10th REPORT: THE HAGUE PROGRAMME: A FIVE
YEAR AGENDA FOR EU JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS
Letter from Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP, Home
Secretary, Home Office to the Chairman
I am writing in response to the European Union
Committee's 10th Report of Session 2004-05 on "The Hague
Programme: a five year agenda for EU justice and home affairs".
The Government welcomes this report, which provides
a full and detailed evaluation of the Hague Programme. We believe
that the Hague Programme is a helpful step in the development
of an area of Freedom, Security and Justice. We note the recent
publication of the Hague Programme Action Plan, which proposes
initiatives to be taken forward on the basis of the programme.
The Action Plan has been deposited for Parliamentary Scrutiny
and an Explanatory Memorandum is being submitted.
The Government's detailed response to the European
Union Committee's report can be found at Annex A.
7 June 2005
Annex A
Government Response
SCRUTINY
71. We regret that the Government saw
fit to withhold from scrutiny the drafts of the Hague Programme
prior to its adoption by the European Council. It is unacceptable
that Parliament was denied the opportunity to examine and comment
on proposals of such importance until it was too late to influence
their content.
72. We make our recommendations in this
Report so that they can be taken into account in the negotiations
and drafting of the Commission's five-year Action Plan.
The Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees were given
an opportunity to consider the European Commission's Communication
of the future Justice and Home Affairs work programme, on which
negotiations on the work programme were based. It is unfortunate
that the European Union Committee's letter of 16 September, responding
to the Commission Communication, was not received by the Government
until 20 October and was therefore not replied to until shortly
after that date. It is important to note that the House of Commons
was able to hold a debate on the Floor of that House to consider
the issues raised by the Commission's Communication on 14 October
2005.
The document that the Committee believes the
Government saw fit to withhold from scrutiny was an internal EU
Council working document. The Government does not normally deposit
these documents for Parliamentary Scrutiny as they are considered
to be restricted and not for public consideration. Substantial
scrutiny of the work programme would also have been impractical
given the timetable involved (the Presidency provided a first
draft in early October with the aim for agreement at the European
council on 4th November). However, the Government has made a strong
effort to rectify this by writing in detail to the Committee after
the November European Council and in response to the Committee's
Call for Evidence, as well as making representatives available
to provide oral evidence to the committee.
The Commission's five-year Action Plan has been
published and has been deposited for Parliamentary Scrutiny. An
Explanatory Memorandum is being submitted.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
73. We welcome the emphasis that the
Hague Programme places on respect for the principles of subsidiarity
and proportionality and for the legal traditions of Member States
in developing legislation in Justice and Home Affairs. We expect
the Government to be vigilant in ensuring full respect for these
principles. (paragraph 9)
The Government agrees that the principles of
subsidiarity and proportionality, as well as the legal traditions
of the Member States, should be fully respected, and will be vigilant
in ensuring that this is the case.
FREEDOM AND
SECURITY
74. Criticism of the Hague Programme
for placing undue emphasis on security considerations at the expense
of respect for fundamental right is justified. This emphasis on
security may be explicable in the light of recent events, but
it is important that measures to protect citizens' rights are
not sidelined in the implementation of the Programme. We urge
the Commission and Member States to give full weight to the need
to protect fundamental rights when developing and implementing
the five-year Action Plan for JHA. (paragraph 11)
The Government agrees that the right balance
between protecting people in the exercise of their fundamental
rights and ensuring that they live in a secure and just Europe
needs to be found, and believes that this has been achieved in
the Hague Programme. Improving security is vital and without it
freedom and justice could not flourish, but this should not be
at the expense of fundamental rights and the rule of law.
Indeed, the Hague programme makes clear that
Human Rights should be respected, and one of its main stated objectives
is to "improve the capability of the Union and its Member
States to guarantee fundamental rights, minimum procedural safeguards
and access to justice".
It will establish a Human Rights Agency by extending
the mandate of the European Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, and
will also provide an opportunity to exploit a mutually beneficial
relationship between human rights and anti-discrimination. Upon
ratification of the Constitutional Treaty, the EU will formally
recognise the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which will further
enhance the respect of citizens' fundamental rights shown by the
EU. At the same time the Hague Programme continues work on mutual
recognition, rights for defendants in criminal procedural law,
and on improving access to civil law procedures across borders,
making it easier to work, study and live abroad.
THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS AGENCY
75. The establishment of a Fundamental
Rights Agency could be beneficial for the respect and promotion
of human rights by the EU institutions and by Member States when
applying EU law. Careful consideration must be given, however,
to the role and powers of the Fundamental Rights Agency, in order
to avoid wasteful duplication of work between the EU and the Council
of Europe. (paragraph 15)
The Government agrees with the Committee's conclusion's
and will work to ensure that the Agency's remit is an appropriate
one, and that duplication of work, particularly with the Council
of Europe, is avoided.
ASYLUM—MINIMUM
STANDARDS
76. We fully share our witnesses' concerns
regarding some of the standards adopted in the first stage of
EU asylum measures. The Committee has repeatedly highlighted the
danger of Member States reaching agreement on the basis of the
lowest common denominator, which would not provide an adequate
level of protection for asylum seekers and could jeopardise existing
levels of protection in those Member States currently observing
higher standards than those required by the EU. (paragraph 18)
77. A detailed evaluation of the implementation
of these instruments is essential to ensure that it is consistent
with international human rights and refugee law standards. (paragraph
18)
78. The concept of a Common European
Asylum System, which has been a central objective of JHA policy
since Tampere, remains valid to ensure consistent standards across
the EU and to prevent "asylum shopping". (paragraph
19)
79. Proper evaluation of the first stage
of the CEAS is essential before embarking on consideration of
second stage measures; the deadline of 2010 is probably too ambitious.
Evaluation should be carried out by an independent body of experts,
whose findings should be published. It is essential that any new
EU standards on asylum should ensure a high level of protection
in accordance with international human rights and refugee law.
(paragraph 20)
80. Joint processing of asylum applications
in the EU is not the right way forward. The key lies with improving
the asylum process and decision-making in Member States. We welcome
the UNHCR "Quality Initiative" and will monitor its
progress during the United Kingdom Presidency of the EU. (paragraph
21)
A EUROPEAN ASYLUM
OFFICE
81. A European Asylum Office could assist
practical co-operation between national asylum authorities, through
the exchange of information and best practice. In our Report on
extra-territorial asylum processing, we recommended the establishment
of an independent documentation centre managed on an EU basis.
The European Asylum Office could take on this role in co-operation
with the UNHCR. (paragraph 23)
82. We see less value in the Office
taking the role of an auditing/evaluating body. This could cause
unnecessary duplication with the work of other structures specifically
established to evaluate the implementation of EU measures in the
JHA field. Still less should the Office develop a centralised
decision-making role. (paragraph 23)
ASYLUM-EXTRATERRITORIAL
PROCESSING
83. We highlighted our concerns about
extra-territorial asylum processing in our Report Handling EU
Asylum Claims: New Approaches Examined. Studies on extra-territorial
processing are a distraction from the central objective of improving
asylum procedures in Member States. (paragraph 24)
With regard to the Committee's points on asylum,
the Government welcomes the Committee's recommendations on the
development of a Common European Asylum System. It is our belief
that a common international approach, coupled with domestic reform,
is the best way to address these issues. We have been clear there
should be co-operation at the European level to achieve an effective,
fair and managed system of asylum to stop asylum shopping, but
that this must be balanced against the need to ensure that Member
States can continue with the process of addressing the specific
challenges their domestic asylum systems face.
Measures such as Dublin II and EURODAC are already
having an effect in reducing "asylum shopping". Other
measures are beginning to come into effect and we cannot yet judge
their impact. As we near completion of the package of minimum
standards directives, we believe and the Programme makes clear
that any further legislative action at the EU level should be
based on an evaluation of the current instruments. We welcome
the importance the Committee attaches to proper implementation
and evaluation. We do not however believe that there is a need
for an evaluation of their consistency with international law;
nothing in a minimum standards measure can permit or require a
Member State to breach its international obligations.
The Programme acknowledges the need to look
into the difficulties behind joint processing before considering
whether to take this any further. We believe that the Hague Programme
provides for proper consideration of the issues before we take
any further decision on joint processing.
We welcome the emphasis on practical co-operation
between Member States. By sharing practical experience on the
many common areas of Member States' systems and processes, we
can deliver benefits for all Member States.
Finally, we support the Committee's view that
there needs to be further consideration of the role of any support
office. We believe that we need to see added value before we take
a decision on this, and we welcome the Committee's assessment
that such a structure should not develop beyond assisting Member
States' national asylum authorities.
MIGRATION
84. Effective EU action to counter irregular
migration is hard to achieve without common EU policies on legal
migration and the admission of third country nationals for paid
employment. We welcome the invitation by the European Council
to the Commission to prepare a policy paper on legal migration,
and urge Member States to examine the issue as a matter of priority.
(paragraph 28)
The European Commission's own study into the
link between legal and illegal migration found that while there
is a link, the relationship is complex and not a direct one. Effective
action on illegal immigration is not contingent on there being
common EU rules on labour migration. Illegal immigration takes
place for many different reasons, not simply limited opportunities
to migrate legally or differences in criteria operated by different
EU Member States.
85. We urge Member States to revisit
the issue of the rights of legally resident third country nationals.
(paragraph 29)
We are clear that legal migrant workers should
be protected by law and indeed the UK provides all legal migrant
workers with certain minimum rights. However, the extent to which
Member States provide rights to certain categories of migrant
should depend on national circumstances. Therefore, there is no
necessary requirement for Third Country Nationals to receive parity
of treatment with EU citizens.
BORDER SECURITY
86. When negotiating measures involving
controls on third country nationals, Member States should take
full account of their implications for privacy and data protection
and give public opinion, and national parliaments, enough time
for meaningful scrutiny and debate of them. (paragraph 30)
We consider it important that any proposal considers
carefully data protection issues in order to ensure that the fundamental
rights and freedoms of individuals, such as the right to privacy,
are adequately safeguarded. Through a combination of domestic
Parliamentary Scrutiny, regular meetings with NGOs and the role
of the European Parliament, the Government believes that it takes
full account of these concerns.
THE EUROPEAN
BORDER AGENCY
87. We remain of the view, expressed
in our Report on Proposals for a European Border Guard that the
case for a centrally managed, multi-national European Border Guard
has not been made. (paragraph 34)
The Government agrees that the case has not
been made for a fully-fledged European Border Guard, which might
replace national border services, and remains opposed to the concept.
We are not alone in that view. Poland, Hungary, Finland, Ireland
and many other Member States also oppose the idea, and those (eg
Germany) who do support the idea, recognise that it could only
be a long-term aim.
But the Government does support increased joint
activity and co-operation between Member States at the EU external
borders, where that activity is conducted on an operationally-focused,
intelligence-led basis. Such action has the potential to enhance
the security of the EU's external borders to the benefit of all
Member States. For example we fully support the aims and objectives
of the Border Agency which will co-ordinate Member States operational
co-operation. We also support measures outlined in the Hague Programme,
such as the proposed teams of national experts or rapid reaction
task force—provided there is scope for us to be involved
and have a say in how the work is taken forward. Joint activity
must complement, not replace, the work of national border services—that
is what these measures aim to do.
It is worth noting that what people think of
as a "European Border Guard" is changing. For some,
a system of Border Guards would simply be the combination of the
various methods of co-operation mentioned above (which we support).
But for others it remains a multi-national standing Border Guard
Corps (which we continue to oppose).
POLICE CO
-OPERATION AND
THE ROLE
OF EUROPOL
88. It is important to improve co-ordination
between Member States, and with international bodies such as Interpol,
without necessarily creating yet more structures in the EU. (paragraph
37)
Europol has a close working relationship with
other International agencies. For example, Europol has an operational
agreement with Interpol which enables personal data to be exchanged
between the two bodies. Europol also has observer status on the
Interpol European Committee and Interpol has a representative
in the meeting of the Heads of Europol National Units (HENUs).
Europol also has a liaison officer based at Interpol.
Interpol has recently agreed that Europol can
have direct access to its information exchange system. This will
be rolled out not only to Europol itself but also to the EU Member
States liaison bureaux at Europol.
The UK National Central Bureau of Interpol and
the UK's Europol National Unit are based at the National Criminal
Intelligence Service. This helps ensure close working relationship
across a full range of international co-operation matters to the
UK's and Interpol's-Europol's mutual advantage.
89. Europol has an important role to
play but is still under-used by Member States. Before attempting
to redefine its role, it is essential to convince Member States
of the need to co-operate with Europol fully. (paragraph 37)
The Government supports the important role Europol
plays in the fight against serious, organised cross-border crime
in the EU. For Europol to reach its full potential it requires
a greater commitment from all Member States to contribute to and
benefit from Europol's intelligence gathering and analysis capabilities.
Member States cannot reasonably expect the kind of support they
need from Europol if they are not themselves providing Europol
with relevant material.
There is no intention to redefine Europol's
role but we do wish to see Europol function more efficiently and
effectively and thereby do better what it was set up to do, which
is to support Member States' own operations. The UK has ratified
all three protocols to the Europol Convention but not all Member
States have yet done so. These allow, for example, for Europol
to participate in a support capacity in Joint Investigation Teams
(JITs). However, there is still a lot Europol can do within the
existing Convention which will allow Europol to operate more effectively.
Europol is already, for instance, compiling compendiums of Member
States' laws on JITs and it can provide advice on JITs even if
it cannot fully participate. We play a prominent role in encouraging
such work, for instance by seeking advice from Europol in setting
up JITs. Europol will also be involved in the implementation of
the European Criminal Intelligence Model (ECIM), through the production
of an Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA) that replaces the
Organised Crime Report.
90. Any proposals to enhance the exchange
of information must be accompanied by high standards of data protection.
There is a clear need for specific EU data protection standards
for the Third Pillar. (paragraph 37)
It is essential that we improve exchange of
law enforcement information to help catch criminals and deliver
focused, intelligence-led policing. The Government fully agrees
that such information exchange must be accompanied by high standards
of protection. High standards do exist already, with the UK and
most other Member States having implemented the Data Protection
Directive in a way that covers law enforcement information exchange.
However, the Government agrees that further
clarity on the data protection rules relating to the third pillar
would make a contribution to increased data exchange, as part
of a wider strategy looking at technical means and cultural attitudes
towards information sharing, and would reassure EU citizens that
their rights were being properly protected. Therefore we look
forward to the Commission producing a proposal on data protection
in the third pillar later this year.
CRIMINAL LAW—APPROXIMATION
AND MUTUAL
RECOGNITION
91. Approximation of the criminal laws
of Member States is likely to have a significant impact on Member
States' legal cultures and traditions and on national sovereignty.
We are pleased to see that the Hague Programme views such approximation
as being necessary only if it facilitates mutual recognition.
However, the more progress that is made on developing the mutual
recognition programme, the greater the need will be for some sort
of minimum standard across the EU of procedures in the legal processes
for which mutual recognition will be claimed. (paragraph 40)
The Government firmly believes that approximation
is not a precondition for effective mutual recognition. The Hague
programme is predicated upon the need to ensure that the enhancement
of mutual recognition as the basis of judicial co-operation proceeds
in manner that respects the individual culture and legal traditions
of Members States. The Government agrees that some minimum standards
in procedural law will be necessary in order to enhance mutual
trust and confidence in the criminal justice systems of the EU
states and thereby promote the development of the mutual recognition
programme. But each proposal to establish such minimum standards
must be closely scrutinised in order to ensure that it will materially
improve the prospects for better judicial co-operation and a more
effective European response to serious and organised crime.
92. Such approximation is necessary
not only to facilitate mutual trust and justify mutual recognition,
but, more importantly, to protect the rights of the individuals
affected. However, we would urge caution in the further development
of harmonisation in sensitive areas such as the admissibility
of evidence. Before any further expansion of harmonisation there
needs to be a full examination of the implications of such a development
for Member States. This is an area where the principle of subsidiarity
will come into play and due observance of it will be necessary.
(paragraph 40)
The Government agrees that the protection of
the rights of individuals subject to criminal proceedings is an
important step in the establishment of the minimum standards necessary
for the development of the mutual recognition programme. That
is why the Government offers its cautious support to the draft
Framework Decision on procedural rights currently under negotiation.
The Government also agrees however that each initiative introduced
as a measure to promote mutual recognition must be thoroughly
scrutinised to ensure that it will have the desired effect and
in manner that is consistent with the need to respect the diverse
legal systems and cultures of the EU and the principle of subsidiarity.
THE RIGHTS
OF THE
DEFENDANT
93. We welcome the commitment towards
the swift adoption of the Framework Decision on defence rights,
but the need to reach agreement on its terms should not jeopardise
the adoption of adequate standards of protection for suspects
and defendants. Standards must not be lowered in order to obtain
agreement. (paragraph 42)
Many of the issues that are being, and will
need to be, addressed in the negotiations were considered during
the course of the Home Office evidence session before the European
Union Committee on the draft Framework Decision on procedural
rights. It is clear that there will need to be some accommodation
of the diversity in legal systems and cultures across the EU if
we are to reach agreement on these important minimum standards.
The Government will continue to work, however, for a final document
that provides added value in this area which has an obvious and
important role in improving mutual confidence and trust and thereby
increasing the prospects of enhanced mutual recognition.
94. The Government's non-committal attitude
to a forthcoming legislative initiative on bail is regrettable.
Any legislative proposals on bail should be treated as a matter
of priority during the United Kingdom Presidency.
The Government has welcomed the Commission's
Green Paper on the mutual recognition of pre-trial supervision
measures. We recognise that it may help to promote the fair treatment
of residents of other EU Member States facing criminal proceedings
within the UK as well as the fair treatment of UK residents in
a similar position in other EU Member States, and ensure that
pre-trial custody is only used in appropriate cases.
The Commission has yet to table a legislative
proposal, but we believe it would be a worthwhile initiative even
though it may not be possible to treat it as a priority during
the UK Presidency.
EUROJUST AND
THE EUROPEAN
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
95. We welcome the deletion of the reference
to the potential establishment of a European Public Prosecutor
from the final version of the Hague Programme. Eurojust has a
pivotal role to play in enhancing judicial co-operation in criminal
matters in the EU, and we welcome the commitment of Member States
to revisit its role in order to achieve greater efficiency. In
developing Eurojust's role in dealing with multilateral cases,
care must be taken that the rights of the individual are not jeopardised
for the sake of "prosecutorial efficiency". (paragraph
45)
The lack of a reference to the EPP in the Hague
Programme is helpful. However we expect the Commission to continue
to raise the issue whenever possible and it still has considerable
support from some Member States. We are still of the view that
a convincing case has not yet been made for a European Public
Prosecutor and we have consistently expressed our opposition to
the concept. It remains the case that, under the new EU Constitutional
Treaty, any proposal to establish a European Public Prosecutor
would be subject to unanimity.
MUTUAL TRUST
AND THE
JUDICIARY
96. We welcome the emphasis on bringing
together prosecutors and judges from Member States in order to
promote understanding of the different legal systems in the EU.
Better understanding should lead to enhanced trust and consequently
better implementation of mutual recognition measures. (paragraph
47)
We support work to promote and enhance understanding
of the different legal systems in operation throughout the EU.
The UK strongly supports the principle of mutual recognition believing
it to be the key component of judicial co-operation. The implementation
of mutual recognition measures can only benefit from the improved
trust and confidence that flow from improved understanding of
each others' legal systems.
EVALUATION
97. It is very important that proper
monitoring and evaluation procedures should be put in place. Evaluation
must not be limited to the collection of statistical data, but
must also be based on information coming from the practical experience
of the individuals involved (such as suspects and defendants)
and the legal profession. Assessment must be made by an independent
body, reporting publicly. (paragraph 51)
98. There are a number of issues relating
to evaluation that remain unresolved. They require careful, but
urgent examination by Member States in order to establish a meaningful
evaluation system. (paragraph 52)
The Government broadly agrees with the Committee's
conclusions. In particular, the need for a broad evidence base
is clear. We strongly support the need for proper implementation
and evaluation as set out in the Hague Programme. It is important
that measures are properly implemented, their outcome evaluated
and evidence of their impact assessed before new legislation is
considered.
Beyond that, the Government does not yet have
a firm view on how such a mechanism should operate. It is understood
that the Commission intends to bring forward a communication on
a suitable evaluation mechanism next year to be followed when
the Constitution comes into force.
JUDICIAL PROTECTION
IN THE
ECJ
99. In view of the far-reaching effects
that measures such as the European Arrest Warrant will in many
cases have on the rights of individuals, it is essential that
any disputes arising from the interpretation of these instruments
are resolved as soon as possible. We welcome the commitment by
the European Council to establish a mechanism to expedite proceedings
in Luxembourg in JHA cases, and urge that priority be given to
any relevant proposals tabled during the United Kingdom Presidency
of the EU. (paragraph 54)
Currently, in preliminary references where the
ECJ agrees the need to move quickly, it is possible for appropriate
arrangements to be put in place under Article 35 TEU. Any proposals
to review the general procedure for expediting cases could only
be achieved under Article III-369 of The Treaty establishing
a Constitution for Europe. It is Article III-369 which introduces
an express stipulation for the Court to act with minimum delay
in custody cases. Any proposals needed to make specific provision
for Article III-369 could only be brought forward and considered
following entry into force of the Constitution.
CIVIL LAW—JUSTIFICATION,
COMPETENCE AND
SUBSIDIARITY
100. Any EU action in the civil law
field under Article 65 of the EC Treaty must respect the conditions
set out in that Article. There must be a clearly identifiable
and substantial cross-border dimension. The legislation must also
be necessary to enable the proper functioning of the internal
market. (paragraph 58)
101. There are some issues where EU
action in civil matters may be beneficial to EU citizens. But
it is essential that the benefit that EU action may confer is
fully substantiated before any proposals in civil matters are
tabled. National parliaments can be expected to examine closely
the subsidiarity implications of proposals aiming to harmonise
civil law. (paragraph 59)
102. EU action in civil law is acceptable
only if it adds value and is absolutely necessary to improve the
everyday life of EU residents in situations having a cross-border
dimension (paragraph 63).
The Government agrees that proposed measures
under Article 65 of the Treaty must respect the conditions set
out in that Article, including an identifiable and substantial
cross-border dimension; we also agree that there should be clear
evidence of the need for and the expected benefits of proposals
in this field. The Government remains of the view, however, that
there is a place for an appropriate level of harmonisation—for
example, suitable confidence-building minimum standards—when
these are clearly linked to the facilitation of mutual recognition
in the civil law area.
FAMILY LAW
103. This is even more so in the sensitive
area of family law, where action at the EU level may challenge
deeply-founded legal and social principles in Member States. We
are not convinced that action in family law matters is required
to the extent proposed by the Hague Programme. (paragraph 63)
104. Supplying the individuals concerned
with more and better information on their rights under the laws
of Member States may be a more effective way of addressing cross-border
issues than EU legislation. We believe that such avenues should
be explored before embarking on the very ambitious legislative
agenda on family law set out in the Hague Programme. (paragraph
63)
The Government does not favour legislation aimed
at harmonising what the Committee rightly describes as deeply-founded
legal and social principles, and the Hague Programme makes clear
that this is not the intention. However we are of the view that
there are areas where the EU can add value and benefit the everyday
lives of citizens in cross-border situations, and we are prepared
to consider appropriate proposals aimed at addressing these, preferably
by enhancing mutual recognition. The fact that the Hague programme
foresees extensive consultation, in the form of Green Papers is
welcome. The Government would support better provision of information
on citizens' rights under the laws of Member States
QUALITY OF
LEGISLATION IN
THE CIVIL
LAW FIELD—A
COMMON FRAME
FOR CONTRACT
105. Improving the quality of EU legislation
is always welcome but the development of a common frame of reference
for contract raises a number of issues. We will return to these
in our Report on European Contract law. (paragraph 64)
The Government will respond in detail in the
context of the response to the Committee's report on contract
law.
CIVIL LAW—RELATIONSHIP
WITH INTERNATIONAL
INSTRUMENTS
106. While recognising that Community
participation in discussions in international fora may be
necessary to ensure consistency and coherence between EC law and
international instruments in civil law, we remain concerned about
the external competence implications and the potential limitations
that Community involvement may place on United Kingdom negotiations
in such fora. The point has become more acute as the proportion
of common law countries in the EU has decreased as a result of
enlargement. (paragraph 65)
The Government takes the view that the paragraph
in the Hague Programme concerning the need for coherence with
the wider international legal order is generally to be welcomed.
It is clearly important to avoid duplication and to ensure that
any EU proposals add value to, rather than compete with, measures
negotiated in other for such as the Hague Conference on Private
International Law. Accession of the Community to the Hague Conference
will not affect external competence; all EU Member States are
bound by such competence and providing the Community with a seat
at the table will only reflect the reality of the present situation.
EXTERNAL RELATIONS—MIGRATION
AND ASYLUM
107. Co-operation between the EU and
third countries is essential in developing an effective policy
on immigration and asylum. Ways of providing protection for asylum
seekers and refugees in regions of origin should be explored,
but they must be a part of a general strategy of conflict prevention
and resolution in refugee producing areas with the aim of achieving
security and stability. Care must also be taken to ensure that
the rights of asylum seekers, in particular protection against
refoulement, are fully protected. (paragraph 68)
We agree that co-operation between the EU and
third countries in the field of immigration and asylum policy
is paramount. To this end, we support the European Commission's
Communication on "Improving Access to Durable Solutions",
which is aimed at strengthening protection in regions of origin
of refugee movements. In particular we welcome the Commission's
intention to develop Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs). RPPs
involve strengthening regional protection for the majority of
the world's refugees who are unable to access asylum systems in
the EU, in order to ensure accessible and effective protection
for people fleeing persecution and conflict. We believe that the
UK can claim much credit for stimulating the debate which lies
behind the Commission's Communication and its subsequent Conclusions.
We need to protect the vulnerable and seek to undermine those
who exploit people genuinely in need of protection. The Home Office
works with the FCO and DFID in developing the UK's approach to
regional protection, which is a cross-Whitehall priority. We feel
it is important that concepts such as RPPs are developed within
the wider framework of EU Country and Regional Strategy Papers,
with RPP's being updated in line with the mid-term reviews of
these Strategy Papers. This allows for capacity building in regions
of origin and transit.
EXTERNAL RELATIONS—CRIMINAL
LAW
108. Concerted action is essential to
address global problems, such as international crime and terrorism
but this must not be at the expense of fundamental rights, including
data protection. EU-US co-operation, but also global co-operation,
is crucial. So is co-operation of Member States with global organisations
like Interpol. We urge the Commission and the Secretary General/High
Representative to give full weight to, and promote the protection
of, fundamental rights when preparing the EU external action strategy
for JHA. (paragraph 70)
The Government supports the Committee's call
for the Commission and Secretary General/High Representative to
ensure that full weight is given to human rights in the EU's external
relations strategy. The EU has the capacity to add real value
to the efforts of the Member States when helping countries outside
the EU to tackle the most serious crimes, better tackle illegal
migration from and through their countries, provide protection
to those in need of asylum and to ensure the safety of their citizens.
In undertaking action in these fields the countries concerned,
the EU and the Member States should ensure all that they uphold
the human rights of their citizens.
| 
