CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON THE INTERNET
(19571)
—
|
Draft Joint Action to combat Child Pornography on the Internet.
|
|
Legal base:
|
K.3(2)(b)
|
|
Department:
|
Home Office
|
|
Basis of consideration:
|
Explanatory Note of 4 November 1998
|
|
Previous consideration:
|
None
|
|
Committee's assessment:
|
Politically important
|
|
Committee's decision:
|
Cleared on the basis of information supplied by the Government
|
Background
12.1 This Joint Action is a contribution to the implementation of Recommendation 5 of the EU Action Plan to combat organised crime which was endorsed by the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997. Measures to tackle illegal content on the Internet were also proposed in the Council Resolution on illegal and harmful content on the Internet, adopted at the Telecommunications Council meeting on 28 November 1996, and we recently cleared the amended draft Decision to establish a four year Action Plan promoting safer use of the Internet[26].
The document
12.2 In her Explanatory Note of 4 November, the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey) helpfully summarises the contents of the draft Joint Action as follows:
"Article 1 asks Member States to encourage and enable Internet users to report child pornography; where necessary, to set up specialised child pornography units within law enforcement agencies; and to ensure that law enforcement reacts swiftly on receipt of information.
"Article 2 requires Member States to co-operate in facilitating investigations and prosecutions; to make full use of existing contact points and channels, such as Interpol; to inform Europol of suspected cases of child pornography; and to consider setting up regular meetings of competent authorities.
"Article 3 requires Member States to examine voluntary or binding measures aimed at eliminating child pornography from the Internet. This should be done in consultation with industry. Measures to be examined may include ways of prompting Internet providers to inform the authorities about such material when it is brought to their notice and eliminate it from their systems; to assist prosecutions by retaining traffic data and making it available to the authorities; and to set up their own control systems against child pornography.
"Article 4 requires Member States to keep the adequacy of their criminal procedural law under regular review in the light of technological developments.
"Article 5 requires Member States to encourage the production of filters and other technical means aimed at preventing and detecting distribution of child pornography.
"Article 6 provides for mutual evaluation of Member States' compliance with the 1997 Joint Action on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Exploitation of Children, and with the 1995 Resolution on Interception."
The Government's view
12.3 The Minister comments:
"The Government endorses the need for effective action by Member States to deal with child pornography and broadly supports the provisions of the draft joint Action. The UK has been a leader within the EU in developing measures of the kind envisaged in Articles 1 and 3. The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a self-regulatory organisation funded by industry, was created in 1996 and is supported by the major Internet service providers and their trade associations. It has established good working relationships with the Metropolitan Police and NCIS to whom it passes on information about criminal content — particularly on child pornography — received from the public.
"This approach has been endorsed in European fora and is being followed or considered by other Member States. The IWF is now involved in an international initiative on content rating. The intention is to devise a common voluntary rating system, whereby content providers rate their material, which is capable of being adapted to suit conditions in individual countries. However, the feasibility of software filters capable of detecting illegal content (as envisaged in Article 6 [5]) is at present uncertain.
"Article 3 In general, Internet service providers in the UK are not required to vet the material which their customers store and transmit. They do however acquire responsibilities once they become aware of material which is illegal. Should they not remove child pornography from their servers once they are made aware of it, they could be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act 1978 for the dissemination of such material. In general, UK Internet service providers are diligent in removing illegal material once they are made aware of it and in co-operating with law enforcement when investigations into crime are under way.
"Article 4 The position in law is that what is illegal off the Internet is illegal on it. The criminal law, therefore, applies to child pornography on the Internet. Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to take, permit to take, distribute, show or possess with a view to distribution or showing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, it is also an offence under Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for a person to have an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child in their possession. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the definition of >photograph= to include data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph. The 1994 Act also amended the law to introduce the concept of 'pseudo-photograph' which means an image, whether generated by computer graphics or otherwise, which appears to be a photograph.
"We believe that at present, in respect of child pornography, the law has adequately accommodated technical developments and should enable law enforcement authorities to take necessary measures to combat this activity on computer networks."
12.4 In the Government's view, no change to UK legislation would be needed to meet the provisions of the Joint Action as currently drafted, and it has no financial implications.
12.5 The Minister tells us that the Presidency is likely to seek adoption of the Joint Action at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 3 December.
Legal basis
12.6 Title VI of the Treaty on European Union restricts co-operation between Member States in the field of Justice and Home Affairs to a number of areas expressed in Article K.1. In the present case, the relevant objectives which the Joint Action would be seeking to promote are judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation to prevent and combat serious international crime. However, the Committee notes that certain aspects of the proposal do not readily fall within the concept of judicial and police co-operation. In particular, Articles 1 and 4 appear to require individual initiatives by Member States rather than co-operation. We are not clear whether the Government takes the view that such provisions fall within the remit of the areas listed in Article K.1. If not, does it nonetheless consider that they may lawfully be covered by the Joint Action and, if so, on what grounds?
Conclusion
12.7 We consider that the document raises a question of principle, as set out in para 1.6 above. We should be grateful for the Minister's response to this before the end of the year.
12.8 However, we support the Government in its endorsement of the need for effective action by Member States to deal with child pornography, and note its confidence that the UK will have no difficulty in meeting the provisions of the Joint Action. We therefore clear the document.
1999 DRAFT BUDGET
(19577)
—
—
|
Second Reading by the Council of the Draft General Budget of the European Communities for 1999.
|
|
Legal base:
|
Article 203 (and Articles 15 and 32 of the Financial Regulation); qualified majority voting; the special rôle of the European Parliament in relation to the adoption of the Budget is set out in the Article
|
|
Department:
|
HM Treasury
|
|
Basis of consideration:
|
EM of 27 November 1998
|
|
Previous consideration:
|
None but see paragraph 1.1 below
|
|
Committee's assessment:
|
Politically important
|
|
Committee's decision:
|
Cleared on the basis of information provided by the Government
|
Background
13.1 On
28 October 1998 we reported on the Council's Draft General Budget
(DB) for 1999[27]. At
its first reading of that Budget, the European Parliament proposed
significant amendments and we reported on those on 11 November
1998[28]. We drew attention
in particular to the large reserves (some 1.54 billion euros in
commitments and 3.25 billion euros in payments)
which the European Parliament had created. In her Explanatory
Memorandum of 6 November, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury
(Ms Hewitt) said that it appeared to be the European Parliament's
intention to drop these reserves if the Council committed itself
to a baseline for the new Financial Perspective [for 2000-2006]
at the level of the Financial Perspective for 1999. We shared
the Minister's concern that the European Parliament should, in
effect, use the 1999 Budget as a bargaining counter in the quite
separate issue of the future Inter-institutional Agreement on
the next Financial Perspective. We noted that the Government intended
to encourage the European Parliament to drop the reserves without
offering the concessions sought and to draw attention to the inconsistencies
between the use of reserves for tactical purposes and the provisions
of Community law.
13.2 We
cleared the Budget document incorporating the European Parliament's
amendments solely because we were aware that the Minister would
be discussing it in the Budget Council on 24 November 1998 and
we wished to remove any scrutiny constraint. However, we said
that we were disturbed by the situation we had set out and would
report again to the House when we knew the outcome of the Budget
Council on 24 November, and before the European Parliament formally
adopts the Budget at its second reading in the week beginning
14 December 1998.
13.3 The
European Parliament has the final say on the non-compulsory elements
of the Budget (broadly speaking, the bulk of Community expenditure
other than on the CAP).
The Government's EM
13.4 In
her very helpful Explanatory Memorandum dated 27 November 1998
the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Hewitt) sets out the
modifications to the Budget (as amended by the European Parliament)
and reports on the Budget Council's consideration and modifications
of these. In accordance with the procedure[29]
established for Budget Scrutiny we publish the Memorandum with
this report.
13.5 The
Minister says that:
"In
the interests of reaching an overall compromise with the European
Parliament on the 1999 budget the Council has made only a limited
number of modifications to the DB as amended by the EP. The most
important of these, however, is to reject the Parliament's strategic
amendment (No. 888) establishing a series of reserves totalling
3.75 billion euros in payments and 1.54 billion euros in commitments.
"Following
the Council's second reading, commitment appropriations total
97.0 billion euros, which is:
"— 1.6
billion euros below the Parliament's DB;
"— some
6.4 billion euros under the Financial Perspective ceiling; and
"— 6.6%
above the 1998 Budget.
"The
total for payment appropriations in the DB, relating to commitments
entered into in 1999 and previous years, is 85.6 billion euros,
which is:
"— 4
billion euros below the Parliament's DB;
"— around
11 billion euros under the Financial Perspective ceiling; and
"— 2.5%
above the 1998 Budget;
"— equal
to 1.09% of [Community] GNP, some 0.18% below the own resources
ceiling."
13.6 She
adds that the Council has reserved its position on a limited number
of key points, such as pensions, funding for PHARE and Turkey
(in order to meet Community obligations) and a reserve for structural
funds.
The Government's view
"The
Government hopes that in view of the conciliatory attitude adopted
by the Council at its second reading of the budget the Parliament
will not vote to reinstate its global reserves at its second and
final reading of the budget. If it does, however, reinstate these
reserves, the Government will support the Council in taking such
legal remedies as are necessary to overturn the Parliament's position,
which the Council considers incompatible with the provisions of
the Treaty."
Conclusion
13.8 Overall,
as modified by the Council on 24 November, the 1999 Budget is
now 0.5 billion euros higher, in terms of commitments,
than the Council's original draft Budget but 0.3 billion euros
lower in terms of payments. We note that the Council's
modified budget is 6.6% above the 1998 Budget in respect of commitments
and 2.5% in terms of payments. Nor are these firm figures, as
the European Parliament has still to have its final and determining
say on the non-compulsory elements of the Budget. In the light
of this, the UK Government's objective of budget stabilisation
over the period of the next Financial Perspective looks to be
an extremely challenging target.
13.9 We
are glad to note that the Council has rejected the strategic reserves
voted by the European Parliament, apparently for bargaining purposes
in relation to separate discussions on the new Financial Perspective.
13.10 We
understand that there will be a further meeting of the Council
with representatives of the European Parliament on 8 December
1998 which may clarify whether the Parliament will withdraw its
strategic reserves. We trust that the Government will continue
strongly to maintain a principled opposition to the reserves.
Meantime, we clear this document and invite the Minister to report
back to us as soon as possible after the Council meeting on 8
December.
26 (19531); see HC 34-i (1998-99), paragraph 9 (25 November 1998). Back
27 (19436) C; see HC 155-xxxviii (1997-98), paragraph 16 (28 October 1998). Back
28 (19497)C; see HC 155-xl (1997-98), paragraph 5 (11 November 1998). Back
29 See HC 155-xx (1997-98), 4 March 1998. Back
|
|
