David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will resume in public session. The next business is consideration of a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing certain acts in the field of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, and his officials to the meeting to assist the committee in its consideration of this matter. I invite the Minister of State to brief the committee on this motion, which if necessary will be followed by a question and answer session.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you very much, Chairman, for allowing me to address the committee. I am here on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. The motion comes under Article 29.4.7 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing certain acts in the field of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.

This is a relatively simple measure to repeal certain instruments from the Justice and Home Affairs legislative acquis. It may assist the committee in considering the motions if I start by setting out the background to the draft regulation before dealing with its contents. The committee will be aware that the Treaty of Lisbon collapsed the three pillar structure that existed previously. Police and criminal justice co-operation measures were the basis of a separate intergovernmental “third pillar” and decisions were taken by unanimity in the Council. Essentially, if one member state was unhappy with a particular proposal, it could veto it. Even where the proposal was agreed and it proceeded, the Commission could not infringe any member state for not implementing it correctly and the Court of Justice of the European Union had no power in this area unless a member state volunteered to be subject to the European Court of Justice.

The Lisbon treaty changed that, and policing and judicial co-operation were moved into normal treaty structures, which would include oversight by the Commission and by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Most decisions are now taken by the ordinary legislative procedure which is also called co-decision with the European Parliament. However, before the Commission could start infringement proceedings on pre-Lisbon measures, it was agreed to give member states a five-year transition period to transpose any remaining instruments. This period expired on 1December 2014.

Also, at the Lisbon negotiations, the United Kingdom uniquely negotiated an additional provision in Protocol 36 whereby, should it not wish to accept European Court of Justice and Commission jurisdiction in this area, it could opt out en masse from all pre-Lisbon police and criminal law co-operation measures at the end of the transition period. Protocol 36 also provided that the United Kingdom could apply to participate again in particular acts which had ceased to apply to it under this block opt out. In July 2013, the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, formally notified the European institutions that the United Kingdom would exercise its right to a block opt out on 1 December 2014.

In January 2014, the Hellenic Presidency established a working party to prepare for the changes that were due to take place on 1 December 2014. It was considered timely to examine the whole pre-Lisbon justice and home affairs acquis,to identify measures that are now obsolete or are no longer applicable and to remove such measures from the legislative base. Essentially, there was broad agreement that member states should not have to transpose instruments that would never be used, and that it was a good time to take stock of what actually constitutes the pre-Lisbon policing and judicial co-operation legislative base.

The working party has completed its work and the proposal before the committee today relates to the ten non-Schengen measures that are to be repealed at this time. Seven of the proposals have become obsolete after the entry into force of a later instrument. These are: a joint action of 1996 relating to a directory of counter-terrorism competences; a joint action of 1996 relating to the chemical profiling of drugs; a joint action of 1996 relating to a directory of competences on the fight against organised crime; a joint action of 1996 relating to combatting drug addiction and trafficking; a joint action of 1997 in relation to co-operation on law and order and security; a joint actionof 1997 in relation to co-operation between customs authorities; and a joint action of 1998 in relation to good practice in mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.

The situation is slightly different in the three remaining measures.

In relation to the Council Act of 1999 on the Europol staff regulations, this was included in the original proposal from the Commission. These regulations remain in force, for staff employed by Europol before the entry into force of the 2009 pre-Lisbon Europol decision. These contracts relate to no more than five people and it is understood they will very soon come to an end and these regulations will then become obsolete. A transitional provision has been included in Article 2 of this regulation to ensure continuity until the new Europol decision takes effect.

Then there are two more measures that did not appear in the original Commission proposal but have since been added by the Council.

The first of these is the 1998 Convention on Driving Disqualifications. Only seven member states had ratified it and it never entered into force.Ireland and the United Kingdom had made a declaration which allowed the Convention to apply between them before its entry into force for all member states. However, this arrangement ceased to apply on 1 December 2014 when the United Kingdom availed of its block opt-out. The Council has taken the view that as this instrument is no longer applicable between any of the member states, it has lost its relevance to the European Union acquisand therefore should be repealed. I understand that my colleague, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport is working on a new bilateral arrangement with the United Kingdom and he hopes to announce details shortly.

The second instrument added by the Council is the European evidence warrant. It has effectively been replaced by the European investigation order for 26 member states. The European evidence warrant could only be applied between Denmark and Ireland. Neither Denmark nor Ireland has objected to its repeal. Ireland has not yet decided if it will participate in the European investigation order. In the meantime, we will continue to use the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention of 2000 and its associated protocol.

As legislators, I am sure we can all agree that an up-to-date legislative base is highly desirable. It provides legal certainty and clarity for the citizens. This is essentially an exercise to “tidy up” or to “clean up” the acquis. I commend the motions to the committee and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no questions. I agree to the motion.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it correct to say the Minister of State is consigning the obsolete measures, which have been replaced by other measures, to the dustbin?

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It feeds into a broader long overdue ambition of the Commission to deal with over burdensome regulations, as part of the refit programme. This would be the Department of Justice and Equality, and the justice and home affairs element of it.