WRITTEN QUESTION E-3049/03 by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission. Electronic tagging of asylum seekers.
Date: 2003-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU migration policy, United Kingdom, admission of aliens, electronic equipment, illegal migration, migration control, migration policy

C 70 E/204

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

(2004/C 70 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3046/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Human rights in Bangladesh

Despite the Commission’s continual monitoring of political developments in Bangladesh, through its
Delegation in Dhaka and various other initiatives, it has been brought to my attention that human rights
violations continue.

Previous cases of politically motivated attacks, reported over a year ago, were understood to be the result
of a temporary ‘power vacuum,’ before the new government could fully establish itself. However, such
attacks, arrests and torture of human rights activists and opposition politicians persist.

Can the Commission please detail what progress, if any, has been made to address the human rights
situation in Bangladesh?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission shares the views of the Honourable Member, that Operation Clean Heart has failed to
achieve its objectives and that the human rights situation in Bangladesh has deteriorated in the course of
2003. The Commission is particularly concerned about the following developments: the law and order
situation is deteriorating, as illustrated by endemic criminality and the inability of the police to respond in
an appropriate manner. The nexus between the police, criminals and certain politicians is particularly
worrying. Tribal tensions are growing in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, in the absence of progress on the
implementation of the 1997 Peace Agreement. The situation of minorities, especially in this region, is
precarious, as demonstrated by violent incidents in Mahalchari on 26 August 2003. Death sentences have
been handed down at disturbingly high rates. There is still little progress on the separation of the judiciary
and the executive and the establishment of
independent monitoring institutions, notably the Anti
Corruption Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman.

The Commission has expressed strong concerns about the situation to the Government on several
In addition the Commission’s Delegation in Dhaka maintains a continuous dialogue on
occasions.
governance and human rights issues with senior interlocutors in the Government.
In its recently
established human rights dialogue, the Commission has addressed a wide range of issues including
separation of the judiciary from the executive, investigation of custodial deaths, torture, status of the Anti
Corruption Commission, Human Rights Commission, Ombudsman, freedom of press and the situation of
the Burmese refugees. The Commission continues to make every effort to maintain the discussion with the
Bangladesh Government and hopes to identify areas were it can co-operate jointly on the promotion and
improvement of the Human Rights situation. To date, the Commission has supported several Human
Rights projects through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights and intends to continue
support in the context of the National Indicative Programme.

(2004/C 70 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3049/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Electronic tagging of asylum seekers

According to an article in the British newspaper ‘The Independent’ on 28 September 2003, the British
Home Office and the Immigration Service are holding talks with the firm Securicor on ways of
electronically tagging asylum seekers and illegals in the United Kingdom, with a view to better monitoring
of the immigration and asylum problem. In the United States, Florida and Alaska have been using a similar
system since the Department for Homeland Security was established. British Home Secretary David

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/205

Blunkett, a Socialist, explaining these radical plans, has himself admitted to not knowing how many
asylum seekers are presently in the United Kingdom. That accounts for the British proposal for electronic
tagging of asylum seekers, possibly by means of an ankle bracelet,
in order to prevent them from
absconding while their asylum applications are being processed. The pressing problem of asylum and the
increase in illegal immigration in all Member States demand coordinating measures at European level,
however, since the draft Constitution proposed by the Convention lays down that immigration and asylum
policy would become a mainly European area of competence.

Is the Commission acquainted with these British plans? Does the Commission share the British Socialist
Home Secretary’s concern at the dramatic way in which asylum policy has gone out of control in the
United Kingdom and, by extension, in most other EU Member States?

If so, is the Commission prepared to endorse such measures, with a view ultimately to introducing the
proposed electronic tagging arrangements in all Union Member States?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Notwithstanding the article in ‘The Independent’ on 28 September 2003, the Commission is not aware of
any plans to electronically tag asylum seekers in any of the Member States. The Commission itself
envisages no such measures at Union level.

The Treaty of Amsterdam provides the legal framework for a common policy on immigration and asylum
and measures to introduce a common approach have already been agreed or are under discussion.
For example, the Eurodac system which allows the comparison of the fingerprints of all asylum seekers in
the Union has been operational since 15 January 2003. Eurodac was set up to support the operation of
the Dublin II Regulation (1) which entered into force in
the Dublin Convention (and its successor,
September 2003), which helps determine which Member State is responsible for determining an asylum
claim and prevent multiple applications, by allowing individual asylum seekers to be identified.

In February 2003 the Council agreed on minimum standards for reception conditions. Minimum standards
on asylum procedures and a common definition of a refugee are still under discussion. In July 2003, the
Thessaloniki European Council set a deadline of the end of 2003 for the agreement of those instruments.
That was further endorsed by the Brussels European Council on the 16/17 October 2003. The Commission
issues a biannual review of progress in this area which details the stages reached in negotiations of all the
measures needed to attain the objectives set by the Treaty of Amsterdam (2).

The Commission does not consider that asylum policy has gone out of control in any Member State,
however in the Commission Communication ‘On the common asylum policy and the Agenda for
Protection’ (3) the Commission noted that abuse of asylum procedures is on the rise as are mixed migratory
flows (often maintained by smuggling practices) involving both those who require protection and those
who do not. In the Commission Communication ‘Towards more accessible, equitable and managed asylum
systems’ (4)
there is a manifest need to explore new avenues to
complement the common approach required by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Note that, under this new
immigration should comply with human rights (4). While new
approach, measures combating illegal
approaches would encompass a range of responses which build upon a global perspective of
the
international protection system, the priority in the first instance should be meeting the deadlines on the
different building blocks of a common policy outlined above. New approaches would also include
partnership with and between countries of origin, first asylum and destination and the need to fully respect

the Commission concluded that

C 70 E/206

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

international human rights obligations. The Thessaloniki European Council asked the Commission to
further explore how more orderly and managed entry to the Union for those requiring protection can be
assured and how protection capacity in the regions of origin can be enhanced. A comprehensive report is
to be presented before June 2004.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State
responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national,
OJ L 222, 5.9.2003.

(2) COM(2003) 291 final: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament ‘Biannual update of
the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of’Freedom, Security and Justice‘in the European Union
(first half of 2003)’.

(3) Second Commission report on the implementation of Communication COM(2000) 755 final: COM(2003) 152 final.
(4) COM(2003) 315 final.

(2004/C 70 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3051/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject: Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia

On 29 September 2003 President Putin announced that Russia had still not taken a decision on whether
or not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This represents a serious setback for international climate policy and
for the EU, which has been advocating ratification of the Protocol by Russia. However, Russia has criticised
EU diplomacy concerning the Protocol, describing it as ‘disastrous’ and ‘clumsy’ (1). Until such time as
Russia ratifies the Protocol, no international obligations can be imposed. However, the EU has announced
that it will continue its efforts to achieve the objectives regarding emissions reductions.

1.
Does the Commission take the view that the EU’s diplomatic efforts in connection with the Kyoto
Protocol have failed and can it state how much consideration was given to effective cooperation between
the Commission and the Member States with a view to conducting bilateral and multilateral talks designed
to persuade Russia to ratify the Protocol promptly, in particular in the light of the ‘green diplomacy’
initiative launched at the Thessaloniki European Council?

2.
Can the Commission outline the strategic and legal implications of Russia’s continuing failure to
ratify the Protocol and how it now intends to move the Kyoto process forward and implement the
European measures (such as emissions trading) drawn up as part of that process?

3.
Is it the case that, until such time as the Kyoto Protocol enters into force, Member States cannot use
CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and JI (Joint Implementation) ‘credits’ in order to meet undertakings
given at EU level, and if so, what measures does the Commission plan to take in that connection?

(1) De Standaard, 22 September 2003.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

1.
No, the Commission does not regard the Union’s diplomatic efforts to persuade Russia of the case for
ratifying the Kyoto Protocol as in any way a failure. The Commission expects that Russia will ratify when
it has completed its own scrutiny of the facts and the arguments. Diplomacy does not mean subjecting
another country to the will of the Union, or imposing a timetable for decisions, but rather involves a
continuous two-way process of mutual explanation and understanding.