EUROPEAN ANTI-CORRUPTION NETWORK (15629/05)
Letter from the Chairman to Joan Ryan
MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office
Thank you for your letter of 1 August 2006[88]
which was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting on 11 October.
We are pleased to see that the Government share some of the concerns
raised by the Committee but there are a number of points outstanding
and though we note you request that the UK scrutiny position should
reflect the Government's support for the proposal we are not yet
in a position to clear the Council Decision from scrutiny.
On the relationship between the proposed network
and EPAC, you say that "the UK would like to table a proposal
to add a paragraph into the recital to explain that the Network
will build upon the work of EPAC and shall not duplicate its duties".
Have you tabled such a proposal? If so, what did it say and what
reception has been given to it by other Member States and the
Commission?
Thank you for providing a new text of Article
3. We note that this provision has been substantially simplified
and shortened. We note that, in paragraph 2, "on a voluntary
basis" has been replaced by "in accordance with existing
international arrangements". What are the arrangements to
which reference is made and how might they affect members' freedom
to participate in the network?
We note that wherever the word "organisations"
appears it is now followed by the words "and services".
It seems that in some instances the "services" referred
to are those existing in Member States (eg para 2(b) second indent)
while in other cases the services are those of the network. What
are the"services" of the network? Are they defined elsewhere
in the Regulation? What in practice will they comprise?
We are pleased to see that you agree that a
financial statement should be provided and that you have promised
to send a copy to the Committee "when one is made available".
What efforts have the Government made to ensure that a financial
statement is made available in good time before the conclusion
of negotiations and adoption of the proposed Decision?
Finally, you say that the location of the secretariat
remains uncertain. It appears that the Government have no strong
views as to whether or not the secretariat should be situated
within OLAF (in effect the Commission). But is not the location
of the secretariat (and the network) significant if it is to have
and/or provide "services" as envisaged by Article 3?
Are there not budgetary and control considerations here?
The Committee decided to retain the proposal
under scrutiny. We look forward to receiving the further information
requested above.
12 October 2006
Letter from Gerry Sutcliffe MP, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State, Home Office to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 12 October to my
colleague Joan Ryan MP regarding the setting up of a European
Anti-corruption Network.
The UK still believes that the relationship
between the Network and the informal European Partners Against
Corruption (EAPC) should be clarified in the recital. Unfortunately
an opportunity to present this proposal has not arisen, as the
proposed Council Decision has not been discussed at the MDG since
June or at CATS since May. However we will suggest that a recital
point should be inserted that will clarify this issue at the next
opportunity.
You refer to the insertion of "international
arrangements" in Article 3. At the next opportunity the UK
will seek clarification of the exact meaning of this text, and
I will make sure that your Committee is informed.
"Organisations and services" of the
Network are those organisations and services that currently exist
in the Member States that will eventually form the Network. This
is not a reference to new services that the Network will perform
or that will be provided by the Network. Nor is it meant to describe
any new services that will be created as a result of establishing
the Network. It instead refers to the anti-corruption services
that will create the Network.
The Government is still keen to see a financial
statement produced. Unfortunately, as I have explained above,
an occasion has not arisen whereby the UK has been able to request
one. At the next MDG where the Network is discussed the UK will
enquire after such a statement. Again, I would reiterate that
the running costs of the Network are not expected to be substantial.,
and the lack of a financial statement should not prevent the UK
from supporting the Network.
Finally, the location of the Network's secretariat
should not have a bearing on its services, as I have explained
above. The location of the secretariat has not yet been decided
but I will make sure that your committee is made aware of the
final decision once it is reached.
The Network, which was an Austrian initiative,
has not been discussed in the working group for a number of months.
The Finnish Presidency has so far decided against putting it on
the EU agenda. The UK recognises that working groups are extremely
busy and that their time is valuable. However, we remain supportive
of the proposal and will continue our qualified support for it
if and when the proposal returns to the negotiation table.
15 November 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Gerry Sutcliffe
MP
Thank you for your letter of 15 November which
was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting on 29 November.
We note that the Network is not presently under active negotiation
and in these circumstances we accept that the Government may not
be able to respond fully to the Committee's requests for information
and clarification. If and when the proposal returns to the negotiating
table we would be grateful if you would provide the Committee
with the following:
(i) a copy of the Recital clarifying the relationship
between the Network and EPAC;
(ii) clarification as to what is meant by "international
arrangements" in Article 3;
(iii) a financial statement relating to the establishment
and running of the Network; and
(iv) details of the proposed location of the
Network.
The Committee decided to retain the proposal
under scrutiny.
30 November 2006
88 Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session
2006-07, HL Paper 187, p 341. Back
| 
