13 Annual report on the Hague Programme
| (28771)
11516/07
COM(07) 373
+ ADD 1
+ ADD 2
| Commission's annual report for 2006 on the implementation of the Hague Programme
Commission staff working paper: Institutional Scoreboard: Table 1
Commission staff working paper: Implementation Scoreboard: Table 2
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 3 July 2007
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 9 July 2007
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 24 July 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
The Hague Programme
13.1 In November 2004, the European Council agreed a five-year
programme of action on justice and home affairs, including policies
on visas, asylum and immigration and on police and judicial cooperation
in criminal matters ("the Hague Programme").[31]
The European Council invited the Commission to present a progress
report in 2006 on the implementation of the Programme, together
with proposals for any necessary modifications to it.
13.2 In June 2005, the Council adopted an Action
Plan to give effect to the Programme.[32]
Legal background
13.3 Title IV of the EC Treaty makes provision for
Community action on visas, asylum, immigration and specified aspects
of judicial cooperation in civil matters with cross-border implications.
The procedure for the adoption of measures on these matters (with
the exception of measures on legal migration and family law) is
qualified majority voting (QMV) and co-decision with the European
Parliament.
13.4 Article 69 of the EC Treaty, read with the Protocol
on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, provides that
the United Kingdom is not bound by a Title IV measure unless the
Government notifies the Council either before or after its adoption
that the UK wishes to participate in it.
13.5 Title VI of the EU Treaty makes provision for
police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (such as:
terrorism, trafficking in human beings, offences against children
and fraud). Unanimity by the Council is required for the adoption
of a Title VI measure after consultation with the European Parliament.
13.6 Article 42 of the EU Treaty (the
"passerelle") gives the Commission or a Member
State the right to propose that action on police and judicial
cooperation in criminal matters should be dealt with under Title
IV of the EC Treaty, instead of under Title VI of the EU Treaty.
The Commission's previous assessments of progress
13.7 In June 2006, the Commission presented a Communication[33]
which argued that decision-making on police and judicial cooperation
in criminal matters needed to be faster, more effective and more
accountable and stated the Commission's belief that use of the
passerelle in Article 42 of the EU Treaty would provide
an appropriate tool to achieve this, replacing the requirement
for unanimity in the Council with qualified majority voting and
co-decision with the European Parliament.
13.8 In June 2006, the Commission also made the first
of its annual reports on the implementation of the Hague Programme.[34]
It was in two parts.
13.9 The first part examined each of the measures
which were scheduled for action by the Commission, Council or
European Parliament in 2005. The Commission concluded that progress
in dealing with matters under the EC Treaty was satisfactory.
By contrast, progress was slow on matters falling within Title
VI of the EU Treaty because of the requirement for unanimity.
13.10 The second part of the report reviewed Member
States' transposition into their national law of the EC and EU
legislation on justice and home affairs during 2005. The Commission
concluded that the most striking deficiencies, in both quantitative
and qualitative terms, affected the transposition of measures
under Title VI of the EU Treaty.
13.11 We recommended both Communications for debate
on the Floor of the House.[35]
The debate took place on 30 November.
The Commission's annual report for 2006
13.12 The Report is in two parts. Part 1 gives the
Commission's assessment of the progress made by the Council, the
European Parliament and the Commission itself ("the institutions")
to implement the action scheduled for 2006 in the Hague Programme
and associated action plans, together with actions scheduled for
2005 but postponed to 2006. ADD 1 (the "Institutional Scoreboard")
provides a detailed commentary on each of the scheduled actions.
Part 2 gives the Commission's assessment of the progress by Member
States in transposing EC and EU legislation into national law.
It is supported by ADD 2 ("2006 Implementation Scoreboard"),
which includes assessments of whether Member States met the deadlines
for transposition and whether the transposition was full and correct.
13.13 The Commission's overall assessment of the
progress by the institutions is that:
"A satisfactory level of achievement occurred
mainly in the following areas: respect and protection of fundamental
rights, European Citizenship, judicial cooperation in civil matters,
European strategy on drugs, asylum and migration, visa and border
policies and fight against terrorism.
"An insufficient level of achievement happened
primarily in the following areas: police and customs cooperation,
prevention of and fight against organised crime and judicial cooperation
in criminal matters."[36]
13.14 Title VI of the EU Treaty provided the legal
base for most of the matters on which the Commission considers
there was insufficient progress. This confirms the Commission's
view that "more effective, transparent and accountable decision
making procedures are still needed" for the matters currently
covered by Title VI.[37]
13.15 The Commission concludes that, overall, implementation
of the Hague Programme by Member State was lower in 2006 than
in the previous year. The Commission attributes this mainly to
insufficient transposition of measures on police and judicial
cooperation in criminal matters (Title VI of the EU Treaty). It
says:
"efforts both for timely as well as complete
implementation should be stepped up. Even though progress has
been achieved by Member States for some legal instruments during
the last year, lengthy delays in communicating transposition measures
have been noted for Framework Decisions. Such delays sometimes
amount up to several years. Such delays as in absence [sic]
of transposition of EU instruments at national level, leads to
a 'virtual' legislative framework in police and judicial cooperation
in criminal matters. Furthermore, the transposition by the Member
States examined is often incomplete or incorrect."[38]
The Government's view
13.16 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
at the Home Office (Meg Hillier) tells us that the Government
does not altogether share the Commission's assessment that there
was insufficient progress by the institutions in 2006 on police
and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. She refers, for
example, to the joint customs operations in which Member States
cooperated to counter the smuggling of drugs and firearms into
the EU.
13.17 The Minister also notes items in ADD 2 where
the Government disagrees with the Commission's assessment of the
UK's transposition of legislation. She says, for example, that
the Government does not accept that there is any major non-compliance
in its transposition of the Framework Decision on the European
Arrest Warrant.
13.18 Commenting on the Commission's view about the
need to change the decision-making process for measures on police
and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the Minister notes
that the mandate for the inter-governmental conference on the
proposed Reform Treaty includes provision for the adoption of
such measures by qualified majority voting and co-decision, and
for the UK not to be bound by any such measure unless it expressly
opts into it.
Conclusion
13.19 In our view, the Commission's annual reports
on progress towards the implementation of the Hague Programme
are necessary and useful. Unavoidably, the Commission makes value
judgements about the performance of both the Community's institutions
and Member States. So we are not surprised that the Government's
assessment differs from the Commission's on some points and we
have no questions to put to the Minister arising from those differences
of opinion.
13.20 The debate on the Floor of the House on
30 November 2006 covered the question whether measures on police
and judicial cooperation in criminal matters should continue to
be subject to unanimity and consultation with the European Parliament
or if the procedure should be changed to qualified majority voting
and co-decision. The arguments have not changed and so we have
no new questions to put to the Minister on that aspect of the
Commission's annual report.
13.21 For those reasons, we see no need to keep
the report under scrutiny and we are content now to clear it.
31 (25730) 10249/04: see HC 38-iv (2004-05), para 17
(19 January 2005). Back
32
(26566) 8922/05: see HC 34-iv (2005-06), para 22 (20 July 2005). Back
33
11222/06; COM(06) 331. Back
34
11228/06; COM(06) 333. Back
35
See HC 34-xli (2005-06), 1 November 2006. Back
36
Commission Report, page 2, paragraphs 5 and 6. Back
37
Commission Report, page 19, final sentence. Back
38
Commission Report, pages 18-19, paragraph 118. Back
| 
