. However, Mr Caffarey did say that "there must be a large number of people who have Indefinite Leave to Remain who might be eligible for British citizenship but who for one reason or another have not applied for it" (QQ 65-67).


23.  Chapter II of the proposal sets out the conditions under which Member States will grant long-term EC resident status to legally resident third country nationals, along with the rights attaching to this status, and the conditions for refusing or withdrawing it. The basic principle is that Member States "shall grant long-term resident status to third-country nationals who have resided legally and continuously for five years in the territory of the Member State concerned". Conditions for granting, refusing or withdrawing this status are set out in Articles 6 to 10. Once that status has been granted, the long-term resident will enjoy the rights of equal treatment set out in Article 12. This does not mean that the third-country national will not have any Community-level rights up to this point. As Professor Guild pointed out, there will be considerable "overlap" with the two Directives adopted under Article 13 of the EC Treaty[19], which protect against various forms of discrimination in employment, and also, in the case of discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic origin, in other areas of Community competence. These Directives will apply to all persons, including third-country nationals before the five-year period has elapsed, though only after that five-year period will the rights set out in the present proposal apply. However, it is worth recalling that the Article 13 Directives both contain exemptions for decisions on immigration status and conditions attaching to that status. Thus a Member State would, for example, be entitled to preclude access to social assistance as a condition of residence until the point at which the person concerned meets the criteria for long-term residence (Q 14).

24.  The list of rights in Article 12 is broad. However, ILPA recalled that the Tampere European Council had called for third-country nationals in a particular Member State to "be granted in that Member State a set of uniform rights which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens". The phrase "as near as possible", according to ILPA, "makes it clear that the extension of such rights will be dependent on the political will of the Member States". The Commission, they argued, in attempting "to ensure the acceptability of the proposals to the Member States" had "fallen short of achieving full equality with EU citizens". In particular ILPA cited the failure to mention "cultural rights". Statewatch suggested that the failure to include a reference to Regulation 1612/68/EEC (concerning the right of access to employment of EU citizens exercising their right of free movement) could also limit equality between EC nationals and long-term residents (pp 35, 39, 45).

25.  Chapter III sets out the terms under which long-term resident third-country nationals will be allowed to exercise the right of residence in the territory of other Member States. According to Article 17, he or she must apply for a residence permit no later than three months after entering the territory of the second Member State. Their long-term residence permit from the first Member State, along with evidence of employment or of the resources needed for self-employed economic activity, will entitle them to a residence permit. Once this permit has been granted they will enjoy all the rights they had enjoyed in the first Member State, as set out in Article 12.

26.  This is by far the most radical part of the proposal. At present legally resident third-country nationals within the Schengen area may cross the open internal borders, but without enjoying any rights of settlement or employment in other Member States. In the case of the United Kingdom (and Ireland), as the Government reminded us, "long-term resident third-country nationals … have no right of entry to this country at all"—in other words, they may have to acquire a visa to be admitted simply as a visitor. The same applies to long-term resident third-country nationals resident in the United Kingdom, and seeking to travel to the rest of the EU. It is Government policy to maintain this position: the Government Response[20] to our Report on A Community Immigration Policy states explicitly that "the Government does not support the extension of the right of free movement to legally resident third country nationals", a point confirmed by the Home Office Minister Lord Rooker in the House on 23 July[21] (Q 59).

27.  The proposed Directive would for the first time provide legally resident third-country nationals with a right of residence, subject to certain conditions, within a State other than that in which they are settled. However, there are certain striking peculiarities about the way this right is described. These reflect in part the dovetailing of different instruments, described above. There is no mention of how the long-term resident will pass from one Member State to the next—Article 17 simply begins, "No later than three months after entering the territory of the second Member State". There is no mention of visas—not needed, admittedly, for anyone passing from one Schengen State to another, but vital for many third country nationals entering either from third countries or from the United Kingdom into the Schengen area. Even third-country nationals moving from, say, France to Germany, would currently require a visa if they chose to travel via a third (non-EU) country. ILPA understandably described the failure to mention visas as "the most startling omission" from the Directive. Mr Caffarey, for the Government, referred more than once to the "lacuna" concerning the peculiar position of the United Kingdom: "the Directive jumps from the position whereby someone is living as a long-term resident in the first Member State and then the next bit of the Directive deals with essentially what happens at the three month point … and the bit that is missing is the bit in the middle which says how does the person move". He did not know how this issue would be dealt with were the United Kingdom to opt in:

    "The Directive is silent, and clearly deliberately silent, on the question of admission. It … simply assumes that every country that is a contracting party … would belong to the Schengen arrangements … I think if the United Kingdom were to opt in to the Directive we would then need to sit down with our partners and consider how those matters that are currently not dealt with by the Directive would be covered. Personally I do not know whether they would be covered in this Directive or in some other measure."

Professor Guild, however, was able to cast light on this point, drawing attention to a proposal, published a few days before she gave evidence, for a Directive on the right to travel for third-country nationals[22]. Article 7(1) of that proposal provides that "Third-country nationals who hold valid residence permits issued by one of the Member States shall travel freely for up to three months within the territories of the other Member States, provided they carry their residence permit". Thus the two Directives "dovetail", and some of the gaps in the present proposal concerning the right of travel and admission are filled. It is not, however, clear what effect of this further Directive would have on third country nationals travelling via a third country (p 40, QQ 81, 74, 19, 25).

28.  Another puzzle concerns the rights to be enjoyed by the third-country national in the second Member State during the initial three-month period. Article 24 provides that "as soon as" the long-term resident, having moved to a second Member State, has been granted a residence permit, he or she shall enjoy the rights set out in Article 12—including the right of access to employment. Yet Article 17(2) provides that evidence of employment (such as a contract) may be among the evidence demanded by the second Member State in deciding whether or not to grant a residence permit—in other words, as Professor Guild put it, it "presupposes that you are entitled to take employment". This self-contradiction cannot be easily reconciled—Professor Guild suggested that the right of access to employment might take effect immediately, and the other Article 12 rights take effect only when a residence permit in the second Member State had been granted. However, this might have the effect that "you take up your job immediately under completely ghastly, horrible, dreadful conditions … and the Member State can twiddle its thumbs for three months". It may be that in such circumstances the Commission envisages that the Article 13 Directives[23] would provide some sort of protection (Q 26).

29.  The danger must be that because of the uncertainty surrounding this period between moving to a second Member State and acquiring there the rights set out in Article 12, the Directive will in fact fail in its stated purpose of enabling long-term resident third-country nationals to participate fully in the Single Market. As Professor Guild said, implementation would have to be given a priority at national level. Existing provisions, such as Directive 64/221/EEC on the free movement of Community nationals and their families, had been inadequately implemented. AIRE reminded us that there remained "a gap between the theoretical rights of free movement available to third-country nationals under long-standing provisions of European Union law … and the application of those rights in practice". The Commission itself had in 1999 accused Member States of "a tendency to neglect to ensure in practice the rights of the members of the family" of EU nationals. Professor Guild suggested that the Directive should include "a sanction for failure to comply"—both on employers and on Member States themselves. In addition the Commission should "monitor very closely" the implementation of the Directive, to ensure that employers throughout the Community were aware of the validity of national residence permits for the purposes of employment (Q 30, p 32 ).


30.  The Government informed the Committee, in a letter dated 7 August from the Minister Lord Rooker to the Chairman, that they had decided not to opt into the proposed Directive (reprinted in Appendix 4). According to the terms of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland the Government have three months from the presentation of a proposal to the Council to inform the Presidency of their decision. On this occasion 28 July, ten days after the Home Office gave evidence to this inquiry, was the last possible day on which the Government could have reached its decision—and it appears the decision was left almost to the last possible moment. As late as 23 July Lord Rooker told the House that no decision had been reached[24].

31.  At the same time as he informed the House that no decision on the Directive had been reached Lord Rooker confirmed that the statement in the Government Response to our earlier Report on A Community Immigration Policy already quoted, that "the Government does not support the extension of the right of free movement to legally resident third country nationals", did indeed represent Government policy. The Government's priorities are clear: according to the Home Office's written submission to this inquiry, "the key question is whether participation would be consistent with our general approach to the operation of frontier controls, and to domestic control over admissions". In oral evidence Mr Caffarey repeatedly emphasised "the fundamental point about frontier controls". Even if a proposal might bring benefits in other areas, "it may be so fundamental in cutting across either the frontiers control or control of admission to the United Kingdom that in spite of benefits that might accrue from the Directive they may not be thought to outweigh the fundamental principles". Asked whether this meant that while frontier controls were fundamental, economic migration was of lesser concern, he backtracked somewhat: "No, it is really a balancing exercise. They all have to be balanced together". Nevertheless, the Government's position has not changed in any way since the then Minister, Mrs Barbara Roche, MP, said in February in a Written Answer that "The Government are committed to maintaining the United Kingdom's frontier controls and retaining national control over immigration policy in relation to third-country nationals"[25] (p 18, QQ 50-51).

32.  In the light of the Government's categorical statement that it opposed free movement rights for legally resident third country nationals it seems unlikely that they could at any stage have contemplated opting into the proposal. The questions we then considered were, first, what part the United Kingdom plays in such a case in discussions with the Commission and other Member States, and, secondly, what processes, of analysis and consultation, are gone through before the decision is announced.

33.  On the first point, the Government Response to our Report on A Community Immigration Policy is relevant:

    The Government rejects the assumption that the UK's influence in this area will be weakened because of the reserved right to decide whether to opt into Title IV measures. The UK intends to and does play an active role in the debate on a Community Immigration Policy. Our reserved right to decide whether to opt in does not mean we want our immigration policies to be backward looking and seriously at odds with other Member States. We will be constructive in considering any emerging EU measures (Response to paragraph 170).

From what has already been said it would appear that the present proposal was not drafted in such a way that the United Kingdom could conceivably have opted into it as it stands. The Home Office seemed to confirm this, pointing out that with regard to admission the Directive "simply presupposes that it builds on Schengen arrangements"—to which the United Kingdom (at least as regards free movement) is not party. Indeed, it appears that the Commission ignored the Government's concerns on this issue. At a bilateral meeting the Government had highlighted "some of the difficulties about the free movement element". The Commission had proceeded regardless: "it tends to be the case that a Member State will flag up its difficulties but the Commission continues to draft the proposal as they intended to in the first place" (QQ 56, 80).

34.  The process by which the Government reach a decision on whether or not to opt in was described by Mr Caffarey. Once the Immigration and Nationality Directorate became aware of a proposal, it would "consult our colleagues at official level and obviously try and reach a view about the merits of the Directive in the light of Government policy". An Explanatory Memorandum would be prepared for the scrutiny committees of both Houses, and the views of witnesses to any inquiry conducted by either Committee taken into account. Then "once we have collected together views from official level, Ministers will then need to consult amongst themselves and reach a collective view about whether the Government should opt in". Mr Caffarey confirmed that within the three-month timetable the Government had "carried out a great deal of consultation between the different departments, the different departmental interests". However, there seems to be little "consultation" outside Government departments. On the present proposal Mr Caffarey conceded that the Home Office had not consulted with employer organisations. He argued, nevertheless, that the Government was "quite well aware" of the views of employers, thanks to regular contacts "in the course of normal business". In the House on 23 July, the Minister, Lord Rooker, turned the question around, pointing out that no attempt had been made by employer groups to lobby the Government on the proposal[26] (QQ 40-41, 44, 46).

35.  The Government were also challenged on their decision to opt into the Directive allowing for the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, which was agreed on 28 May. This Directive establishes a procedure whereby Member States may enforce expulsion decisions made by other Member States. Witnesses argued that in the light of this Directive the Member States, and in particular the United Kingdom, were under, in Professor Guild's words, a "strong moral duty also to opt into this proposal, and also to press for the inclusion of cross-recognition of the resident statuses". Mr Caffarey, on the other hand, said that "we ourselves do not see a very close relationship between the two". He argued that the Directive on the mutual recognition of expulsion decisions "does not place any obligation on a Member State". Instead, as his colleague, Mr Charles Lewis, pointed out, the Directive is intended merely "to make possible the recognition of the expulsion decision". Mr Caffarey went so far as to assert that it was "rather questionable … whether it is a Directive at all. It does not seem to actually direct us to do anything". The reality, as Professor Guild indicated, may be rather more complex. Under the procedure set out in the Directive the British courts would have to apply different criteria in expelling a "visitor" from those applying to United Kingdom residents. In other words, certain factors, such as family links, long residence, and so on, would have to be taken into account in the Member State making the initial decision, rather than the State implementing the decision: "You can see this turning into a horrible mess and you can see the UK courts becoming quite unhappy about permitting residents' rights to be extinguished" (QQ 5, 63-64).

11   For the most recent edition see the Communication of 23 May 2001 from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Biannual update of the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of "Freedom, Security and Justice" in the European Union (first half of 2001), document COM(2001) 278 final, 9304/01 JAI 43. Back

12   Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals (COM (2001) 157 final). Back

13   See the Association Agreement of 1962 with Turkey, OJ L 217, 29.12.1964. Back

14   In addition to the EU Member States, these are Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Back

15   Kees Groenendijk, Elspeth Guild, Robin Barzilay, The legal status of third country nationals who are long-term residents in a Member State of the European Union (Nijmegen, Centre for Migration Law, 2000), pp 100-02. It appears that no-one has ever claimed long-term resident status in Greece after 15 years. Back

16   OJ L 217, 29.12.1964. Back

17   Explanatory Memorandum, p 12. Back

18   See A Community Immigration Policy, paragraphs 96-97. Back

19   Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Back

20   The Response was dated 17 July. It will be published in due course in Government ResponsesBack

21   HL Deb col. 1670. Back

22   Proposal for a Council Directive relating to the conditions in which third-country nationals shall have the freedom to travel in the territory of the Member States for periods not exceeding three months, introducing a specific travel authorisation and determining the conditions of entry and movement for periods not exceeding six months (COM(2001) 388 final). Back

23   See above, note 19. Back

24   HL Deb col. 1667. Back

25   Written answer by Mrs Roche on 9 February 2001 (House of Commons Hansard WA 749W). See also our Report on A Community Immigration Policy, paragraphs 122-31. Back

26   HL Deb col. 1668. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001