Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 122)
TUESDAY 4 APRIL 2000
MRS BARBARA
ROCHE, MR
JOHN WARNE
AND MRS
LESLEY PALLETT
100. A Member of Parliament representing the
House of Commons. Lord Bowness representing—
(Mrs Roche) I meant the full international list we
will give you as well, Mr Howarth.
Mr Howarth: I am quite to keen to know, I think
people in this Committee are quite keen to know who is negotiating
this on their behalf here. Lord Bowness representing the other
place, the House of Lords. Lord Goldsmith, as you say, the Prime
Minister's appointee. Timothy Kirkhope, MEP, who is a Conservative
appointee I know. Graham Watson, MEP, who I think is a Liberal
Democrat appointee. Andrew Duff, MEP, I am not sure which party
he is.
Bob Russell: He is my MEP, the Eastern Counties,
Chairman. A good man.
Mr Winnick
101. Part of the British public.
(Mrs Roche) You will be very pleased to know, Mr Howarth,
that in the last couple of weeks or so I have met with both Graham
Watson and also Timothy Kirkhope as well. I have discussed these
matters with them.
Mr Howarth
102. Did you come to any conclusions as a result
of those discussions?
(Mrs Roche) We had full and frank discussions.
103. Like the Foreign Secretary had with Mr
Mugabe yesterday?
(Mrs Roche) No. What we did was to discuss the process
and basically their understanding of it. Just to say to you, Mr
Howarth, what I have tried to do, because obviously as you have
just said Mr Watson and Mr Kirkhope are Members of the European
Parliament, is to pay a visit to the Parliament, as well as attend
the JHA Committee, because I think it is important to have meetings
with MEPs and clearly from different political parties as well
to maintain that contact. That is why I have had those meetings
with them.
Chairman
104. Minister, may we turn now to the draft
Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. It may be
appropriate for Mr Warne to say something about this. Was political
agreement reached on that agreement at the Justice and Home Affairs
Council? I just wanted to say, also, that of course in the context
of what we have just been talking about, this Charter, the results
of organised crime's impact on our freedoms under that proposed
Charter makes it doubly important. Was there a political agreement
reached?
(Mrs Roche) No, there was not. I will bring Mr Warne
in. There was not political agreement reached. There were some
data protection issues that were raised by Luxembourg but we are
hopeful looking towards the May Council. If I could bring in Mr
Warne.
(Mr Warne) That was precisely the position. Agreement
is reached on everything now, I think, except the data protection
provision where Luxembourg has some difficulty with the present
text. The Presidency are seeking to resolve that difficulty so
as to accommodate Luxembourg's concern. Subject to that I would
expect there to be agreement reached at the May Council.
105. Excellent. Very good. Can you say a word
about your views about the way Europol is turning out? What do
you say to those who suspect this is the groundwork for a European
police force?
(Mrs Roche) I do not think that is the case. I will
bring in Mr Warne who has got very active contact with it. I think
it is so far so good actually as far as it is concerned, particularly
some of the initiatives that Europol has been involved in, for
example, like money laundering which again is exactly the sort
of area where European co-operation is very necessary and also
where forming expertise is very important. Certainly I think we
would look also to the formation of joint teams and also to the
Police Chiefs Task Force. I think this is very important. This
is very much an area that the UK has been progressing. I think
that it is something that is very important. The answer I would
give you to allay any concerns on this, Mr Corbett, is that we
know that international criminals, the bad guys, are highly organised,
certainly they do not respect anybody's borders, therefore it
is very important that initiatives such as Europol and the Police
Chiefs Task Force that we give every encouragement to do so. If
I could bring Mr Warne in.
(Mr Warne) I think, Chairman, Europol has made a good
start. It was only when the Europol Convention was completed in
1999 that it was able to handle personal data as opposed to general
information, eg about drugs routes. It has not been going long
in terms of its full set of responsibilities. It is being used
increasingly by Member States to seek information and, of course,
to provide information. The UK is one of its main users. We want
to see Europol develop strongly into an effective intelligence
organisation for Europe on criminal matters rather in the same
way as the National Criminal Intelligence Service provides that
role in the UK. On your point about the European police force,
I would simply make the comment that there is no executive authority
for Europol, it does not have powers to operate by way of arrest
or on other Member States' territories. There are many ways in
which they can support our law enforcement effort. We would want
them to do that and, as I mentioned earlier, I think the Police
Chiefs Task Force fills the gap between Europol, with its overall
picture, and investigative teams on the ground. We support Europol,
we think they are doing very useful work. We want them to continue
with that work but in a supportive and encouraging role rather
than a role which gives them their own executive authority.
106. Can I just ask you perhaps to say a little
bit more about co-operation, say, over money laundering. If we
go back to the earlier discussion about people smuggling, let
us talk about people involved in this country left with large
amounts of money which they have to get rid of. Are we able through
Europol, where we have suspicions of where that money is going
perhaps elsewhere within the European Union, to get co-operation
via the national police force, the same as central banks, in order
to say "Look, this is the guy we are targeting"? All
central banks, as you will know better than I do, have triggers
for amounts deposited that start bells ringing. Is that co-operation
in place or being developed?
(Mr Warne) It is being developed, Chairman. Tampere
said that Europol should do more in the area of money laundering
and I think we need to look at money laundering across the range
of criminality because it is the means by which the criminality
is converted into personal profit. We need to see it in the broadest
sense. I think the disclosure of suspicious transactions, and
interpreting the intelligence arising from that, is an area where
we would like to see Europol develop its capacity.
107. Can you say whether a date has been set
yet for the first meeting of the European Heads of Police? Who
will go from this country?
(Mr Warne) Yes, there is a meeting this week or next
week in Lisbon, I cannot remember the date but within a matter
of days, which the Portuguese Presidency proposed as a means of
bringing the participants together for them to discuss how they
think they can best perform these tasks. The UK's representative
will be Roy Penrose who is the Director-General of the National
Crime Squad because, again, Tampere talked about an operational
focus for these people and, as I indicated earlier, the ability
to commit resources on a multilateral basis to attack problems
that are common to all of us.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Now have any
colleagues got any questions they want to ask? We have jumped
about on our agenda.
Mr Cawsey
108. The Tampere Summit, it was concluded on
judicial co-operation and mutual recognition and not only was
this supported by the UK Government, I understand it was a UK
Government initiative.
(Mrs Roche) Absolutely.
109. Good. Tell us what you mean by it?
(Mrs Roche) What we mean by this is a recognition
of the judicial decisions of other Member States. Actually, Mr
Cawsey, I do regard this as being very important. You are absolutely
right, this is very much a UK initiative. We were very pleased
that it was endorsed by other EU Member States at Tampere. We
think it is a really very, very practical way forward, very important.
Each Member State is going to have its own independent legal system
and our's being a common law system is a unique system, obviously,
that we find in some other places but very much originated by
us. It is a very radical concept. It could mean, if it is fully
applied, that arrest warrants or other court orders would become
directly enforceable across EU borders. In a sense, it is making
sure that we have a system in place that we can tackle organised
crime. Also, I think that it has other benefits as well as far
as civil law is concerned, in terms of consumer rights and consumer
protection. In terms of the message to the British public, these
are very practical aspects that can come about from our membership
of the EU.
110. What made the Government, and indeed the
Summit, decide that this was a better route to take than looking
for straight forward harmonisation where it could be achieved,
if the idea is to tackle the crime on an EU base?
(Mrs Roche) I think the Prime Minister very successfully
persuaded his colleagues that this was a very practical way forward.
I think it is right to say that we have been very impressed by
the way in which this is now being embraced by other EU Member
States.
111. Do you think they signed up for it and
it is well supported across the whole Union?
(Mrs Roche) Yes. This is a process. The sort of thing
that we will have to look at is to make sure that there are proper
minimum standards of rights, for example, for defendants in the
process so that equity is preserved. I think it will be fair to
say, Mr Cawsey, there is quite a lot of work to do in this. I
think it is a very positive way forward. I will use the word I
have said again, it is very practical. Let me give you one other
practical application of our suggestion, the freezing of criminal
assets has been chosen as the first application of mutual recognition.
I think that is probably something that we would all want to subscribe
to.
112. Who decides what is going to be incorporated
in this mutual recognition? Is it going to be the Council of Ministers?
(Mrs Roche) Yes. It will be the JHA Council. I should
stress, Mr Cawsey, there is quite a lot of work to be done on
this, we are really at the beginning stages of this.
Bob Russell
113. If I could go back to the asylum issue.
Minister, you will know I am very concerned at the numbers of
bogus asylum seekers and my thoughts that perhaps some of our
European neighbours are not doing as much as they should do, indeed
I have mentioned that on this side the Government should be doing
more—I use the term—with body heat seeking equipment.
I think there should be more emphasis from Government. However,
there are some innocent people in this, there are always the children,
whether they are genuine or bogus asylum seekers. Have you seen
Early Day Motion 587 headed "children of asylum seekers"?
If you have, or irrespective of whether you have, will you be
looking at that to see whether that apparent aspect can be put
right? It does seem children of asylum seekers are not being treated
in accordance with Article 31 of the United Nations Convention
on Rights for the Child.
(Mrs Roche) I have not seen all the details of the
EDM, Mr Russell, but I am familiar with the argument. I would
not accept the argument. I understand the campaign that is going
on but we do take our obligations under the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child very, very seriously indeed. In fact, we have
special processes to deal with children. I think there are two
aspects to this, Mr Russell. First of all, there are children
who come to this country unaccompanied, and we do take those responsibilities
very, very seriously indeed. Then, of course, there are the children
of those families of asylum seekers. First of all, we make it
very, very clear, for example, as far as unaccompanied children,
that they are always interviewed by people who are trained in
dealing with children, that an independent representative can
be present. Also, there is a Government panel set up with the
refugee organisations to help children in these sorts of situations,
so we do take our responsibilities to children very, very seriously
indeed and indeed our responsibilities to unaccompanied children
as well. One of the difficulties, I think it is worthwhile, probably,
my pointing this out, Mr Russell, we do have with unaccompanied
children sometimes is that we know—and again it comes back
to our earlier discussion, Mr Corbett, about the smuggling and
the facilitation—that some of the unaccompanied children
that we see are not minors at all, they are people who are older
than that. Again, this is a very cynical exploitation. We are
very careful in all of this because there could be very real child
protection issues involved. The other thing that I am doing, also,
Mr Russell, which might interest you, since I have been in my
post, is I now have very regular meetings with all the children's
charities and organisations in the field specifically to talk
about children's issues. I have found those meetings very helpful
and I think all the organisations have found them useful as well.
Mr Linton
114. Two quick questions, if I may, Minister.
There was an agreement at Tampere about treatment of third country
nationals, and particularly about bringing members of their families
to live with them in the European Union. I know that not all governments
have been happy about this, I think the Danes have had trouble
with arranged marriages in this respect. What is the Government's
attitude? Is this something which should be done on a collective
basis or does it prefer to do it alone?
(Mrs Roche) Again, we will look at it before we decide
what to do. I think it is fair to say, Mr Linton, we do have some
reservations about the way in which it is framed, particularly,
as I say, the possibility of abuse of the system. As you are quite
right to point out, we are not the only country that has had some
difficulties with this, others have as well. Clearly we will look
at it but we are not happy with it. As I say, as we have the special
arrangement which has been made for us post-Amsterdam, that is
always useful in these circumstances because we have to decide
whether we opt in or not.
115. One final question from me, there has been
a lot of focus today on unfounded claims, I thought it might be
helpful if I could ask you to spell out for genuine refugees coming
to this country how they can best make a well founded claim and
be assured that it will be treated seriously?
(Mrs Roche) I think the main thing, Mr Linton, is
for me to say that the individuals themselves know. I think history
has shown—and I think it comes back to something I have
been saying over the last day or so when I have been explaining,
for example, the new system that we are setting up of the National
Asylum Support Service—if you are a genuine refugee what
is it that you want. First of all, what you want is safety from
persecution and that is what we provide. The second thing you
want is you want your case to be decided as quickly as possible,
and that is what we have got to do. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to say it once again. It is because I so passionately
believe in the honourable concept of asylum that we are continuing
to spell this out. The other thing I would say, also, very strongly,
to those people who make unfounded claims, that the biggest enemy
of the genuine asylum seeker is those people who make completely
unfounded and cynical claims, they really do bring the whole system
into disrepute.
Mr Howarth
116. Minister, I am sorry to return to judicial
co-operation again, I thought we were staying on it originally.
Can I press you a bit further on this because you put it in the
context of seeking to deal with cross-border fraud, traffic in
illegal immigration and drugs and so forth, which everybody would
agree are sensible areas for international co-operation.
(Mrs Roche) Yes.
117. Again, those of us with a suspicious mind,
and you have rightly identified that I do indeed have a suspicious
mind—
(Mrs Roche) I said perhaps, Mr Howarth.
118. You are correct, I do not want you to be
under any illusion about that, I do have a suspicious mind. I
do feel a lot of people do feel there is a risk that this co-operation
could become the precursor to harmonisation. Can I ask you specifically,
is it the case that under this judicial co-operation it will be
possible for somebody convicted of an offence in another European
country, which is not an offence in this country, to be detained
in this country, have their assets seized and removed from this
country without being able to submit their case to the United
Kingdom courts?
(Mrs Roche) No, because what I have said, Mr Howarth,
is we will be looking at proper safeguards in the system. There
is a way down the track we have to go. Let me make it perfectly
clear to you, this is not harmonisation, this is not corpus
juris, this is a practical way forward. This is recognition
of the systems that other Member States have. I think it is really
important that we do not let criminals off the hook because they
can somehow rely on the different processes and procedures that
different governments have. I think you are absolutely right—absolutely
right, if I may say so—to focus on the safeguards that we
will need to put in place. We are absolutely determined that there
are proper minimum standards that you will need to do. This is
a long way ahead of us.
119. Thank you for that reassurance, Minister,
because in the Home Office paper dealing with this issue last
year, the Home Office did suggest that public opinion is not yet
always ready to accept that the judicial authorities and procedures
of other Member States are equivalent to their domestic courts.
Governments will have to inform and educate public opinion. I
hope that does not mean Alastair Campbell is let loose on us because
we know what kind of information and education he gives. May I
ask you, Minister, if you recognise the dangers here, the need
for safeguards, when do you expect the final arrangements for
judicial co-operation to be established and what further consultations
will you be having with us as Members of Parliament?
(Mrs Roche) It is too soon to give an absolute date,
Mr Howarth. As far as discussions are concerned, as the whole
process goes through I will continue to issue explanatory memorandum
to the scrutiny committees which are very important and I will
continue, obviously, to keep the Home Affairs Select Committee
fully informed. I think the point you raised, which is the point
you make, is a valuable one. Clearly people have confidence in
their own systems but also they need to know about the systems
of other Member States and, as I say, what safeguards are there.
I think these are very important questions that will have to be
addressed.
120. I am sure we will be pleased to hear that
the Government is ruling out corpus juris.
(Mrs Roche) Absolutely.
121. Can I ask you one final text book question,
which you may need to take advice on. I would not expect an answer
on this today but I would like an answer on it, if I may, at some
point. Article K.7 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which is now Article
35 of the consolidated Treaty, provides that "The Court of
Justice of the European Communities shall have jurisdiction ...
to give preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation
of framework decisions and decisions on the interpretation of
conventions established under this Title and on the validity and
interpretation of the measures implementing them." The Member
States were invited to sign up to that. I believe the British
Government did not accept that as being a very substantial additional
power and I wonder if you could at some point let me know whether
the British Government under paragraph 2 of Article K.7, now Article
35, has accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice
to give such preliminary rules?
(Mrs Roche) I will write to you[9].
It is not just about that, Mr Howarth, there is a whole agenda
as well about when matters are referred to the European Court
of Justice and post-Amsterdam the reference to the ECJ comes from
the highest domestic court which in our case would be, of course,
the House of Lords. There is quite a deal of discussion that is
going on at the moment about the European Court and perhaps it
would be helpful if I wrote to the Chairman about exactly where
we are with those discussions. It is fair to say we have had a
number of discussions about these. There have been discussions
with Member States and there have been discussions with the Commission
as well. I will write to you, Mr Corbett.
Chairman
122. Thank you, Minister. Can I thank Mrs Pallett
and Mr Warne as well. I hope you found your return to the other
side of this Committee enjoyable. We value what you have been
able to say to us and thank you.
(Mrs Roche) Thank you very much indeed for your courtesy.
9 See Annex. Back
|
