Exchanges in European Parliament on oral questions put by Sarah Ludford regarding reform of EU decision-making on justice & home affairs

Speech delivered on Wed 5th Jul 2006

Exchanges in European Parliament on oral questions put by Sarah Ludford regarding reform of EU decision-making on justice & home affairs, July 2006

1. Question to the Commission

During their meeting in Vienna on 27-28 May, Foreign Ministers apparently failed to reach an agreement on a Commission proposal EU to use the bridging or 'Passerelle' clause of the Nice Treaty to move more competences in Justice and Home Affairs from the third to the first (Community) 'pillar'. What is the reaction of the Commission to this failure, and what other concrete proposals will it put forward to increase effectiveness, democracy and transparency in decision-making on JHA issues?

Commissioner Frattini:

The Commission is convinced that the moment has come to make full use of the possibilities offered by the current Treaties and particularly bridging clauses. That will set in place the conditions necessary for reaching our goals in the interim period before the entry into force of the Constitutional Treaty.

However, the Commission can confirm that it is on the whole ready to contribute to the debate on the use of the bridging clauses as shown by covering this matter in the political review of the Hague Programme presented on 28 June. Initial reactions from the vast majority of Member States have been very positive, and it came out from the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers of 27 and 28 May that most Member States endorse the Commission's approach as anticipated in the communication of 10 May on the future of Europe.

This determination to make progress was confirmed by the June 2006 European Council conclusions, which call upon the incoming Finnish Presidency to explore, in close cooperation with the Commission, the possibility of improving decision-making and action in the area of freedom, justice and security, on the basis of existing treaties.

However, this is clearly an issue that needs to be carefully prepared at the highest political level. The Commission welcomes the intention of the Finnish Presidency to have an in-depth debate as the logical next step.

The Commission is convinced that Parliament will help to stimulate this debate as usual in institutional matters. I know that President Borrell has recently again encouraged the Commission to take such a way forward. I am convinced that it is a matter of the utmost importance for the Parliament and a unique opportunity to bring freedom, security and justice matters closer to the citizens, thus increasing the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the legislative process.

You will probably know that just yesterday the Prime Minister of Finland confirmed, at our meeting in Helsinki, his full determination and the determination of the Finnish Presidency to hold further discussions, starting with the informal Council of Interior Ministers, which will take place in Tampere at the end of the September.

Sarah Ludford's supplementary question:

Thank you, Commissioner Frattini. In the six weeks since I tabled this question much has happened, especially the Frattini package of last week, if I can call it that. I sincerely congratulate you and the Commission on that excellent package of four bold and ambitious papers.

Have you considered how we might reach out to citizens with a communication strategy to make sure that they understand the situation - not the arcane details, but that they understand, for instance, that Member States have not implemented the anti-terrorism laws? Pressure needs to be put on their governments to translate the rhetoric into action, to achieve progress on fighting crime and terrorism and upholding human rights.

Commissioner Frattini's reply:

Yes, of course we are thinking about this communication strategy. In my own view, the best way to show the public how important it is to abolish powers of veto is to give them concrete examples. One such example is an initiative concerning a minimum standard with regard to procedural rights, where we are still in a stalemate after two years of discussion precisely because of the unanimity system. Again, for example, when we talk about cross-border police cooperation, we are still blocked after 18 months of very difficult discussions because of unanimity. These are concrete examples for the public. Does the public think it is useful to have procedural rights or police cooperation at European level? Then please help us.

2. Question to the Council

During their meeting in Vienna on 27-28 May, EU Foreign Ministers apparently failed to reach an agreement on a Commission proposal to use the bridging or 'passerelle' clause of the Nice Treaty to move more competences in Justice and Home Affairs from the third to the first (Community) 'pillar'. What plans does the Finnish Presidency nonetheless have to advance the search for more effective, democratic and transparent decision-making in this area?

Response from Finnish minister (translation not yet available)

Sarah Ludford's supplementary question- I thank the President-in-Office of the Council for that reply. In the six weeks since I tabled the question, things have moved on a lot. We had the whole package of proposals last week from the Commission. I am delighted that the Finnish Presidency is going to give them great emphasis, but will the Presidency give as much emphasis to the Commission proposal on evaluation and monitoring as to the one on transforming the ineffective and undemocratic decision-making? Will it impress on those Member States that have not implemented the framework decision on terrorism that it is scandalous that, five years after 11 September 2001, two years after 11 March 2004 and, on Friday, one year after 7 July 2005, some EU countries still have no provision in their laws to define and criminalise terrorist offences?

Supplementary response in Finnish (not yet available)