Letter dated 30 January 2007 from Michael
Connarty MP, Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, to Joan
Ryan MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office
JUSTICE AND
HOME AFFAIRS
COUNCIL 4-5 DECEMBER
2006: DRAFT COUNCIL
FRAMEWORK DECISION
ON THE
TRANSFER OF
PRISONERS 13080/06 (27480)
The Committee was grateful for your letter of
24 January.
You assure the Committee that it was not the
Government's intention to signal agreement to the proposal at
the JHA Council meeting in December, but you also state that the
Government "encouraged the Finnish Presidency to seek a deal
between all delegations on its compromise package" and that,
had there been unanimity, the Council could have concluded a general
approach.
In the event, such unanimity was not achieved,
and you inform us that the German Presidency is undertaking "high
level discussions" with the one Member State which has substantive
concerns with the current draft. (We understand this Member State
to be Poland).You also inform us that the proposal will be considered
again at the JHA Council on 15-16 February, but you reassure us
that the Government will "at most" participate in a
general approach on that occasion.
The Members of the Committee wish to make it
clear that, if the Government were to take part in such a general
approach before the debate takes place in European Standing Committee,
they will regard such participation as being in breach of the
spirit of the scrutiny reserve resolution. The Committee's reasons
are as follows. The debate was recommended by the Committee as
long ago as 29 November 2006. There has, therefore, been opportunity
for a debate to be held before the February JHA Council. In any
event, the Committee is not persuaded that there is any pressing
urgency to agree this proposal, which was first introduced as
long ago as January 2005.
In the circumstances which you describe, it
seems plain that if Poland is persuaded by the Presidency and
other Member States to concede on the question of prisoner consent
there will be no further substantive discussion on this point
once a general approach is reached. You will recall that it was
this very issue which was one of those identified by the Committee
for debate in European Standing Committee. If a general approach
is agreed at the February JHA Council before a European Standing
Committee debate, the issue will be foreclosed, without the House
having had the opportunity to consider it. It also means that
the Government will have agreed the proposal in Council without
first having explained to the House whether it will apply the
safeguard of dual criminality in the case of a UK national brought
back to this country against his wishes to serve a prison sentence
for conduct which is not a crime here.
The Members of the Committee also recall that
the guidance to Departments issued by the Cabinet Office emphasises
that "working with the Committees to complete scrutiny before
a general approach is therefore the best way to ensure that the
spirit of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution is not breached".
The guidance does go on to state that there is no need to complete
scrutiny beforehand if "it is clear the general approach
will be reopened for full discussion by Ministers at a later date",
but you have offered no undertaking that the general approach
would be reopened, and it is doubtful whether such an undertaking
could in fact be given in the circumstances of this case.
The Committee therefore invites you to reconsider
any intention to take part in a general approach on this proposal
before it has cleared scrutiny.
| 
