The Making of European Law

These links demonstrate the process that a legislative proposal goes through (under the ‘CoDecision Procedure’) on its way to becoming an EU Law. It is a current proposal – for a Directive.
 
Title: Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union

Legal Basis: TFUE/art 82 par 2, art 83 par 1 (All proposed legislation must show the legal authority in Primary Legislation for the proposed law) 

Explanatory Statement (which is from the European Parliament’s Report) 

The European Parliament has called on the Commission to propose new legislation on confiscation for a long time. By its own initiative report adopted in October 2011, the Parliament stressed in particular the need for rules on the effective use of extended and non- conviction based confiscation, rules allowing for the confiscation of assets transferred to third parties.  In addition, the Parliament encouraged the introduction of instruments in national legal systems which, under criminal, civil or fiscal law, as appropriate, mitigate the burden of proof concerning the origin of assets held by a person accused of an offence related to organised crime.
 
The proposal for a Directive on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union was adopted by the European Commission on 12 March 2012. This Directive lays down the minimum rules for Member States with respect to freezing and confiscation of criminal assets through direct confiscation, value confiscation, extended confiscation, non- conviction based confiscation and third party confiscation.   The Rapporteur generally supports the Commission proposal. The adoption of those minimum rules will harmonise the Member States’ freezing and confiscation regimes facilitating mutual trust and effective cross-border cooperation. It will also constitute a step towards strengthening the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders which is an important aspect of the fight against cross-border serious and organized crime in the EU.   With this report the Rapporteur intends to reinforce the provisions of non-conviction based confiscation and extended confiscation so as to make them more efficient in order to actually serve the purpose of preventing the use of proceeds of crime for committing future crimes or their reinvestment into licit activities.
   
Concerning the non-conviction based confiscation the Rapporteur notes that this system which was first used in the USA now appears to be more and more globally spread. Jurisdictions which have introduced non-conviction based confiscation legislation include: Italy, Ireland, United Kingdom, Albania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Australia, South Africa, the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Ontario. At European level the existent systems of non- conviction based confiscation have been debated both in front of national Courts as well as the European Court of Human Rights and were considered compatible with national constitutional requirements and those of the European Court, provided that they are adopted by a judicial authority, with full respect of the rights of the defence and of bona fide third parties, and that they can be challenged before a court. These basic safeguards have also been included in the present Directive.
   
The provisions on extended confiscation were strengthened so that they provide for a single minimum standard which does not fall below the threshold set by Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA. 

The Original Proposal http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0085:FIN:EN:PDF
p2-5  Context
p6  Consultations
p7-8  Impact assessment
p8-10  Legal Basis; Subsidiarity; Proportionality & Respect for Human Rights
p10-13  Commentary
p13-24  Text of Proposed Directive

The Decision making and consultation process (PreLex is a website which allows anyone to monitor the progress of all proposed legislation) http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosID=201408 

European Parliament Report – [From its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs] (sets out the proposed resolution for the Parliament to adopt – p5; and the amendments it proposes – with the original text next to it) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7- 2013-0178+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN

Washminster takes a "holiday"

Some holiday! -

I'm finishing off my Ph.D - the deadline looms
(& I have a pile of marking to do) -

so, Washminster will not be published until after 13th June.

The EU Council

The EU Council (which used to be referred to as the 'Council of Ministers') shares the legislative function [in most cases] with the European Parliament. It is made up of a minister from each country representing their state on the particular area that the Council is meeting about (so there are different formations).

The House of Commons Library has produced a paper on the workings, in practice, of the EU Council. Students of EU Law & citizens will find this an interesting insight into one of the key institutions.

The Paper can be accessed here. More information about the EU Council can be found on the Council's website.

Scrutiny Overrides

The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi): The Government work closely with the EU Committee in the House of Lords and the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons to avoid breaching the Scrutiny Reserve Resolutions. Ministers will continue to write to the Chairmen of the Scrutiny Committees to account for their actions when an override occurs.

Between July-December 2012 a total of 498 Explanatory Memorandums (EMs) were deposited for scrutiny, with only 29 overrides, a significant reduction on the 56 overrides between January-June 2012. Fast-moving Common Foreign and Security Policy sanctions and restrictive measures were the single largest category of override, accounting for 15 of the 29. In these instances it was important to agree proposals urgently so that measures could be implemented quickly and effectively. Regrettably, this meant that on these occasions, the Government agreed proposals before the committee had been able to clear the documents from scrutiny.

The figures requested are set out in the table below:

Department	(1). House of Lords override	(2). House of Commons override	(a). No. of overrides in both Houses	(b). Total no. of overrides
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills	1	5	0	6
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs	0	3	0	3
Foreign and Commonwealth Office	15	16	15	16
HM Treasury	3	3	3	3
Department for Work and Pensions	0	1	0	1
Totals	19	28	18	29

The Written Answer I gave to my noble friend on the 20 November 2012 (Official Report, col. WA350), recorded a total of 57 overrides, including one override attributed to HM Treasury incorrectly. This was in respect of European Union Document 10435/12 on the council regulation adjusting the correction coefficients applicable to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the EU. This figure was incorrectly included as an override. The total override figure for the last period reduces from 57 to 56. The figure for House of Commons overrides reduces from 50 to 49. All other information in my previous answer remains unaffected.

Lack of Engagement

Last week I attended the launch of the Hansard Society's annual Audit of Political Engagement. I've been attending these for many years. Sadly the reports show a trend in which fewer and fewer people say that they intend to vote. There's some really useful data and analysis. I thoroughly recommend the audit -

Further details - and a link to download the report - can be accessed here.

There was some encouraging news. 47% of people surveyed said that they wish that they had learned more about politics and how our democracy works. Of those

50% would have liked to have learned more about 'how government works'
45% ...about 'how laws are made and implemented'
34% ...about 'how Parliament works'
27% ...about 'how best to have my say about politics'.

There is a need!

Ilya Somin wrote - "Democracy demands an informed electorate. Voters who lack adequate knowledge about politics will find it difficult to control public policy. Inadequate voter knowledge prevents government from reflecting the will of the people in any meaningful way. Such ignorance also raises doubts about democracy as a means of serving the interests of a majority. Voters who lack sufficient knowledge may be manipulated by elites. They may also demand policies that contravene their own interests."

Democracy is never perfect - but as Churchill once said -  "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

(to give a fuller quote from his speech to the House of Commons on 11th November 1947) - "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters."

If our complex democracy - which now functions at many levels from the parish council to the European Parliament - is to operate properly, we need to ensure that every citizen has access to information about how our institutions work - and how they can have their interests catered for. If Parliament were to become a place where only those in the know; only those who can buy access - could participate - then we would be a much worse country.