---

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the African Union is very concerned with corruption in Africa and has taken vigorous action, through NePAD, in a peer review system, where individual countries are looking at corruption, democracy and so on? Should those activities not be praised instead of getting nothing but criticism all the time?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is right; the African Union through NePAD has taken a robust
 
20 Jun 2005 : Column 1433
 
approach to peer review. A number of African countries have signed up voluntarily. Four countries are already going through the process, and draft reports have been received about Rwanda and Ghana. We should praise, not only the African Union, but those individual countries, especially as this is the only peer review process in the world that includes political as well as economic elements.

There is a policy paper on conditionality, which I will ensure is made available in the Library, as there is so much interest in this matter. The paper goes through our shared commitment with our partner governments to tackling corruption.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, later this afternoon, with permission, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the European Council of 16 and 17 June. The Statement will come after the first three speakers in the first debate; that is, after the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott.

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

3.8 pm

Lord Wright of Richmond rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on The Hague Programme: a five year agenda for EU justice and home affairs (10th Report, Session 2004–05, HL Paper 84).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been a privilege to have been a member of Sub-Committee F during the preparation of three of the four Select Committee reports concerned with EU justice and home affairs which we are due to debate today. I pay tribute to our Clerk, Tony Rawsthorne, and our legal adviser, Valsamis Mitsilegas, for the skill with which they have steered us through our work, and thank our specialist adviser, John Abbott, for his help in our inquiry into the EU's response to terrorism after Madrid.

I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, will speak today on the inquiry into Eurojust, and I congratulate her on the way in which she conducted that inquiry when chairing our sub-committee. I also look forward to the contribution from my noble and learned friend Lord Scott of Foscote, whose Sub-Committee E worked with my sub-committee in preparing our report on The Hague programme. It is on that report that I would first like to concentrate today.

As your Lordships will know, The Hague programme is a five-year programme of European Union action covering the whole field of justice and home affairs. The breadth of the programme's scope demonstrates the
 
20 Jun 2005 : Column 1434
 
impressive increase in co-operation at EU level in an area where only 10 years ago such co-operation as existed was almost all on an intergovernmental basis.

For the past five years, there has been a major programme of work in the fields of immigration and asylum, police co-operation, and criminal and civil judicial co-operation, which formed the foundation of The Hague programme. Our inquiry concluded that The Hague programme was broadly on the right track. It places welcome emphasis on the need to respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and the legal traditions of member states. But it will be important that we continue to scrutinise carefully the future progress of The Hague programme to ensure that those principles are upheld. Our scrutiny concluded that there have been occasional lapses—for example, on drugs policy and crime prevention—where those principles have not been sufficiently respected.

The Hague programme also calls for a process of evaluating policies. Our inquiry strongly endorsed a thorough and transparent evaluation of existing policies before new initiatives are pursued. Many of the proposals in The Hague programme have been the subject of previous reports by the Select Committee. There is still talk of a European Border Guard, although we remain of the view, as I understand the Government do, that the case for a centrally managed multinational force has not been made. The concept of a common European asylum system remains valid, but the failure so far to adopt the Asylum Procedures Directive shows that there are still considerable difficulties in ensuring a high level of protection in accordance with international human rights and refugee law.

Finally, we underlined the need for better co-ordination between law enforcement authorities. It was clear to us that Europol has not yet fulfilled its potential. I hope that it can start to punch its weight now that a new director has been appointed, after a regrettable delay.

I am grateful for the Government's response to our report on The Hague programme, which shows a welcome measure of agreement between us. In commending our report to your Lordships, I hope that the Minister, when she winds up this debate, can give us the Government's view on the following additional points. First, how will the collapse of the constitutional treaty affect The Hague programme, which assumes ratification on the original timing? Secondly, how is the programme to be financed, given the very substantial increase of resources envisaged for the years between 2007 and 2013? Thirdly, what are the Government's priorities in this area for our presidency?

Finally, I turn to a point to which we have reverted in a number of Select Committee reports, even before my chairmanship of Sub-Committee F. Have the Government any intention of reviewing their facility to opt-out from immigration and asylum policy, as opposed to their opt-out on borders, which has led to some difficulties—for instance, our exclusion from the Border Management Agency that is now being set up in Warsaw?

I would now like to turn to the second report that I shall move today; namely, the EU's response to terrorism after Madrid. There were two main elements to our
 
20 Jun 2005 : Column 1435
 
inquiry; that is, data exchange and EU structures for responding to terrorism. On the second, we attach importance to the principle that member states bear, and continue to bear, primary responsibility for counter-terrorism activities. But, having looked at the proliferation of committees and groups at EU level that are concerned with counter-terrorism, we were clear that there is a need for rationalisation and that this should be the primary and urgent responsibility of the Counter-terrorism Co-ordinator. We also concluded that more co-operation was required with other international agencies, especially Interpol, whose headquarters in Lyon we had the opportunity to visit.

On data exchange—I should tell the House that we tried to reach a consensus on pronunciation, which I think that I have just broken, on whether it is "data", "dayter" or "darter"—we regard the more effective sharing of information between law enforcement agencies as crucial to the counter-terrorism effort. The objective that law enforcement authorities should have access to information in another member state, on the same basis as the member state's own law enforcement authorities, is acceptable in principle. But it is very important that its implementation should be subject to adequate safeguards.

We were concerned about some of the proposals that the Luxembourg presidency have subsequently put forward, which seem to have totally inadequate provision for data protection. We are particularly concerned about the proposal to repeal Article 39 of the Schengen Implementing Convention, which provides that the exchange of information must be subject to a condition of compatibility with the national law of the states concerned. We also strongly oppose the abolition of the restriction on the scope of the decision to offences punishable by at least 12 months' imprisonment, which appears to ignore the very title of the framework decision, which refers to "serious offences including terrorist acts". I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House how the Government propose to carry this forward in our presidency.

I regret that the Government's views on our report were received only on Thursday last week—one sitting day before this debate—even though our report was published on 23 March, nearly three months ago. But having had a brief opportunity to study the Government's response, I am glad to see that the Government also attach importance to better two-way co-operation between Interpol and Europol. I also welcome the hint that the Government might be open to the possibility of a data protection regime for the third pillar.

I have one personal comment on the reception which our reports have received, both in Brussels and from other capitals. Having now chaired Sub-Committee F through three inquiries, I have been heartened by the considerable respect which the work of the European Select Committee enjoys, both in the Commission and with other national parliaments. Given the persistent preoccupation with whether we are or are not at the heart of Europe, some of which will no doubt form part of
 
20 Jun 2005 : Column 1436
 
tomorrow's wider debate, I find it encouraging that our scrutiny work is widely regarded as second to none throughout the European Union.

I look forward to hearing the Government's views on both of these reports and on the other two reports that are to be moved today. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on The Hague Programme: a five year agenda for EU justice and home affairs (10th Report, Session 2004–05, HL Paper 84).—(Lord Wright of Richmond.)

3.20 pm

---