B: Letter received from Franco Frattini, Vice
President of the European Commission, to David Winnick MP, as
acting Chairman of the Committee.
I was grateful to receive a copy of your report,
Justice and Home Affairs Issues at European Union Level.
I welcome the scrutiny of EU Issues by your committee, which compliments
the work of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, and the relevant
Sub Committees of the House of Lords.
The European Commission must be accountable to citizens.
I am pleased that your report covered such a wide range of Justice
and Home Affairs issues including police and judicial co-operation
in criminal matters, data exchange and data protection, borders
and migration. These are all of central concern to EU citizens.
I will focus here on two issues you raised—institutional
changes and national parliamentary scrutiny of EU business—especially
in light of the June 2007 European Council.
EU level action must add value. The Commission is
guided by the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity in
all its actions. We agree with you that EU action must be based
on evidence that it would make a real practical difference to
the common challenges we face. In Justice and Home Affairs there
has been much progress in working towards making the EU 'a unique
area of freedom, security and justice' as set out by EU leaders
in the summit in Tampere, Finland in 1999 and The Hague Programme.
The EU must deliver for citizens. To do this we need
the correct institutional set-up. I welcome EU leaders' agreement
to an intergovernmental conference to agree the text for a new
treaty. This must end the uncertainty over the European Union's
Treaty reform. In Justice and Home Affairs there has been stalemate
over too many policies especially in the area of police and judicial
co-operation in criminal matters [the so-called third pillar].
Uncertainty is in no-one's interest, including UK citizens.
On institutional change, you expressed particular
concerns about incorporating EU action into UK law [through secondary
legislation only], moving away from the third-pillar and the proliferation
of 'informal decision-making structures', citing the example of
the Prüm Treaty. The first point is for the UK. I will set
out the Commission's position on the last two—why we welcome
and support the European Council conclusions.
The abolition of the three pillars structure agreed
by European leaders in June will end the artificial divide between
different parts of justice and home affairs work. EU leaders agreed
to "communitarise" almost all justice and home affairs
policies. This will mean quicker, more transparent and accountable
decisions for EU citizens.
The extension of the codecision procedure (Member
States to agree by Qualified Majority Voting and a bigger role
for the European Parliament as co-legislator), for police and
judicial co-operation in criminal matters, will help end the stalemate
in third pillar areas. Police co-operation, prevention of organised
crime and judicial co-operation in criminal matters are all subject
to this stalemate. Yes, we made commendable progress with the
European Arrest Warrant, which is often cited as the example
of EU agreement on legislation in the Third Pillar. However the
timing of the European Arrest Warrant, adopted very shortly after
the 2001 terrorist attacks in Washington and New York, must be
acknowledged. Moreover it is the only example we have of legislation
being enacted quickly. The delays with a similar piece of legislation—the
European Evidence Warrant (parts of which are necessary to benefit
from the European Arrest Warrant)—must not be overlooked.
The European Evidence Warrant provides a more realistic picture
of the delays and blockages which we experience too often in police
and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Practical police
operations and judicial co-operation therefore take place in a
legal vacuum. The move to extend the codecision procedure will
enable us to provide the required certainty for necessary cross
border operations which benefit citizens in the UK and the rest
of the EU. The UK secured an extension of its opt-in previously
agreed for migration, asylum and immigration issues. The UK can
opt in on individual measures. This will enable the UK to act
in accordance with the British interest. I hope the UK will work
with us and participate to advance UK, and the rest of the EU's,
interests.
EU leaders agreed to make 'enhanced co-operation'
more effective. Through this, a minimum of nine Member States
will be able to move forward and adopt legislation. I do not like
the idea of a two speed Europe; you also express concern. But
I like even less to see work blocked due to one or two Member
States who oppose the wishes of the majority. Of course Member
States wish safeguards, which will remain for Member States' Governments.
We see this in the most sensitive areas, such as police co-operation.
Unanimity will be maintained for operational actions. Governments
will be able to use an 'emergency brake' if they have major objections,
for points of national sovereignty. This emergency brake will
bring issues to the attention of EU leaders. But an emergency
brake must not be a way to block a decision. It will suspend it
for high level discussion in the European Council, for a while.
You express concern about the proliferation of 'informal
decision making structures' such as Prüm. In an enlarged
EU we must work together. Member States cannot view the EU as
an à la carte menu from which they can pick and choose.
If they do we will likely see the proliferation about which you
have concerns as Member States which wish to see specific further
measures implemented press ahead. However we need to ensure convergence
among the different forms of co-operation. We must consider how
we make shared interest or regional mechanisms compatible with
EC/EU law. Such developments must compliment the EU framework
not challenge or seek to replace it.
The Court of Justice will become fully competent
in all justice, freedom and security areas. This is a major improvement
which has important consequences. I have concerns about poor national
implementation of decisions previously agreed by EU leaders. These
changes will help national courts to get the support of the European
Court of Justice when having to apply or to interpret matters
of EU law. This dialogue between EU and national jurisdictions
is of the utmost importance in bringing the EU closer to citizens.
But these changes will also help ensure a better application of
EU legislation at national level as those Member States failing
to transpose or incorrectly transposing texts could be brought
before the Court of Justice in the future. This is essential to
ensure that EU law does not remain virtual and is effectively
implemented by Member States. What is the purpose of having adopted
the European arrest warrant for facilitating the surrender of
criminals and terrorists throughout Europe if some Member States
are still lacking in ensuring the legal transposition? Why, having
agreed to a common definition of terrorist acts, do divergent
approaches remain?
Turning to Parliamentary scrutiny, I welcome the
agreement to enhance the role of the European Parliament and National
Parliaments. National Parliaments will now have eight weeks (previously
six) to scrutinise Commission proposals. If a majority of National
Parliaments opposes an initiative they can ask the Commission
to reconsider or revise it. These measures give real power to
national parliaments. It is important that we all work together
for the benefit of EU citizens. I welcome your desire to work
closely with other committees in the UK and at EU level—such
as the LIBE committee, with whom I frequently discuss issues both
formally and informally. I also am pleased that officials in my
Directorate General are asked to provide evidence to your and
other UK Parliamentary committees. This interaction is essential
for accountability to the public.
Brussels, 27 July 2007
| 
