APPENDIX 2: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
THE HEILIGENDAMM REPORT
Letter from Joan Ryan MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State for Nationality, Citizenship and Immigration to the Chairman,
18 October 2006
I am writing in response to your report, "Behind
Closed Doors: the meeting of the G6 Interior Ministers at Heiligendamm".
I welcome the fact that you agree such meetings are valuable in
promoting dialogue and facilitating decision making.
I can now confirm that the next meeting of the interior
ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK
will take place in Stratford-upon- Avon on the 25 and 26 October.
The meeting will be hosted by the Home Secretary and me.
Exact details of the agenda for the meeting are still
being finalised but we will be having informal discussions on
matters relating to combating terrorism, organised crime and illegal
immigration. Our intention is to have frank and open debate on
these issues with a view to identifying and agreeing multi-lateral
actions that will achieve practical and tangible results in these
areas.
You have identified four main issues in your report:
transparency and accountability; the position of the other nineteen
Member States; police access to Eurodac and VIS; and data protection
and the relationship between the Data Protection Framework Decision
(DPFD) and the Principle of Availability. These issues include
but go beyond matters that relate specifically to the Heiligendamm
meeting so will respond in a similar manner.
On transparency and accountability, I made clear
when I gave evidence to your committee on 28 June that it was
not our intention to be secretive about G6 meetings and that conclusions
from Heiligendamm and previous meetings were published by the
host nation. The Home Office published a press release after the
last meeting the UK hosted in Derbyshire[21]
and when I gave evidence to your Committee I said I would publish
the conclusions from our meeting in October. The Home Secretary
has already said that he is prepared to give evidence to your
committee following the UK-hosted G6 in October. We shall also
publish the conclusions from all future G6 meetings.
In terms of media coverage, you highlighted in your
report articles reporting on the G6 in the Financial Times and
the Daily Telegraph on Friday 24 March, the day following the
meeting. There was also a well attended press conference on the
23 March. There will be a press conference following the
UK-hosted G6 meeting in October and UK and international media
will be invited. I think this demonstrates that the G6 meetings
are far from secret.
To clarify the position of the other 19 Member States,
I would like to reiterate the point I made when I gave evidence
to your committee. The G6 is an informal grouping of countries
and is in no way unique—Europe has many other such groups,
the Visegrád group, Benelux, the Baltic Sea taskforce and
the Nordic Cooperation Group are all good examples. The G6 also
has no formal decision making powers—conclusions are formed
and agreement reached on action to be taken by all or some of
the participants. However, nothing agreed informally by the G6
is binding on other EU Member States.
The report states that collective G6 decisions on
EU policy will inevitably have a major impact on the future direction
of that policy, implying that the G6 is able to dictate the direction
of the EU over the other nineteen Member States. It is not the
intention of the G6 to dictate EU policy and it could not do so
even if it wanted to. It is true that if all G6 countries shared
a view on a particular course of EU action then their combined
weight could be influential. But this would be the case whether
or not these countries met informally outside EU structures and
with much of Justice and Home Affairs falling under unanimity
arrangements other Member States would have ample opportunity
to resist any attempt by the G6 to impose their ideas. The G6
can help inform and stimulate discussion at and ideas at EU level
and I believe it is in the UK's interests to do so but it cannot
and should not replace the formal workings of the JHA Council.
You have highlighted the Prüm treaty as an example
of a fait accompli that will be inflicted upon the EU.
However, if the Prüm treaty reaches the EU it will be opened
up to the same negotiations and processes as all other proposals
and a single Member State can prevent it from being enacted.
The report raises the issue of police access to Eurodac.
Information held on Eurodac is believed by law enforcement authorities
across the EU, including the UK, to hold important information
that would help combat organised crime. Lack of access is a serious
gap in the identification of suspected perpetrators of a serious
crime. In their Communication on Interoperability of Databases
the Commission noted that existing data systems are not fully
exploited. The Legal base for the Eurodac Regulation is first
pillar, Title IV Article 63(1)a, and is a measure currently designed
solely to support operations of the arrangements to determine
the Member State responsible for examining an asylum claim lodged
in one of the Member States. Until and unless there is a formal
proposal for police access to Eurodac we cannot say what its legal
base would be.
Access by law enforcement authorities also extends
to the Visa Information System. It is seen as an important addition
to the fight against terrorism and organised crime. This does
not imply that they will be able to browse through personal information,
but are able to use the VIS in relation to investigating terrorism
and serious crime. The UK is supportive of this proposal, which
is progressing within the EU, and we continue to press for UK
access.
On the Principle of Availability your report states
that G6 ministers have decided to press forward with the Commission's
proposed measure and to disregard data protection issues. The
evidence provided to your inquiry has demonstrated that this is
not the view of the G6 ministers. It is true that the G6 ministers
feel that work on the Principle of Availability should not be
delayed by negotiations on the Data Protection Framework Decision
(DPFD) but by the same token they would not want the DPFD to be
delayed by work on the Principle of Availability. This is a view
shared by many other Member States. The Home Office places great
importance on data protection—existing data protection rules
would continue to apply until the DPFD is in place. As the Home
Secretary wrote in his letter of the 6 June, all Member States
have domestic data protection regimes that comply, at a minimum,
with the Council of Europe Convention on the processing of personal
data. The UK and others have regimes in place that surpass this
Convention. The aim of the G6 is to prevent the Principle of Availability
being slowed down by the DPFD. Existing data protection regimes
would apply to the Principle of Availability, and the DPFD would
replace these regimes once negotiations on the DPFD are completed.
The UK will continue its efforts to have the DPFD in place as
soon as possible.
Thank you for your report, I hope that I have answered
all your outstanding queries.
21 http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/European_Co-Operation_To_Secure_?version=1 Back
| 
