Brussels, 07/06/2002 (Agence Europe) - Giving a summary at his press conference of the Convention's debate on the area of freedom and justice (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.5), Valéry Giscard d'Estaing noted the "strong hand" of Europe concerning "justice and crossborder security", while considering that the Convention must avoid reaching "hasty conclusions" in this tricky area. He summarised the debates mainly noting that the Members of the Convention had: - wanted a more precise definition of crossborder crime which requires a European response; - insisted on the balance between security and fundamental values and on democratic control in this field; - discussed the abolition of the pillar structure (in plenary, he had noted that the "third pillar" is not a "legal" notion); - discussed the possibility of introducing qualified majority for asylum and immigration (but some States insist on national policies in this field, including concerning access to employment, he noted); - marked, for the most part, preference for better cooperation between existing authorities rather than for the setting in place of European border guards.
He was also questioned about his summary of the 6 June debates on the subject of JHA (see Europe yesterday page 5) by MEPs Anne van Lancer and Hannes Voggenhuber, who considered that the summary did not reflect the majority desire for" Communitarisation". Mr Voggenhubber asked whether the Convention would have the right to adopt consensus that didn't correspond to the President's view. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing replied that the summary was obviously not yet completed.
The Wednesday afternoon debate on the subject of JHA led to some direct exchanges between Members, such as Alain Lamassoure, who appealed for communitarisation (denouncing the "hypocrisy" of the Sangatte centre in France and the situation there where nothing is done to prevent refugees from going to the United Kingdom and Germany. German government representative, Peter Gloz replied that Mr Lamassoure was right in the long-term but wasn't sure that Germany would have had any rule in the field that could have worked well either, if communitarisation already existed. British Conservative, David Heathcoat-Amery, a House of Commons representative, considered that if one wanted to go further, it was necessary to know whether the Union was the equivalent of a State with coercive powers enjoyed by a State. Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Deputy for Peter Hain, the British government representative, was much more pragmatic, as well as MEP, Andrew Duff (Liberal, United Kingdom), who replied that the Union was not a State but a "Constitutional order"). Hubert Haenel from the French Senate explained that the pillar structure was not important but rather finding solutions to JHA problems. MEP Olivier Duhamel (Socialist, France), however, wanted to finish with this pillar structure.