Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 259)
WEDNESDAY 25 JUNE 2008
Mr Fabio Marini, Mrs Isabelle Pérignon, Mr
Dick Heimans and Mrs Victoria Amici
Q240 Lord Dear:
That is very helpful. One final question, which I suppose goes
to the root of everything you said. Theoretically, if you were
to find that one of the agencies—Europol or any of the others—was
not performing in a way that satisfied you would you be able in
the new procedure, as it were, to reach into that and effect change?
To evaluate is one thing. To do something with the evaluation
means that you have the power to react. Would you have such a
power?
Mrs Pérignon: Thank you for your
very interesting question. Indeed, that is something we could
raise because we are, for example, for Europol and other agencies
part of the Management Board, so that is something we could raise
in the Management Board and discuss with other members. That is
also something that we can then discuss at the level of the Member
States and ultimately the Commission has the power to initiate
and propose legislation, so we also have the possibility to adopt
an amending legislation if it helps to improve and change.
Q241 Lord Mawson:
Can I ask how long that is all going to take because we are living
in a very fast-moving world here?
Mrs Pérignon: I cannot pre-judge
how long the discussions with the Member States will take but,
of course, as you know, it is something that is not incumbent
on the Commission. It is something that needs to be discussed
with the Member States and if Member States consider that there
is the necessity to respond quickly then I hope they will act
in the same way.
Lord Harrison: I think the Committee is experiencing
some difficulty, and if I ask myself what it is, I think it is
this. To most of the questions that have been put to you this
morning you have described the situation in terms of documents
presented and so on. We also understand that until 2010 you have
no active role, no voting role, but what we would find valuable
is to get some sense from you, even in that status as observer,
of what you observe and say about the various questions that are
being put to you, whether it is the one on the sound financial
management or another. Do you have any views, even though you
may not be in a position particularly to intervene and say? It
is the purpose and right and proper business of the Commission
to look hard and say, "Is this right?", and, "Is
that right?". We are not getting a sense from you of whether
you think this evolving process is going to be beneficial in the
long run and that you welcome not what is happening but the process,
the road, that has been embarked upon by, in this case, Europol
and others. We would like some opinions from you, not just the
law.
Q242 Chairman:
This is a fundamental question which is concerning all of us.
I do hope that you will be able to elaborate on what Lord Harrison
has asked you. If I can put it as well in this way, in the experience
you have had so far, because so many of you are involved with
Europol in one way or another, and Victoria Amici is, as I understand
it, the desk officer in charge of Europol, in your observations
of Europol up to this point where are the areas where you think
there might be the need for change? That is what we are after
knowing. It is a fundamental question, quite frankly. If I can
be very rude, if you do not know, if you do not mind my saying,
we think you ought to know.
Mr Heimans: Can I try and give you some
first elements of response but maybe my colleagues will add to
this? The first thing to realise is that obviously we are civil
servants here. We are not here to give political judgments on
the organisation.
Q243 Chairman:
We are not asking for that.
Mr Heimans: If you are asking us what
have we observed at Europol and we have responded, I think history
shows what we have done. We have looked at the situation as it
was, we have co-operated quite closely with the Austrian Presidency,
for example, to try to find ways of improving Europol that would
meet the consent of the Member States. These are the limits of
the role that we have and we have, I think, succeeded in putting
forward a proposal which means that there is more flexibility
for the legal basis of Europol, so that if there is an issue that
has been noted by the Member States there can be quicker action
at the level of legislation. We have said we feel that the mandate
of Europol is too limited because it is only limited to organised
crime at this stage. We think that it should be all serious crime,
which is a very important point to make. If there is a killer
who operates in different Member States of the European Union
but he operates by himself it should be Europol which should be
able to analyse the situation and give advice to the Member States
authorities, and, thirdly, we said that Europol should be more
operational. There was a request from the Member States that Europol
should be more involved in the actual police work. It should not
be strategic; it should be operational work that they are involved
in. At the same time Member States told us that Europol officials
should not go out and arrest people all across Europe, so how
do you make an organisation more operational? You focus on its
main characteristics, which are the exchange of information, the
support of the exchange of information and the central analysis
of that information. I think that in all these key areas the proposal
which has been put forward by the Commission has made some significant
changes.
Q244 Lord Marlesford:
What are your views on the future co-ordination of Europol and
Eurojust? I would like you please to put the arguments in favour
of them getting closer together and the arguments against that.
Mrs Pérignon: I am pleased to
tell you that the Commission supports the idea of improving the
co-operation between Europol and Eurojust and that we welcomed
the adoption of a statement concerning the co-operation between
the two which was adopted at the JHA Council on 5 June in Luxembourg.
In this statement the Council urged Europol and Eurojust to prepare
amendments to the co-operation agreement that they signed in 2004.
They are supposed to prepare by the end of this year, amendments
to this co-operation agreement. These amendments need to enhance
the mutual exchange of information necessary for the achievements
of the tasks of both Eurojust and Europol. These amendments will
be done without changing the legal framework, so there will not
be any change to the draft Council Decision on Europol on which
there was a political agreement in April and there will not be
any changes on this respect to the Eurojust Decision that is now
being discussed in the Council and which, as you know, ought to
be adopted by the end of this year. The Council also agreed on
5 June that a task force would be set up by the Presidency under
the responsibility of the Presidency to assist Europol and Eurojust
in preparing amendments to this co-operation agreement. The Commission
will be part of this task force and we will therefore contribute
to the work of the task force. Since the signature of this co-operation
agreement of 2004, which allows the exchange of personal data,
both organisations have improved their links and, as you know
because you visited Eurojust and you met Mr Jose Luis Lopes da
Mota, they have worked together to establish a manual, for example,
on the joint investigation teams. They have drafted a practical
manual to help the practitioners in this field and Eurojust is
so far associated with six Analysis Work Files. There was also
a secure communication line which was signed in June 2007 to help
improve this co-operation. We are pleased to see that there will
be improvements in the co-ordination between Eurojust and Europol.
We are planning to participate in the task force and elaborate
on ideas about how to improve the situation. The Commission is
also trying to co-ordinate the action between Europol and Eurojust
by playing a role in the EU JHA heads of agencies, so every year—and
now it is the third year and there was a meeting last week—the
heads of agencies in the JHA field, that is, CEPOL, Eurojust,
Europol, Frontex, meet and exchange best practice and ideas on
how to improve relations among them and the Commission supports
such initiatives so that we can really see how they can better
co-operate together and exchange best practice. In summary, we
consider that there are ways in which we could improve this co-operation
and we will do our utmost to facilitate these improvements.
Q245 Lord Marlesford:
But they are separate organisations and there is an argument presumably
for them remaining such and an argument in favour of them getting
closer together. What I am trying to get from you is your thinking
as to the limiting factors of both those sides of the argument—the
argument in favour of them getting closer and equally the need
for them to remain separate and the reasons for that. It is very
helpful to know what is actually happening and how it has all
been handled administratively but it is really your thinking that
I am after.
Mrs Pérignon: Because you have
the police co-operation side with Europol and the judicial co-operation
side with Eurojust it makes sense that they try together to collaborate
and co-operate as much as possible.
Q246 Lord Harrison:
Yes, but what is your opinion? Can I dive into this most simple
of questions that Lord Marlesford is pursuing? We understood from
the organisations involved that Eurojust was sent to set up at
The Hague. It was separated physically from Europol. Europol itself
is now moving into new premises and we understand that Eurojust
will move but will still be separated by something like 200 metres.
We heard of the virtues of Europol and Eurojust being co-located,
brought under the same roof, not only in terms of security but
also in terms of the fact that they will be talking to each other
on a regular basis. Do you, the Commission, have an opinion on
that? Would you favour and press for the co-location or, in giving
an answer to Lord Marlesford, are there theoretical and practical
reasons for making sure that the two remain wholly independent
and separated? What we would like you to do as observers of the
scene is give a view on this.
Mrs Pérignon: For the Commission
it is really important that they both work together and we always
favour the fact that they should be located at the same place.
As they might have explained to you, they are having difficulties
with the housing but it is important that they try to the best
extent possible to be physically at the same place. In any case,
and on all the aspects, technically and politically, the Commission
really favours the fact that they should work together.
Q247 Lord Dear:
Sorry—I missed that: they should not work together or they
should?
Mrs Pérignon: They should work
together. We really favour this.
Chairman: I am concerned that the clock is working
against us and we have a lot more questions to ask. You do not
seem to be prepared to give any more opinions on this so the only
thing is to move on.
Q248 Baroness Garden of Frognal:
This is a factual question. In June 2006 the Commission discussed
evaluation of EU policies on Freedom, Security and Justice and
proposed to agree contact points in the Member States to facilitate
dialogue with the Commission. Have these contact points ever been
set up? If so, who is the contact point in the UK, because we
do not seem to be aware of that in the evidence we have seen?
Mrs Pérignon: As you just mentioned,
the Commission adopted a communication on the evaluation of the
policies in the JHA field in 2006, and there was then a dialogue
between the Commission and the Council in order to identify the
best way to set up this evaluation mechanism. The Commission organised
a conference in October 2006 and all these actors were sitting
together and taking part. In the conference we identified precisely
what could be the indicators of the evaluation, how we could make
available statistics and data, et cetera. Then the Justice and
Home Affairs Council in December 2006 acknowledged the need to
improve the existing individual evaluation mechanisms and they
decided to have further discussions in the working group in the
Council, and that was what was done all throughout the year 2007.
Q249 Baroness Garden of Frognal:
And the contact points?
Mrs Pérignon: Despite the extensive
consultations we had with all the stakeholders and all the discussions
we had, the process for implementing the evaluation mechanisms
has been slower than expected and the group of national contact
points has not yet been set up and these contact points have never
been communicated by the Member States.
Q250 Baroness Garden of Frognal:
Do you envisage them being set up or are you suggesting that the
barriers are so great for the Member States that we are unlikely
to get these contact points set up?
Mrs Pérignon: It seems that discussions
need to continue before the Member States will agree on establishing
these contact points.
Q251 Chairman:
Which are the countries which are being difficult about this?
Mrs Pérignon: For this I have
no idea. I can consult my experts and give the answer in writing.
Q252 Chairman:
Will you write to us?
Mrs Pérignon: Yes.
Q253 Baroness Garden of Frognal:
My other question you have covered in previous answers but perhaps
I could specifically ask you how would the Commission suggest
measuring the impact of the new Council Decision on Europol? You
did talk about evaluation and measurement in a previous answer.
In what you have already said does that cover the impact of the
new Council Decision? Is there anything else you like to add to
add to that?
Mr Marini: In the impact assessment which
has accompanied the proposal for the Council Decision, the Commission
has explained how the impacts of the proposal should be assessed.
According to the results, the impacts of the proposal after implementation
will be monitored and evaluated on a continuous basis, mainly
by Europol's Management Board but also by the Council, the Commission
and the European Parliament. In addition the proposal specifies
that the Director will establish a monitoring system in order
to collect indicators of the effectiveness and efficiency of the
duties performed within Europol. This is according to the impact
assessment. This monitoring system should provide Europol with
the necessary data for carrying out the evaluation. This will
be done under the responsibility of the Director of Europol. As
mentioned earlier, according to the draft Council Decision we
provide that within four years of the date of application of the
Decision, so 2014 and every four years thereafter, the Management
Board shall commission an independent evaluation of the implementation
of the Decision and the activity carried out by Europol. Meanwhile,
the results of the study commissioned by the Commission in 2009
for an evaluation of the regulatory agencies we hope will be available
in 2010. We contribute to the ongoing debate on the future of
the Community agency system. At the time the Commission will benefit
from the experience gained by evaluating the other agencies to
better define its major indicators.
Q254 Lord Young of Norwood Green:
Director, in July 2007 the Commission reported on the implementation
of The Hague Programme for 2006 and provided an institutional
scoreboard. It showed that the Commission working paper on criminal
intelligence-led law enforcement, originally planned for 2005,
had to be delayed, possibly to 2008 or 2009. What was the cause
of the delay, and am I right in assuming that you are writing
the paper now? Are you halfway through it? What was the cause
of the delay and when do you expect to start writing the paper,
as my earlier question has evoked some humour?
Mr Marini: In fact, the Commission considers
it premature to issue this working paper. According to the Commission
it is necessary first to have an in-depth analysis of the Decision
and explore the possibilities to be developed by Member States.
In order to develop this brainstorming the Commission specifically
included criminal intelligence-led law enforcement within the
priorities of our financial programme. We have a financial programme
for the fight against crime and in introducing this programme
in 2007 and 2008 we provided special funds to develop this brainstorming.
Unfortunately, so far no Member State has applied for these funds.
So far Member States have not given much support to the idea of
criminal intelligence-led law enforcement as the subject of the
fifth mutual round of inspections organised by the Council. As
I said, it seems premature to work on these issues but it is also
true that a revised OCTA prepared by Europol can be considered
as a step towards this direction. For the moment Member States
consider that they need time for a more in-depth analysis. This
is the reason for the delay.
Q255 Lord Young of Norwood Green:
As I understood it, and maybe I have misunderstood, I thought
the UK and the Dutch were keen on intelligence-led criminal investigation.
Mr Marini: That is correct. I would say
something else, that in practical terms from an operational point
of view this intelligence-led law enforcement system can be considered
to be already in place in some Member States, practically speaking.
There is something else to say with regard to the theoretical
approach to this policy. It is true that some Member States are
really keen to develop this, and you mentioned the UK and the
Netherlands which are really in favour of this, but so far it
has not been the case for the rest. That is the problem that we
have to manage for the moment. That is why we put these special
funds in our financial programme, to develop this brainstorming.
Q256 Lord Young of Norwood Green:
So you have the special funds but nobody is using them?
Mr Marini: No, for the simple reason
that Member States did not apply for them. Nobody has submitted
an application.
Q257 Lord Young of Norwood Green:
Are you in favour of intelligence-led law enforcement?
Mr Marini: We should consider the situation
at the general level, at EU level. For the moment this is a minority.
It is a really restricted number of countries which are in favour.
Even if I said that from an operational point of view we can say
that this is in place, it is different to pass from the operational
organisation in some Member States to the theoretical approach
to intelligence-led law enforcement. That is the problem that
we have to face now. In principle we could develop this, of course,
with the consensus of the others.
Q258 Chairman:
I am not clear what the reasons are that those who are blocking
this are giving for not wanting to go down this path. In terms
of law enforcement what arguments do they pursue?
Mr Marini: In our understanding at least
there is no specific reason to be against this. If you ask Member
States nobody will tell you they are against this idea. What I
said was that it is a little bit premature to issue this working
document for the reason that this sort of brainstorming has not
been sufficiently developed at EU level. The most important reason
for this is the lack of involvement of the other Member States
even if, as I said, from a practical point of view in some Member
States (more than the UK and the Netherlands) this is an operational
practice; that is clear, but it is difficult. We do not have so
far sufficient argument to develop this working document. That
was the reason, basically.
Q259 Chairman:
I am sorry; you have not answered my question. You keep using
this word "premature". That is not an argument, frankly.
Why do those countries which are blocking say it is premature?
Mr Marini: Exactly.
| 
