4 Establishing a new Schengen evaluation
mechanism
| (34045)
11846/12
—
| Draft Council Regulation on the establishment of an evaluation mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis
|
| Legal base | Article 70 TFEU; QMV
|
| Department | Home Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 17 July 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 83-viii (2013-14), chapter 9 (3 July 2013);
HC 86-xxxiv (2012-13), chapter 6 (6 March 2013);
HC 86-xi (2012-13), chapter 11 (5 September 2013); and HC 86-vii (2012-13), chapter 2 (4 July 2012); also see (32216) (33153): HC 428-xxxviii (2010-12), chapter 2 (19 October 2011); (32216)—: HC 428-xviii (2010-11), chapter 5 (2 March 2011)
|
| Discussion in Council | Agreed 7 June 2013
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Committee B.
|
Background and previous scrutiny
4.1 In our Eighth Report of 3 July, we noted that the Council
and European Parliament had secured a compromise deal on the draft
Regulation, which seeks to strengthen the mechanism for monitoring
and evaluating the implementation of the Schengen acquis
by Member States, and that it was likely to be formally adopted
in July or September. The deal was the culmination of what the
Government had described as "informal and extremely sensitive
discussions" with the European Parliament.[11]
4.2 We accepted that the substance of the text that emerged from
these discussions was broadly in line with the Government's description
of an earlier Presidency compromise text, in respect of which
we granted a scrutiny waiver in March 2013, However we highlighted
the clear imbalance in the information to be shared with the European
Parliament and national Parliaments, even though Article 70 of
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) —
the legal base for the draft Regulation — sought to ensure
a degree of parity by providing that both "shall be informed
of the content and results" of evaluations concerning the
implementation by Member States of EU policies in the justice
and home affairs field.
4.3 Whilst recognising that improving the European
Parliament's access to information on Schengen evaluations should,
of itself, ensure greater transparency, we expressed our disappointment
that the Government and other Member States appeared not to have
pressed for more equal access for their own national Parliaments,
not least because national Parliaments have an equal, if
not greater, interest in holding their own Governments to account
when deficiencies in the implementation of the Schengen acquis
are identified. We asked the Government to explain what efforts
it had made within the Council to seek the parity for national
Parliaments and the European Parliament which Article 70 TFEU
clearly appeared to contemplate and why it considered that the
disparity in access to information concerning the evaluation mechanism
was justified.
The Minister's letter of 17 July 2013
4.4 The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)
replies:
"Throughout the negotiating process I can assure
you that the Government has supported giving national Parliaments
more access to evaluation information than they have under the
current system. There should be as much transparency in the process
as possible, mindful of the need to respect relevant processes
and avoid placing in the public domain material that could compromise
security.
"I recognise that within the compromise deal
reached at trilogue on the Regulation more information is listed
for direct transmission to the EP than to national Parliaments
by the Commission and other bodies. The information concerned
is expected to have either a 'limité' or 'restricted' classification,
and these are EU document classifications that are not sent directly
by the EU institutions to national Parliaments.
"Domestically, however, I am conscious that
we already have arrangements in place for sharing 'limité'
information with your Committee as long as the classification
restrictions are respected. We will be able to continue with this
way of working for SEM documents that are marked 'limité'.
We do not have arrangements for sharing 'restricted' material.
I understand that your Committee is considering current practice
relating to EU classified documents as part of the ongoing European
Scrutiny Inquiry, and future practices on SEM [Schengen Evaluation
Mechanism] will need to take account of these wider discussions.
Once the Commission has made clear how it sees SEM reporting working
in practice, and which documents will have which classification,
I propose that my officials contact yours to discuss how the Government
and both Houses can work together to aid information sharing whilst
respecting the classification of the documents.
"Moreover, as you are aware, the Government
already writes once a year in January or February to explain Schengen
evaluation developments during the previous year and to lay out
the countries subject to evaluation in that year. This letter
is based on the current multiannual programme and the annual programmes,
and also covers the Commission's yearly report if it is published
in time to be included. I would see that arrangement continuing
in addition to the outcome of discussion between our officials
and the documents that the Regulation stipulates will be provided
to national Parliaments by the Commission."
Conclusion
4.5 We thank the Minister for his letter. We
acknowledge and appreciate his efforts to provide us with an annual
summary of the broad outcome of Schengen evaluations, but reiterate
our concern that the spirit of Article 70 TFEU, which appears
to contemplate parity of treatment between the European Parliament
and national Parliaments in terms of the information they receive
on the content and results of evaluation, is not fully reflected
in the compromise text agreed by the Council and European Parliament.
We think that this issue is of sufficient importance to warrant
a debate in European Committee B.
11 See letter of 21 February 2013 from the Minister
for Crime Prevention (Mr Jeremy Browne) to the Chair of the European
Scrutiny Committee. Back
| 
