16 Green Paper on a European programme
for critical infrastructure protection
| (27052)
14910/05
COM(05) 576
| Green Paper on a European programme for critical infrastructure protection
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 25 April 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xviii (2005-06), para 12 (8 February 2006), HC 34-xiv (2005-06), para 8 (11 January 2006) and see HC 38-v (2004-05), para 5 (26 January 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
16.1 In June 2004 the European Council asked the Commission and
the High Representative to prepare an overall strategy to protect
critical infrastructure.[33]
On 11 January and 8 February 2006 we considered a Commission Green
Paper, which was the latest stage in the drawing up of a European
Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP), which
programme would be supplemented by a critical infrastructure warning
network (CWIN).
16.2 We noted that the Green Paper suggested the
creation of a common framework, with common principles and standards
for the protection of critical infrastructure, and with common
definitions of concepts such as critical infrastructure protection,
European critical infrastructure and Operator Security Plans.
We also noted that the Green Paper suggested the adoption of a
common list of critical infrastructure sectors, which would include
energy, information and communications technologies, water and
food supply, health, financial services, "public and legal
order and safety", civil administration, transport, chemical
and nuclear industries and "space and research". Under
the heading "civil administration", the list included
government functions, emergency services, civil administration
services and postal and courier services, but also included the
armed forces. On this latter point, we sought and obtained from
the Minister an assurance that in no circumstances would the disposition
and organisation of this country's armed forces form part of any
"common framework" at Community level, as referred to
in the Green Paper.
16.3 The Green Paper argued that it was in the interests
of the Member States and the European Union as a whole that each
Member State should protect its national critical infrastructure
under a common framework but in our view, some of the issues raised
in the Green Paper touched on the fundamental duty of a national
government to ensure the security of its citizens, and we thought
the Minister was right to express caution about a number of the
options suggested.
16.4 We held the document under scrutiny pending
receipt of the Government's reply to the Green Paper.
The Minister's letter
16.5 In her letter of 25 April 2006 the then Minister
of State at the Home Office (Hazel Blears) supplied us with a
copy of the Government's response to the Green Paper. The Government's
response consists of an overall summary of the UK's views on the
activities that would best help to improve the protection of European
Critical Infrastructure, followed by detailed responses to the
specific questions raised in the Green Paper.
16.6 The overall summary emphasises the view that
the management of national critical infrastructure must be left,
in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, to the Member
State concerned. The reply finds the introduction of options relating
to national critical infrastructure in some sections of the Green
Paper to be "very confusing" and notes that the Government
will be seeking greater clarification, and separation of what
the Commission is proposing for European critical infrastructure
on the one hand, and for national critical infrastructure on the
other.[34] The Government
goes on to state that the proposed activities and activities of
the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection
(EPCIP) need to be clearly established.
16.7 In this regard, the Government sets out its
view of the aims and objectives of EPCIP. In its view, the aim
of the EPCIP should be to share good practice and expertise and
to share research into issues and solutions related to critical
infrastructure protection, but should not include national critical
infrastructure issues such as the justification by Member States
of what it regards as critical, the national armed forces and
associated infrastructures, vulnerability analyses or monitoring
of protective security measures. The EPCIP should also exclude
assessing the threat from terrorism.
16.8 The Government also stresses that the protection
of critical infrastructure is "first and foremost a national
responsibility" and that the Commission's efforts would be
most effective when working with Member States on the protection
of critical infrastructure having an EU cross-border effect (i.e.
when having an impact on at least three Member States). Any sharing
of information on critical infrastructure must take place "in
an environment of trust and confidentiality" with access
to information being granted on a strict need-to-know basis.
16.9 The Government's reply notes that there is currently
a lack of clarity as to what a European critical infrastructure
designation would mean.[35]
The Government accordingly considers it premature to define any
common framework as suggested in the Green Paper.[36]
The reply also notes with concern that EC research activities
are being started which attempt to collect sensitive data from
all Member States on national critical infrastructure in advance
of agreement by the Member States as to what exactly forms part
of European critical infrastructure and that the direct approaches
which have been made to UK companies "are jeopardising our
working relationships with these companies". The Government
therefore insists that clear guidelines on the collection and
handling of data should be agreed in advance of undertaking EPCIP
related research initiatives.
16.10 The Government considers that the next step
is to agree key definitions and principles for the EPCIP, following
which the UK priorities would be to facilitate the dissemination
of advice and good practice, to define what constitutes cross-border
infrastructure which is critical to Europe, to define the role
and competence of the EU in relation to cross-border critical
infrastructure (considering in particular the question of whether
it falls under the EU or EC Treaty, and whether Article 308 EC
would be relevant as a legal base) and finally to develop an understanding
of the interdependencies between the parts of the EPCIP and how
EU-level priorities might be identified.
16.11 In relation to the critical infrastructure
warning network (CWIN), the Government is not persuaded of the
need for any additional warning network, and does not therefore
support a CWIN format which would involve the dissemination of
information on specific threats, alerts or vulnerabilities.
Conclusion
16.12 We are grateful to the Minister for showing
us the Government's reply to the Green Paper and we commend it
as thorough and persuasive, making points which we wholly support.
16.13 We are content to clear the document, but
we look to the Minister to keep us informed, in particular, of
any legislative proposals which may emerge from the Green Paper.
It is apparent that the legal base for action at EU level in this
area will require the closest examination.
33 "Critical infrastructure" for these purposes
consists of those facilities and networks, services and assets
the destruction or disruption of which would have a serious impact
on the health, safety or security or economic well-being of citizens
or the effective functioning of government in the Member States. Back
34
The detailed responses to the questions in the Green Paper states
at this point that the UK does not see the role of the Commission
as being to standardise security requirements. Back
35
The detailed response states that the UK "strongly disagrees"
with the suggestion in the Green Paper that both national and
European critical infrastructure should be identified and included
in the EPCIP. Back
36
The detailed response notes that a legislative framework at EU
level is not required for national critical infrastructure, whilst
the need for such framework at European level has not been shown.
The reply comments, "This early focus by EPCIP on legislation
appears to go against the Commission drive for better regulation
and cutting red tape". Back
| 
