EU STRATEGY TO MEASURE CRIME AND CRIMINAL
JUSTICE (12345/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Baroness
Scotland of Asthal, Minister of State, Home Office
This Communication was considered by Sub-Committee
E at its meeting of 1 November 2006.
The Committee welcomes this initiative to collect
reliable data in the field of crime and criminal justice in cooperation
with other EU and international bodies. We have in the past been
concerned by lack of statistical data to support proposals in
this field and trust that the Government will cooperate fully
with the Commission and other Member States to maximise the comparability
of data across the EU. Would there be any difficulties for the
UK with the Commission's proposal to require Member States to
provide statistics in an appropriate form when future legal instruments
on crime are drafted?
We note that the Action Plan refers to the establishment
of "an inventory of EU harmonised definitions of crime types"
and of "law enforcement measures" (Point 3). What is
envisaged here? Are efforts to achieve harmonised definitions
(eg of "drug-related crime") likely to be successful?
We are also interested to hear that Eurostat
has commenced collection of crime statistics in line with the
Action Plan. Has specific Union funding been made available to
Eurostat for this purpose?
We have decided to hold the Communication under
scrutiny.
2 November 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of
Asthal to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 2 November 2006
and your support for this project. I agree that this initiative
should be welcomed. My officials have been closely involved in
the work that resulted in the Action Plan and this involvement
is planned to continue. This will include membership of both the
proposed Expert Group to be set up under the Action Plan and through
a Working Group being set up by Eurostat. I understand that the
first meetings of both groups are planned for February/March 2007.
In relation to the other points raised:
(a) My department (and those of the other parts
of the UK) have already supplied data to Eurostat to meet their
current requests. The involvement of my officials in these discussions
should ensure that future requests are realistic both for the
Home Office but also criminal justice agencies in this country.
(b) The aim of Action Point 3 was that Eurostat
should carry out a survey on both the legal definitions and statistical
rules currently used by Member States for both crime and criminal
justice statistics. The intention of this survey is to see whether
common definitions apply among Member States. In practice Eurostat
will be using the information published this summer in the 3rd
edition of the European Sourcebook of crime and criminal justice
statistics (www.europeansourcebook.org).
The Sourcebook report was part funded by the Home Office.
(c) The Eurostat work on crime and criminal justice
statistics is part of the agreed statistical work programme for
the European Union and as such some resources in Eurostat are
being made available. In addition, the Commission have also given
Eurostat additional funding for three years to employ.an expert
in this area to support their work.
20 November 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Baroness
Scotland of Asthal
Thank you for your letter of 20 November 2006
which was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting of 6 December
2006.
We are pleased to hear that you are satisfied
that future requests for statistics are unlikely to pose any problems
for the relevant UK authorities.
You say that Eurostat will undertake a survey
to see whether common definitions apply among Member States. Is
the long-term aim the agreement of common definitions where possible?
We note that Action Point 5(10) refers to the development of a
common definition of "drug-related crime". We assume
the Government are in favour of common definitions. If not, how
do the Government consider that useful statistics can be collected?
We are aware that statistics are also collected
by the Council of Europe, especially by the European Commission
for the Efficiency of Justice. What coordination will there be
with the Council of Europe, in particular to avoid duplication
and inconsistencies?
We have decided to hold the Communication under
scrutiny.
7 December 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of
Asthal to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter dated 7 December 2006
which followed my earlier reply dated 20 November 2006.
In relation to the two points raised:
(a) The initial function of the survey will be
to see whether there is any comparability between the definitions
of offences for Member States. Any future comparisons will be
made within this context and constrained by the different legal
systems in Member States. Alternative approaches such as the use
of surveys where common definitions are possible are also being
explored by Eurostat. The Government is clearly in favour of such
work within these constraints.
(b) My officials were not directly involved in
the production of the two reports by the European Commission for
the Efficiency of Justice. However they were able to express their
concerns about the first report which we were glad to see were
taken account of in the second edition. Our comments were on the
need to fully take account of differences in definitions of country
indicators in any comparisons. Good coordination normally exists
between those involved in such initiatives due to the coordinating
role of the European Sourcebook Group which includes, for example,
the academic responsible for the Efficiency of Justice publication
and also for the Council of Europe penal statistics. Eurostat
and the UN are also observers at these meetings.
29 December 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Baroness
Scotland of Asthal
Thank you for your letter of 29 December 2006
which was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting of 17 January
2007.
We note the Government's position as regards
the agreement of common definitions. But our question remains:
how do the Government consider that useful statistics can be collected
in the absence of common definitions?
As regards the matter of coordination of bodies,
your letter appeared to point to coordination within the Council
of Europe and its Member States, rather than any coordination
between the Council of Europe and the EU. You say that Eurostat
is present at some meetings; we presume you are referring to meetings
of the European Sourcebook Group and would be grateful for further
clarification of the nature and frequency of these meetings. What
level of EU involvement is there in the collation of Council of
Europe statistics, and what level of Council of Europe involvement
is expected in the collation of EU statistics under this Strategy?
Is there a coordinating body involving representatives ofboth
the Council of Europe and the EU?
We have decided to hold the Communication under
scrutiny.
18 January 2007
| 
