House of Commons - The UK's block opt-out of pre-Lisbon criminal law and policing measures

The UK's block opt-out of pre-Lisbon criminal law and policing measures - European Scrutiny Committee Contents

16 Measures which the Government does not intend to rejoin as a matter of policy or principle

485. As a large number of the measures the Government does not intend to rejoin fall within this category, we have sub-divided them thematically, as follows:

Minimum standards measures;
Mutual recognition measures;
Measures for the exchange of information;
Cross-border cooperation measures; and
EU/third country agreements.

Minimum standards measures

486. In her Statement to the House on 9 July, the Home Secretary noted that a number of the measures subject to the block opt-out concerned minimum standards in substantive criminal law and that:

Even before their adoption, the UK already met or exceeded the vast majority of these standards and will continue to do so whether or not we are bound by them.[130]

487. During the debate on 15 July, she observed:

It is not for Europe to impose minimum standards on our police and criminal justice systems. There are therefore more than 20 minimum standards measures that we will not seek to rejoin.[131]

488. The Justice Secretary added:

We do not want courts across Europe to be told by Brussels the minimum standards that should apply to the sentences they impose. We do not want matters that should be resolved by Member States to be legislated for at a European level. We want to bring powers in those areas back to the UK.[132]

489. In his oral evidence, the Justice Secretary told us:

I do not believe that it is in the interests of this country to Europeanise criminal penalties [...] it is not my intention that we should be part of measures that Europeanise penalties, so there are minimum standards across Europe. That is a question of policy and a question of principle, which I am very happy to lay out before this Committee. It is a very simple principle and, for a number of the ones we are not opting back into, that is the fundamental reason.[133]

490. He added:

I have taken a decision on behalf of this country, which I am putting to Parliament for its acceptance, that I do not think Britain should be part of minimum standards measures, and we are not going back into them.[134]

491. We have included 16 measures in this category, fewer than the 20 referred to by the Home Secretary.

Measure No. Page
(CM Paper)
Purpose and content of measure(s)

Drug trafficking Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA 54 65 Obliges Member States to ensure their domestic legislation lays down minimum provisions on criminal acts and penalties relating to drug trafficking.

Measures to combat terrorism
Framework Decisions 2002/475/JHA and 2008/919/JHA
39
87
91 Obliges Member States to ensure that certain terrorism and terrorism related offences with common definitions are created in domestic legislation.

Penalties for illegal immigration Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA 43 96 Requires Member States to create a penal regime to prevent illegal immigration throughout the EU, in particular to sanction unlawful facilitation in the breach of the laws of any other Member State.

Sanctions against counterfeiting the euro
Framework Decisions 2000/383/JHA and 2001/888/JHA
24
34
124 Aims to ensure minimum standards of criminal law in Member States in relation to the euro and other currencies with corresponding penalties (including a minimum maximum for some offences) and to recognise convictions from other Member States for sentencing purposes.

Combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment
Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA
29 126 Requires fraud and counterfeiting involving all forms of non-cash payment to be made criminal offences and supported by penalties in all the Member States.

Public sector corruption
1997 Convention and Council Decision 2003/642/JHA
9
49
122 The Convention sets minimum standards and minimum maximum penalties for public sector corruption offences (the Decision extends its application to Gibraltar).

Private sector corruption Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA 47 123 Sets minimum standards for the private sector offences of giving or receiving bribes and requires corresponding penalties.

Combating organised crime
Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA
84 109 Requires criminalisation of participation in a criminal organisation within the EU and the commissioning of organised crime, supported by minimum maximum imprisonment penalties.

Combating racism and xenophobia Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA 86 110 Requires Member States to take measures in criminal law to protect EU citizens from racism and xenophobia.

Confiscation of proceeds of crime Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA 58 66 Requires Members States to have effective rules on confiscation of proceeds of crimes and extended confiscation (of the proceeds of wider criminal activity connected with those crimes).

Convention and Protocols on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests Council Acts of 26 July 1995, 27 September 1996 and 19 June 1997 1
8
12
143 Require Member States to ensure offences against the EU budget are adequately punished (providing a common definition of fraud affecting EU expenditure and revenue) and to cooperate on this.

492. The measures we have grouped together in this category share a number of common characteristics. They establish minimum requirements for the constituent elements of criminal offences covering fraud against the EU budget[135] trafficking in drugs and drug precursors, facilitating the unlawful entry of illegal immigrants, counterfeiting of currencies and of non-cash means of payment, public and private sector corruption, participation in a criminal organisation, and racism and xenophobia. Most of the measures establish "minimum maximum penalties" — these are intended to ensure that, in determining the appropriate maximum penalty for an offence, all Member States exceed a minimum threshold — but some simply require criminal penalties to be "effective, proportionate and dissuasive". A number of the measures also include provisions on the exchange of information and cross-border cooperation.

493. Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA (No. 58) is slightly different, in that it focuses more on the procedural rather than substantive aspects of criminal law by requiring Member States to put in place effective procedures for the confiscation of proceeds of crime. This measure is likely to be replaced, in part, by a new Directive on confiscation but some provisions of the Framework Decision would remain in force.[136] Although the Government has not opted into the new draft Directive, it has indicated that it will wish to consider opting in after it has been adopted. As the new Directive would preserve part of the Framework Decision, we ask the Government whether a decision to opt into the Directive after its adoption would necessarily require the UK to seek to rejoin the Framework Decision as well.

494. The Government's Explanatory Memoranda on all of the minimum standards measures indicate that UK law meets or exceeds the minimum requirements and would remain in place, even if the Government were to decide not to opt back into them. In some cases, they highlight a "reputational risk" if the UK were to opt out, on the grounds that opting-out might be perceived as a lessening of the UK's commitment to combat serious and organised crime or to tackle hate crime.[137] Given the serious nature of the criminal offences covered by these measures, it is unclear why the reputational risk associated with opting-out is considered more significant for some than others.

495. We infer from the statements made by the Home and Justice Secretaries to Parliament in July, and their oral evidence to this Committee on 10 October, that the Government's recommendation to opt out en masse of all of these minimum standards measures is based on the principle that substantive criminal laws and penalties should not be "imposed" by Brussels but should be determined by the UK. The Explanatory Memoranda also suggest that opting out offers a pragmatic solution, given that the Government does not intend to depart from EU minimum standards by repealing existing domestic legislation, that other Member States will continue to remain bound by the measures, and that the deterrent effect should therefore remain broadly the same in all criminal jurisdictions across the European Union.

496. Whilst we accept that the practical impact of opting out of this set of pre-Lisbon measures is likely to be minimal, the Government's approach raises a broader issue about the basis for future UK cooperation with EU partners on criminal law matters. Opting out might suggest that the Government intends voluntarily to comply with minimum standards in EU criminal law without being bound to do so or to accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. Yet this is difficult to reconcile with the Government's decision to opt into post-Lisbon Directives establishing minimum standards and penalties on cybercrime[138] and trafficking in human beings[139], presumably because it perceives some benefit in shaping the content of EU criminal law or, as the Government's Explanatory Memorandum on one of the pre-Lisbon measures indicates, using EU law as a means of assisting with "EU-wide enforcement of UK law".[140]

497. We raised this issue with the Home and Justice Secretaries during their evidence session, in an attempt to establish whether the Government draws a distinction, as a matter of principle, between retrospectively opting out of measures which have already been implemented by the UK, but opting in prospectively to draft EU legislation establishing minimum standards for substantive criminal law matters. Both suggested, in the case of human trafficking, that it was "such a transnational issue" as to warrant UK participation.[141] We trust that the Government's response to our Report will provide a more detailed explanation of how the decision of principle taken by the Government in relation to these pre-Lisbon minimum standards measures will affect its approach to similar post-Lisbon measures.

MUTUAL RECOGNITION MEASURES

498. We estimate that there are eleven mutual recognition measures within the scope of the UK's block opt-out. The Government proposes to rejoin eight of them (considered in chapters 6 and 7) and to opt out of three. Both sets of measures are shown below for the purposes of comparison.

Measures the Government does not propose to rejoin

Measure No. Page
(CM Paper)
Purpose and content of measure(s)

Convention on Driving Disqualifications Council Act of 17 June 1998 15 146 Aims to achieve mutual recognition of driving disqualifications.

Mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA 88 132 Provides a basis for mutual recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, licence conditions and community sentences so that an EU citizen can be supervised in a Member State other than the one where the sentence was imposed.

Accreditation of forensic service providers
Framework Decision 2009/905/JHA
99 115 Sets quality standards for the accreditation of forensic science laboratories to ensure the mutual recognition and equal reliability of the results of "non-home" laboratories' activities.

Measures the Government does propose to rejoin

Measure No. Page
(Cm Paper)
Purpose and content of measure

Orders freezing property or evidence Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA 48 63 Establishes rules for mutual recognition of freezing order for property or evidence issued by national judicial authorities.

Mutual recognition of confiscation orders Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA 68 70 Establishes simplified procedures for mutual recognition of confiscation orders for proceeds of crime without verification of dual criminality.

Mutual recognition of financial penalties Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA 59 127 Obliges Member States to collect financial penalties transferred by other Member States, some of the penalty being allotted to the collecting Member State via Fines Incentive Scheme.

European Arrest Warrant
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
41 94 Expedites the extradition process between EU Member States using the principle of "mutual recognition" and removing previous barriers to extradition (relating to nationality and limitation periods).

Taking account of previous criminal convictions Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA 83 129 Requires national courts to take into account a defendant's previous convictions in another Member State in the same manner (and for the same purposes of sentencing and resisting bail applications) as previous national convictions.

Transfer of prisoners — mutual recognition of judgments imposing a custodial sentence
Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA
85 130 Enables the transfer of Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) to their home country in the EU to serve their custodial sentences.

Mutual recognition of judgments given in criminal proceedings where the defendant was absent (in absentia judgments) Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA 92 135 Requires mutual recognition of judgments given in absentia, enhances the procedural safeguards for defendants and amends various other underlying measures, including the European Arrest Warrant.

Mutual recognition of pre-trial supervision orders
Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA
97 136 The European Supervision Order (ESO) enables the supervision of a pre-trial non-custodial measure (e.g. supervised bail) imposed in the host Member State to be undertaken in the home Member State.

499. The EU Convention on Driving Disqualifications (No. 15) requires Member States to give effect to a disqualification imposed in another Member State for the commission of various road traffic offences, such as reckless or dangerous driving or refusing to submit to alcohol or drug tests. As only five Member States have ratified the Convention, it has not entered into force, but the UK and Ireland have both made declarations under Article 15(4) of the Convention applying its provisions (with the exception of Article 14 conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice) on a bilateral basis, with effect from 2010.

500. Opting out of the Convention would remove the existing legal base for mutual recognition arrangements with Ireland, necessitate the negotiation of a new bilateral agreement, and require changes to domestic legislation. Rejoining the Convention would have cost implications, which the Government estimates at £31 million over ten years, if all Member States were to ratify it, but there would also be potential road safety benefits. We assume that the Government sees some value in establishing alternative bilateral arrangements with Ireland to give effect to the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications, given the flow of people and traffic between the UK and Ireland. We would welcome a clearer indication of the feasibility of establishing such arrangements by 1 December 2014.

501. Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA (No. 88) establishes a procedure for the mutual recognition of probation orders or other sanctions requiring some form of post-conviction supervision which have been imposed by the courts of another Member State. Its purpose is to facilitate the social rehabilitation of offenders by allowing them to be transferred to their Member State of lawful and ordinary residence for supervision of their sentence. Although due to be implemented by December 2011, the UK is amongst the majority of Member States that have not yet done so. The Government suggests that the number of transfers made under the Framework Decision is likely to be small, although "with changing patterns of migration, we cannot be sure of future volumes", and that the effectiveness of the instrument will only become apparent once more Member States are implementing it.[142]

502. In his oral evidence, the Justice Secretary acknowledged that the Government's decision not to opt back into this Framework Decision might appear to be inconsistent with its recommendation to rejoin two other Framework Decisions, one on the transfer of prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment in another Member State (No. 85) which would appear to serve a similar rehabilitative purpose, and the other on the supervision of pre-trial (non-custodial) orders (No. 97) which is intended to make it easier for individuals involved in criminal proceedings in another Member State to be released on bail to their home State. The reason, he suggested, was that the drafting of the Framework Decision on probation was too imprecise:

It is unclear what the situation would be if we were to deport an offender from this country back to their country of origin, where they were to serve a period of probation supervision, and they were to breach that provision to a degree that, in the United Kingdom, would require them to be recalled to prison. We might be in a position where their home country would then say, "Well, they need to be recalled to prison," but we deported them. How do we square that circle?

If that is then a matter for the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, I could conceive of a situation where they reached a decision that had profound implications for the deportation process that might complicate the Home Secretary and the Home Office's life quite considerably. That is not a risk that I want us to take. At some point in the future, there might be an arrangement we thought was a good idea, but this does not feel like it. That is the kind of area where I am extremely reluctant to see the European Court take jurisdiction over measures that have a practical impact in this country, and where we would not be able to do anything about a decision we disagreed with.[143]

503. Whilst we are grateful for the Justice Secretary's oral explanation, at our evidence session on 10 October 2013, of the Government's reasons for not opting into the Framework Decision on the mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions (No. 88), it serves to underline the inadequacies of the Government's Explanatory Memorandum which merely alludes to "a lack of clear understanding about how this measure will operate in practice." As we have stated earlier in our Report, the basis on which the Government has assessed the national interest in each case must be transparent and open to scrutiny by Parliament. The Explanatory Memoranda constitute the Government's formal evidence to Parliament and should provide sufficient information to enable Parliament to weigh the risks and benefits of participation. Given that the Government does not intend to rejoin the Framework Decision relating to probation orders, we ask whether it considers that a 1964 Council of Europe Convention on the Supervision of Conditionally Sentenced or Conditionally Released Offenders offers an alternative basis for cooperation and, if so, how likely the UK and other Member States are to sign and ratify it.

504. Framework Decision 2009/905/JHA (No. 99) requires forensic laboratories to be accredited to a common international standard (set out in EN ISO/IEC 17025) in order to ensure the reliability and validity of their activities and establish a legal base for the mutual recognition of the results. It sets a compliance deadline of 30 November 2013 for DNA profiles and 30 November 2015 for dactyloscopic (fingerprint) data. The Government is confident that UK laboratories can meet the standard set out in the Framework Decision without participating in it, whilst acknowledging its broader contribution in driving up standards elsewhere.[144] In its recent Report on Forensic Science, the Science and Technology Committee underlined the benefit of accreditation as a means of ensuring compliance with quality standards and urged the Government to consider the consequences of not opting back into the Framework Decision.[145] We would add that quality assurance in this area is of particular importance in the context of cross-border police investigations in order to ensure that forensic evidence obtained in one Member State and used in court proceedings in another Member State is recognised as being reliable. We ask the Government to tell us how soon UK forensic laboratories will be in a position to comply with the common international standard set out in the Framework Decision (even though they will no longer be under a legal obligation to do so) and whether it is likely to be within the timescales envisaged.

MEASURES FOR THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION

505. We have placed 17 measures in this category. The Government proposes to rejoin eight of them (considered in chapter 8) and to opt out of nine. Both sets of measures are shown below for the purposes of comparison.

Measures the Government does not propose to rejoin

Measure No. Page
(CM Paper)
Purpose and content of measure(s)

Exchanging certain information data with Interpol
Council Common Position 2005/69/JHA
57 101 Through the exchange and verification of information on lost and stolen passports, this measure aims to ensure that all Member States engage consistently with Interpol in this field.

Exchange of information to combat drug trafficking
Joint Action 97/372/JHA
11 38 Requires Member States to make best use of targeting methods to select consignments for examination and to exchange information to facilitate joint customs drugs operations

Information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances
Council Decision 2005/387/JHA
62 50 Obliges Member States to share information on new psychoactive substances (NPS) and, if required by a Council Decision, to submit a NPS to control measures and criminal sanctions (Nos.36, 50 and 76 below).

Control measures for psychoactive substances
Council Decisions 1999/615/JHA, 2002/188/JHA, 2003/847/JHA, 2008/206/JHA
20
36
50
76
50 Measures Nos. 36, 50 and 76, see above. No. 20 is another control measure which predates No. 62.

Exchange of information on chemical profiling of drugs
Joint Action 96/699/JHA
5 36 Facilitates interaction on chemical profiling of drugs between Europol (No. 95) and Member States through Europol National Units and liaison bureaux.

Exchange of information on terrorist offences Council Decision 2005/671/JHA 66 102 Allows for the provision of information concerning terrorist offences to Eurojust (Nos. 35, 77 and 136) and Europol (No. 95) and to other Member States.

Measures the Government does propose to rejoin

Measure No. Page
(Cm Paper)
Purpose and content of measure

Exchange of information between financial intelligence units
Council Decision 2000/642/JHA
27 55 Enables the improved disclosure and exchange of financial information between Member States' Financial Information Units to combat money laundering.

Exchange of information and intelligence between Member States' law enforcement authorities Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA 69 70 Provides a systematic, time-bound process to simplify the exchange of information between national law enforcement bodies for the purposes of criminal investigation and prosecution.

Cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices
Council Decision 2007/845/JHA
73 72 Requires Member States to cooperate, through a system of national Asset Recovery Offices (AROs) using a time-bound process for financial information exchange to trace proceeds of crime and other crime-related assets.

European Image Archiving System (FADO)
Joint Action 98/700/JHA
18 87 Establishes FADO as an EU-level computerised image archive of falsified and authentic identity documents.

Exchange of information on criminal records
Framework Decisions 2009/315/JHA
2009/316/JHA
93
94
112 Require Member States to inform each other about the convictions of EU nationals in another Member State and permit Member States to request the previous criminal convictions of individuals from their home State. No. 93 sets out the legal requirements governing the transmission of information and No. 94 requires that transmission to be electronic via a database called ECRIS.

Protection of personal data
Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA
90 133 Provides a high level of protection for personal data processed for the purposes of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

Customs Information System
Council Decision 2009/917/JHA
100 151 Establishes an electronic Customs Information System (CIS) to be used by national customs law enforcement bodies to assist them in detecting, investigating and prosecuting customs crimes.

506. Council Decision 2005/387/JHA (No. 62) establishes a mechanism for the rapid exchange of information on new psychoactive substances which may lead to a risk assessment (focussing on the health and social risks of consumption as well as the involvement of organised crime) and the introduction of control measures requiring Member States to impose criminal sanctions. Four related Council Decisions (Nos. 20, 36, 50 and 76) require Member States to introduce proportionate control measures and criminal penalties for specific psychoactive substances. All of these substances were already subject to drug control in the UK under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and these controls would remain in place if the UK were to opt out of the Council Decisions.

507. The Government's Explanatory Memorandum appears to put forward a reasonably compelling case for remaining in the information exchange mechanism, stating: "The UK's participation in time-sensitive EU wide information about prevalence and harms of new substances enables us to influence EU and Member States' legal responses, supporting enforcement and judicial cooperation in a drugs market that does not respect borders, especially with the role of the internet and use of internal transit countries."[146] The Government has participated in two post-Lisbon Council Decisions introducing control measures, even though the substances concerned were already controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.[147] New EU legislation to repeal and replace Council Decision 2005/387/JHA (No. 62) was published in September 2013.[148]

508. As the psychoactive substances subject to EU-wide control measures are already controlled substances under domestic legislation, and are likely to remain so regardless of EU law, we accept that the public health implications of opting out of Council Decisions 1999/615/JHA, 2002/188/JHA, 2003/847/JHA, 2008/206/JHA (Nos. 20, 36, 50 and 76) will be minimal. We note that a decision to opt out of the parent legislation — Council Decision 2005/387/JHA (No. 62) — would, however, remove the possibility for the UK to participate in the existing rapid information exchange mechanism and in any post-Lisbon EU-wide control measures based on the 2005 Decision. Given the prevalence of internet purchasing and the ease with which new psychoactive substances can be marketed and sold across borders, we ask the Government to explain what other channels it intends to use to "influence EU and Member States' legal responses" to the emergence of new psychoactive substances.

509. Council Common Position 2005/69/JHA (No. 57) requires Member States to share data on lost and stolen passports with Interpol. The Government says that, if it were to opt out, the UK would continue to share passport data with Interpol, and have access to the relevant databases.

510. Joint Action 96/699/JHA (No. 5) requires Member States to share the results of their chemical profiling of drugs with Europol in order to strengthen cooperation in combating illicit drug production and trafficking. The Government indicates that opting out might give rise to "a minor reputational risk", but adds that the UK could continue to share information "with the cooperation of other Member States" and that "we judge it unlikely that other Member States would stop cooperation with the UK."[149]

511. Joint Action 97/372/JHA (No. 11) sets out measures which are intended to help customs authorities tackle drug trafficking more effectively by, for example, strengthening the exchange of information and intelligence and improving risk analysis techniques and targeting procedures. The Government says that the UK Border Force has in place well-developed targeting and selection criteria and processes for collecting information which would not be affected if the UK were to opt out. It adds that the UK has never used the Joint Action as the basis for joint customs operations, relying instead on the Naples II Convention (No. 14) which it proposes to rejoin.

512. Council Decision 2005/671/JHA (No. 66) requires Member States to share with Europol and Eurojust information on criminal investigations, prosecutions and convictions which relate to terrorist offences affecting two or more Member States. It provides for the establishment of joint investigations teams and requires Member States to give priority to requests for legal assistance and recognition and enforcement of judgments which are connected with terrorist offences. The Government recognises that the sharing of information "plays an important part in building cooperative relationships on Counter-Terrorism", adding: "It allows the UK to promote its operating practices to other Member States and receive information on terrorist offences. Continuing to share information is therefore important both operationally and in reputational terms."[150] However, the Government considers that information deemed to be operationally important would continue to be exchanged on a bilateral or multilateral basis, regardless of UK participation in the Council Decision.

513. We accept that these are not the most significant instruments subject to the block opt-out, and that there will doubtless be possibilities for information exchange to continue outside of a formal EU framework. We note, however, that Joint Action 96/699/JHA (No. 5) and Council Decision 2005/671/JHA (No. 66) both require Member States to share information with Europol and/or Eurojust. Although the Government indicates that it intends to continue doing so on a voluntary basis, it does not address the possibility that other Member States may object to the UK remaining within Europol and Eurojust, while divesting itself of any obligation to provide information which those other Member States are legally bound to provide. We ask the Government whether it considers that these differences in the degree of compulsion attached to participation in Europol and Eurojust could be regarded as undermining the coherence of the acquis which the UK proposes to rejoin.

CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION MEASURES

514. We have divided these measures into two sub-categories:

Networks, Contact Points and Directories; and
Other types of cross-border cooperation.

NETWORKS, CONTACT POINTS AND DIRECTORIES

515. We have placed ten measures in this sub-category. The Government proposes to opt back into three (considered in chapter 9), and to opt out of the remaining seven. Both sets of measures are shown below for the purposes of comparison.

Measures the Government does not propose to rejoin

Measure No. Page
(CM Paper)
Purpose and content of measure(s)

Directory of specialised counter-terrorism competences
Joint Action 96/610/JHA
3 83 Aims to create and maintain a Directory of counter-terrorism (CT) competences to facilitate cooperation on combating terrorism.

Contact point network against corruption
Council Decision 2008/852/JHA
135 77 Creates a network of national contact points responsible for preventing corruption, particularly in law enforcement bodies.

European Network for the protection of public figures
Council Decisions 2002/956/JHA and 2009/796/JHA
44
96
97 Set up a network to enable the sharing of information on operations involving any person to whom a protection service has been assigned by a Member State.

Tackling cross-border vehicle crime
Council Decision 2004/919/EC
56 99 Creates a network of Law Enforcement specialists to share information and best practice on tackling organised, cross-border vehicle crime (stolen vehicles, abuse of registration documentation).

European Crime Prevention Network Council Decision 2009/902/JHA 98 114 Facilitates the sharing of crime prevention measures and best practice amongst national law enforcement bodies, targeting "volume crime" (juvenile, urban and drugs related).

European Judicial Network (cooperation in criminal matters) Council Decision 2008/976/JHA 89 73 Establishes the European Judicial Network (consisting of national contact points, expert in MLA) and aims to improve judicial cooperation in order to combat serious crime.

Measures the Government does propose to rejoin

Measure No. Page
(CM Paper)
Purpose and content of measure(s)

Contact points network on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
Council Decision 2002/494/JHA
40 92 Establishes a network of national contact points for exchanging information on investigations of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Security in connection with football matches with an international dimension
Council Decisions 2002/348/JHA and 2007/412/JHA
37
72
104 Set up the National Football Information Points to coordinate and facilitate international police cooperation and information exchange in respect of football matches with an international dimension.

516. Joint Action 96/610/JHA (No. 3) (a UK initiative) establishes a Directory of specialist counter-terrorist competences, skills and expertise developed in each Member State so that they can be shared with other Member States. The Government suggests that the Directory could be seen as enhancing the UK's reputation as "a world leader" in counter-terrorism, but adds that it is little used in practice and that opting out would not affect existing bilateral relationships between operational agencies.

517. Council Decision 2004/919/EC (No. 56) seeks to strengthen cooperation in preventing and combating cross-border vehicle crime by requiring Member States to designate national contact points to exchange information on vehicle crime. It also requires Member State authorities to enter stolen vehicle alerts in the Schengen Information System and, where possible, in Interpol's Stolen Motor Vehicle database, and to cooperate with Europol. The Government notes that the UK has not had an operative contact point since April 2011 and considers that, if the UK were to opt out, it would be possible to cooperate with other Member States on an informal bilateral basis.

518. Council Decision 2008/852/JHA (No. 135) similarly seeks to strengthen cooperation in preventing and combating corruption by establishing a network of national contact points to exchange information and best practice. Europol and Eurojust also take part in the network. Whilst recognising that the network "can be helpful in looking at trends and best practice across borders", the Government considers that opting out would make little practical difference to the UK's ability to work closely with EU partners.[151]

519. Council Decisions 2002/956/JHA and 2009/796/JHA (Nos. 44 and 96) establish a network of national contact points to exchange information and develop best practice on the protection of public figures with a view to ensuring their safety. According to the Government, attendance at contact point meetings is patchy and information and intelligence on protection operations is generally exchanged bilaterally, through embassies or designated contact points, rather than through the Network. As a consequence, opting out of the Decisions is likely to have minimal impact.

520. Council Decision 2009/902/JHA (No. 98) establishes a European Crime Prevention Network, with its own Board and Secretariat, and national contact points from each Member State, to strengthen cooperation on crime prevention activities, disseminate good practice and provide expert advice to the Council and Commission. The Government merely notes that the UK is an active participant in quarterly Board meetings but offers no further assessment of the consequences of opting out.

521. Council Decision 2008/976/JHA (No. 89) establishes a network of judicial contact points in each Member State — the European Judicial Network — to facilitate judicial cooperation in combating serious crime. The Network has a website containing information on the judicial system of each Member State and their mutual legal assistance procedures. The Government considers that plenary meetings of national contact points "add little or no value". Whilst recognising that it would be difficult for individual Member States to set up a similar network of contacts across the EU, the Government suggests that it may be possible to maintain the contacts established by the Network without formally participating in the Council Decision.

522. All of these Networks, Contact Points and Directories seek to strengthen practical cross-border cooperation, albeit with varying degrees of engagement by Member States. They appear to impose few obligations on Member States, beyond designating appropriate contact points, and might therefore be considered more consistent with the Government's objective of "cooperation not control", and considerably less susceptible to unexpected or unwelcome Court of Justice rulings, than many of the measures it proposes to rejoin. The knowledge and contacts already acquired within these networks would tend to indicate that the short-term consequences of opting out of these measures are likely to be minimal. We are disappointed that the Government's Explanatory Memoranda do not, however, address the potential longer-term impact of leaving some of the networks, notably the European Judicial Network (No. 89), given its expertise in mutual legal assistance procedures.

523. We note that the Government does propose to rejoin Council Decision 2002/494/JHA (No. 40) requiring Member States to designate contact points for the exchange of information on the investigation of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, as well as Council Decisions 2002/348/JHA and 2007/412/JHA (Nos. 37 and 72) requiring Member States to designate national football information points to coordinate and facilitate the exchange of information in connection with football matches with an international dimension. The Explanatory Memoranda provide no clear justification for participating in these measures but not the others included in this category, even though the Government appears to acknowledge in both cases that the UK's non-participation would not significantly impede cooperation (but might increase costs). We ask the Government to address this anomaly in its response to our Report.

OTHER TYPES OF CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION

524. We have placed 27 measures in this sub-category. The Government proposes to opt back into 16 (considered in chapter 10), and to opt out of the remaining 11. Both sets of measures are shown below for the purposes of comparison.

Measures the Government does not propose to rejoin

Measure No. Page
(Cm Paper)
Purpose and content of measure(s)

Cooperation on law and order and security Joint Action 97/339/JHA 10 84 Requires cooperation and information-sharing to assist policing of large-scale sporting and music events and demonstrations involving large numbers of attendees from more than one Member State. Excludes football violence which is covered by Nos. 35 and 72.

Approximation of laws and practices to combat drug addiction and illegal drug trafficking
Joint Action 96/750/JHA
7 37 Obliges Member States to take measures to tackle drug addiction, tourism and trafficking, including providing serious penalties for the latter.

Investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
Council Decision 2003/335/JHA
51 93 Requires cross-border co-operation in the investigation and prosecution of migrants suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Exchange of liaison magistrates
Joint Action 96/277/JHA
2 33 Provides for the exchange of liaison magistrates between Member States to improve understanding of mutual legal assistance procedures.

Money laundering Joint Action 98/669/JHA, Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA 17
31
41
42
Seeks to strengthen cooperation to combat organised crime, and to identify, trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of crime.

Protecting the euro against counterfeiting Council Decision 2001/887/JHA 33 90 Requires Member States to communicate information on euro-counterfeiting investigations to Europol and sets out procedures for the expert analysis of forged notes and coins at National Analysis Centres.

Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA 107 138 Seeks to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction and prevent parallel proceedings on the same matters being taken in different Member States through non-mandatory guidance and voluntary referral to Eurojust.

Evaluation of national legal systems and implementation in order to combat terrorism
Council Decision 2002/966/JHA
45 98 Establishes a mechanism for non-binding peer evaluation of national legal systems' capacity to combat terrorism.

Posting of liaison officers to third countries
Council Decisions 2003/170/JHA and 2006/560/JHA
46
65
Promote cooperation and shared use of Liaison Officers (including those attached to Europol) posted in Third Countries and international organisations

Measures the Government does propose to rejoin

Measure No. Page (Cm Paper) Purpose and content of measure(s)

Evaluation of implementation of EU instruments to combat organised crime
Joint Action 97/827/JHA
13 86 Enables the operation of the Working Party on General Matters including Evaluation (GENVAL) and provides a peer evaluation mechanism to assess the implementation of EU measures designed to combat serious, organised, international crime.

European Police College (CEPOL) Council Decision 2005/681/JHA 67 68 Establishes a European Police College (Cepol) to operate as a pan-European training and development network for Member States' senior police officers and makes provision for administrative matters such as location, legal status, governance and funding.

Combating child pornography on the internet
Council Decision 2000/375/JHA
23 88 Outlines how Member States should combat online child abuse through appropriate law enforcement responses and international and industry cooperation.

Cooperation between special intervention units in crisis situations
Council Decision 2008/617/JHA
81 108 Establishes a legal framework for Member States to provide law enforcement assistance (equipment and operational support) to deal with crisis situations such as terrorist attacks, hi-jacking and hostage-taking.

Joint supervisory data protection bodies Council Decision 2000/641/JHA 26 125 Establishes a single, independent joint secretariat for the joint supervisory data protection bodies set up under the Europol Convention, the Convention on the Use of Information Technology for Customs Purposes and the Schengen Convention.

Schengen instruments Schengen Implementing Convention 1990 (specified Articles only), Council Decisions 2000/586/JHA and 2003/725/JHA 110
120
121
14 The Schengen Implementing Convention 1990 establishes the framework for cooperation within the Schengen area. The two Council Decisions amend provisions of the Convention which the UK has elected to participate in. These include cross-border surveillance, sharing of intelligence, equipment and telecommunications, liaison officers, MLA, the double jeopardy principle and procedures relating to narcotics investigations.

Handbook on cross-border police cooperation SCH/Com-ex (98) 52 115 20 Provides practical guidance on matters relating to the conduct of cross-border police cooperation, including continued surveillance, firearms policy, public order and security (e.g. at large scale events) and liaison officers.

Schengen Information System (SIS II) Council Decision 2007/533/JHA 128 26 SIS II enables sharing of "alert" information between national law enforcement authorities on missing persons, persons needed for extradition or other judicial purposes, stolen vehicles and ID documentation.

Europol
Council Decision 2009/371/JHA
95 43 Establishes the European Police Office (Europol) to provide assistance to Member States in the fight against organised crime, terrorism, specific forms of serious crime and drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, cyber crime and forgery. It also addresses crime prevention and is the central office for combating Euro counterfeiting. Europol produces strategic analyses, EU assessment of threats, participates in Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) and enables contact between liaison officers from the EU and certain third countries.

Eurojust
Council Decisions 2002/187/JHA
2009/426/JHA
2003/659/JHA
35
77
136
58 Eurojust is the EU's judicial cooperation agency, designed to improve coordination and cooperation between Member States in cross-border criminal investigations and prosecutions. It advises on the requirements of the different legal systems, supports MLA arrangements, organises coordination meetings for national authorities, mediates in conflicts of jurisdiction, supports multi-jurisdictional activities and funds Joint Investigation Teams.

No. 35 establishes Eurojust and is amended by measures Nos.136 and 77, the latter bringing about a number of practical enhancements (for example, a new 24 hour on-call coordination system).

Joint Investigation Teams (JITs)
Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA
38 61 Provides for national authorities to set up joint investigation teams (JITs) to carry out criminal investigations in one or more Member States participating in the respective team.

Naples II Convention on customs cooperation
Council Act of 18 December 1997
14 144 Provides for customs cooperation and mutual assistance between customs authorities. Allows for sharing of information for purposes of detection, investigation and prosecution of customs crime, including for Joint Customs Operations.

525. This sub-category includes four Joint Actions which are intended to strengthen cross-border cooperation in different areas. The first — Joint Action 96/277/JHA (No. 2) — establishes a framework and guidelines for the posting or exchange of "liaison magistrates" (officials with expertise in mutual legal assistance and other aspects of judicial cooperation) in order to improve mutual understanding of different legal and judicial systems and the effectiveness of judicial cooperation processes. The Government has deployed liaison magistrates to Spain, Italy and France and hosts a French counterpart. Its ability to do so is not dependent on the Joint Action which serves only as a reference point. However, the Government considers that non-participation in the network of liaison magistrates based on the Joint Action "may diminish the ability of the UK to coordinate complex investigations and prosecutions in international cases involving Spain, Italy and France" and make it more difficult for prosecutors and investigators to contact their foreign counterparts, set up coordination and case planning meetings, resolve jurisdictional issues, and understand how to obtain evidence.[152]

526. Joint Action 96/750/JHA (No. 7) sets out a series of undertakings to strengthen cooperation in combating drug addiction and drug trafficking by a variety of means, including the approximation of national laws and practices to make them more compatible across the EU, the imposition of severe penalties for serious drug trafficking, and closer operational cooperation between police, customs services and judicial authorities. The Government considers that the undertakings in the Joint Action are reflected in UK law and operational practice. Cooperation with law enforcement partners in other Member States would continue, even if the UK were to opt out, without the need for any new bilateral agreements.

527. Joint Action 97/339/JHA (No. 10) sets out the information which Member States are required to provide in relation to large-scale events taking place in another Member State which involve significant movements of people and which may present a threat to law and order or security. It also makes provision for the temporary posting of liaison officers to provide advice and assistance. Different instruments — which the Government proposes to rejoin — apply to security at football matches.[153] The Government says that alternative mechanisms are in place to share information with other Member States' police forces and that the Joint Action is not used in practice.

528. Joint Action 98/669/JHA (No. 17) seeks to strengthen cooperation by approximating laws on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime. The Government considers that UK law is generally compliant with the Joint Action but identifies a possible infraction risk in relation to provisions on judicial training and the publication of user-friendly guides (it is unclear whether the risk of infraction is the principal reason for recommending that the UK should not rejoin this measure). Some provisions of the Joint Action have been repealed by a subsequent Framework Decision (No. 31, which we consider below), and the Joint Action will be replaced in its entirety by a draft Directive on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the EU, but only for those Member States participating in the new Directive. The Government has not opted into the draft Directive but has indicated that it intends to play an active role in negotiations (which are continuing) with a view to considering a post-adoption opt-in.[154]

529. The Government's commentary on these four Joint Actions illustrates the deficiencies and inconsistencies in its Explanatory Memoranda which we alluded to earlier in our Report.[155] No insight is given into the reasons for opting out of the Joint Action on liaison magistrates (No. 2), even though the Government suggests that there might be some operational impact on the UK's ability to coordinate complex investigations and prosecutions. We expect the Government's response to address the deficiencies in analysis which we have highlighted throughout this Report.

530. Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA (31) seeks to approximate the laws and procedures in Member States concerning the confiscation of proceeds of crime. It includes a requirement to give the same priority to requests from other Member States concerning asset identification, tracing, freezing or seizure, and confiscation as would be the case in wholly domestic proceedings. The Government indicates that UK legislation is compliant with the Framework Decision and would remain in place, even if the UK were to opt out. Parts of the Framework Decision are to be repealed by a draft Directive on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the EU, but only for those Member States participating in the new Directive. The Government has not opted into the draft Directive but has indicated that it intends to play an active role in negotiations (which are continuing) with a view to considering a post-adoption opt-in.[156]

531. A number of pre-Lisbon EU instruments deal with the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime. The Government proposes to opt back into two Framework Decisions (Nos. 48 and 68) which provide for the mutual recognition of confiscation orders and orders freezing property or evidence, but to opt out of the remaining measures which seek to approximate laws and procedures across the EU. The significance of the Government's decision to opt out of these measures will depend to a large extent on whether or not it opts into a new draft Directive on confiscation (currently under negotiation) after it has been adopted. A clearer indication of the Government's intention in this regard would be helpful. Meanwhile, we ask the Government to explain whether opting out of Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA would remove the current obligation on Member States to give equal priority to freezing or confiscation requests emanating from the UK and, if so, what impact this might have for UK law enforcement bodies.

532. Council Decision 2001/887/JHA (No. 33) requires Member States to share their analyses of suspected counterfeit euro notes or coins with Europol, as well as other information on the investigation and commission of counterfeiting offences involving the euro. The Government notes that few counterfeit euros are detected in the UK and that offences related to counterfeiting of the euro are covered by domestic legislation which would remain in place if the UK were to opt out of the Council Decision. Non-participation in this measure would appear to raise issues similar to those we considered earlier in relation to a series of Europol-related instruments (see paragraphs 465 and 466), namely whether it is possible for the UK to continue to participate in Europol without being subject to the same obligations as other participating Member States on such matters as the provision of information. As we indicated previously, clarity on this issue is essential to ensure that Parliament is properly informed of the full implications of the Government's recommendation to rejoin Europol and the substantive obligations that its membership will entail.

533. Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA (No. 107) establishes a framework for determining which Member State should exercise jurisdiction for criminal proceedings being conducted in two or more Member States which concern the same facts and the same individual. It contemplates that Member States will enter into direct consultations with a view to reaching a consensus and may also refer the matter to Eurojust, although Eurojust has no power to impose a solution. The Government considers that the UK is "largely compliant" as a matter of domestic practice and notes that, if the UK were to opt out, "other Member States would no longer be compelled to try to resolve a conflict of jurisdiction where one was evident", but that they might choose to do so as a matter of domestic policy.[157] The obligations imposed by this instrument only extend so far as to require Member States to seek a resolution where there is a possible conflict of criminal jurisdiction by exchanging information and initiating direct consultations. We accept that the practical consequences of opting out are unlikely to be significant in terms of UK domestic practice, as the procedures for resolving conflicts of jurisdiction are reflected in existing Crown Prosecution Service guidance. The Government does not, however, address the possibility that other Member States may be less willing to cooperate with the UK once the obligation to seek a resolution has been removed.

534. Council Decision 2002/966/JHA (No. 45) seeks to strengthen counter-terrorism capability across the EU by establishing a mechanism for peer evaluation of Member States' legal systems and arrangements for combating terrorism. The UK has participated in two reviews but the evaluation reports have not resulted in any changes to UK law or practice. The Government suggests that opting out of the Council Decision should not affect the UK's ability to influence other Member States and share best practice. Whilst proposing to opt out of this measure, the Government does intend to rejoin a Joint Action (No. 13) establishing a similar peer review mechanism concerning Member States' implementation of EU and other international instruments to combat organised crime. As the Government's Explanatory Memorandum indicates, in both cases, that the UK would be able to cooperate with other Member States bilaterally, we asked the Home Secretary to explain, during her oral evidence session, why the Government has recommended opting back into one but not the other. The reason, she indicated, was that the Government does not propose to rejoin any terrorism-related measures which would fall within the scope of the terrorism peer review mechanism.[158] Whilst welcoming this explanation, we again reiterate our concern that it was not included in the Explanatory Memorandum.

535. Council Decisions 2003/170/JHA and 2006/650/JHA (Nos. 46 and 65) establish a network of police liaison officers posted by Member States or Europol to a third (non-EU) country or international organisation and seek to strengthen the exchange of information on serious criminal threats. The Government notes that the UK has a large network of overseas liaison officers and that they would be expected to comply with the obligations set out in the Council Decisions "as standard practice", even if the UK ceased to be bound by the measures. We note that these Decisions are Schengen-building measures establishing a framework for the use of police liaison officers, as envisaged in Article 47(4) of the 1990 Schengen Implementing Convention. Although the UK is currently bound by Article 47(4), the Government does not propose to rejoin that provision. We therefore foresee no difficulty in opting out of these Decisions.

536. We accept that non-participation in these measures would not affect the UK's ability to post police liaison officers overseas or their willingness to cooperate with their counterparts from other Member States and Europol. The Government does not, however, address the issue of reciprocity and the possibility that the UK's non-participation may diminish the flow of information to the UK if other Member States are released from their obligation to exchange information. We note also that the Council Decisions include obligations relating to Europol which again call into question the UK's ability to continue to participate in Europol without being subject to the same obligations as other participating Member States.

537. Council Decision 2003/335/JHA (No. 51) seeks to increase cooperation within and between Member States in identifying, investigating and prosecuting individuals suspected of committing genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. It requires Member States to ensure that information can be exchanged internally, between immigration and law enforcement officials, and externally with EU partners, making use of the network of designated contact points established by Council Decision 2002/494/JHA (No. 40) or through direct contact between law enforcement authorities. The Government says that cross-border cooperation is conducted through the usual mutual legal assistance processes which would continue, even if the UK were to opt out. It suggests that the information sharing requirements are difficult to operate in practice because the Council Decision "imposes obligations in regard to the routine sharing of information, for instance about the immigration status of individuals, even where there is no criminal investigation or where there is only suspicion of involvement in these types of crimes. The sharing of such information raises issues regarding the safeguarding of personal information, confidentiality, use of material, and disclosure".[159]

538. The Government's Explanatory Memorandum offers no explanation for its decision to recommend opting back into Council Decision 2002/494/JHA (No. 40) establishing a network of contact points responsible for exchanging "any available information that may be relevant in the context of investigations into genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes", but to opt out of Council Decision 2003/335/JHA (No. 51) which seeks to increase cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. The exchange of information envisaged under both Council Decisions is subject to international and domestic data protection legislation so the degree of data protection should be the same in both cases. In her oral evidence, the Home Secretary suggested that there was "a benefit" in remaining within the contact points network, but that cooperation between contact points could take place through mutual legal assistance structures and procedures.[160] We would welcome further information on the benefits of the contact point network and on the mutual legal assistance procedures that will apply, in light of the Government's decision to opt out of the 2000 EU Mutual Legal Assistance Convention and 2001 Protocol (Nos. 25 and 32).

EU/THIRD COUNTRY AGREEMENTS

539. This final sub-category includes 11 measures, none of which the Government proposes to rejoin.

Measure No. Page
(Cm Paper)
Purpose and content of measure

EU/US Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance
Council Decision 2009/820/CFSP
101 76 Establishes arrangements for MLA between the EU and the US, requiring amendments to the UK's existing 1994 MLA bilateral treaty with the US.

EU/US Extradition Agreement
Council Decisions 2003/516/EC, 2009/933/CFSP
102
103
116 No. 102 establishes arrangements for extradition between the EU and US, requiring amendments to the UK's existing 2003 Extradition bilateral treaty with the US. No. 103 extends those arrangements to Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.

EU/third country agreements on the sharing of classified information
Council Decisions 2004/731/EC, 2004/843/CFSP, 2005/296/CFSP, 2005/481/CFSP, 2006/467/CFSP, 2007/274/JHA, 2008/568/CFSP, 2010/348/EC
53 55 61 63 71
75 78
109
148 These measures are known as Security of Information Agreements and set out security procedures for the exchange of EU classified information with a third country or international organisation.

540. Eight of the eleven measures concern agreements establishing the basis for the exchange of classified information between the EU and the following countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Norway, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, Iceland, the United States of America, Switzerland and the Russian Federation (Nos. 53, 55, 61, 63, 71, 75, 78 and 109). The Agreements only concern EU (not national) classified information. They establish the security classifications to be applied and how classified information is to be handled and protected. Participation in the Agreements means that the UK is able to contribute to EU classified information shared with each third country Contracting Party, and access material shared by each Party with the EU. The Government indicates that the quantity of information exchanged under the Agreements is relatively low, but expects the volume of exchanges to increase, highlighting in particular security issues and the Middle East as areas of common interest. Opting out of the Agreements would mean that UK material could not be used to inform EU assessments sent to third countries, and the UK would not be able to see information sent by them to the EU. UK staff members working in the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre (part of the EU's External Action Service) would face "operational and logistical constraints on access to this information."[161] The Government considers that there would be some loss of UK influence as a result, whilst adding that the UK would continue to be able to exchange UK classified information with other third countries.

541. We note that all of the Agreements are based on Articles 24 and 38 of the Treaty on European Union which, before they were amended by the Lisbon Treaty, conferred competence on the EU to conclude agreements concerning the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. The Government indicates that most EU classified information shared with third countries concerns foreign policy, including Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operations. Academic opinion suggests that opting out of these Agreements would only take effect as regards criminal law and policing issues and that the UK would remain bound as regards CFSP and CDSP matters.[162] We ask the Government to confirm the scope of the block opt-out in relation to these Agreements.

542. Council Decisions 2003/516/EC, 2009/820/CFSP and 2009/933/CFSP provide for the signature and conclusion of Agreements between the EU and the United States of America on mutual legal assistance (No. 101) and on extradition (Nos. 102 and 103). Both Agreements were proposed as part of a counter-terrorism package of measures in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on New York and seek to ensure that all Member States apply similar mutual legal assistance and extradition arrangements in their bilateral relations with the United States. The Government notes that the Agreements required a number of changes to be made to the UK's existing bilateral treaties with the United States on mutual legal assistance and on extradition. These bilateral treaties (as amended) would remain in force if the UK were to opt out of the EU/US Agreements. We note that the Government does not propose to undo the changes to its bilateral treaties with the United States which resulted from the EU/US Agreements, and describes the amendments to the UK's bilateral extradition treaty as "modest improvements so far as wider UK interests are concerned."[163] The Government does not specify the nature of the improvements, nor does it indicate whether the UK would have been able to secure them as readily if it had been negotiating on its own. We ask the Government to address both issues in its response to our Report.

130 HC Deb, 9 July 2013, col. 177 Back

131 HC Deb, 15 July 2013, col. 777 Back

132 HC Deb, 15 July 2013, cols. 850-1 Back

133 Q 39 Back

134 Q 40 Back

135 The Convention and Protocols on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (Nos. 1, 8 and 12) are expected to be replaced by a draft Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law. See Council document 12683/12 (34091), considered most recently in HC 83-xiii (2013-14), chapter 18 (4 September 2013). The Government has confirmed that it does not intend to opt into the draft Directive but may consider opting in after it has been adopted if the Government's concerns have been addressed. Back

136 See Council document 7641/12 (33758), most recently considered in HC 86-xxii (2012-13), chapter 9 (5 December 2012). Back

137 See para 90, p.96; para 183, p.109; and para 195, p.111 of Command Paper 8671. Back

138 Directive 2013/40/EU, OJ No. L 218, 14.08.2013. Back

139 Directive 2011/36/EU, OJ No. L 101, 15.04.2011. Back

140 See para 90, p.96 of Command Paper 8671 on Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA on the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence. Back

141 Q 62 Back