Examination of Witness (Questions 40-47)
Rt Hon Baroness Ashton of Upholland
7 MARCH 2007
Q40 Earl of Caithness: Can I ask
you two supplementaries on that then, what do you expect the timings
to be on the Framework Decision? When you have two conventions
or agreements relating to data protection and one is a basic level—the
Framework—and one is Prüm or whatever it is, does one
supersede the other or do you as a lawyer look at them complementary
and say they are both together and that is the whole law.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I should say that
I am not a lawyer, as I am sure you can tell. As to the timing
of the DPFD I would like to see it concluded as quickly as we
can. The German Presidency wants to look again at some of the
aspects of it so it would be nice to finish it in the German Presidency,
if not then the Portuguese, but certainly before we get to Slovenia.
I am hoping it will be reasonably soon although I do not have
a timescale. I will know more as my officials conclude some of
the early discussions in the German Presidency; we will have greater
clarity on that and of course I will write to you as soon as I
know when it is likely to be. In terms of what supersedes what,
I think the way that it would work is that you cannot operate
without the Data Protection Framework Decision; that guides you
and binds you on all aspects of what you are doing. If, on a particular
matter, you have agreed something that is tighter and stronger
that would be for those issues the agreement that you have to
follow. You cannot fall back if you have already said, as they
have in the Prüm Treaty, there will be stronger and tighter
data protection requirements then anything you do in that particular
treaty you have to do under that regime.
Q41 Chairman: Forgive me if I am
asking a question you have already answered about data protection
provisions in Prüm. Are you wanting to get amendment to those
and what opportunities will there be for the Government to seek
amendment if that is what you want?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am not necessarily
seeking an amendment to them because, as I say, they are stronger
than what is already in the Data Protection Framework Decision,
but our officials are still meeting to discuss aspects of that
so we will see what comes out. If other things are changed then
it may have a knock on effect on what we have to think about in
terms of data protection. That is really what I am looking for.
Q42 Baroness D'Souza: I have picked
up a kind of feeling of anxiety about the Data Protection Framework
in some of the papers I have read and I just wondered whether
you could say something about where you think there might be objections
or difficulties given that you are trying to tighten the principles
all the time.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I would not say
anxiety although obviously any negotiations across 27 Member States
bring with it challenges, particularly on the Council of Ministers.
We believe that our data protection in this country is of a very
high standard and we are very keen that the Data Protection Framework
Decision is as close to our system as possible, not just to please
us but because we think it is of a good and high standard. The
additional advantage for us is that the closer we are to the system
we have then the easier it is for those who have to operate both
domestically and across Europe to be able to do so. That has always
been our ambition, to make it good and strong. Other Member States
would agree with that but their systems are different, or their
systems are quite new in some cases in terms of what they are
doing and we always have to negotiate around what is possible.
I think for the German Presidency they are trying to look at whether
what has already been put into the pot is as good as it could
be and also to bring their own particular presidential overview
to that. What the detail of that would be I am not sure; we will
keep you in touch with that. That is my ambition, to try to get
it to be as good as it can be and inevitably if I can get it closer
to our system that would be very good.
Q43 Earl of Caithness: I have a general
question on the Prüm Convention. The EU has a very set way
of introducing new measures; it is all laid down in the treaties.
Do you approve of a group of countries getting together, making
an agreement and sliding that agreement sideways into the existing
structure of EU law making when the same subject is already being
discussed at EU level? Do you think that is appropriate and constitutionally
fair?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am not sure
that they slid because I was there at the time. We have had interesting
discussions about this before and I think the argument I would
put to the Committee to think about is what I have used before,
which is that if you have 27 countries operating as one and trying
to develop policy on a whole range of issues from justice and
home affairs, from orders for payment and civil law procedures
to family to maintenance to matrimonial property with alimony
and divorce, through to issues of security, anti-terrorism and
so on, it is possible that one way of trying to develop policy
more effectively is for countries in smaller groups to start to
think about these issues as they affect them. There are countries
who have either traditionally worked together or who share similar
issues, problems and questions and I think I gave the example
of the Common Law Club which we have created with those countries
who have common law tradition particularly in civil justice matters
dealing with family law and so on, the fact that you have a common
law tradition marks you out from the vast majority of European
countries and has different implications for how law is applied
than it does for others. So working together is an effective way
of trying to address those concerns. That is what we do with Ireland,
Malta and Cyprus, so that is one example. The Prüm work was
done by those countries who have come together in that particular
way and what they did, having developed what they thought was
a good and sensible proposal, they brought it to the informal
Council in Dresden and it was brought in a very open way, saying
that they thought this was a good proposition. All Member States
had the chance to consider it; there was a good debate. Again
it is about perception, it may feel that countries go off and
do things but in this particular case it is a good example of
a number of states getting together and then being able to come
forward with the proposal. The Council could have rejected it;
it does not have to accept it but indeed they welcomed it very
much because it was a good basis on which to have a debate.
Q44 Earl of Listowel: Minister, previously
you had responsibility for childcare and you took through the
Childcare Act 2004 legislation regarding the sharing of information
databases on children.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I remember it
well; clause 8 as I recall.
Q45 Earl of Listowel: It is striking
looking around Europe at the different levels of qualifications
of those working in childcare, particularly early years and in
children's homes. Should there be a concern in this area that
qualifications within those agencies handling this information
across Europe and the people working in those capacities may have
varying degrees of qualification. Are there plans to ensure that
there is some sort of minimum qualification for managing this
sort of information or for registering information of this kind?
We have been assured that in police forces there is an individual
person who is dedicated to ensuring that this information is handled
properly. Do you have information or perhaps you could send any
information you may have on what thought there is going on into
ensuring that there is a consistent level of quality of attention
to managing this information across the European Union?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with you
completely that the quality of how it is handled is very, very
important. That is actually the reason why we need an EU-wide
agreement on data protection and why the Framework Decision is
quite important in that. Security of how your information is dealt
with is really important. In the 27 Member States you have to
be confident that in sharing information—certainly we understood
it within the child protection field, it is equally if not more
so true in the field of serious organised crime and terrorism—we
have to make sure it is done properly and only used for the purposes
for which it should be used. The combination of the information
commissioners' work across Europe and the work they do together
is very, very important. I was in Slovenia last week talking to
the Information Commissioner of Slovenia who had been over here
and heard me address a conference that the information commissioner
here had had and we talked about the measures that she has in
place in Slovenia and how she deals with complaints and the rulings
that she makes and so on, hugely similar in many cases to the
things that we do here. A combination of the right framework which
says to people that this is the standard we have to reach, linked
to the role of the information commissioners and then each Member
State making sure that in applying the Framework Decision it follows
naturally that they must have the right qualifications in people,
the right standards at play because otherwise they have not followed
the Framework Decision and it is a way of ensuring that. Also
the information commissioners are able to look at and examine
individual cases in particular and the system as a whole to make
sure it is working well.
Q46 Chairman: Minister, as always
you have been extremely helpful to us. I think we owe you an apology,
not only have we asked you questions relating to another department's
responsibilities, we have also asked you questions relating to
your previous ministerial responsibilities. On all of them you
have been very helpful. Is there anything else you want to say?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: No, just to reiterate
that on all these things I will keep in touch and I am always
delighted to come back. As you can see, I can talk about anything.
Q47 Chairman: We are always ready
to welcome you back and if, when you see the transcript, you or
your officials think there is anything supplementary that we would
need to help our inquiry then obviously we would very much welcome
it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will certainly
make sure we do that.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
