CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION (16932/06,
16933/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Tony McNulty
MP, Minister of State, Home Office
Sub-Committee F (Home Affairs) of the European
Union Select Committee considered these documents at a meeting
on 14 March. They were grateful for your full and informative
Explanatory Memoranda.
The importance of protecting critical infrastructures
against terrorism and natural disasters is not in doubt; nor is
the importance of cooperation between States where destruction
or disruption of the infrastructures would affect a number of
States. Nevertheless the Committee has consistently doubted whether
a formal initiative at EU level is the best way of handling this,
and has in the past urged caution on the Government in its approach
to this European Programme. This continues to be our view. We
believe that the Government shares many of these doubts, and we
hope that ministers and officials will continue to voice them
in the course of negotiations on the draft Directive.
The Committee has in the past had doubts on
subsidiarity grounds, and has wondered what this Programme can
achieve which could not as well (or better) be achieved by Members
States cooperating as and when required in the case of particular
critical infrastructures. We do not however believe that this
argument is best pursued by debate as to whether the requirements
of Article 5 of the EC Treaty are satisfied, and prefer to argue
on the merits of the proposal.
We agree that the definition of European Critical
Infrastructures is too wide, and that, if unamended, it would
result in too many critical infrastructures being designated as
ECIs. There would be a consequent dilution of the protection which
should be concentrated on the most important and most vulnerable
infrastructures; and there would be an accompanying increase in
cost.
We queried two years ago the added value that
a European Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network
would bring. At the time the Government too was not persuaded
of the need for such an additional warning network, and did not
support it. Other Member States seemed to take the same view.
Nevertheless the Communication makes it plain that the Commission
intends to proceed with this. We urge ministers to continue to
argue against this.
We also share the Government's doubts about
the need for legislation requiring owners and operators of ECI
to establish an Operator Security Plan and to designate Security
Liaison Officers. We agree that these are matters which can be
dealt with less formally, and we hope the Government will continue
to argue against Articles 5 and 6 of the draft Directive.
We intend to keep these documents under scrutiny,
and would like to be kept informed of the progress of negotiations.
19 March 2007
| 
