20. Scoreboard of progress on justice
and home affairs matters
| (24599)
—
COM(03) 291
| 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).
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 22 May 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 7 June 2003
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 19 June 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (24100) 15774/02: HC 63-ix (2002-03), paragraph 15 (22 January 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not applicable
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
20.1 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. The scoreboard
tracks the initiatives and forthcoming Commission proposals on
the policy areas identified at the Tampere and Seville European
Councils, giving an overview of progress in the field of justice
and home affairs.
The document
20.2 The scoreboard opens with an introductory summary which is
considerably longer than that in the last version.[47]
In it, the Commission summarises and comments on the main achievements
since the Tampere European Council and outlines planned Commission
proposals. It covers the whole range of justice and home affairs.
20.3 The Commission points out that this version of the scoreboard
is published a year before the deadline set by the Treaty of Amsterdam
for the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice.
The next version (due at the end of 2003) will examine in detail
any delays in agreement to, or implementation of, outstanding
measures. At this stage, therefore, priority must be given to
the planned work that has still to be completed. In this respect,
the Commission welcomes the joint programme presented by the Greek
and Italian Presidencies. It notes that, under the Greek Presidency,
a number of key proposals have finally been agreed and it is likely
that most of the deadlines in the field of immigration and asylum
which were set by the Seville European Council will be met following
the June Justice and Home Affairs Council.[48]
20.4 However, it then states:
"This positive assessment is somewhat mitigated by the final
outcome, in terms of substance, of some of the instruments agreed,
by comparison to the initial ambitions described at Tampere and
which the Commission has aspired to in presenting its proposals.
A clear example is the field of legal immigration. In this and
other policy areas, the degree of harmonisation is at risk of
being reduced to the lowest common denominator at the expense
of the value added by common action at European level."
20.5 The Commission considers that the principle of mutual recognition
of court decisions and judgements is becoming "a reality
as the cornerstone of EU action". It now wishes to see increased
effort in the area of criminal law, and announces that it will
be prioritising work on the creation of procedural guarantees
for suspects in criminal proceedings.[49]
20.6 The scoreboard also makes reference to the Convention on
the future of Europe. It argues the case for increased qualified
majority voting and co-decision in the area of freedom, security
and justice, and queries whether Member States should continue
to have a shared right of initiative in relation to police and
judicial co-operation.
20.7 The second — and major— part of the document
consists of 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.
The Government's view
20.8 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office
(Caroline Flint) picks out some key points in the document for
comment. With regard to asylum and immigration, she welcomes
the Commission's positive view, saying:
"The Government welcomes this assessment and will be looking
to the meeting in Thessaloniki to maintain the impetus of work
in this area, in particular considering the new approaches to
international protection set out in the Commission's Communication
towards more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems[50]…The
Government also supports further action on returns …and will
be looking to the Commission to develop a Community financial
mechanism to support implementation of the EU Returns Action Programme."
20.9 With regard to the Commission's announcement that it will
be prioritising work on the creation of procedural guarantees
for suspects in criminal proceedings, the Minister tells us that
the Government continues to take the view set out in its Explanatory
Memorandum on the document that any such initiatives should be
aimed at ensuring equal treatment for persons from another Member
State (rather than wider measures directed at Member States' procedural
safeguards generally).
20.10 The Minister also draws our attention to the reference in
the scoreboard to the UK's work with the Greek Presidency to take
forward the implementation of the Action Plan against Drugs.
20.11 Finally, the Minister notes the Commission's comments on
the Convention on the future of Europe. She reminds us that the
Government's views on the justice and home affairs articles in
the draft Constitutional Treaty are set out in the Explanatory
Memorandum deposited in Parliament by the Minister for Europe
on 2 June.
Conclusion
20.12 This version of the scoreboard, like its predecessors,
is a useful reference document. The progress it charts is uneven,
and, as the deadline set by the Treaty of Amsterdam draws nearer,
the next version should make particularly interesting reading.
20.13 The Commission has increasingly used the Tampere scoreboard
as a vehicle for making political points. It has often implicitly
blamed Member States for the slow progress made on sensitive measures,
and argued that harmonisation is at risk of being reduced to the
lowest common denominator. We have made the same point in respect
of draft Directives in the field of asylum, but it is important
too to recognise that for some measures there is no basis for
agreement between the Member States.
20.14 We agree with the Minister's comment on the creation
of procedural guarantees for suspects in criminal proceedings,
as we made clear in our Report on the document.[51]
Our views on the justice and home affairs articles in the draft
Constitutional Treaty are set out in our Report on The Convention's
proposals on criminal justice.[52]
20.15 We clear the document.
47 See headnote. Back
48
In fact, the draft Directive on minimum standards for the qualification
and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as
refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection
was not agreed at the Council. The deadline was extended by the
Thessaloniki Council until the end of 2003. Back
49
(24282) 6781/03; see HC 63-xix (2002-03), paragraph 11 (30 April
2003). Back
50
(24602) 10243/03: document not yet considered by the Committee. Back
51
See footnote 49. Back
52
Twenty-sixth Report, 2002-03, HC 63-xxvi. Back
| 
