EUROPEAN ANTI-CORRUPTION NETWORK (15629/05)
Letter from the Chairman to Fiona Mactaggart
MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office
Thank you for your Explanatory Memorandum of
27 March relating to the proposed Council Decision to establish
a European anti-corruption network (EACN). The proposal has been
considered by Sub-Committee E (Law and Institutions). The Committee
has decided to retain the proposal under scrutiny.
We share the concerns expressed in your Explanatory
Memorandum. There would seem to be little merit in the establishment
of an EACN which might duplicate, and possibly detract from, the
work of GRECO and the WGB. It is therefore imperative, if an EACN
is to be established, that its role and activities should be clearly
identified and, as you say, that it should add value to the existing
network (EPAC).
Like you, we find it somewhat surprising that
there is no reference in the proposal to EPAC. As you may recall
EPAC, in its Vienna Declaration 2004, welcomed "the idea
of a European anti-corruption network (EACN) based upon the existing
structures" and "appropriate steps in this direction
by incoming Presidencies of the European Union". It is possibly
no coincidence that Austria is one of the Member States promoting
the proposed Decision and that EPAC's address is given as: c/o
BIA Federal Bureau for Internal Affairs, Austrian Federal Ministry
of the Interior. What stance did those representing the United
Kingdom in Vienna take in relation to this Declaration?
We also share your concerns relating to the
extent to which the EACN should be involved in training and whether
it would be appropriate for the EACN to define minimum standards
and make proposals setting up data bases and public-private partnership
initiatives. However, we are somewhat perplexed about your references
to language skills, given that the Goverenment have accepted similar
provisions in the context of the European judicial network in
civil and commercial matters.
Finally, we would be grateful to have some clarification
of the financial implications. It would appear that EPAC is presently
funded, at least in part, by the European Commission through the
Aegis Programme. You say that the financial implications for Member
States would not be substantial. What sort of figures are involved?
If OLAF is to be a member, as is presently envisaged, should there
not also be a contribution from the EC budget?
We look forward to your response to the above
points.
24 April 2006
Letter from Gerry Sutcliffe MP, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State, Home Office to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 24 April, relating
to the proposed Council Decision to establish a European Anti-corruption
Network (EACN). You have outlined four areas of concern, which
I shall endeavour to respond to in the order in which you have
raised them.
Firstly, you have shared our concerns over the
potential duplication that could occur with the establishment
of the Network. However, the intention of this proposal, clarified
by the Presidency, is that the Network should legitimise and build
upon existing anti-corruption work. The presidency has stated
that the proposal will add definite value in three main respects:
firstly, it obliges EU Member States to nominate and designate
an Asset Recovery Office (or two) as a contact point; secondly
it provides for an obligation to ensure cooperation regardless
of the internal status of the Asset Recovery Office; and thirdly
it provides that Asset Recovery Offices should exchange information
on the basis of the (draft) Framework Decision on simplifying
the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement
authorities of the EU Member States. In addition, its establishment
will formalise current EU-level work—meeting every six months,
producing solid reports and outlining specific objectives that
the Network will work towards. Moreover, creating arrangements
for staff exchanges, and the setting up of and constant updating
of a "content catalogue" are undoubtedly benefits that
will arise from the Network. I am satisfied that the Network will
add value to the existing EU anti-corruption effort.
Following negotiations, it has been made clear
that the Network will have a remit to address corruption in a
range of areas, and not solely on police corruption. However,
in having a wider remit the Network will be able to cover police
corruption as part of its overall work.
The text still does not mention the relationship
with the existing network (EPAC) and whether or not the EACN will
compliment the work of EPAC or if it will replace it. It is our
opinion that although not essential it would still nonetheless
be helpful if the relationship between the networks was mentioned
specifically in the text, and we will continue to push for this
in negotiations.
You shared the Government's view about the appropriateness
of the Network taking on a training role. The text as amended
following working group negotiations no longer provides the Network
with this function, Article 3(2)(b) having been amended in order
to reflect our and others' concerns. The text also no longer outlines
the necessity for contact points to have language skills, with
Article 2(5) having been removed. We are still of the opinion
that first and foremost, when dealing with an issue such as corruption
in a criminal context, contact points should be experts in their
field above having language skills.
Finally, you have asked for clarification as
to the financial implications of the Network. We previously indicated
that any such costs were not expected to be substantial, and still
believe this to be the case. The Presidency has stated that they
would envision two or three members of staff working for the Network.
Who should host the Secretariat will be discussed at future working
group meetings. Possibilities suggested include OLAF and Europol.
As long as OLAF is not distracted from focusing on its own remit
the Government is content to support whichever solution is the
most practical. However we shall be seeking from the Commission
a detailed financial statement, regardless of who will be hosting
the Secretariat.
The Presidency had hoped to have completed negotiations
on this measure in time for the June JHA Council, which now cannot
be achieved. We believe that subject to some minor text amendments
and some clarification, the UK can continue to offer qualified
support for this proposal.
I hope that this response has gone some way
towards answering your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact
me if there are any outstanding issues.
30 June 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Gerry Sutcliffe
MP
Thank you for your letter of 30 June which was
considered by Sub-Committee E (Law and Institutions) at its meeting
on 12 July. We are grateful for the further information you have
provided but as is clear from your letter a number of questions
remain unanswered and therefore the Committee had decided to retain
the proposal under scrutiny.
We agree that it is important that the relationship
between the new Network and the EPAC is quite clearly understood
and, as you say, preferably set out in the text of the Decision.
It would be helpful if you could provide the Committee with a
note setting out the Government's understanding of what the relationship
would be and how you see the present text being amended.
You refer to the discussions in the working
group which have led to the amendment of Article 3 which now "reflect
our and others' concerns". We would be grateful for sight
of the new text. As you will appreciate it is impossible for us
to assess the position without it.
We note that you are seeking from the Commission
a detailed financial statement regarding the Network. We hope
that you will press for this to be made available at the earliest
opportunity.
Finally, it would be helpful to have a statement
of the arguments as to whether the Secretariat should be situated
within OLAF (in effect the Commission) or Europol (a body which
is independent of the Commission and may be more answerable to
Member States).
As mentioned, the Committee decided to retain
the proposal under scrutiny. We look forward to receiving the
further information requested above.
13 July 2006
Letter from Joan Ryan MP, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State, Home Office to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 13 July, to my
colleague Gerry Sutcliffe, regarding the Proposal for a Council
Decision on the setting up of a European Anti-corruption Network.
I have reviewed your queries and will attempt to respond to them
accordingly.
The Austrian Presidency of the EU was keen to
emphasise that the relationship between the proposed Network and
EPAC was a complementary one. Far from duplicating the work of
EPAC, the new Network would build upon this work and add to it—as
mentioned in the letter to which you are responding. I agree that
it would be beneficial to clarify this in the text, and at the
next official Council working group meeting in which this proposal
is discussed, the UK would like to table a proposal to add a paragraph
into the recital to explain that the Network will build upon the
work of EPAC and shall not duplicate its duties.
You have asked to see the new text of Article
3, which I have annexed to this letter. I hope that you find this
satisfactory.
I agree that a financial statement would be
a useful tool. When one is made available I will ensure that it
is sent to your Committee. I would reiterate that the running
costs of the Network are not expected to be substantial.
The location of the Secretariat is still uncertain.
The most recent discussions took place at the MDG meeting in June.
At this meeting four Member States spoke out against OLAF hosting
the Secretariat whilst the Presidency believed that OLAF hosting
would be the best solution. The Commission refused to be drawn
into making a decision either way. No consensus was reached on
where the Secretariat should be hosted and the question remains
open. The UK is open to the suggestions that are being put forward
and is following the debate closely.
The Austrian Presidency had hoped to have the
proposal signed by the end of its Presidency. Now that the Presidency
has been passed over to Finland it is not clear when the proposal
will be discussed next. However, I feel that we should be able
to support the proposal and I hope that the UK's scrutiny position
will be able to reflect that.
1 August 2006
Annex A
ARTICLE 3
TASKS OF
THE NETWORK
1. The Network shall contribute to developing
the various aspects of the fight against and the prevention of
corruption at Union level and shall support anti-corruption activities
at national level.
2. In particular, the Network shall, in
accordance with existing international arrangements and subject
to national legislation:
(a) facilitate cooperation, contacts and
exchanges of information and experience between the national organisations
and servies of the Network, as well as between these and
OLAF, and groups of experts and networks specialising in anti-corruption
matters;
(b) promote further enhancement of international
cooperation by various practical measures. These may include the
following:
— regular working meetings of member
organisations and services of the Network;
— arrangements for, and organisation
of exchanges of staff between the relevant organisations and
services in the Member States to encourage learing and sharing
of information and experience;
— conferences, seminars, meetings and
other activities designed to promote international consideration
of anti-corruption matters, and to disseminate the results thereof;
— collect and analyse information on
anti-corruption activities, the evaluation thereof and the analysis
of best practices;
— setting up and constant updating
of a "Contact Catalogue" covering data and Points of
Contact of all the member organisations and services of
the Network;
(c) provide its expertise to the Council
and to the Commission, where necessary and upon request, with
a view to assisting them in all matters concerning the fight against
corruption;
(d) submit to the Council and the European
Parliament a report on its activities every two years, and indicate
the areas for priority action in its work programme for the following
two years; and
(e) develop cooperation with anti-corruption
organisations and services of candidate countries, third
countries with international anti-corruption organisations and
services.
| 
