WRITTEN QUESTION E-2352/02 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. British drugs policy and how it relates to European policy.
Date: 2002-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, competence of the Member States, criminal law, drug addiction, drug traffic, health policy

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/75

whatever bilateral agreements the Member States may have been able to negotiate with the immigrants’
countries of origin, can the Commission tell me how far it has got in the negotiations it has been
mandated to begin on readmission agreements? What are the countries for which the Commission intends
to seek a new negotiating mandate from the Council?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Commission has no information concerning a French ‘back to the border’ scheme for illegal
immigrants, grouped by country. It is therefore not in a position to comment on any such scheme’s
compatibility with existing Union laws and policies.

There is as yet no overall Union policy on return and readmission, although the Commission has
published a Green Paper (1) on a Community Return Policy and has advanced its work on re-admission
agreements as described below. This is due to the fact that it is only since the entry into force of the Treaty
of Amsterdam on 1 May 1999 that the Community has had powers in this field (Article 63(3)(b) of the EC
Treaty).

When debating the effects of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam on the Union’s future policy
in this field, at its meeting on 27 and 28 May 1999, the Council concluded that Community readmission
agreements would constitute a valuable instrument for an active return policy and that, in suitable cases,
the Council would authorise the Commission to conduct negotiations with third countries on such
agreements. These
the Tampere European Council of
15/16 October 1999 when the Union’s Heads of State or Government explicitly confirmed that the
Amsterdam Treaty conferred powers on the Community in the field of readmission. The European Council
invited the Council to conclude readmission agreements with relevant third-countries or groups of third-
it shares this approach, most recently in its
countries. The Commission has repeatedly stated that
Communication on a Common Policy on Illegal Immigration (2) and in the Green Paper on a Community
Return Policy mentioned above.

conclusions were broadly backed by

to negotiate Community readmission
The Commission has so far been authorised by the Council
the Chinese Special
agreements with Russia, Morocco, Pakistan, Sri Lanka (in September 2000),
in
Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macao (in April 2001) and Ukraine (in June 2002)
the Commission has been able to complete
accordance with Article 300 of the EC Treaty. So far,
negotiations successfully with Hong Kong and Sri Lanka with whom final
texts were initialled on
22 November 2001 and 30 May 2002 respectively. The Council should soon authorise the Commission to
sign the Hong Kong Agreement which is now likely to become the first ever readmission agreement to be
concluded by the Community.

Following the Laeken European Council of 14/15 December 2001, which emphazised the need for the
conclusion of Community readmission agreements with further relevant third-countries, at its meeting on
25 April 2002, the Council, identified Albania, Algeria, China and Turkey as new priorities. This was
confirmed by the Seville European Council of 21/22 June 2002 which, in paragraph 30 of its conclusions,
explicitly called for the speeding up of
the conclusion of readmission agreements currently being
negotiated and the approval of new negotiating mandates for further third countries. As a consequence,
the Commission will shortly submit to the Council draft mandates for negotiations with Albania, Algeria,
China and Turkey.

(1) COM(2002) 175 final.
(2) COM(2001) 672 final.

(2003/C 137 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2352/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: British drugs policy and how it relates to European policy

(31 July 2002)

The UK Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has confirmed that in the wake of recommendations made by the
UK Parliament from July 2003 cannabis will be deemed a type C drug in the UK, alongside steroids and
antidepressants.

C 137 E/76

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

He claims that this is not legalising cannabis (which is legal in all EU countries except France, Sweden,
Finland and Greece), and he actually announced that the current five-year sentence for drug traffickers will
be raised to 14.

The decision is based on a successful, if controversial experiment carried out in south London, where the
police took a lenient approach to cannabis consumers and focused on hard drugs.

Does the Commission believe that the UK Government’s position is in line with European policy on
fighting drug addiction?

How do the Commission and its relevant Agency view the experiment carried out in London?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Drug policy falls mainly within the competence of the Member States. All Member States have signed and
ratified the three United Nations Conventions on Drugs (from 1961, 1971 and 1988), which provide a
common framework for national legislation on drugs, while at the same time allowing for some leeway in
national implementation of the legislation. For its part, the Commission carried out a study on the drug
legislation in Member States when preparing its proposal for a Council Framework Decision laying down
minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug
trafficking (1).

This study shows that trafficking in cannabis remains illegal in all Member States. However, some Member
States have decided that the consumption of cannabis and possession for personal use should not be
criminal offences. According to a recent study published by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and
Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), there is a general tendency throughout the Union for prosecutors and/or the
courts to find alternative arrangements to criminal sanctions in relation to use or possession of cannabis
for personal use.

The proposed British legislation, where greater priority is given to policing and prosecuting cannabis
dealers and traffickers is in line with this trend. It does not imply the legalisation of cannabis but provides
for the law enforcement resources to be targeted more effectively against trafficking in cannabis e.g. by
raising the maximum sentence for trafficking to 14 years.

As far as the experiment in South London (Lambeth) is concerned, it is too early to draw any far-fetching
conclusions since the experiment only finished at the end of July 2002 and no thorough evaluation of the
experiment is available as yet.

(1) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.

(2003/C 137 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE),
Elmar Brok (PPE-DE), Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL), Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE),
Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE), Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL)
and David Martin (PSE) to the Council

Subject: EU information policy in the republics of eastern Europe

(2 August 2002)

Knowledge and, therefore, an understanding of the projects and policies pursued by the European Union is
gaining ground on a daily basis and in the field through the Union’s information and documentation
networks in the Member States, the applicant countries and third countries. These information networks
comprise Info-Points Europe (1), European documentation centres (2), the rural information carrefours (3),
the Euro Info Centres (4) and the Team Europe conference speakers (5) situated in towns and cities.