LONDON – The return of illegal migrants is a topic never far from the headlines. This is a problem which, to a greater or lesser extent, affects all Member States of the EU. In this report the a parliamentary commission of the British parliament looks at an EU initiative for dealing with it.

The mandate given to the Commission in the Hague Programme was to provide for common standards for persons to be returned in a humane manner, and with full respect for their human rights and dignity. The proposed Directive could have been an opportunity for raising those standards to the highest currently in force in the Member States. This opportunity has not been taken. The standards proposed are generally a compromise between the best and the worst. There is a danger that this may result in the lowering of standards in some Member States.

The proposals for judicial supervision of detention and removal are a welcome exception. They set high standards which all Member States should attain.

 

Incorporation into the Directive of the Council of Europe Guidelines on Forced Returns would do much to safeguard the position of vulnerable persons, especially children.

The parliamentary commission reiterates its view that the United Kingdom should in general participate fully in immigration measures under Title IV of the Treaty, but the parliamentary commission believes that the Government were in this particular case justified in not opting in to the proposed Directive.

 

This is not a reason for the British Government to be complacent. They should strive to raise United Kingdom standards to the high levels the parliamentary commission recommends, and use such influence as they have in the negotiations on the draft to improve the standards it seeks to set.

 

It is now just over four years since the Commission published its Green Paper on A Community Return Policy on Illegal Residents. This followed from the Commission's earlier Communication on a Common Policy on Illegal Immigration which the report considered and reported on during 2002. The parliamentary commission considered the Green Paper in the course of that inquiry, and the parliamentary commission sent our comments to the Commission, broadly supporting the paper's general thrust. The Government's response was somewhat more ambivalent.

 

In its report the parliamentary commission stated that the parliamentary commission saw considerable scope for adopting a common approach to returns, and emphasised that this should be based on returning illegal immigrants to their countries of origin, rather than moving them round the EU. Its conclusion was that "the Member States have a common interest in securing the removal of illegal immigrants, not just from the country where they happen to be when detected but from the territory of the Union as a whole." The parliamentary commission urged that this approach should be further explored.

 

The Commission's Green Paper was followed on 14 October 2002 by a policy paper. This Communication was the basis for the Return Action Programme adopted by the Council on 28 November 2002, which called for improved operational cooperation between the Member States and with third countries, and the establishment of common standards to facilitate operational return.

 

Thereafter this project, which at the time was accorded a high degree of priority, seems to have lost any sense of urgency. There was certainly action on other aspects of the return process. A Directive had already been agreed on the mutual recognition of expulsion decisions, and under the Return Action Programme further measures were agreed on transit assistance for removal by air, and on the organisation of joint flights. Readmission agreements were also concluded between the EU and a number of countries of origin or third countries from which irregular migrants originally travelled, in particular Hong Kong, Macao, Sri Lanka and Albania, facilitating the identification and return of persons to those countries.

 

However there were no developments on the proposal for common procedures on returns between November 2002 and the adoption by the European Council on 4-5 November 2004 of the Hague Programme, a new five-year programme for EU action in justice and home affairs. The Commission, in its quinquennial assessment of the Tampere proposals, had confined itself to saying:

"A stronger fight against trafficking in human beings, and the development of an effective policy on returns and re-admission, will be facilitated by the future Constitutional Treaty."

 

However the Hague Programme itself specifically called for a return and re-admission policy, stating: "Migrants who do not or no longer have the right to stay legally in the EU must return on a voluntary or, if necessary, a compulsory basis. The European Council calls for the establishment of an effective removal and repatriation policy based on common standards for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their human rights and dignity."

 

The Council called for Commission proposals which would enable the Council to begin discussions "in early 2005". In the event, it was not until 1 September 2005 that the Commission submitted the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. This is the draft Returns Directive which is the subject of our inquiry. The parliamentary commission set it out in full in Appendix 5.

 

It does not seem that work on this Directive is being given a high priority by the Austrian Presidency, possibly because the Presidency shares a view the parliamentary commission have heard expressed elsewhere that Governments hold widely differing views, so that there is little prospect of early agreement in the Council.

 

Lord Triesman, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, told us that other Member States had even more reservations than the United Kingdom: "I have not a strong sense that the Directive is at the top of anybody's agenda".

 

The parliamentary commission conducted an inquiry and it was particularly interested in the conditions under which vulnerable persons, and especially children, are held in detention in the UK, and on 7 March the parliamentary commission visited the immigration detention centre at Yarl's Wood, near Bedford. A full account of the visit is set out in Appendix 4 of the report. The parliamentary commission are grateful to our hosts, and to all those who helped us on that visit.

The parliamentary commission was fortunate to be assisted during our inquiry by Professor Jörg Monar, holder of the Marie Curie Chair of Excellence at the Université Robert Schuman de Strasbourg (currently on leave from the University of Sussex). He has acted for us in previous inquiries, and his help was invaluable.

 

In view of the significance of the issues raised by the draft Directive, the parliamentary commission make this Report to the House for debate.

 

Further information:

 

 

 

See also our articles: