Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-205)
MS SALLY
IRELAND AND
MS JULIA
BATEMAN
9 JANUARY 2007
Q200 Mr Winnick: One final point,
we know how very few people bother to vote in European elections,
the whole body of the European Union, perhaps one of the reasons
why there is hostility to it, seems so totally remote. It just
seems to me what is being proposed here will make it even more
remote otherwise, but perhaps it is a political point.
Ms Bateman: Just a very short
point, and this is my own opinion rather than The Law Society's,
I do think passerelle clauses and QMV will just turn anybody off,
but if you sit there and say to somebody, "The European Union
is trying to make it safer for you to have access to a lawyer
in case you get in trouble on your holidays, travelling through
Europe or working in Europe", I am not going to repeat the
advantages and disadvantages, but I think the information given
about the European Union is not sufficient really.
Q201 Chairman: Sally Ireland, it
may be a little unfair but JUSTICE's evidence, perhaps unusually
for an organisation, appears to conclude that what we need is
more discussion about the way forward in that you would like to
see better protection for people who are arrested, you recognise
that unanimity is effectively blocking that, you do not like QMV
for the reasons that you say and you seem to end up almost welcoming
things like the Prüm Treaty in which a group of EU States
just goes away and unilaterally agrees something and now the German
Presidency wishes to impose that on the rest of the European Union
with probably less scrutiny than would have taken place if it
had gone through the more formal channels. I am not quite clear
how JUSTICE thinks the decisions should be reached in the European
Union. I may be a bit unfair, but you do rather tail off by saying
we should have more discussion about this.
Ms Ireland: I am at a slight disadvantage
because a former colleague wrote the written evidence which was
sent on to the Committee and then cruelly left me to defend it.
However, I would say that one of the real problems in this field
is that there are only a certain finite number of options which
are active, if indeed any of them apart from the status quo are
active, one of which, of course, is the passerelle and the other
is the treaty establishing the constitution which although in
its entirety may not go through, there is talk, I believe, of
picking out elements of the constitution, and there are good elements
of the treaty establishing the constitution which could be picked
out. I think if I had to opt for an ideal system of co-operation
at this level one idea might be to combine elements of both procedures
in that to institute a Qualified Majority Voting system but to
combine that with the retention of the framework decision instrument
rather than directly effective regulations and directives which
by law can be transposed into UK law which would maintain the
role of the UK Parliament, which I think is very important.
Q202 Chairman: That is helpful. Could
I pursue you on the Prüm Treaty issue because certainly when
we were in Brussels this style of decision-making where a group
of States gets together and agrees something and then essentially
uses, in this case, the German Presidency to push it forward was
held up to us as an example of exactly what we do not want because,
as we heard from law enforcement agencies, clearly they will be
lobbying the UK Government to sign up to the Prüm Treaty,
a treaty in which the UK Government had no say whatsoever, so
that type of decision-making would appear to be the worst of all
the different models of decision making we have got at the moment.
We are not seeing at any stage when the real decisions are being
taken.
Ms Ireland: I have to say I had
not read our evidence as advocating the Prüm Treaty.
Q203 Chairman: Should we be, as some
people said to us in Brussels, very concerned about developments
like the Prüm Treaty or should we be doing it, as other people
are saying, with 27 Member States, you cannot get unanimous agreement,
so this is the only way to move the agenda forward?
Ms Ireland: Treaties of the type
of Prüm are an inevitable consequence of the stalemate which
has developed and you see the G6 going off and having more focused
negotiations. To be honest, the presentation of other Member States
with the fait accompli which they can either sign up to
or not is neither democratic nor is it desirable in terms of mutual
trust and co-operation between the different Member States, particularly
when you have a situation where it is the G6 and obviously smaller
Member States may have thought they had been completely left out
of the negotiating table, and no, we would not advocate Prüm.
The only way in which it could possibly be advocated would be
as an expedient measure in the face of the current stalemate to
put important measures through, if we retain the current procedures,
but that is not ideal by any means.
Q204 Chairman: Julia?
Ms Bateman: I would entirely agree.
As Sally said, it is almost sadly the logical consequence of the
inability perhaps to make progress, 27 Member States, previously
25 Member States together, but I think this is a bad example of
how you have no democratic accountability, limited involvement,
indeed, of national parliaments in this, and also what starts
off as multilateral, bilateral co-operation then becomes imposed
on the rest of the European Union. As you say, the German Presidency
has this on the agenda for the Justice and Home Affairs Council
next week and governments do not have a say in this. Again, each
government has an option whether to sign up to the convention
and have it ratified, but the political pressure would be, "Well,
it is a crime-fighting measure, it is a law-enforcement measure.
We signed up to it, so should you". I endorse what you say,
it is a bad example of law-making.
Q205 Chairman: Could I thank you
both very much indeed. It was very useful.
Ms Bateman: Thank you for your
invitation.
|
