This Communication was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting of 5 March 2008.

  We have previously expressed our preliminary views on the Commission's proposals in this field following publication of the Commission's Green Paper in 2006. As you note, the present Action Plan reproduces the same ideas. While we expressed support for measures improving the provision of information and the sharing of best practices and training, we were more cautious as regards the establishment of common offices, although we indicated that there may be a case for such a move. However, we remain of the view, shared by the Government, that Article 20 TEC does not place a duty on Member States to provide consular services. We are also not persuaded that it provides an adequate legal basis for measures on harmonisation or minimum standards of consular assistance.

  We would be interested to hear the reactions of the Consular working group (COCON) and whether any decisions have been made as to which of the Commission's suggestions, if any, to pursue.

  We have decided to retain the Communication under scrutiny.

7 March 2008

  Thank you for your letter about the Commission Communication, reflecting consideration by Sub-Committee E on 5 March.

  You asked about the reactions to the Communication of the Consular Affairs Working Group (COCON). As prefigured in the Government's Explanatory Memorandum of 5 February, the Slovenian EU Presidency have launched a process of discussion of the Communication. At the COCON meeting in Brussels on 1 February, the Commission introduced their Action Plan, focussing on a few specific proposals:

— inclusion in passports of the first sentence of Article 20 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) (making clear that unrepresented EU nationals in a third country may seek assistance from other Member States' representations);

— establishment of a pilot joint consular office in a third country;

— a comparative study of consular legislation and practice in Member States;

— establishment of an EU consular website;

— further seminars on specific aspects of consular policy;

— negotiation of a clause in future mixed agreements with third countries formalising the arrangements under Article 20 TEC;

— preparation of a paper on repatriation of remains.

  A number of Member States, including the UK, made preliminary comments. These reflected a concern that the Commission was proposing to take a lead on issues—joint consular offices and the proposed study in particular—where it should be for Member States to decide what actions, if any, are necessary or useful. Objections were expressed to the Commission's proposal on agreements with third countries, on the basis that this is already covered by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).

  There were mixed views on the insertion of wording from Article 20 in future passports, but a general dislike of the Commission's idea of printing stickers for interim use. Member States however had no objection to the idea of an EU Consular website provided it did not duplicate existing (national and EU) resources. No objections were expressed to the idea of Commission support for seminars on aspects of consular policy. The next such seminar, proposed, at the Presidency's initiative, will look at lessons learned following the Indian Ocean tsunami.

  It was agreed that Member States would provide their comments on the Action Plan in writing as a basis for further discussion. That discussion is likely to take place either at the next COCON meeting in early April or at the following meeting in June. We will wish to ensure that decisions on consular co-operation are based on Member States' views as to where there is need for or advantage in further development of co-operation mechanisms, and that those decisions respect the fact that responsibility for provision of consular assistance lies with Member States.

24 March 2008

  Thank you for your letter of 24 March 2008 which was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting of 23 April 2008.

  Your summary of the February meeting of the Consular affairs working group (COCON) was informative. We note that Member States will provide comments in writing prior to the next meeting and would be grateful if you would let us see Member States' comments (in summary form if appropriate) when they are available. We would expect to see the full comments of the Government on the proposals put forward and we look forward to an update from you following the next COCON meeting.

  As regards the specific comments you highlight in your letter, we welcome Member States' support of an EU consular website and Commission support for seminars on consular policy. However, we find it surprising that Member States object to the inclusion of Article 20 wording in passports, although we agree that the use of temporary stickers is unnecessary. It seems to us that this is a helpful and informative initiative and we would be interested to hear why objections have been raised.

  We note that some Member States objected to proposals to negotiate a clause in future mixed agreements with third countries to formalise the Article 20 TEC arrangements on the grounds that this was covered by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Is it clear that the Vienna Convention ensures that citizens of one State can be represented by another State, even where the receiving State objects? If so, we would be grateful if you would point out the relevant article.

  We have decided to retain the Communication under scrutiny.

24 April 2008