Asked by: Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative - North East Somerset)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of whether Article 3 of Joint Action 98/700/JHA will put the UK's national systems on the relevant documents within the scope of EU law for the purposes of the human rights jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU, if the UK continues to be bound by that Joint Action from 1 December 2014.
Answered by James Brokenshire
A full impact assessment has been conducted on Joint Action 98/700/JHA. Details of this assessment can be found in Command Paper 8897
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf, published on 3 July 2014.
The Government has considered the potential impacts of ECJ jurisdiction very carefully. Article 72 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) makes clear that the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security is a responsibility for Member States. Article 276 of the TFEU states that the ECJ shall have no jurisdiction to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law
enforcement services of a Member State, or the exercise of responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
Given that context and the wording of Article 3 of Joint Action 98/700/JHA, the Government considers that any link between the UK’s national systems with EU law is likely to be sufficiently tenuous and indirect to mean that national systems will not be within the scope of EU law for the purposes of the human rights jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU.
The participation of the Associated States in FADO is based on their participation in the Schgenen acquis.
Asked by: Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative - North East Somerset)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, through what legal means Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have access to the False and Authentic Documents Online database established under Joint Action 98700/JHA.
Answered by James Brokenshire
A full impact assessment has been conducted on Joint Action 98/700/JHA. Details of this assessment can be found in Command Paper 8897
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf, published on 3 July 2014.
The Government has considered the potential impacts of ECJ jurisdiction very carefully. Article 72 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) makes clear that the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security is a responsibility for Member States. Article 276 of the TFEU states that the ECJ shall have no jurisdiction to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law
enforcement services of a Member State, or the exercise of responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
Given that context and the wording of Article 3 of Joint Action 98/700/JHA, the Government considers that any link between the UK’s national systems with EU law is likely to be sufficiently tenuous and indirect to mean that national systems will not be within the scope of EU law for the purposes of the human rights jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU.
The participation of the Associated States in FADO is based on their participation in the Schgenen acquis.
Asked by: Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative - North East Somerset)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the possibility of the UK concluding a bilateral treaty with the EU on extradition instead of remaining bound by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.
Answered by James Brokenshire
A full impact assessment has been conducted on Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. Details of this assessment can be found in Command Paper 8897
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf , published on 3 July 2014.
The Commission has been clear during negotiations that a bilateral treaty between the UK and the EU on any matters falling within the scope of the block opt-out is not feasible. Furthermore, on 16 January 2013, President Barroso responded to a European Parliamentary Question from Daniel Hannan MEP on this matter and stated that ‘the Commission sees no room for the conclusion of international agreements between the EU and the United Kingdom on such matters.
The Government has not undertaken an assessment of the number of extraditions of British nationals from the UK under the European arrest warrant that would not have proceeded had the proportionality test been in place at the relevant time. The proportionality bar is intended to ensure extradition is barred in the most minor cases, irrespective of the nationality of the person concerned.
Asked by: Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative - North East Somerset)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the number of extraditions of British nationals from the UK under the European Arrest Warrant that would not have proceeded had the proportionality test that has been introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 been in force at the relevant time.
Answered by James Brokenshire
A full impact assessment has been conducted on Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. Details of this assessment can be found in Command Paper 8897
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf , published on 3 July 2014.
The Commission has been clear during negotiations that a bilateral treaty between the UK and the EU on any matters falling within the scope of the block opt-out is not feasible. Furthermore, on 16 January 2013, President Barroso responded to a European Parliamentary Question from Daniel Hannan MEP on this matter and stated that ‘the Commission sees no room for the conclusion of international agreements between the EU and the United Kingdom on such matters.
The Government has not undertaken an assessment of the number of extraditions of British nationals from the UK under the European arrest warrant that would not have proceeded had the proportionality test been in place at the relevant time. The proportionality bar is intended to ensure extradition is barred in the most minor cases, irrespective of the nationality of the person concerned.
Asked by: Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative - North East Somerset)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the UK could continue to provide information to other EU member states currently provided under Council Decision 2002/348/JHA if the UK ceases to be bound by that decision on 1 December 2014.
Answered by Karen Bradley
A full impact assessment has been conducted on Council Decision 2003/348/JHA.
Details of this assessment can be found in Command Paper 8897 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf , published on 3 July 2014.
The UK could continue to provide information to other EU Member States if the UK did not rejoin this measure.
However, the non-systemised exchange of information risks Member States not having access to, or acting upon, relevant intelligence on UK football fans travelling to their country.
This risks the safety of UK fans travelling abroad for football matches through inappropriate policing based on outdated information.
The relevant authorities of other EU Member States could continue to provide information under Council Decision 2002/348/JHA if the UK did not rejoin the measure, but would not be using a formalised system of communication in order to do so. Information exchange between Member States independent of the structure and obligations of the measure risks making it more difficult to guarantee appropriate high quality information. The lack of structure and obligations would make it more difficult to identify the correct agency with which to deal and could lead to a reduction in the quality and quantity of information exchanged.
Asked by: Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative - North East Somerset)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the likelihood of the relevant authorities of other EU member states ceasing to provide information shared under Council Decision 2002/348/JHA if the UK ceases to be bound by that Decision on 1 December 2014.
Answered by Karen Bradley
A full impact assessment has been conducted on Council Decision 2003/348/JHA.
Details of this assessment can be found in Command Paper 8897 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf , published on 3 July 2014.
The UK could continue to provide information to other EU Member States if the UK did not rejoin this measure.
However, the non-systemised exchange of information risks Member States not having access to, or acting upon, relevant intelligence on UK football fans travelling to their country.
This risks the safety of UK fans travelling abroad for football matches through inappropriate policing based on outdated information.
The relevant authorities of other EU Member States could continue to provide information under Council Decision 2002/348/JHA if the UK did not rejoin the measure, but would not be using a formalised system of communication in order to do so. Information exchange between Member States independent of the structure and obligations of the measure risks making it more difficult to guarantee appropriate high quality information. The lack of structure and obligations would make it more difficult to identify the correct agency with which to deal and could lead to a reduction in the quality and quantity of information exchanged.
Asked by: Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative - North East Somerset)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many requests for information that were fulfilled by other EU member states were made by the UK's financial intelligence unit under (a) Council Decision 2000/642/JHA and (b) other means of co-operation in each of the last five years.
Answered by Karen Bradley
A full impact assessment has been conducted on Council Decision 2000/642/JHA. Details of this assessment can be found in Command Paper 8897
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf, published on 3 July 2014.
The alternative methods open to the UK to exchange information with other EU member states on relevant financial matters are not considered to be as effective as cooperation under the measure.
The UK is an active participant in the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) and shares information with other Egmont members. The UKFIU experience in sharing financial intelligence through Egmont is positive and is viewed as vital in the fight against money laundering, terrorism financing and
other predicate offences.
However, Council Decision 2000/642/JHA provides additional benefits that are not available to Egmont members. For example, if we ceased to be bound by the Framework Decision we might lose access to FIU.net, the IT network that facilitates information exchange between EU FIUs.
The number of requests made via Council decision 2000/642/JHA and by other means over the last five years is not available. However, the figures for the period 2011-2013 were as follows:
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | |
2000/642/JHA (Including FIU.Net) | 448 | 338 | 471 |
Other | 292 | 290 | 318 |
Total | 740 | 628 | 789 |
Asked by: Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative - North East Somerset)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the possibility of the UK connecting to the Schengen Information System II via a bilateral treaty with the EU instead of remaining bound by Decision 2007/533/JHA.
Answered by Karen Bradley
A full impact assessment has been conducted on Council Decision 2007/533/JHA. Details of this assessment can be found in Command Paper 8897.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf , published on 3 July 2014.
No viable alternative mechanisms for connecting to SIS II have been identified. The Commission has been clear during negotiations that a bilateral treaty between the UK and the EU on any matters falling within the scope of the block opt-out is not feasible. Furthermore, on 16 January 2013 President Barroso responded to a European Parliamentary Question from Daniel Hannan MEP on this matter and stated that ‘the Commission sees no room for the conclusion of international agreements between the EU and the United Kingdom on such matters.’
SISII will be integrated into existing UK law enforcement infrastructure to keep to a minimum any additional burden. In addition, the UK’s central office for managing SIS II requests (the SIRENE Bureau) has been established within the National Crime Agency (NCA) to act specifically as the UK's single point of contact for all exchanges of information relating to SISII alerts. On 21 July 2014, the Home Secretary commenced the proportionality provisions in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This includes a proportionality filter in relation to SISII Article 26 alerts (European Arrest Warrants). The filter will enable the weeding out of the most trivial European
arrest warrants, ensuring resources are dedicated to the most serious criminals and that the police are not overburdened with Article 26 alerts.In terms of other SISII alerts, they only require the UK to notify the issuing Member State that the individual has come to our attention. Therefore, there is expected to be a minimal impact on existing resources.
The UK has made no distinction between the definitions used in Article 36 (chapter VIII) as concerns discreet and specific checks. Any UK law enforcement check that matches a SISII Article 36 alert will be coordinated through the NCA’s SIRENE Bureau, and the issuing Member State will be notified in accordance with the SISII Council Decision. UK law enforcement agencies will use Article 34 alerts (chapter VII) for locating witnesses, persons summoned to appear in criminal proceedings and others. The accompanying information will include a combination of name, age, sex, colour and height of the individual. The information submitted in response to Article 34 alerts from other Member States will be in the form of supplementary information and in most cases this will just include the individual’s place of abode.
Asked by: Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative - North East Somerset)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the efficacy of information exchange with other EU member states on the relevant financial matters that would be likely to continue through other means should the UK cease to be bound by Council Decision 2000/642/JHA on 1 December 2014.
Answered by Karen Bradley
A full impact assessment has been conducted on Council Decision 2000/642/JHA. Details of this assessment can be found in Command Paper 8897
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf, published on 3 July 2014.
The alternative methods open to the UK to exchange information with other EU member states on relevant financial matters are not considered to be as effective as cooperation under the measure.
The UK is an active participant in the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) and shares information with other Egmont members. The UKFIU experience in sharing financial intelligence through Egmont is positive and is viewed as vital in the fight against money laundering, terrorism financing and
other predicate offences.
However, Council Decision 2000/642/JHA provides additional benefits that are not available to Egmont members. For example, if we ceased to be bound by the Framework Decision we might lose access to FIU.net, the IT network that facilitates information exchange between EU FIUs.
The number of requests made via Council decision 2000/642/JHA and by other means over the last five years is not available. However, the figures for the period 2011-2013 were as follows:
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | |
2000/642/JHA (Including FIU.Net) | 448 | 338 | 471 |
Other | 292 | 290 | 318 |
Total | 740 | 628 | 789 |
Asked by: Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative - North East Somerset)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the implications for the UK of possible future interpretations and applications of Article 4(3) of Council Decision 2000/642/JHA by the Court of Justice of the EU should the UK continue to be bound by that Decision after 1 December 2014.
Answered by Karen Bradley
A full impact assessment has been conducted on Council Decision 2000/642/JHA. Details of this assessment can be found in Command Paper 8897.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf , published on 3 July 2014.
The Government has considered the potential impacts of CJEU jurisdiction very carefully in deciding which pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures it was in the interests of the UK to rejoin.