REVIEW OF THE HAGUE PROGRAMME
Letter from Joan Ryan MP, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State, Home Office to the Chairman
I am writing to provide an initial Government
view of the four recent Commission Communications that relate
to the review of the Hague Programme. More detailed Explanatory
Memoranda will follow within the usual timescale but I am conscious
that recess is almost upon us and wanted you to have an opportunity
to begin to consider the issues covered by the Communications
before the summer.
The four European Commission Communications
cover: the future direction of the Hague Programme, including
the option of using Article 42 TEU (the passerelle clause); reviewing
the implementation of the Hague Programme to date (the scorecard);
options for better evaluation of the impact of EU policies in
the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA); and a legislative
proposal based on Article 67(2) TEC adapting the remit of the
European Court of Justice in Title IV (immigration, asylum and
civil law matters).
Interested Departments have been consulted in
formulating the Government's initial view of these communications
and broadly welcome the package and its aim of assessing progress
made under the Hague Programme and providing options for future
evaluation of JHA policies. It will also be a useful tool for
supporting discussion over the remainder of this year about the
future direction of JHA priorities and whether the current institutional
and decision making arrangements in this area can be improved
upon.
As regards the Hague Programme, it is a matter
of record that this has already led to some useful measures, for
example on information exchange and an Action Plan to combat human
trafficking. However, a number of difficult projects aimed at
harmonising sensitive aspects of domestic criminal law have also
been brought forward under the Hague Programme, for example on
procedural safeguards for suspects, the presumption of innocence
and pre-trial custody/bail. As the Programme itself indicates,
assumptions were made about implementation of the Constitution
treaty and about agreement between the Member States regarding
binding legislation on criminal procedural law which have not
been borne out by events. We need to reflect upon these issues.
The Commission Communication on the way forward for the Hague
Programme is intended to review priorities and examine the need
for policies in JHA. The Government broadly welcomes the relatively
modest proposals for new policies, in particular the emphasis
on extending the external dimension of JHA and improving the exchange
of information including on criminal convictions. However, there
are other areas such as asylum, internal security and criminal
procedural law which the Government will want to look at very
carefully before endorsing the line the Commission appears to
be taking. Above all we want to ensure that what is done under
the Hague Programme delivers tangible benefits to citizens.
Also central to this Communication is the proposal
to use Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union to move police
and judicial co-operation from intergovernmental arrangements
in Title VI TEU, where unanimity and limited ECJ oversight apply,
to Community arrangements under Title IV TEC, where ECJ oversight
and Community rules apply. It could also mean that QMV and co-decision
with European Parliament (EP) would apply. These proposals represent
the Commission's response to the June 2006 European Council's
request for the incoming Presidency to explore means of improving
decision-making and action in the EU's JHA work, on the basis
of the current treaties. We are giving careful consideration to
the potential consequences of using Article 42 but the Government
is clear that the final position will reflect our national interests.
The Commission Communication on the implementation
of the Hague Programme in 2005 is a largely factual record of
JHA measures adopted and implemented last year. But the Communication
also raises concern at the level and quality of implementation
by Member States. The Government is committed to effective and
timely implementation of EU measures and will look closely at
the conclusions the Commission draws from its findings, in particular
the assertion that transposition of Title VI measures is particularly
deficient.
The third communication looks at how JHA measures
are assessed and implemented, including the variety of tools and
methods available to ensure that measures adopted work as intended
and have been implemented properly. The UK has long called for
proper evaluation of EU measures but we will want to ensure that
the best evaluation methods are applied to each type of measure
and that any extension of the role of the Commission is both necessary
and consistent with principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.
The fourth communication is on adapting the
Jurisdiction of the ECJ in relation to immigration, asylum, and
civil law measures (Title IV TEC) and seeks to align European
Court of Justice (ECJ) rules with those used for other Community
business. Currently, in the UK, a case may only be referred to
the ECJ for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords. The
Commission's proposal would allow preliminary references from
national courts at any level. The Government will be making a
full analysis of the implications of this proposal before deciding
whether and how far we can support it.
13 July 2006
| 
