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
| 
