EU framework valuable tool for law enforcement measures

Speech by Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP delivered to The European Parliament on Wed 26th Oct 2005

Question by Sarah Ludford (H-0767/05)

Subject: The use of the Community framework for law enforcement purposes

Does the European Court of Justice judgment on the appropriateness of Community law for imposing criminal penalties (Case C‑176/03, 13 September 2005) encourage the Council in the direction of using the Community framework rather than the unsatisfactory intergovernmental one for law enforcement measures? Is the UK Presidency exploring positively the potential to use Article 42 TEU for this purpose? How will it guard against fora like G5 and G8 and new Schengen developments further prejudicing transparent, democratic and comprehensive EU-wide cooperation? Will it at least keep the European and national parliaments informed about the evolution of intergovernmental negotiations and future plans?

Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. - As repeatedly stated by the Court of Justice, the choice of legal basis for the adoption of legally binding instruments must rest on objective factors. The judgment of the Court of Justice confirmed that the Community legislator may take measures relating to the criminal law of the Member States when that is necessary for the achievement of the Community policy in question. The Court of Justice also reiterated that, as a general rule, criminal law matters did not fall within the scope of Community competence. It did not decide about the scope of application of Title 6 of the Treaty on European Union as such, nor did it limit the scope of application of Title 6 beyond the very specific issue on which the Court of Justice ruled.

Sarah Ludford (ALDE). - President-in-Office, thank you for your reply, but there is considerable concern about the proliferation of fora for addressing security and border control issues. A few months ago, the French Prime Minister, Mr de Villepin, talked about how Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy and France are moving forward in discussions on police cooperation, exchanges of intelligence, border controls, and internal security. Then we have the Prüm Convention among seven Member States, which seems to go back to the Trevi system of the 1970s. This is not only undemocratic and untransparent, but surely it also fails to provide the added value of really addressing terrorism and immigration challenges in common. Surely this is not in the interests of the European Union as a whole?

Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. - I am certainly aware of the informal meetings that the honourable Member describes. However, there is no more eloquent testimony to the approach that we have taken, whereby the whole of Europe is involved in these discussions, than the role that our Home Secretary, Mr Charles Clarke, has played both with this Parliament and, indeed, with other members of the relevant Council.

I also think - if you reflect upon the remarks made by our Prime Minister earlier today - it is clear that dealing with the issue of personal and physical security, not least in the light of the terrible incidents that took place in London on 7 July, remains one of the key priorities for our Presidency. Our ambition certainly includes taking forward that work as we anticipate the conclusion of our Presidency in the December European Council, which, of course, will involve all Member States.

Richard Corbett (PSE). - I welcome the Council's description of the effect of the judgment of the Court of Justice, which was accurate, but I ask that the press reaction to this judgment - not least in Mr Alexander's own Member State - be countered wherever possible.

The press has given the impression - and this has been amplified by Euro-sceptics - that the Commission will now be able to decide sentencing policy in different Member States by itself; that is to say, it would be able to determine the sentences for different crimes. That is far from being the case. Even in the Community framework, the Commission proposes, but the Council and Parliament dispose.

Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. - I am grateful to the honourable Member for reflecting on the importance of my answer. I hope that the accuracy of my answer will fulfil the purpose. The Presidency of the European Union is responsible for many things, such as seeking a way forward on future financing or trying to chart a course for a modern Europe in the age of globalisation.

Notwithstanding those very considerable challenges, I am glad that our responsibilities do not extend to the editorial policies of many of the newspapers in question. It is inherent in the nature of a union of democracies to have a free press and the best way to counter some of the misunderstandings and myths perpetuated about this particular issue and more generally is to ensure that the factual information I imparted today is spread outside this chamber and comes to be understood by the wider public.