Select Committee on European Scrutiny Ninth Report


15. TWICE-YEARLY UPDATE OF THE TAMPERE SCOREBOARD


(24100)

15774/02

COM(02) 738


Biannual update of the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of "freedom, security and justice" in the European Union.

Legal base:
Document originated:16 December 2002
Deposited in Parliament:18 December 2002
Department:Home Office
Basis of consideration:EM of 8 January 2003
Previous Committee Report:None; but see (23561) 9704/02: HC 152-xxxvi (2001-02), paragraph 17 (10 July 2002)
To be discussed in Council:Not applicable
Committee's assessment:Politically important
Committee's decision:Cleared


Background

  15.1  The Tampere European Council in 1999 called for the development of this scoreboard. The Commission has undertaken to prepare an updated version once during each Presidency. This is the fifth formal twice-yearly revision. The whole Tampere agenda was reviewed at the European Council at Laeken in December 2001. At the Seville European Council last June, new timetables were agreed to speed up progress in the field of asylum and immigration.

  15.2  This version of the scoreboard was published just before the December meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council.

The scoreboard

  15.3  The introductory section summarises progress and identifies new proposals planned by the Commission. The major part of the document is a tabular summary of actions, responsibilities, deadlines, current progress by EU institutions, further planned work and transposition timetables organised by objectives. A table of the progress of Member States' initiatives is also included.

  15.4  In its summary, the Commission reports that the impetus given at Laeken is continuing to bear fruit, citing the adoption of the European Arrest Warrant and the framework decision on terrorism. But it points out that the Seville European Council felt the need to declare its determination to speed up the implementation of the Tampere agenda, and that, despite the efforts made, the difficulties have not gone away. In the words of the summary:

"[The difficulties] lie ... in the problems of adjusting national approaches to these admittedly tricky matters, which the Union's current institutional set-up and decision-making mechanisms provide no means of obviating. The Union is faced with imminent enlargement on an unprecedented scale. And 2003 will be the last year of the run-up to the deadlines set by the Amsterdam Treaty and the Tampere programme. At a time when the Convention on the Future of Europe is coming up to a crucial stage in its proceedings, thought must be given to ways of avoiding all dispersal of initiatives if the measures that have been given priority are to be taken on time."

The Government's view

  15.5  In his Explanatory Memorandum, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Race Equality, Community Policy and European and International Policy (Lord Filkin) tells us that the Government considers progress on the creation of a common EU asylum policy to have been slow. However, he notes that, at the December Council, political agreement was reached on "Dublin II" (the regulation on rules determining the Member State responsible for the consideration of asylum claims), in line with the Seville timetable, and that only one Member State was still blocking adoption of the directive on asylum reception conditions.

  15.6  The Minister considers that reasonable progress has been made on initiatives combating illegal immigration and strengthening external border management. The Government regards the delivery of results in this area as a priority.

  15.7  The Minister notes the mixed progress on judicial co-operation in civil matters, with negotiations on a European enforcement order proceeding slowly. The Government welcomes the formal launch of the civil judicial network.

  15.8  While acknowledging that the Commission considers the agreement of the European Arrest Warrant to be a significant step forward in the field of mutual recognition, the Minister tells us that the Government would like to see more progress on some of the outstanding proposals in this area, in particular the Framework Decision on mutual recognition of financial penalties.

  15.9  The Minister welcomes the progress made in the development of Europol and Eurojust, as recorded in the scoreboard. He is now concerned to ensure that these bodies play their full part in combating crime.

  15.10  Finally, the Minister reiterates the Government's view that the mid-term review of the EU Drugs Action Plan will form a useful basis for focussed work on EU action to combat illegal drugs. He hopes that agreement to the Framework Decision on drug trafficking will be secured early in 2003.

Conclusion

  15.11  We do not usually report to the House on this twice-yearly update to the Tampere scoreboard. However, on this occasion, it seems worthwhile to draw attention to the slow progress in some areas, and to the Commission's view of the reasons.

  15.12  Like the Commission, we have commented more than once on the difficulty of achieving minimum standards in the difficult area of asylum, given the reluctance of Member State to alter their current practices. Although the Minister cites the fact that only one Member State is still blocking adoption of the directive on asylum reception conditions as a near-success, we recall that the December Justice and Home Affairs Council was the second occasion on which Ministers failed to adopt this measure.

  15.13  We consider the Commission's comments on the unhelpful nature of "the Union's current institutional set-up and decision-making mechanisms" to be potentially a cause for concern, especially in the context of the final report of the European Convention's Working Group X on "Freedom, Security and Justice". That report proposes the extension of qualified majority voting to legislation on asylum, immigration and some criminal matters, a possible limitation on Member States' rights of initiative in the Third Pillar, and Commission competence to bring infraction proceedings in the area of the Third Pillar.[43] There is clearly pressure for change in the way Justice and Home Affairs matters are addressed, but we do not share the Commission's view that these are questions of "institutional set-up and decision-making mechanisms". It is rather the case that the subject-matter is frequently sensitive, relating directly to the national identity of Member States, and in areas where there is insufficient basis for any agreement.

  15.14  However, since this is not a legislative proposal, but merely a progress report, we are content to clear it.


43  i.e. Police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 7 February 2003