Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 12 and 13 March in Brussels. My hon, Friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy (Lord Faulks QC) and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following items were discussed.

The interior session began with a discussion on the fight against terrorism where the presidency presented their discussion paper identifying key priorities for action in advance of the June European Council. These included: enhancing security at the Schengen external border; developing an EU internet referral capabilities unit at Europol; tackling illicit trafficking of firearms and stepping up information sharing.

The UK stressed the importance of supporting progress on establishing the Europol unit and numerous delegations intervened in full support. There was also full support for enhanced EU action to tackle illegal trafficking of firearms. The UK called for swift action in this area. The Commission indicated that it continues to assess all options, but deactivation standards have emerged as a clear priority.

The UK highlighted the need to ensure that where there is free movement of people, there is also free movement of criminal conviction data. Many Ministers called for agreement on a PNR directive before the end of the year, and the UK stressed that this must include the ability to exchange intra-EEA data. The presidency expressed their confidence that agreement with the European Parliament remained possible by the end of 2015. In the meantime they would continue informal dialogue to prepare the Council for Trilogue. The presidency concluded that Ministers supported the proposal to enhance checks at the Schengen external border based on common risk indicators. The indicators would be provided by the Commission by the end of April and subsequently be updated by Europol. Ministers would also ensure access to relevant information systems at all Schengen external border crossings, though this will not apply to the UK as we do not participate in the border and immigration aspects of Schengen. Connectivity to SIS II and the Interpol Lost and Stolen Travel Document (SLTD) database would be the priority in the first instance. Work would also continue at pace in order to establish an internet referrals unit at Europol. Finally, the Standing Committee on Internal Security (COSI) would progress work on the firearms and information sharing points and report back to the June JHA Council.

The Greek road map on asylum for 2015 was presented and an overview of the new Government’s migration policy was provided to the Council. Greece highlighted that immigration detention would only be used as a last resort, and that their priority would be to meet their obligations under EU law and improve conditions to host illegal migrants. The road map also set out a strategy for clearance of the asylum backlog and a fast track process. Greece confirmed they would not withdraw from Schengen or Dublin obligations, however, they continued to call for the use of ‘burden sharing’ between member states. The UK noted the important strategic position of Greece at the external border and the advances it had made, but stressed that much still needed to be done. Greece should continue to build on work with European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the UK remained committed to providing support, both via EASO and bilaterally.

The lunchtime discussion on migratory pressures focused on discussion of the Commission’s forthcoming new European agenda on migration, as well the recent flows to the EU from Kosovo. Member states raised a series of current concerns and potential EU responses under the new agenda, with strong support for enhanced and coherent action in countries of origin and transit including efforts to tackle people smugglers and traffickers, and for the enhancement of Frontex. The UK supported these proposals. The UK also pressed for all member states to meet their responsibilities regarding the processing of illegal migrants arriving on their territory, a call supported by other Ministers. Several member states called for enhanced resettlement from third countries to the EU, but the Commission suggested there was insufficient support from member states to implement this. There was only limited support for calls for greater solidarity and burden sharing. The UK expressed scepticism regarding proposals for the “upstream processing” of asylum seekers outside the EU and the consensus was that such proposals could only be developed if we were clear they would not represent a ‘pull factor’.

Under AOB PNR with Mexico and Argentina was discussed at Spain’s request. Spain noted that a number of third countries, including Mexico and Argentina, were demanding PNR data from EU airlines, and urged the Commission to bring forward a negotiating mandate to open discussions on such agreements, or risk a race against time to avoid carriers being caught between a conflict of laws. The UK agreed, noting also that this reinforced the need to agree an EU PNR Directive which included intra EEA flights, or find ourselves in the bizarre situation of being required to share data with a growing number of third countries, without the capability to share between member states.

Justice day began with the presidency seeking a partial general approach on Chapters II (general principles), VI and VII (“one-stop-shop”) of the Data Protection Regulation. The UK with other member states raised a number of concerns about the regulatory one-stop-shop mechanism in the regulation, in particular that it was too complex, bureaucratic and did not maximise benefits for either businesses or individuals. One member state raised the need for a specific review of the one-stop-shop to be included in the text, on which the UK and others agreed. Others recognised the presidency’s attempt to find agreement and thought the text represented a good compromise. The majority of member states agreed to the partial general approach, though the UK abstained. There was a collective view that significant further work is needed on the text in the coming months if there is going to be a general approach on the whole regulation in June, as the Latvian presidency intends.

The Council then adopted a general approach on the Legal Aid directive. Some member states expressed disappointment at the reduction in the scope of the proposal and lowering of the level of protection it offers, although others supported the balance struck between the different legal systems. The UK has not opted into the directive.

The Council reached a general approach on the Eurojust regulation, with the provisions setting out the relationship between Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office removed. The UK did not opt-in to the Eurojust proposal, and as such did not vote on the general approach text which will form the basis for discussion with the European Parliament.

The Council discussed certain aspects of the proposal to establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office, in which the UK will not participate. The Council considered whether the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should have the power to dismiss a case through ‘transaction’ (in summary, this refers to the payment of compensation for damage, and a lump sum fine, by a suspected person as an alternative to prosecution). The presidency concluded that while most member states could support the idea, further technical work is needed.

The discussion over lunch was on the judicial dimension of de-radicalising foreign fighters. There was an initial exchange between member states on the work they do to combat radicalisation in prisons. The European Commission noted that it is keen to facilitate exchange of best practice between member states and referred to the UK’s expertise in this area. The UK confirmed that it was willing to share experience, while respecting the limits of EU competence in this area.

The presidency then presented a partial general approach on the simplification of public documents regulation, which was supported by the UK and all other member states bar one. A number of member states, including the UK, made interventions to be clear that the EU does not enjoy exclusive external competence in this field of policy. Some member states wanted to consider the possibility of a joint political declaration on external competence in June, while others were of the view that there was no need for the political declaration.

The Commission noted its willingness to work with member states on the issue of external competence language in the text of the regulation, but needed some changes compared to the current text. The presidency concluded that the Council agreed a partial general approach and that technical work to conclude the general approach would be carried out swiftly including finalising the text on the external competence, the recital and the multilingual forms. The Council would evaluate in June whether or not a joint political declaration is required on external competence.

Under AOB, the presidency signalled its intention to resume official-level work on the data protective directive, covering the processing of personal data in criminal investigations and prosecutions, in April as part of a package with the regulation.

[HCWS425]

Child Sexual Abuse (Statutory Inquiry)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

On 4 February 2015 I made a statement to the House announcing my intention to appoint Justice Lowell Goddard to head the independent child sexual abuse inquiry, and that I would be disbanding the former inquiry and would be setting up a new statutory inquiry under the 2005 Inquiries Act. I am pleased to be able to confirm today the setting up of the statutory independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, Justice Goddard’s appointment as chairman and the appointment of the panel to the inquiry.

Justice Goddard appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee in a pre-appointment hearing on 11 February. The committee subsequently published a report unanimously endorsing her appointment and making a number of recommendations. I will be writing to the committee today with the Government response to that report.

From today, the inquiry will be set up with statutory powers to compel witnesses to determine whether state and non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse within England and Wales.

Having heard the concerns of survivors that the appointment of the former panel was not transparent, we published the criteria for appointing the panel online. This can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-abuse-criteria-for-panel. A copy was also placed in the Library of the House. The criteria were based on skills, expertise and due diligence and included the need for objectivity and professionalism. We were also explicit that panel members should have no direct links to key institutions or individuals reasonably likely to be covered by the inquiry.

We considered all nominations for membership of the panel, those who expressed interest in being on the panel and those who were nominated as part of the process to appoint a chairman. In consultation with Justice Goddard, I have decided to appoint four panel members, who have the range of skills and expertise required to take forward and lead the important work of the panel in supporting the chairman. The panel members chosen are those who were assessed as most strongly matching these criteria. A statement of assessment against the criteria for each panel member will be published, along with their conflict of interest declaration, on the inquiry website in due course.

I have consulted Justice Goddard and I am pleased to be able to confirm today, that the panel will consist of Drusilla Sharpling, Professor Alexis Jay, Ivor Frank and Malcolm Evans. Together, these individuals will represent a wide range of experience and expertise. Drusilla Sharpling is a qualified barrister with expertise in both policing and the Crown Prosecution Service; Professor Alexis Jay has expertise in social work and led the important work on the independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham; Ivor Frank has extensive experience in family and human rights law, and expertise in child protection matters; Malcolm Evans is Chairman of the United Nations Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture and professor of public international law at the University of Bristol. Malcolm also brings with him a Welsh perspective, which survivors have called for. In addition, the panel will be informed by a number of expert advisers in the fields of health, education, and a psychologist with expertise in this sensitive area. All panel members will be formally appointed subject to their conflict of interest declarations and the appropriate security checks.

I also said I would review the terms of reference for the inquiry in light of feedback from survivors. I have consulted with Justice Goddard and have agreed with her the final terms of reference which will also be placed in the House Library today and published on the inquiry website. The two most important changes are the removal of any cut-off date for the work of the inquiry and, reflecting the importance of survivors to the inquiry, the explicit statement that survivors will be able to bear witness to the inquiry and that support will be made available.

Survivors have been instrumental in the setting up of this statutory inquiry. Both Justice Goddard and I are clear that they must also have a strong voice in the work of the inquiry as it now moves forward. Justice Goddard will be writing to survivors and their representatives shortly to set out her intention to create a survivors and victims’ consultative panel and to seek their views on how this will work and who should be on it. This panel will have a specific role and function within the inquiry.

I know that survivors were also keen that the inquiry extended beyond England and Wales. However, as child protection is a devolved matter, it is right that other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom look at the issues within their own geographical remit so that they can take the action which is right to address the specific issues uncovered. I have said before, I am clear that no institution or individual should be able to fall through the gaps because of geographical boundaries.

The terms of reference make clear that the inquiry will liaise with its counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom. To that end my officials have had initial discussions with the Scottish Government, who are in the process of setting up their own inquiry, the Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland and the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry and have agreed with them and with the child sexual abuse inquiry that joint protocols will be set up with each inquiry to ensure that information can be shared and lines of investigation can be followed across geographical boundaries.

The protocols will be published by the child sexual abuse inquiry in due course. Additionally, as I made clear when I addressed the House on the 4 February, the inquiry will have the full co-operation of Government and access to all relevant information.

I am confident that the new statutory inquiry, under the chairmanship of Justice Goddard, will challenge individuals and institutions without fear or favour and get to the truth. This will not be an easy task but I believe the inquiry now has the right leadership, individuals and powers to make this happen.

I wish Justice Goddard and the panel every success as they now move forward with this important work.

The inquiry’s website can be found at: https:// childsexualabuseinquiry.independent.gov.uk

[HCWS371]

National Crime Agency (Inspection)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The National Crime Agency was established to lead the fight to cut serious and organised crime, and to focus on the relentless disruption of serious and organised criminals. It has the power to task other law enforcement and a capability that reaches from local to international serious and organised crime impacting on the UK.

Last year, HMIC carried out a review into the efficiency and effectiveness of the NCA. This is the first such inspection of the NCA since its creation. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House. I have asked HMIC to publish this report on my behalf and it is available online at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk

The inspection took place in summer 2014 and it provides a valuable snapshot of the NCA’s development as an organisation. HMIC finds that the NCA is discharging its statutory functions, and that work is under way to further strengthen its capabilities. HMIC found that the NCA inherited weaknesses in its information technology, analytical capability and relationships with police from its precursor agencies. But HMIC is satisfied that, at the time of the inspection, significant work was already under way to improve this position and that considerable improvement has already been made to key partner relationships including those with police forces. Seen against this background, the report concludes that the NCA has made a strong start since its establishment in 2013 and that its leadership understands the capabilities the NCA needs to develop, has good plans in place to develop them and is on a trajectory to achieve its aims.

HMIC identifies that the successful delivery of Novo—the NCA’s ambitious transformation programme—will be key in ensuring the NCA continues to develop into an agency fit to tackle the evolving and future threat from serious and organised crime. Over the next three years this programme will give the agency the shape, culture, operating model and approach to further improve its ability to tackle serious and organised crime.

The report notes a number of areas for improvement —where the NCA already has action under way to improve its capabilities and effectiveness—and makes five recommendations. It is for the Director General to respond to these recommendations, in line with the requirements of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

[HCWS390]

Police Integrity

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

On 22 July, Official Report, column 1265, I gave a statement to the House on this Government’s ongoing work to ensure the highest standards of integrity in the police.

This Government have carried out a radical programme of police reform. We have given the police greater operational independence, by scrapping national targets, while at the same time strengthening local accountability to the public through the creation of directly elected police and crime commissioners. We have reformed police pay and conditions, established the College of Policing to improve police standards and beefed up the Independent Police Complaints Commission to take on all serious and sensitive cases. Crime has fallen by more than a fifth under this Government, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales. The reforms I am announcing today build on this programme of work.

I have always been clear that I believe the vast majority of police officers in this country do their job honestly and with integrity. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public. They have cut crime by a fifth even as spending has fallen. And the vast majority of officers do their work with a strong sense of fairness and duty. But as I have said before, the good work of the majority threatens to be damaged by a continuing series of events and revelations relating to police conduct.

That is why today, following the responses to the consultation “Improving Police Integrity”, regulations have been laid in the House to make a series of changes to the police disciplinary system.

Police disciplinary hearings will be held in public to ensure that the robust response the police take to misconduct is visible and open. Hearings will be led by legally qualified chairs.

The legislation will create a new power for police disciplinary hearing panels to remove or adjust the compensation payments due to chief officers on termination of their appointment where a disciplinary finding is made against them. Also, police whistleblowers will have protection from disciplinary action for taking the necessary steps to report a concern.

In addition to these regulatory changes, I am today publishing the Government responses to two further public consultations, following the end-to-end review of the police complaints system and independent review of the police disciplinary system, led by Major General (Retd) Chip Chapman, that I announced in the House in July.

Following the conclusions of those reviews, I launched two public consultations on reforms to improve the police complaints and disciplinary systems, proposals to strengthen protections for police whistleblowers, an extension to the remit of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, and changes to the role, powers and governance of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The reforms the Government set out will, once set out in legislation, substantially improve the handling of police complaints and police disciplinary systems in England and Wales. They will enable Police and Crime Commissioners to take on a greater role in the police complaints system, allowing them to decide how complaints should be handled in a way that makes sense for their local electorates. The changes will give Police and Crime Commissioners the power to take on responsibility for how complaints appropriate for local resolution are dealt with, as well as requiring them to take on responsibility for appeals against the outcome of complaints—appeals that are currently considered by chief constables. Alongside these changes, I will also expand the remit of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to enable it to continue to inspect the efficiency and effectiveness of the way police complaints are dealt with regardless of who carries out that work.

Alongside these structural changes, I propose a system of super-complaints for policing to allow bodies outside the police, such as charities and advocacy organisations, to raise complaints on behalf of members of the public who may otherwise be reluctant to come forward, as well as to raises issues and patterns of aspects of policing that may be harming the interests of the public.

The proposals include radical reform of the police disciplinary system, following the recommendations made by Major General (Retd) Chip Chapman in his review of the police disciplinary system.

New protections for police whistleblowers will be introduced, including strengthening the independent routes for whistleblowers to raise their concerns to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and allowing it to conduct investigations in a way that protects the identity of a whistleblower.

The reforms also introduce new powers for the Independent Police Complaints Commission, strengthening its role as an independent oversight body and building on the Government’s commitment to transfer resources to enable the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate all serious and sensitive cases.

Alongside the responses to the consultations, I am also publishing the outcomes of the triennial review of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The review makes a series of recommendations about improving the governance, efficiency and performance of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I have asked the Independent Police Complaints Commission to present further proposals regarding structural reform by the end of June.

Many of the changes the Government intend to make will require primary legislation, which the Government will introduce at the earliest available opportunity.

I am grateful to all those who responded to both consultations. Copies of the Government’s response to the consultation “Changes to the Police Disciplinary System” and the triennial review of the Independent Police Complaints Commission will be placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the Government’s response to the consultation “Improving Police Integrity (Cm 9031)” will be placed in the Vote Office.

[HCWS406]

Police Reform

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

When I became Home Secretary in 2010 I initiated a programme of radical police reform to improve accountability, increase efficiency and continue to cut crime.

We have given chief constables greater independence from Whitehall by scrapping national targets, while at the same time making the police more accountable to the communities they serve through directly elected police and crime commissioners.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has been made independent of the Government and of the police so it can act directly in the public interest. The Independent Police Complaints Commission is now strengthened to take on all serious and sensitive cases.

We have reformed pay and conditions, opened up the senior ranks of the police through direct entry and established the College of Policing to improve standards and professionalism. The National Crime Agency is operating with the powers and mandate it needs to tackle serious and organised crime.

The further reforms I am announcing today build on this programme of work.

I have brought forward changes to improve the transparency and accountability of the Police Federation, as I set out to the Police Federation conference last year, and published a draft clause to make it subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I have launched a statutory inquiry into undercover policing to get to the bottom of past injustice and ensure we learn the lessons for the future.

Lastly, the Government have today published their response to two integrity consultations, setting out a package of measures to overhaul the police complaints and disciplinary systems to increase public confidence in their ability to hold the police to account and promote the highest standards of integrity among police officers.

These reforms have been made during a time in which crime is down by more than a fifth according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales. I commend the reforms under this Government to the House.

[HCWS410]

Report by Independent Reviewer of Terrorism

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

In accordance with section 36(5) of the Terrorism Act 2006, David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, prepared a report on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which I laid before the House on 22 July 2014.

I am grateful to David Anderson for his considered report and have carefully considered the detailed observations and the recommendations made. I am today laying before the House the Government’s response to his report. I wanted to wait for the provisions in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 to receive Royal Assent before responding formally, given that the Act gives effect to a number of David Anderson’s recommendations.

Copies of the Government response (Cm 9032) will be available in the Vote Office and it will also be published online at: https://www.gov.uk

[HCWS407]

Undercover Policing

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

When I made my statement to the House on 6 March 2014, Official Report, column 1061, announcing the findings of the Stephen Lawrence independent review by Mark Ellison QC, I announced that there would be a judge-led statutory inquiry into undercover policing and the operation of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). I said that before an inquiry could be set up, it would need to wait for the conclusion of any criminal investigations into SDS officers and the conclusion of Mark Ellison’s further review into potential miscarriages of justice involving undercover police officers.

It has become apparent during the course of both the criminal investigations and Mr Ellison’s review that these are significantly larger pieces of work than were envisaged previously. Therefore, in light of the public interest in having a statutory inquiry start as soon as possible, I have decided to establish the inquiry while ensuring that the progress of existing work is not affected. The inquiry will be chaired by Lord Justice Pitchford, a highly experienced criminal judge of the Court of Appeal, and will be established under the Inquiries Act 2005.

My officials will consult Lord Justice Pitchford and interested parties to the inquiry over the coming months on setting the terms of reference, with a view to a further statement as soon as possible after Parliament resumes. The role of the inquiry will be to consider the deployment of police officers as covert human intelligence sources by the SDS, the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and by other police forces in England and Wales. The inquiry will review practices in the use of undercover policing, establishing justice for the families and victims and making recommendations for future operations and police practice.

Mr Ellison will be providing his report to my right hon. friend the Attorney-General at the end of March and will be published as soon as possible thereafter. The criminal investigations into SDS officers are ongoing. In addition, Stephen Taylor has submitted his review into the Home Office’s knowledge of the SDS to the Home Office permanent secretary and a copy has been made available today on gov.uk and placed in the Library of the House.

[HCWS381]

Police Federation Reform

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Police Federation commissioned Sir David Normington to lead an independent review of its own operation and structures, which published its report early in 2014. The report raised significant concerns about the functioning and culture of the Police Federation and made 36 specific recommendations for change.

The Police Federation has committed to implement those recommendations in full and has made steady progress. The Police Federation has adopted a revised core purpose, which reflects the need to act in the public interest, and is now operating under a reformed structure of an interim national board and interim national council, in line with the Normington recommendations. I have continued to take stock of progress in this reform programme in my regular discussions with the Police Federation national leadership.

1 am laying regulations today to implement the further changes I announced at the Police Federation’s annual conference in May last year. These changes will mean that, with effect from 2 April, new officers will need actively to choose to join the Police Federation and choose whether they wish to pay subscription fees. Membership will no longer be automatic and the Police Federation will need to demonstrate its integrity and value in representing its members. Further, the existing rules around transparency and powers to call in the accounts for any money held by the Police Federation will be strengthened, ensuring it is fully accountable for use of its members’ funds.

Following consultation with the Police Federation, additional changes are being made at their request. These changes will allow the Police Federation to pay for the salaries of members elected to the joint central committee from the Police Federation’s funds, rather than police forces continuing to pay for officers who are not available to them. The changes will also mean that the Police Federation branches are required to pay a proportion of their subscription fees directly to the national Police Federation joint fund, and also any excess at the end of each year. This will ensure greater transparency and oversight of their finances.

Last year I also set out my intention to bring forward proposals to extend the Freedom of Information Act to cover the Police Federation. This would require a change in primary legislation. In the absence of a suitable opportunity in this Parliament, I am today publishing a draft clause that demonstrates how that change could be made in legislation, with the intention this would be fulfilled in the next Parliament. I will place a copy of the draft in the Library of the House.

[HCWS387]

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

Justice and Home Affairs: Pre-Council Statement

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council will be held on 12 and 13 March in Brussels. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy (Lord Faulks QC) and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.

The Interior session on 12 March will begin in mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen States). The Council will discuss migration in the context of ongoing migratory pressures on member states and further deaths in the Mediterranean following the recent unseasonal increase in sea crossings. This discussion will also anticipate the Commission’s forthcoming proposals on a new ‘European Agenda on Migration’. The Government have offered their broad support for the Commission’s intention to pursue a more coherent and co-ordinated approach to work with key countries of origin and transit, and to better linking action ‘upstream’ to migration and asylum policies within the EU. Any new agenda should maintain the approach set out in the October JHA Council’s conclusions on migratory pressures, including maintaining the EU’s focus on work upstream and ensuring that all member states meet their responsibilities regarding migration, asylum and border management.

The presidency has tabled an item on Bulgarian and Romanian accession to Schengen, at the request of Romania and Bulgaria, who are seeking to finalise their accession to the borders aspects of the Schengen acquis—which does not affect the UK—and then lower border controls with their EU neighbours. However, accession remains blocked by a number of the member states concerned. The presidency may well withdraw it from the agenda (as they did in October and December). As this currently concerns only borders elements of Schengen, the UK does not have a vote.

Greece has asked for the Greek action plan on asylum and migration to be placed on the agenda. The UK has worked closely with Greece over the last five years, both bilaterally and through the EU European Asylum Support Office, to help build its asylum and border security capacity to make it harder for illegal immigrants to enter the EU; and ensure that if they do get into Greece, a viable asylum system exists so they are more likely to remain there than move on. Much progress has been made but momentum needs to be maintained, both to ensure that Greece continues building an effective asylum and border control system, and that ultimately Dublin returns may resume to that country.

During the main Interior meeting the Council will discuss counter terrorism where the presidency intends to agree a “road map” for the implementation of measures agreed at January’s informal JHA Council in Riga and at the recent European Council. The EU Counter Terrorism Co-ordinator, Gilles de Kerchove, is pressing for this to focus on the possible amendment to the Schengen borders code (to allow routine checks on EEA nationals entering the Schengen area), firearms and internet referrals. The UK will push again for progress on intra-EEA PNR and press for more effective information exchange, in order to counter the opportunities that free movement within the EU provides to terrorists.

Justice day will begin with the Latvian presidency seeking a partial general approach on chapters II, VI and VII of the proposed data protection regulation. Chapter II deals with the key principles underpinning the instrument, including the conditions for using consent as a legal basis for data processing. Chapters VI and VII provide for the so-called “One-Stop-Shop” which seeks to provide a streamlined regulatory framework where business and citizens only have to deal with one data protection authority with the greater legal certainty that provides. The presidency’s overarching ambition remains to secure a general approach at the June Justice and Home Affairs Council on this file. The Government remain committed to seeing a proportionate regulation which balances the rights of individuals and the legitimate needs of private and public sector organisations to process personal data.

There will be a discussion on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) proposal. We expect debate to centre on structural and related internal issues. While the UK plays an active role in the negotiations in order to shape and protect our position as a non-participating member state, we do not anticipate a need to intervene on these internal matters.

The presidency will present a general approach in relation to the directive on Legal Aid. This proposal aims to establish common rules to ensure that any persons suspected or accused of a crime, whose liberty is being deprived at the early stage of proceedings, have immediate access to legal aid. During negotiations, the Council has considered questions around the scope of the directive. The UK has not opted in to this proposal though it monitors negotiations.

The presidency will present a general approach in relation to the Commission’s proposal to reform Eurojust, covering the whole text of the proposal with all references to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) removed. Given that Eurojust’s relationship with the EPPO is not covered in the revised text, it is impossible to take a definitive view on items such as governance arrangements. However, the presidency’s general approach text is broadly positive from a UK perspective. One of our key concerns was to ensure that member states are not obliged to give additional powers to their National members. It should also be noted that, even if a general approach is agreed (as per the presidency’s plan), there is no guarantee that the European Parliament will be in a position to start trilogue negotiations immediately given it has been slower than the Council in dealing with the file.

The presidency will then seek a partial general approach on the proposed regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU. This will cover the chapters which deal with the abolition of apostilles, use of the internal market information (IMI) online system and rationalisation of certified copies, translations and administrative co-operation between member states through an online system. It will exclude the chapter and articles on multilingual forms. A political declaration to guard against the EU being given exclusive external competence on areas covered by this regulation is also expected to be presented at the meeting.

Over lunch, the presidency proposes a discussion on tackling radicalisation in prisons, an area where the UK can offer to share best practice to other member states.

[HCWS351]