House of Lords - Correspondence with Ministers October 2006 to April 2007

Correspondence with Ministers October 2006 to April 2007 - European Union Committee Contents

JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 2006 (INFORMAL) AND OCTOBER 2006

Letter from Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Minister of State, Home Office to the Chairman

I thought that it would be useful if I were to write to you about the Informal JHA Council on 21-22 September and the upcoming JHA Council on 5-6 October 2006, since it is not possible for me to make a written statement to the House due to the timing of recess. The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, Joan Ryan and Baroness Ashton attended the Tampere Informal on behalf of the UK. The Home Secretary, Baroness Ashton and I will represent the UK at the October Council.

At the informal Council there was lengthy discussion on the Hague Programme Review and specifically on the Presidency proposal to use Article 42 TEU to transfer third pillar cooperation (police co-operation, judicial co-operation in criminal matters) to the first pillar, changing the decision making procedure to qualified majority voting and co-decision. While there were some who supported the use of Article 42 and a move to QMV, a significant number of those who spoke were opposed or expressed concerns of one form or another. The Government stated that unanimity need be no bar to effective action at European Union level, as demonstrated by the European Arrest Warrant and the establishment of Eurojust and the Borders Agency. The Government also set out the concerns which the UK had about the proposal, many of which were shared by other Member States. No formal decisions were taken and the Presidency concluded that it would reflect on the discussion. Whilst the Hague Programme Review is an agenda item at the October Council, we do not expect lengthy or substantial discussion of Article 42, rather, the Presidency is likely to set out some proposals for handling and next steps. The debate is expected to focus on the substance of the work programme in terms of what we have achieved and what remains to be done The government broadly welcomes the four Commission communications published in July that will form the basis for discussion and we will emphasise the need for practical action and delivery of measures already agreed.

Discussions at the informal Council also focussed on achievements in the area of mutual recognition of criminal decisions and the future development of this work, including parallel action to support mutual confidence in Member States' legal systems. The Commission suggested using the passerelle in Article 42 to improve decision making procedures and proposed bringing out a study in 2007 on the horizontal problems affecting this area. It was agreed that more thorough assessments should be made of the practical need for instruments and Member States' positions before initiatives were presented. The UK commented that the focus should be more on concrete action on the ground and that the EU should be looking less at legislation or harmonisation, but rather at practical measures to encourage mutual confidence.

As regards civil judicial co-operation, there was widespread agreement that this area of work should be looked at more systematically and with more coherence than hitherto, and in particular about the need to simplify cross-border litigation. The UK stressed the need for a focus on practical measures and expressed caution about the possibility of re-opening difficult previous agreements.

The Presidency set out the background and conclusions of the London meeting (a multi-Presidency Ministerial meeting convened immediately after the aviation security alert), and the renewed impetus given to the Counter Terrorism action plan. A suggestion that a Europol/SitCen (EU Joint Situation Centre) analysis should be circulated within 36 hours of any major incident was agreed by Europol. Europol can also help more widely with sharing data on explosives and weapons. The Commission recommended that the EU needed teams of Member States' experts ready to assist after an attack. We welcomed the focus on delivery stressing that valuable work had been done, but efforts needed to be stepped up and there was concern that the threat was not perceived equally in all Member States. The Presidency concluded that Member States and Europol/Eurojust should improve their cooperation, interoperability needed to improve and the EU Counter Terrorist coordinator should conduct a detailed analysis.

The Presidency and Commission set out the acute problem of illegal migration facing the EU, in particular in the Canaries. There was discussion on the recent problems southern Mediterranean Member States had experienced with migration problems. The Presidency chaired a discussion on the Common European Asylum System and stressed the importance of the 2010 deadline for a common system. Implementation of the Dublin convention and Eurodac needed to be better.

The informal also discussed the topic of terrorism and organised crime. Europol described the main routes for smuggling and called for more information from Member States about heroin smuggling via Russia.

The Commission remains committed to SIS II implementation although a combination of factors has delayed it. Member States accepted that the original implementation timetable will not be achieved and there was concern at the delay and the political implications for new Member States. The Presidency concluded that there would be further discussion at the October Council.

At the October JHA Council we expect there to be discussion of the delay for SIS II implementation at the October Council and consideration of a proposal to enable new Member States to connect to an enhanced version of SIS I within the current timescales. The government regrets the delays to the implementation of SIS II and we will be pushing for every effort to implement it as speedily as possible. Whilst we welcome the attempt to find an interim solution, we have concerns about the feasibility of the new proposal and believe that the implementation of SIS II must not be further delayed. This item will be discuss under the main agenda as well as in the mixed committee of Ministers meeting with Norway and Iceland in the margins of the Council.

The Presidency will be seeking political resolution on whether Community finance should be available to fund the purchase or hire of civil protection equipment, and transport of civil protection assistance in response to disasters. The government does not support the proposal on these funding questions. The UK believes as a matter of principle that disaster response is primarily a national responsibility and allowing Community financing would act as a disincentive to member states building up their own civil protection capacity.

The Presidency will be seeking to agree the draft Council Conclusions on reinforcing the southern external maritime border. This item will be discussed under the main agenda as well as in the mixed committee. The government is keen to work with EU partners and neighbouring third countries to prevent irregular migration flows into the EU and will continue to cooperate with the other Member States and Frontex to enhance the security of the external borders.

The Presidency will present the second report from the Commission to the Council on visa waiver reciprocity and there will be discussion on further steps to take. Whilst the UK is not directly involved in EU visa policy, as we retain national control over our borders, the government will be noting the discussion carefully. Schengen countries amended their legislation to take action against third countries who still maintain visa requirements on the newest Member States and whose national can travel to the EU without a visa.

There will be a public deliberation on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving depriation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the EU. Issues that require resolution centre on the extent of the obligation on Member States to accept the return of a prisoner and the extent to which a prisoner should consent to transfer. There was also be a debate on the extent to which the Framework Decision should apply to third country nationals. If the Framework Decision is to have added value the government believes that it should go further than existing Council of Europe arrangements in allowing for transfer without the consent of either the executing State or the prisoner in certain cases. The government believes that the instrument should apply to third country nationals but Member States should have the option to refuse to accept such individuals eg where their right of residence may have expired or been revoked.

The Presidency will be looking to agree that negotiations should continue on the substance of the Directive on criminal measures for ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The government believes it is clear that the issue of the appropriate legal base (whether this work should be based on a first pillar Directive or third pillar Framework Decision) will not be resolved for some time. Of more concern however is that the government is not convinced that there is a need for European legislation approximating offences and penalties in relation to counterfeiting and piracy. At the Tampere informal JHA Council last month we stressed the importance of improving JHA working methods, in particular by only legislating where there is a proven need to do so. The government believes we need to evaluate the effectiveness of two recent Community Directives before we can conclude that additional legislation is required.

There will be public deliberation of the draft Framework Decision on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings. The Presidency will be looking for a general approach on the Articles of the Framework Decision, with a further discussion of the Recitals and opinion of the European Parliament scheduled for a working group thereafter. The Presidency has made efforts to address Member States', including the UKs, concerns on this proposal and we are therefore generally content with the revised version of the text.

The Presidency will be seeking to secure a Council decision on the Commission proposal for definitive anti-dumping measures against imports of certain footwear. The government is not able to support this proposal as we believe the Commission has not demonstrated that it is in the Community Interest.

The Presidency will not be seeking political agreement on the proposal to establish the Fundamental Rights Agency but will make a statement on the progress made on this dossier.

There will be information items from the Presidency and Commission respectively on a European Conference on active participation of ethnic minority youth in society and the possibility of initiating negotiations on visa facilitation and readmission agreements with Moldova.

4 October 2006

Letter from Rt Hon Baroness Ashton of Upholland, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Constitutional Affairs to the Chairman

I thought that it would be useful if I were to write to you about the Informal JHA Council on 21-22 September and the upcoming JHA Council on 5-6 October 2006, since it is not possible for me to make a written statement to the House due to the timing of recess. The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, Joan Ryan and I attended the Tampere Informal on behalf of the UK. The Home Secretary, Baroness Scotland and I shall be attending the JHA Council in October.

There was lengthy discussion on the Hague Programme Review and specifically on the Presidency proposal to transfer areas of third pillar cooperation (police cooperation, judicial cooperation in criminal matters) to the first pillar, changing the decision making procedure to qualified majority voting and co-decision. No formal decisions were taken and the Presidency concluded that it would reflect on the discussion and propose a way forward at the October JHA Council and December European Council. Whilst the Hague Programme Review is an agenda item at the October Council, we do not expect lengthy or substantial discussion, rather, the Presidency is likely to set out some proposals for handling. The government broadly welcomes the four Commission communications published in July that will form the basis for discussion and we will emphasise the need for practical action and delivery of measures already agreed.

The Presidency were keen to see achievement in the area of mutual recognition in criminal decisions and the Commission suggested using the passerelle in Article 42 to improve voting procedures and proposed bringing out a study in 2007 on the horizontal problems affecting this area; this study was welcomed. It was agreed that more thorough assessments should be made of the practical need for instruments and member states position before initiatives are presented. The UK commented that the focus should be more on concrete action on the ground and that the EU should be looking less at legislation or harmonisation, but rather at practical measures.

The Presidency set out the background and conclusions of the London meeting, and the renewed impetus given to the Counter Terrorism action plan. A suggestion that a Europol/SitCen (EU Joint Situation Centre) analysis should be circulated within 36 hours of any major incident was agreed by Europol. Europol can also help more widely with sharing data on explosives and weapons. The Commission recommended that the EU needed teams of member states' experts ready to assist after an attack. We welcomed the focus on delivery stressing that valuable work had been done, but efforts needed to be stepped up. There was concern that the threat was not perceived equally in all member states. The Presidency concluded that member states and Europol/Eurojust should improve their cooperation, interoperability needed to improve and the EU Counter Terrorist coordinator should conduct a detailed analysis.

The Presidency presented a paper on the Common European Asylum System and stressed the importance of the 2010 deadline for a common system. Implementation of the Dublin convention and Eurodac needed to be better. The Presidency concluded that they would proceed as their paper set out.

The Presidency presented a paper on terrorism and organised crime. Europol described the main routes for smuggling and called for more information from member states about heroin smuggling via Russia.

The Commission (Franco Frattini) remains committed to SIS II implementation. A combination of factors has delayed SIS II. All member states agreed that the original timetable was not technically possible. There was concern at the delay and the political implications for new member states. The Presidency concluded that there would be further discussion at the October Council.

We expect there to be discussion of the delay for SIS II implementation at the October Council and consideration of a proposal to allow new Member States to connect to SIS I within the current timescales. The government regrets the delays to the implementation of SIS II and we will be pushing for every effort to implement it as speedily as possible. Whilst we welcome the proposal for an interim solution we believe that the implementation of SIS II must not be further delayed. This item will be discussed under the main agenda as well as in the mixed committee.

The Presidency will be seeking to find political resolution of a question of whether Community finance should be available to fund the purchase or hire of civil protection equipment, and transport of civil protection assistance. The government does not support the proposal on these funding questions; the UK believes that disaster response is primarily a national responsibility.

The Presidency will be looking to agree that negotiations should continue on the substance of the directive on criminal measures for ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The government believes it is clear that the issue of the appropriate legal base will not be resolved for some time. At the Tampere informal JHA Council last month we stressed the importance of improving JHA working methods, in particular by only legislating where there is a proven need to do so. We are not convinced that there is a need for European legislation approximating offences and penalties in relation to counterfeiting and piracy. The government believes we need to evaluate the effectiveness of two recent Community Directives before we can conclude that additional legislation is required.

There will be public deliberation of the draft Framework Decision on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings. The Presidency will be looking for a general approach on certain articles. The Presidency has made efforts to address Member States', including the UKs, concerns on this proposal. We are generally content with the revised version of the text.

The Presidency will not be seeking political agreement on the proposal to establish the Fundamental Rights Agency but will make a statement on the progress made on this dossier.

5 October 2006