Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-56)
Mr Geoffrey Hoon MP, Mr Peter Storr and Ms Shan Morgan
1 NOVEMBER 2006
Q40 Chairman: That is right. Article
16 of that makes it a criminal offence to manufacture or traffic
in arms illicitly, requiring the creation of criminal penalties
for those.
Mr Hoon: There is still quite a lot of work
on this amending directive being done. Obviously some Member States,
including the United Kingdom, have made objections on the question
of competence. This is still a continuing discussion.
Q41 Chairman: Have you any idea as
to when the ship source pollution case, which it is hoped will
clarify the true scope and range of application of the European
decision in The Commission v the Council, is going to be
decided?
Mr Storr: I think the expectation is that the
judgment is expected by the end of 2007 at the earliest.
Chairman: A year away still?
Q42 Lord Neill of Bladen: Has the
Advocate General said anything about that case on the way up to
the Court?
Mr Storr: I do not know. We can find out for
the Committee.
Lord Neill of Bladen: We are very interested
in the case and we would quite like to know the timetable.
Q43 Chairman: Absolutely. To what
extent are you genuinely optimistic that that is going to answer
all the doubts that linger on from the decision last year?
Mr Hoon: I have always been very cautious, being
a politician, about commenting on judicial decisions. Therein
madness lies, I suspect.
Q44 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: So
far as the UK's position in that ship pollution case is concerned,
is the position of the government that they are relatively content
with the competence if it were confined to pollution but not if
it were to extend further, or are you adopting a more restrictive
view than that?
Mr Hoon: I do not think I would necessarily
say pollution. We have the illustration of the directive concerned
with possession of fire arms so I think our view would be that
there is quite a high burden of proof on the Community and the
Community's institutions to show that a criminal competence is
necessary for the EU. There are examples. We have discussed the
limited number that exist. I am not sure I would go any further
as far as the UK's position is concerned. Again, I can conceive,
as there is ever greater concern about environmental protection,
for example, this is an area where the Community might wish to
legislate in a criminal way. The UK position will be always though
that this should be a fairly restrictive approach.
Q45 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Leaving
aside for a moment the hated "federal" word, are we,
in effect, trying to move to a position where, as in the United
States, there are some offences so serious and so cross-state
that they are federal? As I said, leave out the word "federal"
but in the context of Europe there are some offences so serious
and so cross-border that competence would be recognisable, but
if they were "state", more local, they would not. Is
there some such kind of distinction that the Government has in
mind to persuade the Luxembourg Court?
Mr Hoon: I am certainly going to resist the
federal analogy. I think we are a long way short of a federal
jurisdiction; I would stay where we were. If a Community competence
is required to effectively deal with the harm that has arisen,
then I can see the United Kingdom acknowledging that, but I would
not want to go further and suggest some general Community competence
in this area.
Q46 Lord Clinton-Davis: Would you
say, in other words, that you are not prepared to speculate on
what the Court is likely to say? After all, you have been invited
to hypothesise about this and I think it is impossible to do so.
Mr Hoon: We are a party, so I think I can indicate
why we are a party and the approach that we are taking as a party,
which is to suggest a restrictive interpretation in this area.
Q47 Lord Tyler: Could I get it absolutely
clear then, it is not so much the outcome of this case, it is
whether or not it establishes a precedent that is the concern
of the Government?
Mr Hoon: I think that is absolutely right.
Q48 Chairman: Unless there are any
further questions from any members of the Committee on the group
of questions that principally you have come to deal with on the
passerelle and the equivalent provision with regard to
the European Court of Justice, perhaps we can go to one other
question that I think you did accept fell squarely within the
justice and home affairs part of the picture, about inter-institutional
agreement with regard to agencies? Are you happy to discuss that?
Mr Hoon: Yes, I am.
Q49 Chairman: It is not a matter
I think we need to go into at any length. I think what we would
like is your view particularly on the legal base. Really the issue
is the proposed use of Article 308 of the Treaty of the European
Community for the establishment of these agencies.
Mr Hoon: I have set out the position in a letter
to the noble Lord Grenfell, and the basic proposition is that
we are examining our situation in the light of the judgment of
the European Court of Justice in the European network and information
security agency case. I have undertaken to the noble Lord to set
out our views once that process has been completed, so I am sorry
that I cannot help this Committee any more because we are still
weighing up the results of that case.
Q50 Chairman: Roughly how long is
that going to take?
Mr Hoon: I do not know. Somebody might tell
me? No, I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
Q51 Chairman: Is it totally open-ended?
Mr Hoon: I apologise. I simply do not know.
Q52 Chairman: Unless there are any
other questions for you, it remains then for me to thank you.
Mr Hoon: My Lord Chairman, I did offer at the
outset. I do not want the Committee to feel that I have been unhelpful
about the wider questions. I do not have to be anywhere else for
another 10 minutes. If there are wider questions that the Committee
is anxious to pursue now I am perfectly willing to try and deal
with them.
Q53 Chairman: Having, as a result
of your communication earlier in the week, put all this away I
am not sure that we are in a position to explore them. We were
interested at the time and we will be interested again when you
have written to us, which I think is probably the best solution.
Mr Hoon: That is great.
Q54 Chairman: Unless you want to
make any closing remarks?
Mr Hoon: I probably did get it right earlier
on in relation to the question of deposit. We have deposited the
discussion paper. An Explanatory Memorandum will be deposited
shortly, so if there is any confusion about that, I did get it
right the first time.
Chairman: Many thanks.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I wondered
if one might ask a question about confidentiality and scrutiny,
since it affects the work of our Committee, whether or not we
can get some greater access to confidential documents.
Q55 Chairman: Yes. Have you still
got the originally-intended question on this before you?
Mr Hoon: Unfortunately, I have not and I have
rather overreached myself now.
Q56 Chairman: You can draw your horns
back again, and perhaps that can be given in writing as well,
it would be helpful if it could. Thank you again and to your officials.
I said "your officials", they are not entirely your
officials, but those who have helpfully accompanied you and supplemented
your responses to our questions. Thank you very much indeed.
Mr Hoon: Thank you.
1 NOVEMBER 2006
| 
