CONTROL OF THE ACQUISITION AND POSSESSION
OF WEAPONS (7258/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Vernon Coaker
MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office
Thank you for your letter of 24 July[86]
which was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting on 11 October.
We are grateful for the clear and prompt reply you have given.
We note the importance the Government attach
to consistency of approach in relation to the definition of criminal
law and penalties under the EC Treaty. As you say, work on the
Intellectual Property Directive has effectively been suspended.
However, work on the present proposal is at an earlier stage and
the nature and substance of the proposal is quite different. You
say that "it is clear that negotiations on a number of instruments
may now stall and a co-ordinated approach would appear to be sensible".
Would you propose that discussion in the present case proceed
on the basis of the deletion of Article 1(3) (containing the new
Article 16)? It is likely to be some months before the ECJ gives
judgment in Case C-440/05. Why should the adoption and implementation
of Article 1(2) (the new Article 4) be delayed in the meantime?
The Committee decided to retain the proposal
under scrutiny. We would be grateful if you could keep us informed
of developments.
12 October 2006
Letter from Vernon Coaker MP to the Chaiman
Thank you for your letter of 12 October about
the proposal to amend the directive on the control, acquisition
and possession of weapons.
Given our reservations about the legal base
for amending Article 1 (3) of the Directive and in keeping with
our position on the extent of Community competence in criminal
law, the UK is already pressing in current negotiations for the
provision containing the new Article 16 to be deleted. It is,
however, unlikely that the Commission will agree to such a deletion
at this stage. This leaves us at an impasse because, as you are
aware, the procedural arrangements in First Pillar leave the initiative
with the Commission. During the course of negotiations Member
States can only secure an amendment to the text of a legislative
proposal against the wishes of the Commission if that view is
shared unanimously. Although a number of Member States is likely
to support deletion it is doubtful that this view is held by all
at present. Like you, we find the situation regrettable but we
will certainly use our best endeavours to avoid any prolonged
delay if at all possible.
You will wish to known the European Parliament
has appointed a rapporteur for the Directive but we do
not expect the EP to take a final view before the end of the year.
We will keep the Committee informed of future
progress.
31 October 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Vernon Coaker
MP
Thank you for your letter of 31 October which
was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting on 22 November.
We share the Government's concerns and agree that it would be
unsatisfactory if amendment of the Directive was postponed pending
the judgment of the ECJ in Case C-440/05. On the other hand adoption
in the form proposed by the Commission could set an undesirable
precedent. You say that a number of Member States share the Government's
concern about the new Article 16. Is there a sufficient number
of States to constitute a blocking minority?
The Committee decided to retain the proposal
under scrutiny.
23 November 2006
Letter from Vernon Coaker MP to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 23 November about
the proposal to amend the Directive on the control, acquisition
and possession of weapons.
At present a number of Member States are not
in favour of criminal sanctions being included in the measure.
If these Member States continue to support the UK's opposition
to this aspect of the Directive we believe there would be enough
votes to block the measure should this prove necessary.
We will update the Committee with future progress.
12 December 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Vernon Coaker
MP
Thank you for your letter of 12 December which
was considered by Sub-Committee E (Law and Institutions) at its
meeting on 10 January. We were most interested to learn that there
are a sufficient number of Member States supporting the Government's
view that criminal sanctions should not be included in the proposed
Directive. This is a helpful clarification of the likely extent
of the support for the Government's position. We are also grateful
for your undertaking to keep the Committee informed of the progress
of the negotiations.
The Committee decided to retain the proposal
under scrutiny.
11 January 2007
86 Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session
2006-07, HL Paper 187, pp 337-338 Back
| 
