---

EU: The Hague Programme—Justice and Home Affairs (EUC Report)

My Lords, I am delighted to be taking part in this debate. Until April of this year, I served on Sub-Committee F of the European Union Committee, first with the noble Baroness, Lady   Harris of Richmond, and more recently with the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, as our chair. Both brought a great deal of knowledge and their own individual charm to our discussions and guided us wisely in our deliberations. I have believed over the years that too little time has been given in this Chamber to the reports of the European Union Committee and its sub-committees. Many hours are spent by Members of this House in such committee work, which they take seriously and conduct thoroughly. So I am particularly pleased that time is being given during the first phase of this Session to these European Union Committee reports. During my work with the sub-committee, we examined in detail a number of weighty issues relating to international crime. We have explored issues surrounding migration and immigration, the pros and cons of border guards, a common European asylum system, Europol, Interpol, Eurojust and many other issues spinning off from those main themes. We have looked at terrorism in its various guises, an issue to which I shall return later. I wish to begin by raising an issue that has been interwoven throughout a number of our reports—the effects of our changing European world on some of the most vulnerable women and children, and their trafficking for prostitution and drug-related issues. There is no doubt but that the expansion of the European Union has exacerbated the vulnerability of some women and children. There have been known instances of women and children being trafficked for prostitution for many years. But with the expansion of the EU, the trafficking has increased significantly and, in the less economically developed EU nations, it has become more obviously linked to drugs. This trafficking can take the form of women carrying drugs in their bodies across borders—they are known colloquially as ““mules””—or by women’s bodies being used to raise money for their vile pimps or ““owners””, money which in turn is used to buy drugs and to join selling rings across European states. Lured from their own countries with promises of a better life and future in others, women and children find themselves in an ever-increasing pit of misery from which they cannot escape. In our report on the role of Eurojust, it is pointed out:"““Europol’s latest annual organised crime report records a significant growth in the EU of the cross-border activities of organised crime groups in the areas of drug-trafficking  . . . trafficking in human beings, financial crimes and smuggling. Opportunities have been opened up for organised crime, as for legitimate business, by the freedoms of the internal market and the opening of borders between EU States and their eastern neighbours””." The role of the EU agencies in combating such crime is paramount. In particular, the co-ordinating role of Eurojust in increasing co-operation between states to fight international crime is vital. In its evidence to us, the National Crime Squad gave examples Europol’s initiatives that have helped to bring down gangs of people traffickers. One such example highlighted a Eurojust initiative that developed a strong working relationship between the NCS and the French authorities. This resulted in an effective exchange of intelligence and evidence which led to a successful operation. The co-operation also ensured that requests for intelligence from a previous people smuggling operation were quickly acted upon and that, in turn, provided the impetus for four further operations, one of which the NCS has identified as a model of good practice. We can only hope, for the sake of the victims involved, that such initiatives will grow and develop widely to encompass the whole European community. I am conscious, of course, that we are debating these   issues against a backdrop of scepticism about European relationships and the way forward in vital areas of European policy. However, in the areas under discussion there is, one hopes, room for optimism. The Hague programme reaffirms the priority given by the European Council to justice and home affairs, which is recognised as a central concern of European citizens. It is a blueprint for EU action in this area and, as such, emphasises the protection of fundamental rights and consistent standards across the EU. To that end, the need for improved co-ordination between national law enforcement authorities and the development of specific EU data protection standards is important. The balancing act is between the necessity for increased protection for European citizens in a world that is increasingly conscious of acts of terrorism and their aftermath, and the individual freedoms that are so necessary in enlightened democracies—not an easy tightrope to walk. I turn now to the work on counter-terrorism in the European Union. Shortly after the Madrid bombings, the European Council called on member states to ensure that the optimum and most effective use was made of Eurojust to promote co-operation against terrorism. Sub-Committee F undertook a major piece of work on anti-terrorism, After Madrid: the EU’s response to terrorism””. I shall highlight some of its recommendations, the first of which is the sharing of information within the EU about efforts to thwart terrorism. The committee was strong in its view that a more effective sharing of information between law-enforcing agencies is essential to the counter-terrorism effort. Anyone who has read the report on the 9/11 disaster will recognise that one of the major problems encountered was the lack of co-ordination of information about terrorists and their activities before the attack and a lack of a co-ordinated strategy after the attack. The relevant authorities were working virtually in isolation and crucial pieces of information were not passed on, thus exacerbating the catastrophe. The EU must take this as a warning and develop its activities accordingly. The committee believes that databases of information used to combat terrorism should be established and adequately protected, and that robust back-up and recovery systems need to be in place in case they fail. It also recommends that as new systems are developed, the Commission should ensure that they are compatible so that, where necessary, data can be compared and exchanged. Additionally, there should be a clear division of responsibility between members states and the EU. The EU’s role should be that of a co-ordinator, providing structures to encourage the co-operation of member states, their dissemination of best practice and their input of information to central databases. The committee also commented on the role of the counter-terrorism co-ordinator, whom the committee believes has a vital role in overseeing the work of the various EU groups and committees within the second and third pillars, in preventing overlap and duplication and in ensuring that their aims and objectives are delivered. The committee believes that this work should be   subject to parliamentary scrutiny by national parliaments as well as by the European Parliament. In this way, the co-ordinator could be said to be truly democratically accountable, which is absolutely necessary if he is to be respected and his role taken as seriously as it should be. I would welcome my noble friend’s responses on these issues. Finally, your Lordships will recognise that the members of Sub-Committee F have taken the matters before them extremely seriously. Members have also, in a number of their reports, made one further point strongly. They are very conscious of the necessity for structures and activities at a European level to counter terrorism. They of course recognise that concerted action is essential to address the global problems of terrorism and international crime generally, However, they also firmly believe that any such actions must not be at the expense of fundamental human rights and would ask the European Union always to bear that in mind.