11/06/2011 The Record Europe

attacks by militants since 2007. That is the summary. Now it is time

Hello and welcome. This week MEPs are forced to debate on Europe's

arrest warrant, designed to catch terrorists and the most serious

criminals, some say it has been abused, used by national

governments to pursue petty criminals across borders. Also on

the programme: Fury in the chamber over the E-coli outbreak in

northern Europe. Seven years after it was introduced, there are

serious questions about Europe's arrest warrant. Some are calling

for a complete overhaul of the legislation. The attacks on 11th

September in 2001 across the Atlantic created a new urgency in

Europe for getting a European arrest warrant to fight terrorism

and organised crime. Soon after it came into force, it was used to

extradite a failed bomber from Rome to Britain in 2005. He was later

convicted of an attempt to attack the London transport system. The

arrest warrant has undoubtedly delivered a -- many suspects

accused of serious crimes to face trial but a recent report from --

report showed some states are issuing huge number of warrants,

apparently for a pity -- petty crimes. For 2009, 5,000 warrants

were issued by Poland, twice the number issued by Germany had a

fraction of those issued by France. In the same year, Britain only

asked for 220 people to be extradited. The report calls for a

total revamp of law. It says the current system is placing the

speedy surrender of persons for two other member states above the

proper safeguarding of fundamental rights and the principle of

proportionality. Without change, many people will suffer injustice

as a result of Europe's no questions asked extradition system.

It is a sentiment expressed by many in the Strasbourg chamber this week

as MEPs demanded how -- demanded the European system address the

system's shortcomings. The justice minister said he is a key part of

Europe's Arsenal to fight crime. -- it is a key part. It has been

instrumental in smashing paedophile rings, catching terrorists and

murderers. That is what it is therefore. However, and this is a

recent movement, we have seen since 2007, that the number of arrest

warrants issued has risen dramatically. In some cases it has

been used in a less than proportionate manner to extradite

suspects often of petty crime, stealing a eight... Stealing a bike.

This could damage the legitimacy of this tall. New guidelines will be

issued on how to use the warrant soon. New training will be issued

for judges and police but it all falls short of an actual change in

the law that set up the arrest warrant in the first place. To talk

about this I am joined by four members of the European Parliament

here in Strasbourg. We have a German MEP from the Green Party.

You sit on the civil liberties community and you have put the

question that triggered this week's debate. And you have also put

forward a question and are a Labour MEP. Graham Watson, you are chair

of the civil liberties -- or were in 2001, and you were the MEP who

took the arrest warrant through the house. And we have a senior MEP

from the acidic platform, the Polish centre-right party. Your

government is in power at the moment and is using the arrest

warrant fairly frequently, apparently. What is the problem

with this? Clearly it has been useful, it has delivered people who

are wanted criminals. The great thing about it was that it produces

extradition which used to be a very cumbersome process. It was a

cultural thing. People would talk about how long extradition would be

for serious crimes. Essentially it knocked down a nine-month wait to

50 days. That had to be a good thing when dealing with serious

organised crime. Now we are having a system that deals with people

have gone over their overdraft. trivial cases have really damaged

what is a very strong procedural advance from -- for the EU. It is

very positive. The idea that trivial cases which tend to be

dominant in the media, but they are there, this has damaged what is a

fantastic procedural advance. not just a problem of triviality

but also people are sometimes being delivered to judicial and police

systems which are not fit for their purpose and they are not getting

proper representation. In some ways the EU put the cart before the

horse. It should have made sure equality was there before it set up

the arrest warrant. This has been used in thousands of cases and is

probably the most effective tool we have in cross-border crime. When we

put it in Parliament we argued it should only be used in cases which

would have incurred a minimum of three years in prison and we argued

it should be accompanied by the other directive on guaranteeing

minimum rights two defenders in criminal proceedings. We are only

one half of the legislature, the other half, the national government,

decided against this and it was reduced to one year. So any crime

that would have incurred a prison sentence of one year. Sadly the

Commission proposal on the rights for defendants in criminal

proceedings was never taken up by the council ministers. This has led

to one or two cases that are rightly the case of parliamentary

concern where not only have warrants been issued for frivolous

offences but where people sometimes accused of serious offences have

not had the right so that we would expect defendants to have. Some

would argue one or two cases is a bit of an understatement. If you

read that the report from Fair trials abroad, it seems to be an

under statement. It is a little bit but that is not the core concern.

There has been a mistake and that was pointed out that we did not

really buildally build standards before going forward with mutual

recognition like the European arrest warrant. This was a huge

mistake which has to be corrected now. We need to adjust the European

arrest warrant, we need a proportionality test. Then we have

to go forwards by a building up common standards which are binding

for member states. There has to be an implicit request that member

states come up with proposals. Given that Poland is currently

using that arrest warrant more than any other country, the figure is

around 4,000 times for the year 2009, and given that Poland is

going to take over the presidency of the EU pretty soon, is this

going to be at the top of the agenda of the Polish presidency?

is not at the top, it will be in the pipeline. Why is it not at the

top? This question has been with us for the last ten years and we will

not resolve it in a matter of months. If we were to change it, it

will take time. If we raised one year or three years... That

legislative process, we could see the end of it. But if we are

talking about having common standards on the process, that

takes time. The Polish government is taking this seriously.

Campaigners are talking about amending the legislation. The one

It is a time-lag... These directives are, we are moving

toward them but we did not create an even playing field in the first

instance. The reason why it is a pity that it is not part of the

Polish presidency... Thursley there are many issues, it is seen as

unfair because it is different from detention times in other countries.

Nobody is criticising any other country but this creates a field

day for Euro-sceptics because what they do is point to the European

arrest warrant as evidence of the idea that some countries have a

harsher detention regimes and They do not give a reason and the

even up standards. We do not need to change the legislation but we

need to insist that we get a directive on minimum standards of

four defendants in criminal legal proceedings. We have made some

progress already, we already have a directive on the right to

interpretation. We also need to insist more with member states on

how they have implemented the legislation. Some, like Germany,

have a implemented it extremely well and so their judges do not

extradite people in cases where there are concerns. In other

countries, like Britain, we did not look quite closely at how we

implemented it. The government says there needs to be a review. We are

competing with a visiting orchestra down there. Let me ask you, how can

you have a situation where a grandfather from Bristol is being

asked to be extradited to Poland for an overdraft that he did not

pay several years ago? sometimes there are prere are pr

incorporating because member states have different understandings on

how to apply directives. In Poland I have the impression that often

the European arrest warrant was used because the national arrest

warrants are sometimes too hard to get. And European arrest warrant

was easier to get than a national one. These situations should not

occur in the framework of European law. Why does Poland have such a

huge number of instances where the European arrest warrant has been

used? The size of our immigration, there is of movement when it comes

to Polish citizens. Yes, sometimes this instrument has been abused

because it is relatively easy to get. The most important thing is

that we change our practices and that there are clear

recommendations when we resort to this instrument. We have a huge

debate about it because we had to change our constitution in order to

actually be able to implemented because our constitution put a?

Question mark about whether it agreed with our constitution. We

have to say that loud and clear. The overall effect is very positive

because most of those guys are serious criminals who are brought

to justice. This is serious. This touches upon sovereignty and that

is why it goes so slow. But we have to do something about it, first

with practicth practic with legislative moves. Do you agree

with the moves by campaigners that a refusal by a member state to hand

somebody over must be respected? It We have the power to not can

someone over. But it is not used. As legislators, we have to look at

the wider impact on European legislation like the European

arrest warrant. We are in a special battlefield area, and because it

touches the sovereignty, issues such as present conditions, where

we do not have the legislative power. Because we touched on those

is not for its successes, like the bar mark that was extradited, but

trivial cases, and that feeds the sceptical again down -- agenda.

see more wore more wor a feeding the EU sceptic agenda than changing

to catch serious organised criminals. That is why I am worried.

The agenda damages what is a very good procedural vehicle for doing

it. It is not right to say that there are noere are noere are no

Britain last year, there were 30 cases in which the judges refused

to extradite somebody for one reason or another on the basis of

the European arrest warrant, so judges do not always get to write

any more than politicians. But the reality is that this is the only

effective tool that we have in Europe to do with people who are

As Mark Twain said, a criminal is halfway across the world before a

policeman has his boots on, unless we can get our police forces

working together, the then the victims of that crime are going to

have no access to justice. Judges are independent. It is difficult to

have recommendations which would be effective. We have a framework that

is binding for us all, the Convention of Human Rights, for

example. Fair trial and so on. It is leading the decisions of the

judges in Europe. In addition, we have a charter of fundamental

rights on a European level which is binding us as European institutions

to follow the cases which are important to care about, and

therefore I would like to have us all going forward to have new

procedure standards and amending of the practices and a framework.

you not agree that getting the ministers around the table to

accept a series of new recommendations will be enough?

think it has to be more. In between the last five or six years, we come

forward with police and justice Corporation, with come forward with

it -- except in measures operating, but where we are not coming forward

is implementing common standards. This is a problem which individual

citizens are can see, and they are concerned. We have to have that.

This is not about scepticism. This about -- this is about people

thinking about current values and right. We will leave it there.

Let's have a look at what has been going on in Strasbourg.

MEPs voted overwhelmingly on a freeze on the Budget. The

parliament effectively rejected calls from Britain to show

austerity. Best-supported a 5% rise. Under pressure from national

parties and government are back home, most British MEPs did not

follow the majority. Some extent, but a few defied the whip

altogether. In a time of austerity, we need to have a freeze, but we

have a number of major tasks ahead of us. We have a renewed need to

insure cohesion with the European Union, I think therefore it is

sensible to look at an increase in the European budget around the 5%

level. For the first time, the Commission launched a set of 27

separate recommendations for each EU country, designed to better co-

ordinate national economies within the EU. Suggestions about cutting

public debt and creating jobs and growth, the commission says it is a

chance to turn the corner of the crisis. We may not be at the end

game. But we can see the beginning of the end of the crisis if we're

able to take difficult decisions. Croatia is ready to join the EU,

according to the European Commission. The country hopes to

become a member by 2013. If MEPs agreed they have done what is

necessary to make the grade, it could be on the cards.

Dr breaker the coli which has already killed 20 people in Germany

is high on the agenda. -- the outbreak of E-coli. Health experts

met. The European Parliament held a debate which at times got very

fiery. TRANSLATION: It is quite clear the German authorities rushed

in. The food authority and also the European Commission has had showed

no co-ordination and no leadership. Those affected deserve compensation.

I suggest that we in Brussels and Strasbourg should now organised a

massive rally in support of the cucumber. I think we need to re-

establish the loss on of the cucumber produces. -- the Lost

Honour. As we speak, the European Commission has placed 150 million

euros in compensation for farmers affected by this crisis. There

could be more to come. Is that enough? What lessons are being

loaned for the future? I am joined by two members of the European

Parliament, we have a person who leads the Spanish Socialists. We

have a German Christian Democrat. Give me a sense of how serious this

crisis is for farmers in Spain, and also for the country's economy

itself. There have been 22 people dead. So the first been used to

regret those casualties and the first thing is to go for solidarity.

There are lessons to be drawn. We may set up a protocol not to panic

and not to cause damage to people who work in the agricultural sector.

They are losing a lot of money. are losing 200 million euros per

week. Compensation is needed. But besides that, something must be

done about how to react to this kind of situation without panicking,

without putting blame unfairly to someone else, and how to act

together to see the source of the outbreak. That is exactly what did

not happen. Did you accept that the German authorities dealt with this

in a textbook way, of how not to deal with it? There have been

mistakes. On a regional level, the responsible person for health in

Hamburg announced publicly that there is bacteria on the Spanish

cucumber, without a forming the European Commission and the Spanish

authorities. They informed them much later, and even the Federal

government was not informed properly. This is not how we should

deal with such a problem. On the other end, we cannot share the

position of those who say that we should only inform the public when

we are completely sure that there is a problem. I think we cannot

wait until we are 100% stake before we make an announcement. That is a

fair point. That is one thing, and the other thing is to put the blame

on a certain product. And then spread through rumours, the

prejudice that those prom -- that those products are to be set aside

from the whole market. That causes a lot of damage. That causes a lot

of trouble, once you have put the blame, it is very difficult to

repair. I insist that political lessons are to be drawn on how to

react. Out there issues about farming methods, they billing

methods, they go beyond this particular crisis they need to be

addressed as well? It is not an easy question to answer. Some say

that we need better food labelling. On the vegetables that are likely

to be the cause, we already have labelling of Origin by country.

That is what we ask for on other products. We cannot say that

organic farming is better. There is a major political concentration to

be dry -- to be drawn as a lesson. We need it a stronger Europe, a

more effective Europe. It is a wrong direction when we have

started scapegoating member states, producers within Europe, workers