Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
Ms Joan Ryan MP, Mr Tom Dodd, Mr Nick Fussell and
Mr Peter Storr
7 MARCH 2007
Q1Chairman: Welcome back, Minister, and indeed
welcome back those who are at the table and behind. Could I start
by saying that this meeting is on the record, it is being broadcast
and you are again very welcome.
Joan Ryan: Thank you very much.
Q2 Chairman: Can I ask you whether
the United Kingdom was actually invited to take part in the discussions
that led to the Prüm Convention and did we try to be included?
Joan Ryan: We were offered the opportunity to
take part in negotiations on Prüm and we decided not to on
the basis that there were measures within the proposed Convention
that we would have some difficulty with. What we decided originally
was to wait and see, to keep a watching brief on how this was
developing. We have always been interested in Prüm and seen
the possibilities within it and have always thought there would
be advantages in some of the measures within Prüm. We were
invited but we did not decide to take part.
Q3 Chairman: Having decided not to
be included or to accept an invitation to take part, was the Government
a bit taken aback by the finality with which the Germans announced
that the Prüm Convention would be incorporated into EU law?
Joan Ryan: No, I could not say we were. I think
we need to bear in mind that whatever is said incorporating the
Third Pillar elements of the Prum Convention into EU law will
be the subject of voting and unanimity.
Q4 Chairman: There was an element
of take it or leave it, was there not?
Joan Ryan: Over the last two years we have made
clear that we have considerable interest in the Prüm Convention
and there have been regular discussions taking place at official
level and we have been included in the attendance there as observers.
We have followed the progress of Prüm and we have seen its
development and we are also very conscious of some of the very
good outcomes in terms of the data sharing measures, police cooperation
and tackling cross-border crime and counter-terrorism. We have
followed its progress and we have been involved so we were not
surprised that it moved forward in the way it did because prior
to the German Presidency it was clear—the Germans made it
clear—that they were going to seek to take Prüm forward
in this way. It was flagged up before their Presidency and we
have been quite involved in following its progress prior to that.
Q5 Chairman: I am sure you know,
as a Home Office Minister, that this Committee has issued two
reports in the last six months; first of all on the Heiligendamm
meeting and secondly on the Stratford-Upon-Avon meeting, in which
we made it absolutely clear that we had no quarrel at all with
the idea of a certain group of EU members getting together. But
we did think it was very important that any conclusions they reached
should be presented to the 27 members of the EU for those 27 members
to discuss. There was an element of criticism in our reports of
the take it or leave it attitude when a small number of countries
get together to discuss things that are of interest to all 27.
Joan Ryan: Let me say that our view is that
this is moving with considerable speed. That is a fact and that
is part of why I wanted to communicate with your Lordships earlier
in the process than we usually would and because I think clearly
this will be discussed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council
in April. It would be very helpful to have your Lordships' view
before that point. However, we have discussed the G6 before and
the way in which small groups are able to operate within the European
Union. The last time we discussed that we probably had a difference
of view there in that those small groups—whether the G6
or any other group—are perfectly able to bring forward initiatives
but ultimately those initiatives are subject to decision at the
Council, they will be subject to various levels of scrutiny, not
least what is happening here. It is about bringing forward an
idea; it is not about being able to impose it on everybody else
and however many members brought forward a notion, if it is within
the Third Pillar then we have the right to vote on that and make
our view known and, as you know, in the Third Pillar there will
be a requirement for unanimity. Voting against something in the
Third Pillar has quite a significant impact.
Chairman: Incidentally I should earlier
have thanked you for the very helpful letter you wrote us on this
subject. Lord Marlesford?
Q6 Lord Marlesford: Minister, I am
afraid I do not wholly follow the logic of your earlier answer.
When you were asked why we had not taken part in the negotiations
on Prüm you indicated that there were certain elements or
measures which caused us difficulty. Surely negotiations are about
discussing what is proposed in order to eliminate or deal with
the difficulties. What were those items that caused difficulty
and what is the logic in not taking part in the negotiations because
there are things in the initial draft that you do not like?
Joan Ryan: There were issues around the scope
and some of the measures (this is obviously before I was in this
ministerial post so I am going to ask Peter Storr if he wants
to elaborate on some of this in a moment because I think that
might be helpful) around things such as air marshals and immigration
measures that we would have had great difficulty with. There are
measures in the Third Pillar element that we would have difficulty
with now but we have indeed had bilateral meetings and made our
views clear and the German Presidency has already indicated that
for things such as Article 18—which I think we will probably
come to—their proposal is that it be deleted. Article 18
is around things like urgent action and would involve the possibility
of hot pursuit. You know that we do not sign up, for instance,
to Article 41 of Schengen because of that notion of hot pursuit,
police officers being able to cross borders and use their powers
on our soil. In terms of Article 18 in the Third Pillar it is
not currently proposed that that be transposed into EU law although
there are discussions around it because other Member States want
to be able to use that, especially where they have long land borders;
in certain instances they might find it useful. There are proposals
that they might be able to go ahead and do that on bilateral or
multi-lateral agreement basis which I do not think we would have
any problem with as long as it is not transposed into EU law.
We do not want to be in the position where we could not stop police
officers from another country coming onto our soil and exercising
their powers. That would be a problem for us. We seem to have
got that one well on the way to being sorted out but there were
other measures as well that we would have had some difficulty
with at the time. In any negotiation it depends upon the willingness
of others to compromise and meet your concerns. That is not always
possible and as a number of other states were happy to go ahead
themselves on the basis upon which they subsequently went ahead,
we cannot stand in the way of that if we are not signing up to
it. It is not as if it was part of EU law, it was an agreement
amongst those Member States so it is entirely a matter for them
as it was entirely a matter for us not to sign up to it because
there were measures in it that were difficult for us.
Mr Storr: Just to add to what the Minister has
said, the original Prüm Treaty contained articles on air
marshals, document advisors which related to immigration, assistance
with repatriation measures, measures in the event of imminent
danger which now finds itself in Article 18 of the draft Council
decision, and one or two others. The Home Office took the view
that that amounted to a tranche of measures with which we would
have difficulty, that had sufficient weight to cause us to wonder
whether we should just sit out the negotiations in the realisation
as we saw it that the really important stuff of Prüm were
the data measures. I think that was the reason we did so. It is
always very difficult as a negotiator to judge whether you are
best taking part in the negotiations ab inicio or whether it is
better to leave it to see how things transpire. As matters have
turned out, most of these issues have been excluded from the text
that finds itself before the Council and I think from our point
of view we would see as not entirely fitting the take it or leave
it expression which we used it because the German Presidency has
now shown some flexibility in changing the original Prüm
model. Whether it would have shown sufficient flexibility for
us without, in their view, having the prize of an EU framework
decision which I think caused them to vary their position a little
bit is a moot point.
Q7 Chairman: Do you think the German
Presidency have changed the text because of the reservations that
we expressed?
Mr Storr: Yes. As a negotiator that is my view.
Informally I think our process of lobbying them patiently, exposing
to them the doubts that our ministers had about things like air
marshals and document advisors has been quite influential in getting
them to shift their position.
Q8 Lord Teverson: My question really
follows on from Lord Marlesford's so I will keep it short. I find
it difficult to understand the logic of that argument because
the whole of history of the UK and the European Union seems to
be one of waiting, finding you are left with a de facto decision
and then trying to negotiate from the position of weakness and
that is exactly what I would see that sort of strategy as being.
I did not understand the logic of that but I understand now that
most of that has been argued back. However, does this not again
give the image of the United Kingdom, as a leading Member State,
as being in the second division in terms of participation? Would
it not have been better in terms of our position in the EU to
go in and actually negotiate those areas at the beginning rather
than later? It seems to me a strange way to do it but I think
those questions have mainly been answered.
Joan Ryan: I do not think we are in any way
seen as second division. I think some of the response to the problems
and the issues we have expressed in terms of Prüm (if it
is to be to be incorporated into EU law and in our being able
to support that) are met because we have a strong voice and because
we took the approach of making it clear that if certain things
happened we would be able to sign up to Prüm, that we very
much saw the benefits of that. I think we were in a very good
position to get an outcome that enables us to sign up to Prüm
and to get all the benefits of that in terms of fighting cross-border
crime and counter-terrorism where so much depends on good data
exchange and intelligence led policing which is obviously enhanced
by good data exchange. I think we positioned ourselves well in
that instance and there are examples where we absolutely lead
on initiatives. The counter-terrorism strategy during our own
Presidency was a hugely important strategy for the European Union
as I am sure everybody would agree and we have also, in the way
in which Prüm has come about, had other framework decisions
come about from a small group in which we have been included.
The example I was given when I asked about this was the mutual
recognition of financial penalties framework decision which was
indeed just ourselves, Sweden and France. We brought that forward
in a very similar to they way in which this has happened. If a
group of Member States decide they will make a treaty with each
other, to sign up to it simply to be in at the beginning would
not be a good way forward because there will be some treaties—and
this was indeed one—where there were measures that we would
have great difficulty with and I think your Lordships and others
would wonder why on earth we had signed up to something that was
completely at variance with our policy on a number of very major
issues, not least our approach to Schengen and our borders and
issues like that. I agree there is an element of a juggling act
and having to make very careful decisions, but one would expect
that when making policy amongst 27 Member States. I think we have
done rather well out of this, to be honest. We seem to be managing
to iron out the measures we could not accept, whilst getting something
incorporated into EU law that very much is along the lines of
the approach that we have been taking about good practical cooperation
that leads to much more effective law enforcement.
Q9 Earl of Caithness: It does sound
from what you say that the Government's mind is already fixed
and clear on Prüm but do you approve of sliding treaties
sideways into the EU when those subjects are already being discussed
under the legal treaty procedures of the EU when that treaty is
signed? Do you approve of that? Do you think that is proper, legitimate
and democratic?
Joan Ryan: I think if sensible proposals come
forward I think we should be considering them.
Q10 Earl of Caithness: If those proposals
are already under discussion under the legal basis of the treaty
of the EU and you are sliding in something, do you think that
is right?
Joan Ryan: I will come to the officials in a
moment and perhaps we could comment on the general process, but
in my own view if we have a treaty that a number of Member States
are signed up to that other Member States have not been able to
sign up to for the reasons that we have discussed and there are
measures within that treaty that are clearly delivering real benefits
on the issues that we spoke about, issues that are a priority
for us, if it is possible to take those measures and enable all
27 members to have the benefit of those measures then I think
that is a good thing to do. The reason I think it is a good way
forward is two-fold. Not only can we see that it is delivering
the benefits, we get the opportunity to negotiate and deal with
the rest of the European Union and take the bits we are able to
put into practice while not having to have the bits that we cannot.
I cannot really see a major problem with that because if we think
it is a problem it cannot be imposed upon us.
Q11 Earl of Caithness: You have a
wonderful way of excluding any contribution from European Parliament
or national Parliament.
Joan Ryan: No, the European Parliament is not
excluded. This measure now goes to the European Parliament and
I think that is very important, it is a big part of the scrutiny
within Third Pillar measures. It has to go to the European Parliament
as it has to come to our own national Parliament and I think it
is some time around early June that the European Parliament will
be expected to give their views.
Mr Storr: I have a brief but important point
of clarification arising from the last question. Prüm is
not a treaty put together under the European Union treaty system.
This was initially a bilateral treaty between Germany and Austria
which then expanded to include a number of other countries. I
do not think it was originally a process which would have been
involved with the instruments of the European Union, including
the European Parliament. It was only something that turned into
a proposal for a Council decision, which of course would involve
the European Parliament, after the initial Prüm Treaty had
been signed by a number of countries in much the same way as the
UK Government signs memoranda of understanding with other countries.
Q12 Baroness Henig: I would like
to start of by saying that as a keen student of the diplomatic
art I welcome the flexibility shown by the Germans and also I
would like to commend the patient diplomacy that quite clearly
our officials have deployed that has already brought significant
changes. That is what, as I understand it, diplomacy is all about
and that is how we should be operating within whatever structures
we are working in. Following that theme of patient change to achieve
our objectives, can we perhaps say what opportunities you think
there will be to further event a further change in the Prüm
provisions before they are actually incorporated into EU law?
My colleague has talked about the European Parliament and the
national Parliament, I just wondered how you see the possible
progression to what the end point is for us in terms of securing
our national objectives?
Joan Ryan: The European Parliament's opinion
was requested on 1 March so they have from March to their deadline
of 7 June and obviously our MEPs, I hope, will be playing a very
active part in their deliberations. As I have said, we have the
Justice and Home Affairs Council in April and I think there can
be little doubt that this will be a discussion there as this is
a priority for the German Presidency. This opportunity today and
receiving your Lordships' views will be very helpful prior to
that discussion. I would expect at that discussion in April that
there will be an effort to reach a situation where everybody has
their minds set at rest about whatever difficulty they might have.
In terms of Article 18, for example, and it being deleted or not—there
is a Portuguese proposal on the table that I think your Lordships
are aware of that would not necessarily be unsatisfactory to us
that I referred to earlier that would involve Member States being
able to go ahead with urgent action across borders but on a multilateral
or bilateral basis—we would look to have some kind of reassurance
around those kinds of issues and how that will work. I think April
is a very important Council in terms of both what will be discussed
in the Council and what discussions we will have in bilaterals
to get to the point where we are happy to see things move further
on. I think at the Council of 12 and 13 June the Presidency will
then seek political agreement. We do have a little bit of time,
but that is quite quick in European Union terms. From June to
the autumn the text would then go to the language lawyers.
Q13 Baroness D'Souza: Could I ask
whether there is any estimate of the costs involved in implementing
these provisions, for example what kind of resources will be needed
to exchange DNA and fingerprint data?
Joan Ryan: There has been some estimate of the
cost mainly because Germany and Austria are making this work.
The Germans have estimated their costs as around 900,000 euros
which I understand is about £600,000. This might be a reasonable
figure under German costings but it might not be an accurate guide
for the UK for a variety of reasons, one of which I understand
is that for Germany the cost of the DNA exchange—search
for DNA match and exchange of information—would accrue to
the police whereas for us it would not accrue to the police, the
Forensic Science Service maintain and operate the DNA database
under the national DNA custodian. There would be a separate cost
there, for instance, just to add a little bit of detail to our
understanding of how our costs might work. Because we are concerned
that the figure might be higher than that, especially if all 27
Member States are involved in this—which clearly they will
be—there is an experts working group on Friday of this week
at Wiesbaden to look at this issue because we want to be sure
as far as it is possible what we are getting into in terms of
cost.
Q14 Baroness D'Souza: The Wiesbaden
meeting would be to determine what the costs what be for implementation
as a whole amongst all members. What I am trying to get at is
if there is any UK estimate at the moment of UK costs?
Joan Ryan: At Wiesbaden we will be trying to
bottom out exactly what is involved so we can work more clearly
on our own costs. I do not have an estimate to put before the
Committee today but there is clearly a lot of work happening on
just that aspect. I think we will be able to make some further
steps on that after Friday's meeting.
Q15 Chairman: If and when it becomes
clearer what the costs are going to be, please feel free to write
to us and let us know. That would be very helpful.
Joan Ryan: I will indeed.
Q16 Earl of Caithness: Minister,
you have mentioned Article 18 which allows officers of other Member
States in urgent situations to cross the border into the UK without
prior consent. How many other countries support your view that
this is unacceptable and what do you think the chances are of
Article 18 of the draft decision and Article 25 of the Convention
being dropped?
Joan Ryan: From the discussions at the last
Justice and Home Affairs Council in February it is clear that
there is a significant number of Member States who would have
been happy for Article 18 to be brought into European Union law.
There is a smaller number of states who take our view and would
be concerned that it would perhaps present a barrier and possibly
to some an insuperable barrier. However, there are a significant
number who support it and I think that is why the German Presidency
and the flexibility that has already been referred to is very
helpful because they are taking account of the fact that there
are a large number who would be very happy to go ahead on that
basis and want to be able to have the advantages of that provision
for them. This multilateral/bilateral suggestion is around and
what the German Presidency said during the Justice and Home Affairs
Council itself is that they were aware from the discussion that
there were a large number of Member States who would be happy
with that provision and they would have discussions to enable
them to have the benefits of that as they saw it but also to ensure
that that was not done in such a way that prevented the UK and
a number of others being able to sign up.
Q17 Earl of Caithness: Would you
ever accept Article 18?
Joan Ryan: I cannot see it at present but I
do not think it is helpful really to look ahead into hypothetical
situations and make predictions. At the moment we are operating
on the basis that it very much is not our policy to accept Article
18 or the measure I referred to in the Schengen article. I do
not have a crystal ball so I will not attempt to predict the future,
suffice to say that the policy is that we do not accept Article
18 and I go off to the European Union on behalf of the Government
and ensure that I deliver just that policy.
Q18 Lord Teverson: I absolutely agree
you should not declare your position any further on that, but
just to be the devil's advocate for a minute, would hot pursuit
not be particularly important to us in terms of maritime issues,
drug running, arms running, even fisheries protection? Is it not
in the national interest to have that facility?
Joan Ryan: I think you would need to elaborate
a little further on how you think that would actually, in practical
terms, be of use to us and I think we would need to discuss the
practicalities of that.
Q19 Lord Teverson: Immigration running
is obviously an area of concern.
Joan Ryan: We already have measures of practical
cooperation by which we are approaching these issues and cooperation
in being able to work together on the issue of illegal immigration.
We already participate in that kind of cooperation through Frontex,
the border agency that is just a year old and doing some very
good work.
Mr Dodd: We have very good relations with our
fellow immigration authorities in Europe and in fact with France
through our juxtaposed controls. Our most important borders are
actually in France (in Calais and the ports) and those cooperation
arrangements are very good already.
| 
