---

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

My Lords, this has been a thoughtful debate and I thank the scrutiny committee for its constructive reports. In particular, they were chaired so elegantly, with such consummate skill, by the   Lords Richmond—that is, the noble Baroness, Lady   Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Wright—and the noble Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, to whom I should like to say that we very much regret any diminution of his attendance or participation because, of course, we would be bereft without his skill. The committee has had the advantage of a very thorough debate today. The subjects of the reports are very good examples of successful EU co-operation in justice and home affairs, which is important to the safety and well-being of our citizens. As my noble friend Lady   Gibson of Market Rasen said, I am very glad that we have had this opportunity to discuss the reports in this very full way. My noble friend Lord Corbett rightly emphasised the need for co-ordination and co-operation between international agencies, particularly in relation to the use of fraudulent passports. My noble friend Lord   Dubs emphasised the need for proper safeguards. I would like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord   McNally, that we very much value the committee’s work and endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Dubs that the committee’s work is applauded on the international stage. I do not hesitate to tell noble Lords that I often bask in applause when abroad that falls as a result of the committee’s work. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in her time has had a similar experience. During our presidency of the EU, the Government are committed to delivering the justice and home affairs agenda set out in The Hague programme and in the action plan on combating terrorism. Most of the proposals in The Hague action plan—a non-binding frame of reference based on The Hague programme—can be taken forward under existing treaties. They will be implemented in full in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wright, on what will happen in relation to the constitutional treaty, the work on that issue will continue. I know that the committee has been concerned about the presidency priorities. There is a full agenda already set for the second half of the year in the CT action plan, The Hague action plan and the drugs action plan. Within that, we will focus on priority measures that have a practical benefit for EU citizens and add value to the efforts of member states in tackling terrorism and organised crime, and in better managing migration. We intend to make significant progress on the framework decision on telecommunications data and the European arrest warrant. We also will complete peer evaluation on counter-terrorism efforts in the Union and will look to introduce a counter-terrorism strategy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, reminded us, Eurojust is providing practical operational assistance to improve our effectiveness in tackling cross-border organised crime. For example, in March 2004, it brought together a group of member states to discuss an organised criminal group engaged in people and drug trafficking. Eurojust helped to co-ordinate the UK and German investigations and to gather evidence from other member states. That led to arrests being made in the United Kingdom for the facilitation of illegal immigration. Further arrests were made in Germany where a quantity of heroin was also seized. It is real, practical, functional work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, asked whether the Government intend to consider OLAF reform proposals during the UK presidency. I want to reassure him that we do, now that we have the completed OLAF evaluation report. We expect the Court of Auditors’ report on OLAF to be published very soon. We will then have the evidence that we need to consider the proposals and we are keen to take that forward during the UK presidency. Therefore, it is right that OLAF—the EU’s anti-fraud office—takes an active role in the fight against fraud. It has worked hard to improve its efficiency. It is estimated that it has been instrumental in the recovery of about €100 million. Therefore, it was right that the noble Lord, Lord Shaw, concentrated his remarks on its activities. The Hague programme represented an excellent negotiating outcome for the United Kingdom. It includes a welcome focus on delivering measures that will have practical effects on the lives of EU citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, asked how much we will spend and what it will cost. The Commission has proposed three new financial frameworks to fund justice and home affairs work from 2007 to 2013. The framework envisages a significant increase in funding to €9 billion, which is three times the amount that is currently spent. We support an increase but we will scrutinise the funds with EU partners to ensure that they are consistent with The Hague programme. We will make progress in that area a priority for our presidency. We very much welcome the continued emphasis on counter-terrorism in The Hague programme. We agree with the committee that responsibility for the protection of citizens lies primarily with individual member states, but, since the introduction of the action plan to combat terrorism in March 2004, the EU has demonstrated that it can help to identify good practice and vulnerabilities; that is, through the peer evaluation process of all 25 member states; through raising understanding of key issues—for example, critical infrastructure protection, terrorism financing and radicalisation; through promoting common standards, which we can see in aviation security; and also through encouraging capacity building in priority third countries. Her Majesty’s Government support the work of the Secretary-General and the high-level panel in their work to develop a global response to the very real threat of   international terrorism, which the noble Lord, Lord   Hannay, highlighted. We are playing an active role   in the pursuit of the comprehensive convention, while seeking a mutually acceptable solution to the controversial area of defining terrorism. We welcome the recent agreement of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, also raised the proliferation of CT committees and groups. The EU CT effort is very broad, but it reflects the complexity of the structures with which we now have to deal. We will work very closely with the presidency to ensure an effective EU response. The work that Mr de Vries will do in that regard will   be extremely important. We have agreed that COREPER will act as a co-ordinating body, which we will support. We will try to use our presidency to encourage member states to sign and implement the convention together with other international treaties while seeking greater EU and UN co-operation. We agree with the committee that tackling terrorist financing poses significant challenges. But the work to combat terrorist financing can play an important role as part of the wide counter-terrorism effort, particularly in identifying networks, destroying their operations and assisting investigations. It is right that we have also mentioned today how little money some of those terrorist activities will need. EU member states face the same threat from international terrorism and are affected by each other’s vulnerabilities. Terrorist networks operate internationally with attacks that are often organised in one country but are directed at another, which the noble Lord, Lord Wright, raised in his remarks. Working together in the EU—now at 27   countries, with Romania and Bulgaria—in focus groups and bilaterally is essential if we are to reduce the threat from international terrorism to which we are vulnerable. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised counter-terrorism co-ordination, on which, as I have already mentioned, Mr de Vries is working. We intend to make   good progress during our presidency to drive forward implementation of the action plan to improve understanding of the key issues through thematic COREPER sessions and to give focus and structure to the EU’s future counter-terrorism work by introducing an overarching strategy, together with a revised action plan, towards the end of the year. We firmly believe that the EU has a vital role to play in combating international terrorism. On police co-operation, Europol has been underused, and I endorse the comments in that regard. It should be made more effective without being given new, coercive operational powers, a matter about which I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is concerned. The Hague programme focus on intelligence-led policing and removing barriers to information exchange will lead to the better management and analysis of information and encourage greater sharing of information with Europol. We believe that that will enable us better to target effective operations against organised criminals. The introduction during our presidency of the European criminal intelligence model in support of Europol’s forward-looking organised crime threat assessment will   provide a valuable support for this process and encourage member states to share relevant intelligence with Europol. The bilateral agreements for third countries and the commitment made by the Europol director to work more closely with Interpol will bolster the EU’s external law enforcement co-operation capacity. At its last Interpol European regional conference, the newly appointed director of Europol made a commitment to work closely with the Secretary-General of Interpol on developing closer working relations and co-operative measures. The incoming UK presidency chair of the Europol management board has already highlighted the importance of Europol’s external relations, particularly with Interpol, as a key area of development during the UK tenure. Europol and Interpol have agreed to work with the United Kingdom on the development of a common intelligence model. The principle set out in The Hague programme of availability should, with appropriate safeguards—I know that noble Lords are anxious about them—to protect sensitive sources and methods, govern the exchange of data between law enforcement bodies, and should also guide, but not dictate, the way that security and intelligence service information is exchanged. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to an issue raised by the committee on the use of the existing databases. I can assure her that we agree with the importance of looking at and using what we have, but a group of technical experts is now being set up to report before the end of the UK’s presidency. The group will take this on as one of its guidelines when making recommendations on the implementation of the principle of availability. We also agree with the committee and with noble Lords that information exchange should take place within a common set of rules and standards. High standards already exist, but we welcome any extra certainty that the Commission’s forthcoming proposal for a framework decision on data protection in the third pillar could bring. What role a central authority should play in supervising data exchange is part of the ongoing Commission consultation on data protection on the third pillar. On data retention, the Government welcome what has been said both by the committee and in this debate and endorse the view that the proposed instrument on this subject will be a valuable tool in fighting terrorism. But we also believe that the prevention and detection of crime more generally is a public interest for which data should be retained. It has proved invaluable in establishing the facts in cases such as Soham, Omagh and the murder of Damilola Taylor. In the area of asylum and immigration, we share the same objectives as other member states: to encourage legal migration for economic and other purposes; to provide a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution, and to prevent abuse of our immigration control procedures. None of us acting alone can successfully meet the challenges of managing migration. We welcome The Hague programme’s emphasis on helping third countries to improve their capacity for migration management. During our presidency we want the EU to play a stronger role in managing migration internationally by improving the capacity of developing countries to protect refugees in their regions of origin, ensuring that economic migration to developed countries is managed to complement and not to damage the needs of developing countries. We will also be working in partnership with countries on the EU’s eastern and southern borders better to control migration flows. We want also to use our presidency to improve EU performance on readmission agreements, to take forward measures to improve the security of EU external borders, to improve asylum co-operation and to build on the EU’s common principles for integration. We have not given up our ability to determine UK asylum and immigration policy to Brussels. We will retain our opt-in and frontiers protocols which allow us to choose which EU measures we participate in and to carry out immigration checks on our borders. We are pleased that The Hague programme recognises that mutual recognition should continue to form the basis for further criminal and civil judicial co-operation. This will ensure that member states will retain their distinct and diverse legal systems while improving co-operation and bringing more criminals to justice. Moreover, I understand absolutely the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, in relation to the use to which mutual recognition could be put. I want to reassure him that we are going to be vigilant in that regard. Approximation of criminal procedure law is not a precondition for mutual recognition. But we recognise that common minimum standards in some areas can   enhance mutual confidence and facilitate the application of mutual recognition. We also support work that promotes the understanding of different legal systems and increases trust between them, which I know was just what the noble and learned Lord sought to illustrate in his erudite remarks on the tension between the two. The committee raised the issue of bail, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, in our debate. The Government believe that a legislative initiative on bail would be worthwhile as it would promote the fair treatment of EU residents facing criminal proceedings by ensuring that pre-trial custody is used only in appropriate cases. The Commission is expected to publish a legislative proposal later this year. Finally, we welcome the emphasis on continuing to provide Eurojust with the necessary powers effectively to aid judicial co-operation within the EU, but we are really pleased, as I think was the committee, that no reference is made to the European public prosecutor as we remain unconvinced of the need for one. I hope that also gives the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, the reassurance she seeks. A huge number of additional issues have been raised. Since I am pushed for time, I shall skate through and try to deal with one or two. Perhaps I may turn first to the issue of independence raised by the noble Lords, Lord Shaw and Lord McNally, in relation to OLAF. The debate about the future of OLAF has become intertwined with the establishment of the European public prosecutor. We will return to the subject of the EPP if and when a formal proposal for its creation is brought forward, but in the mean   time that possibility should not distract the Commission from the need to consider ways in which OLAF can be made more effective in the fight against fraud. No doubt the forthcoming report will enable us to do that, but at the moment noble Lords will recall that OLAF was brought into the Commission for the purpose of allowing it to draw strength and to foster better understanding. There is a real opportunity to continue doing that, but through the audit which will enable us to do so, we need to assess whether it will remain the best way forward. In my final minute I am trying to choose which answer I should give because there are so many. I shall respond to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord   McNally, in relation to EU/US counter-terrorism co-operation. Perhaps I may say first how important we believe that linkage to be in the fight against international terrorism. The UK presidency will seek to use its Troika with the United States, and   the next presidency, to its full effect so as to bring about some movement on this. The United States delegations are invited to EU meetings at all levels, including the Justice and Home Affairs Council. So we hope that there will be real opportunities for us to work energetically. In conclusion, effective international action in co-operation with our EU and overseas partners is one of the keys to delivering vital domestic objectives on counter-terrorism, organised crime, asylum, immigration and access to justice. The Hague programme and its associated action plans represent a real opportunity to improve the freedom, security and justice enjoyed by United Kingdom citizens, both at home and abroad, and the Government are determined to make the most of the opportunity. I thank noble Lords who have worked so hard on this agenda. I know that their industry will not stop now.