Brussels, 06/06/2002 (Agence Europe) - It's probably the most interesting debate we've had yet, said the Vice-President of the Convention, Giuliano Amato, after the three hour debate by the Convention plenary on Thursday on justice and home affairs. The Convention's first thematic debate involved very detailed discussions, with many Members agreeing on the broad outlines (strengthening the EU's role, simplifying procedures, "Communitarising" the third pillar and cooperating over external border control), without there actually being consensus of course. Disagreements were voiced in fact, particularly by the German government, over the issue of asylum and immigration. Some people pointed out that people weren't always talking about the same thing in the debate on "Communitarisation". These two issues ("Communitarisation" and asylum and immigration) gave rise to a closely followed debate, over and above the series of people voicing their opinions. We report below on the outcome of the discussions up until they were broken off a little before 18: 00 hrs.
Procedures and institutions. The debate focussed on ending the division of procedures between the first pillar (Community) and the third pillar (intergovernmental). Many Members called for the European Parliament's role to be increased. Belgian foreign minister Louis Michel opened the debate by calling for these two reforms. Erwin Teufel from the Bundesrat again called for the division of powers to be carefully outlined. Commissioner Antonio Vitorino called for a move to qualified majority voting at the Council and for codecision. Panayotis Ioakimdis, representing the Greek government, also called for a "Communitarisation" of the third pillar (as did Jacques Santer, representing the Luxembourg government) and for qualified majority voting on all legislative measures. Jan Kavan, speaking for the Czech government, called for the "Communitarisation" of part of the third pillar, while Ray MacSharry, speaking for the Irish government, did not call for the "Communitarisation" of the third pillar, preferring to highlight increasing control by national parliaments. Hans van Mierlo for the Dutch government declared that it is absolutely necessary to speak of "communitarisation". "If the structure prevents results, then we must change the structure", he stressed. Peter Glotz, representing the German government, took a stance in favour of European Parliament codecision and extension of qualified majority, but also in favour of keeping unanimity for specific cases. On the other hand, he calls for "national immigration systems" to be kept in place, in order for account to be taken of each specific situation especially on the labour market. "What does communitarisation mean?", asked Carlos Carnero Gonzales from the European Parliament. Hubert Haenel, from the French Senate, took up the question calling for an interest to be taken first of all in the way things work rather than in this "magic formula". In his view, there has been more progress in the third pillar (criminal justice, police cooperation) than in the first (asylum and immigration). Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, of the European Parliament, denounced the "total obscurity" of decision-making in the field of justice and home affairs, and called for communitarisation of the third pillar, codecision, and control of the European Parliament and of the Court of Justice on Europol.
Asylum and immigration. Alain Lamassoure said in answer to Peter Glotz (and to Erwin Teufel) that he was "surprised" that the country which, with the United Kingdom, has the most illegal immigration and asylum seekers can call for national competence. The general tone was rather that of having these issues dealt with at European scale. Commissioner Antonio Vitorino, like the representative of the Swedish government, Lena Hjelm Wallén, insisted on the fact that it is also a matter of integration and protection of refugees and not only of fighting illegal immigration. Hans van Mierlo, speaking for the Dutch government, called for contractual relations between the European Union and the third countries for management of migratory flows like the fight against international crime". Timothy Kirkhope, of the European Parliament, considered that the international conventions on asylum were adequate and called for the EU to only take an interest in immigration.
Border controls. All spoke in favour of stronger cooperation and no-one raised any objection against the long term aim of a European border control police. Erwin Teufel, speaking on behalf of the Bundesrat, greatly insisted on this point. The representative of the Greek government also. Neli Kutskova welcomed on behalf of the Bulgarian government the fact that there is talk of "redistributing the financial burden" of managing external borders. Danuta Hübner, speaking for the Polish government, called for a European "balanced" border guard system, and Roy Mc Sharry, for the Irish Government, called for this idea to be studied carefully.
Judicial and police cooperation, instruments of cooperation and control: Louis Michel called for harmonisation in order to move towards a real European criminal law. Himself and many others hoped that the European Court of Justice would be able to give its opinion on such matters. Many of the Convention Members called for the function of Eurojust and Europol to be strengthened and improved, and there was also considerable discussion on Europol control.