1
Evidence Session No. 5 Heard in Public Questions 51 - 61
Members present
Baroness Corston (Chairman)
Lord Blair of Broughton
Lord Boswell of Aynho
Lord Dykes
Viscount Eccles
Baroness Eccles of Moulton
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
Baroness O’Loan
Lord Rowlands
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Home Secretary, Emma Gibbons, Deputy Director of the International Directorate, Home Office, and Sunil Teeluck, Legal Adviser, Home Office.
Q51 The Chairman: Good afternoon. This is the final evidence session in the Committee’s inquiry into the ramifications of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the EPPO proposal for non-participating member states, which of course includes the United Kingdom.
We are very pleased to welcome today the Home Secretary, who has always been very generous with her time with this Committee. The session is open to the public. A webcast of the session goes out live as an audio transmission and is subsequently accessible via the parliamentary website. As the Home Secretary is well aware, but I will say for the benefit of others, a verbatim transcript is taken and put on to the parliamentary website. The copy is sent to witnesses to check for accuracy. Any clarification or amplification that seems appropriate can be sent to us as supplementary written evidence. I think it is right to say, Home Secretary, that you do not need any introduction, but perhaps your colleague witnesses would like to introduce themselves.
Emma Gibbons: Hello, I am Emma Gibbons. I am deputy director in the international directorate responsible for European matters.
Sunil Teeluck: Hello. I am Sunil Teeluck. I am the legal adviser on the EPPO for the Home Office.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Home Secretary, you will know that there are at the moment two proposals for how the EPPO should work: the one proposed by the Commission and a model, described as a collegiate model, the details of which are not particularly clear, proposed by the Greek presidency. Do the Government have a preference between those two models?
Mrs Theresa May: Thank you, Chairman. No, they do not, in the sense that the Government’s position is clear: we do not believe that we should be part of the EPPO, so while we are assisting and participating in discussions about this we are very clear that we do not think the UK should be part of it. As you rightly say, a number of member states were less comfortable with the model proposed by the Commission and came forward with their own approach, the collegiate approach. It is very difficult to comment on this at the moment, because it is going through negotiation. It is not entirely clear what the process will be, how it would be structured and how it would operate. As I understand it, those things are changing in the negotiations. It is quite fluid. There is not one model that everybody is just tweaking; I get the impression that there is a lot of open debate about exactly what such a model should look like, so it is very difficult to comment on it precisely because of that.
Q52 Baroness O'Loan: Home Secretary, some witnesses to this inquiry have warned us that the EPPO, in particular if it enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction, is in danger of being destroyed at the outset by the sheer volume of the workload. Do you think that the potential workload of the EPPO poses a threat to its capacity to function, to its existence?
Mrs Theresa May: This is another area in which it is difficult to be definitive at this stage. If I may, Chairman, I almost apologise at the beginning of this evidence session because one of the difficulties is that there are so many areas where it is uncertain exactly how this body would operate. One of the areas of uncertainty is exactly what it would cover—the nature of the issues that it will look at. That depends in turn on the PIF directive being agreed, so we have two levels of uncertainty there.
Obviously if it were to cover for example VAT fraud, we can quite imagine that it would be taking quite a load of cases, which would have a significant impact on its workload, because that is a complex area of conduct. Until the PIF directive is complete, it is difficult to see that. Our view is that VAT fraud should not be included in the PIF directive or in the EPPO remit. Neither do we think that the EPPO should cover ancillary offences linked to the PIF directive. All those would add to its workload were other decisions to be taken on that.
Q53 Lord Stoneham of Droxford: In previous evidence, Professor Mitsilegas said, “In practice, if there is a European Public Prosecutor who uses the resources of OLAF, I am not really sure how prioritised the British needs would be with regard to the operation of OLAF”. The question is: how are the Government seeking to protect our position both in OLAF and in Eurojust?
Mrs Theresa May: Again, this is an area where, although it has been stated that OLAF will continue to exist, which the United Kingdom welcomes and thinks is important, because we do not have the detail about exactly what that interaction between the EPPO and OLAF would be and how OLAF would then act in future, it is very difficult to talk about exactly what the impact would be. There is so little information at the moment about that. What is important is that, if all these things go ahead, there is clarity as to what the various responsibilities of the different bodies are. From our point of view, obviously the EPPO is predominantly about prosecutions. It is very important that we maintain that capacity, facility and capability, which is about preventing fraud, and do not just put all the eggs in the basket of prosecution. That is why we think that keeping OLAF is important.
The links with Eurojust are also being looked into as part of our negotiation on Eurojust, which is running in parallel; that is also progressing slowly. Currently, more emphasis is being put on the EPPO by the presidency than on Eurojust. Obviously, the EPPO will impact on Eurojust, so there is validity in going about it that way.
One reason why we decided not to opt into the Eurojust regulation was precisely because of the link to the EPPO, because we had such a clear position on the EPPO. Obviously, we are taking a close interest in the negotiations that take place, but again, I am afraid that this is another area where, until we have much greater clarity about the operation of the EPPO and its links with these other parts of the picture, it is very difficult to opine on exactly what the implications are going to be.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford: Do you fear some dilution of emphasis on the interests of this country if resources are diverted to the EPPO?
Mrs Theresa May: In so far as we would still be working with OLAF and would not be in the EPPO, if suddenly everything were focused on the EPPO and we saw that the work of OLAF was significantly reduced, we would have concern, but it would not just be concern for the UK. In dealing with fraud, of course you want to ensure that people who are acting criminally are prosecuted, but you also want to make sure that fraud is stopped in the first place. A lot of work has been initiated in terms of how payments are made, and that sort of thing, which I think can be very beneficial in working fraud out of the system, which is to everybody’s benefit.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford: Did I get a hint from your comments that you have a greater priority for the work of OLAF than Eurojust?
Mrs Theresa May: No, in that Eurojust has a relevance that is wider than OLAF. I would not want you to think that that is the position. We have taken a position on the opt-in to Eurojust because of its relevance to the EPPO, but they are doing different jobs. As I say, Eurojust has a wider remit. OLAF is focused very particularly on prevention of fraud, anti-fraud measures. Eurojust has that wider co-operative remit.
Q54 Lord Rowlands: While I think there has been a general feeling that the Commission’s proposals were pretty objectionable—there is widespread feeling on that front—there are serious fault-lines in the whole of dealing with European Union fraud, despite the problems with the Commission’s proposals. Have you thought about coming forward with an alternative strategy to deal with it and to promote that as an alternative in which OLAF and Eurojust could play a more relevant part?
Mrs Theresa May: Over time. For some time now, the UK has played its part in trying to ensure that fraud within the European Union is minimised. As I said, I think there is merit in making sure that the Commission and others are focusing on the prevention of fraud in the first place, tightening up their systems and how they operate, their accountancy regimes and the way they deal with these issues, as a means of ensuring that fraud is not undertaken in the first place. Have we put a paper together that says to the European Commission, “Here are six things that you could do to prevent fraud”? I am not sure whether we have, because I think that fraud would be a Treasury responsibility, were it to be done.
I am just taking advice on that. I do not think we have put together a portfolio saying, “Here you are, here is what you could do”. However, because the Government have now set up the National Crime Agency with a specific economic crime command within it, we now have a much greater ability within the UK to put in expertise on anti-fraud work. Obviously, we have a national interest in that, but we have greater capability here in the UK available to work with the EU on anti-fraud measures
Lord Rowlands: My thought is that we criticise the proposal. Would it be useful positively to promote the concept of prevention is one of the solutions? Would it not be better to raise your profile by producing a positive alternative to the proposal of the EPPO?
Mrs Theresa May: That is a point that we make in discussions and have been making in relation to our concerns about the EPPO. Lord Rowlands, you are tempting me down a line of thought that, if I may, I will take away and give some consideration to.
Lord Rowlands: I am happy for you to take it away.
Q55 Lord Elystan-Morgan: Home Secretary, I think there is a very real danger on this occasion that agreement will break out between all the parties with regard to the EPPO, possibly for very different reasons. The one thing that cannot be sustained, however, is the status quo. We have hammered away at this in this Committee on many occasions, first on the scale of fraud. There has been an authoritative estimate of £410 million and another authoritative assessment of £5 billion. The difference is considerable. I suspect that we have no real idea of the scale of fraud more, possibly, of the nature of the pattern of fraud. Therefore, one cannot even begin to think of solutions; one can only define objectives. One is to have some authoritative, realistic definition with regards to its scale and nature.
A second is to have some cohesion among the 28 European states as to how they approach their responsibility, which is of course a strict, legal spelt-out responsibility in relation to European fraud. Thirdly, how does one then manage to achieve some sort of system, which may or may not have to be supra-national? It is so easy to ask those vital questions. I have very little idea what the answer should be. What are the Government’s thoughts on this matter in saying, “All right, it cannot be the EPPO”, for various reasons, including that, first, we would need a referendum and, secondly, we would probably need quite complicated legislation. Be that as it may, there are other reasons as well. In the absence of any specific support for an EPPO, with great respect, I ask the question of all of us, as well as your good self: what is the real alternative?
Mrs Theresa May: I understand the point that you are making: that fraud is a real issue. It is very difficult to quantify. I think it is impossible for anybody to give the correct figure on that. I can see that, from the Commission’s point of view, it feels that it has found a solution that will help to deal with it. My argument then is twofold. It follows the lines that I indicated earlier. First, I think there is an imperative in the way the Commission operates its systems, payments and auditing and accountancy functions, that it makes sure that it pays every attention internally to how it operates and how it identifies and monitors those problems to ensure that it is picking them up. There have been some changes to OLAF; they need to embed.
We therefore want to make the current system work better rather than seeing the answer as being in new creations. I am certainly concerned about a new creation that is effectively a supra-national body that can go in, investigate and prosecute within member states and perhaps take precedence in member states over other prosecutions that those member states are undertaking. I would wish to put the focus on making the current system work better. If I may add one point from the UK’s point of view, I just referred to the new National Crime Agency. On the whole, fraud is an issue that over the years the UK has not dealt with as well as we should—I talk about that internally, not just in the context of EU fraud but generally. It has often been a difficult issue for police forces to deal with. Sometimes it needs very specialist expertise. That is why I was keen to ensure that the Government created the economic crime command to start to embed a better capability here in the UK within the National Crime Agency to deal with issues of fraud.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Lord Rowlands has raised on many occasions with witnesses the question of a single point of contact, something that has been clearly endorsed by some of the police witnesses. Are the Government giving specific thought to that?
Mrs Theresa May: A single point of contact here in the UK for cross-border matters that relate to this fraud? The concept of a single point of contact is used in a number of different arenas. As I said, in the UK the National Crime Agency’s economic crime command will obviously take a key and central role in fraud matters. We will have to look at the different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom. Certainly the intention is that the National Crime Agency will develop a much greater capability. On cross-border crime issues generally, it will be the National Crime Agency that has the international presence and works with other countries.
Q56 Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: Home Secretary, I want to take you back to the issue of the implications of the EPPO. We face a fear that there will be a leaching of resources—not just financial resources but skills from OLAF and Eurojust to the EPPO. Do you see a risk that member states that have sought not to participate in the EPPO could be disadvantaged? Is there a red line which the British Government will not cross to protect the resources available to combat cross-border fraud?
Mrs Theresa May: There is, as I said earlier, a concerning lack of information about the interaction between the proposed new body and the existing bodies, so it is difficult to draw conclusions on resource implications. There are some worrying signs. As I just said, we see improving the work of OLAF and making the current system work better as important, so we are disappointed that, as I understand it, the Commission plans to propose changes to OLAF’s governance quite quickly after it recently looked at the regulatory framework. So there are concerning signs there. Of course, Protocol 21 says that if we do not opt into a measure, the measure shall not in any way affect the competences, rights and obligations of the UK; nor can any such measure affect the Community or Union acquis, or form part of Union law as it applies to the UK. So the theoretical background, if you like, states clearly that we should not be disadvantaged if we choose not to opt in.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: But the impact is there.
Mrs Theresa May: I take that point, yes. That is why we have to work very hard to try to ensure that we can continue to see OLAF and the other organisations operating as we wish them to.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: What about alliances with other non-participating states? Is there a common body of thought as to how to deal with the consequences of the EPPO for non-participating states?
Mrs Theresa May: Obviously we talk to member states about their approach to the issue, to those who are participating in the EPPO as well as those who are not. We work and negotiate with Ireland and Denmark on this matter; we have a common interest on these matters in our concerns about what the remaining structure might mean for us.
Q57 Lord Dykes: Home Secretary, these are complex matters of legal interpretation as well as being in the real political cockpit. As you say, it is still early days and there are more questions than answers; one appreciates that. Coming back to the question of the impact that the EPPO, if it is created, would have on the UK, despite the fact that the UK will not be participating, we have some very interesting evidence in our recent sessions. For example, an interesting point was made by the former president of Eurojust, Mike Kennedy, whom I am sure you have met. He said a few weeks ago that UK national law would probably have to be amended to accommodate the creation of the EPPO in some form or other. The director-general of OLAF, Giovanni Kessler, said that the UK might have to make an agreement with the Union that recognises that this new body would have the same type of scope or competence and that the UK, “might have to make an agreement with the European Union that recognises that the EPPO has the same scope or type of competence or the same ability to make a request to the UK that you have already recognised can be made to other member states—no more than that”.
Speculating, without saying that any definitive answer is possible now, so it does not matter if it has to be a different answer later when things emerge from later discussions, how could that be done in both technical and legislative terms? Would it be a change in subordinate UK law to accommodate this matter? Would it be a treaty change under Lisbon—hopefully, not generating a referendum under the 2011 EU Act? Or would it be some other kind of mechanism? Is it still too early to speculate on what piece of legislation or quasi-legislation would make that possible? If the EPPO has an inquiry that covers five countries where fraud has been committed and the UK is one of them and we are not a participant, it may make a request that will be difficult to refuse to give information.
Mrs Theresa May: There are different layers. My simple answer to your question, Lord Dykes, is that I think it is in many senses too early to be able to speculate on exactly what is going to happen. The evidence you have received has been particularly in relation to the operation of mutual legal assistance in extradition requests, and the extent to which the UK would have to respond to those. There are legal arguments about how those are drawn up and whether they would in fact in these circumstances be required to be responded to by the United Kingdom. Nobody knows, precisely because of the problem that we still do not know exactly what form the EPPO will take. It is very difficult, therefore, to say that we think that this is how the UK would respond in those circumstances.
The point I would make is that in dealing with fraud, as at the moment, were we to find that people in the UK were involved in fraud and there was evidence, I would expect us to take appropriate action. That is different from saying that we would be part of something that would be a supra-national responsibility and power in relation to those matters.
It is just so difficult at the moment. That is why, in a sense, I do not envy the Committee its task on this, precisely because there is such a lack of clarity on how the EPPO would operate and how other member states would treat it, whether it would be perceived to be a national prosecutor or not and all those questions.
Viscount Eccles: In relation to that last point, would you be prepared to estimate how long the lack of clarity might continue?
Mrs Theresa May: Given what I have heard so far, I suspect that “for some time” would be my answer. I do not know whether any of the officials involved in the discussions wish to take a pot shot at that one.
Emma Gibbons: It is very hard to tell. I attended some of the meetings in Brussels; the UK is going to all the negotiations in order to get a better sense of this. I would describe negotiations as at a very high level. We are not at the point of article-by-article analysis, as it were; it is more about principles and structures. There is still a lot of disagreement even among those who want an EPPO as to what it will look like and where the balance lies. I would say weeks or months. We know that the Italian presidency, which takes over in July, will treat this as a priority. They will schedule quite a lot of time for this during their presidency. Whether that means that they will achieve a deal is very hard to tell. My experience suggests that we are in for a long haul on this negotiation.
Lord Rowlands: On the point raised by Baroness Liddell about co-operating with others, is it now the thinking that the Commission might proceed by enhanced co-operation rather than attempt to get everybody on board? If that is the case, there will be many more non-participating members, will there not?
Mrs Theresa May: As far as I am aware, it is still currently going on the basis that it will not be enhanced co-operation. The discussions are at the stage that Emma just explained, with all these various ideas. There is this alternative proposal, which is not really clarified yet in how it would operate. They have to exhaust all the discussions on those proposals before they come to the point of deciding to go for enhanced co-operation. As I understand it, enhanced co-operation would be at a point where it was clear that it was not possible to get sufficient agreement around the table to have that collective position.
Lord Rowlands: So we have not reached that stage yet?
Mrs Theresa May: We have not reached that stage. We are a way away from that.
The Chairman: Home Secretary, I should draw your attention to the fact that there is a Division in the Commons. I shall suspend the Committee for 10 minutes.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
The Chairman: I looked at the Annunciator and realised that the Division had been called a couple of minutes before, so I was a bit worried about you having to leg it all the way down the Corridor, Home Secretary.
Lord Dykes: Coming back to those previous themes if I may, Home Secretary, and again asking a question that is entirely putative and speculative, so it does not need other than a putative or speculative answer, because it is early days, is it conceivable that our co-operation with the EPPO might be couched in terms of just an operating agreement between the National Crime Agency and the EPPO officials?
Mrs Theresa May: There is no suggestion of that taking place at this stage. As I indicated, the National Crime Agency is the body that will be leading on anti-fraud measures here in the UK. As I indicated earlier, if fraud by people in the UK is identified, I would expect the authorities here to be willing to act accordingly and appropriately in response.
Q58 Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots: Home Secretary, my question takes us back slightly to the response you gave to Lord Elystan-Morgan about making the current system work better, in that the treaty already imposes an obligation on the Commission and member states to fight fraud. There are those who say that although the structures are frightful, there will be a will, commitment and readiness to face up to unpleasant decisions.
Do you think that the proposed EPPO will encourage participating member states to duck the bullet and say, “Ain’t to do with me any more, guv, it is up to the EPPO”, and make the situation no better at all but having created another structure? Do you think that the EPPO’s existence might encourage non-participating member states to take a more active interest?
Mrs Theresa May: On the first point, there is a danger that if the European Union sets up a supra-national body that has the ability to go in to investigate and prosecute in member states, the member states may very well say, “We hand over to you all responsibility for dealing with that fraud and we will not actually deal with it. You have given the responsibility to another body. Therefore, why should we use our resources on exercising that responsibility?” There is a danger there that you end up with less buy-in to the need to deal with those issues at national level than there is at the moment. Obviously, the proposal has come forward because there is concern that not enough action is taking place at national level, but as I indicated earlier I think that steps are already being taken to try to improve the current system.
The other danger is that all the emphasis is then put on reacting to the crime rather than trying to prevent it in the first place. Actually, it is better for everybody if we can prevent the crime in the first place.
Q59 Lord Blair of Boughton: Home Secretary, I want to take you back to something that Lord Rowlands said but reflecting on your answers. Sitting on this Committee for the past 18 months or so, I do not think I have ever come across something where there is such unanimity of view that what we are moving into with the EPPO is extremely uncertain and likely, even if it arrives, to be unworkable, particularly for a common-law country. Without asking you to prejudge that—because, as we say, we do not know—given the likelihood that this is a serious mess, I go back to the idea of a coalition of the willing and to justice and Home Affairs Ministers. It will not be just the ones who are already saying that they will opt out. Sensible men and women across Europe will be looking at this and saying, “This is potentially a mess”. Therefore, it seems to me that the United Kingdom, with its long history of involvement in criminal justice and policing matters in Europe, might want to take at least a preliminary position on what we are going to do when this all falls apart, which is probably the most likely possibility. It is not certain, but even if it comes in it will be extremely difficult to make it work here. Waiting for it to happen seems to me not the best of policies.
Mrs Theresa May: We are currently sitting around the table and contributing to the discussions and negotiations about the EPPO, with a view to putting our views forward. We are not in it, we will not be in it, so it will be dealt with in that way. It is interesting how the EPPO negotiations are developing, in that we have seen the member states come up with this alternative model to the European Commission’s proposal. That gives a clear message about the degree of concern about what is proposed by the Commission. I am not sure that that message is being listened to and taken. Many of you sitting around this table have experience that most messages are not necessarily responded to.
Negotiations are still at such a stage that it is impossible to say where the end point will be. Will it be the collapse of all this, as you suggest, or will it be that because the idea is there, something will be put together at the end, regardless, because this is something that people have signed up to as a concept? It is very difficult to say that it would all collapse.
In our discussions, we will make points as to why we think this is not the right way forward and will put forward what we think is an alternative approach. We talk to others, and there may very well be scope, as Lord Rowlands indicated earlier in his question, for us to do more with some other member states to see what an alternative approach could be, with an emphasis on prevention. The only caveat, as I say, is that given that this has been proposed and is in a negotiation phase, it is often difficult for everybody to row back and say, “Let’s throw this away and do something completely different”.
Q60 Lord Elystan-Morgan: The war against European fraud must be waged. We are under a specific legal obligation, apart from that. If the losses are anywhere near the billions that we are talking about, it would be absolutely irresponsible to ignore that.
Is it possible for there to be some sort of halfway house along these lines? Rather than have a supremo who has sovereign, supra-national powers, which are anathema to many people for different reasons, if only for the subsidiarity principle—this is not a play on words or anything like that—perhaps one should have a co-ordinator. A co-ordinator’s role is very different. He has no supreme authority, but he co-ordinates. Unless you have a co-ordinator, there can never be a successful war against European fraud. Does that make sense?
Mrs Theresa May: I entirely see the point that you are getting at. I have two reactions to that. First, even in my limited experience, the danger is that even if you establish somebody as a co-ordinator, not as a supra-national power with authorities, over time the danger is that that slips into the alternative, rather than staying as a co-ordination role. Secondly, it is about standing back to say, “How best can we address this? Where are the problems?” The idea of the EPPO is about addressing a particular problem, which is a feeling that these crimes are not being properly prosecuted in member states, as opposed to some of the work which I think is equally valuable—indeed, potentially more valuable—looking at European systems but also at prevention at source within member states, because member states have a responsibility for how they run systems to make sure that we are all doing what we can to try to prevent fraud.
I am not sure that the nature of the problem has been correctly identified, and therefore the solution is not the right one. On the point about co-ordination, of course, Eurojust does co-ordinate action and helps co-operation among member states on cases.
Baroness O’Loan: Very briefly, Home Secretary, would it not make more sense, given that the problem that has given rise to the EPPO is that some states are not prosecuting or investigating fraud properly, to concentrate energies in those states on training legal personnel and putting pressure of various kinds on those states, rather than creating chaos?
Mrs Theresa May: If I may say so, that is a very sensible and practical suggestion: if there is a particular problem, go to the heart and source of the problem and focus on that, rather than trying to bind everybody into something that is going to take some time to complete and which everybody probably feels is not the answer.
Lord Rowlands: I wonder whether you feel, as I do, that in some ways the whole debate has been bedevilled by the title itself. The EPPO implies a huge, wide, sweeping body with enormous powers and does not even refer to fraud as such. If it had been presented as an enhanced form of fraud agency, I think there could have been a greater degree of consensus. Do you think that is the case?
Mrs Theresa May: I think it would have been easier for people generally to understand what it was about had it been presented in a slightly different way. However, I think that one of the key problems is the powers and authorities it has in its ability to operate in member states and for its actions potentially to take precedence and priority over actions taken at national state level. That is, at the core, one of the biggest problems with the EPPO.
If the Commission had said, “Let’s look at how we are dealing with fraud and see if there is an enhanced way that we can deal with it”—indeed, some changes have been made to OLAF in the way payments are made to try to address the fraud issue—if that had been the approach, it might have had greater co-operation and understanding from people than is the case at the moment.
Although it is being presented as an anti-fraud body, the treaty, as I understand it, foresees that it could be extended into other crimes. That takes you into a whole different arena: a body that has the power to go in to investigate and prosecute in a member state.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: Home Secretary, leading on from the question from Baroness O’Loan, presumably OLAF has quite a thorough breakdown of where fraudulent cases that have come up are taking place across the member states. Presumably some have many more than others. I was wondering whether there had ever been one in the United Kingdom.
Mrs Theresa May: That, if I may, I will check. OLAF produces an annual report, but I do not know the answer to that offhand, so perhaps I could write to the Committee with information about the United Kingdom’s position in relation to that.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: It just occurs to me that some of the more established, older, northern European members of the EU have a lower record of cases than some of the newer, particularly eastern European, members.
Mrs Theresa May: I genuinely do not know what the pattern is, I am afraid. I would be very happy to write to the Committee with information on that.
Q61 The Chairman: Home Secretary, given that the yellow card was triggered on this proposal but the Commission decided to maintain it nevertheless, what is your impression of the informal consequences of the reasoned opinions issued by national Parliaments?
Mrs Theresa May: The informal consequences? The problem is, as you indicated, that the Commission has taken the view that regardless of the views that member states took about this issue, it would nevertheless carry on. I think that is the wrong view and a disappointing one. I would hope that the responses produced by member states’ Parliaments would be given proper consideration. I am tempted to say, however, that given what we have seen in the response to the yellow card, I cannot either guarantee or give any high-percentage prediction that that will take place. What we have seen so far suggests that the Commission has decided on a route that it wishes to push, and that is what is happening.
The Chairman: During this evidence session, you have made it clear that negotiations are fluid. We appreciate that, but it seems to me that the Government would have assessed the possible negative impact for the UK of the EPPO. If so, what is it? There must have been some discussion about what the negative impact might be for us.
Mrs Theresa May: Of having the EPPO but not being in it? The Government’s position on the EPPO was taken on the basis of the proposal put forward. We were concerned about the way it would operate, particularly the EPPO’s ability to go into member states and exercise authorities and powers within them. The negative consequences are, I think, as a number of questions have tried to get into, more about what it means for other bodies that we would still be part of that would be impacted by the EPPO. As I indicated earlier, it is difficult to come to an absolute conclusion on that until we know the final shape of the EPPO and its relationship with those other bodies. We came to our decision because we thought that the problems that could occur and the difficulties that we saw for the integrity of our criminal justice system of being in the EPPO were so great that we felt it was right not to be part of it.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your time. We are very grateful to you. That concludes this sitting.
Mrs Theresa May: Thank you.