European Agenda on Security

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I will briefly outline the procedure. First, a member of the European Scrutiny Committee may make a five-minute statement about the decision of that Committee to refer the document for debate. The Minister will then make a statement of no more than 10 minutes. Questions to the Minister will follow. The total time for that statement and the subsequent questions and answers is up to an hour. Once questions have ended, the Minister moves the motion on the Order Paper and debate takes place upon that motion. We must conclude our proceedings by 5 o’clock. Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement?

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your wise guidance, Mr Turner.

The Commission published its communication, “The European Agenda on Security”, in May 2015. It sets out a shared agenda for the period 2015 to 2020, to support member states in fulfilling their

“front line responsibility for security,”

with a focus on organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime. The proposed agenda is intended to replace the EU’s first internal security strategy, which expired at the end of 2014. Although they broadly welcomed the communication, the Government made it clear that the renewed EU internal security strategy would be owned and implemented by the Council and based on a number of key strategic aims set out in conclusions agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in December 2014 and June 2015.

The European Scrutiny Committee considered the Commission communication last July at its first meeting of the new Parliament and recommended that it should be debated before the Commission brought forward further measures to implement its European agenda on security. Despite that clear request for a timely debate, it has taken the Government nine months to schedule one. During the intervening period, there have been two devastating terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, which have resulted in the loss of 160 lives. At the same time, conflict and crisis in the EU’s neighbourhood have generated unprecedented migratory flows to the EU and undermined confidence in the security of the EU’s external borders. A number of member states have responded by reintroducing temporary internal border controls. How member states and EU institutions and agencies work together to manage security at their external borders, respond humanely to the refugee crisis and tackle the terrorist threat is the most important challenge facing the EU today.

How have the EU and member states responded to those threats to internal security and stability? Since July, the Council and European Parliament have concluded negotiations on a directive on passenger name record data and a new Europol regulation, a counter-terrorism centre has been established within Europol and new data protection rules have been agreed. The UK is participating in a revamped Schengen information system and has also decided to re-join the so-called Prüm measures, which provide for the exchange of DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration data to combat terrorism and other serious cross-border crimes. In addition, the Commission has put forward proposals to strengthen existing EU terrorism laws, tighten the rules on civilian firearms and expand the European criminal records system.

In short, much useful work has been done at European level and by Ministers, and it is important that we recognise and applaud the good work that has been done by both the British Government and our European partners. However, at a time of heightened terrorist alerts in many member states, does the Minister agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that the renewed EU internal security strategy merits the exposure and scrutiny of a debate? If he does, what justification can there be for the nine-month delay in scheduling such a debate?

I reiterate the request made by the European Scrutiny Committee last July for an explanation of the key differences between the renewed EU internal security strategy agreed by the Council last June and the Commission communication. The Commission’s communication identifies greater

“transparency, accountability and democratic control”

as a key principle underpinning “The European Agenda on Security”. The conclusions agreed by the Council last June make no reference to the role of national parliaments. What assurance can the Minister give us that Council ownership of the renewed EU internal security strategy will promote transparency and openness? What are the Government doing to promote greater transparency, accountability and democratic control by this Parliament of EU internal security policies and laws, including through the timely scheduling of debates? Finally, will the Government tell us what progress has been made since last June to implement the renewed EU internal security strategy, what role is being played by the Standing Committee on Operational Co-operation on Internal Security—the so-called COSI committee—on which senior member state officials sit, and how our national Parliament is being informed of that committee’s work, as required by the EU treaties?