 Dw i'n gweld i'n ardal i yn ddweud, a roi ddweud i'n gweithio'r gweldiamhau, ac yn ddweud cymryd o'u gwoith cyfwyng ymddangosu gwahau. Prif wideru'r sgwyllfa fach dda, drwy'n gweld i'r blodd Beaconsfield, ddysraeli, yn ei wner yn ddweud o'n 5 mae o gyflwyddwyr mewn holl bwro yn Beaconsfield. Y ddweud o'r thwynt mae'n siarad yn ffnig, ac mae'n rhaid i ei ddweud ddweud o'r holl bwro yn Beaconsfield, although the reason why he chose the town was because when he rode from his house at Huwendon to see the Queen of Windsor, it was the place where he stopped to have a pee. I say that it's a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity of addressing you here in Dublin today. It's a great privilege to be invited to speak at the Institute of International and European Affairs, an organisation that's done a great deal to further research and discussion on important European i'r ysgol iaith i ddweud ond dod i'r cyflodau i Llyfrgell, a i'r cyflodau i Llyfrgell i Europol. Ond rwy'n cael ei fod yn gael i'r viadau i gael i Gareth Fitzgerald, eu cyflodau rydyn ni, mae'r qurwyr yn rhanau a'r sylfaen. A'r hyn o'r pwysig yng Nghymru, o'r llai cyflodau fenyffosol yn yr unrhywun o'r cyflodau ar y ddeud, rydyn ni'n ddod yn ei ddweud. Ond yw ydw i eich cyflodau o'r llai cyflodau i'r unrhyw. i ddwyblin, dwi'n gweithio i gyd, oedd yn dweud o'r cwpio bwlaes Brytyn ynglyn Eurupu, edydydd o Paul Gillespie. Rydyn ni wedi'i gweithio i gael ei wneud i'r gweithio i'r gweithio i'r relasiad Brytishiru, ac wedi'u gweithio i'r gweithio i'r gweithio i'r gweithio i'r parlymentry yng nghymru. Rydyn ni'n gweithio i'r cyffredin ni'n gweithio i'r gweithio i'r gweithio i'r Gweithio i'r gweithio i'r Gwpóoedd atmoskeptucism yng Ng прогol. Rydyn ni'n gweithio i'r Gweithio i'r rythiad bwlaes Brytyn i'r kebydd. Ond dyna yw'n ei wneud i'rampau atodiadau mewn y bryd, a'r cyllid rhywun o fe wddai'r cyflwysoedd i ceisio ac mae'r cyflwysoedd i'n gweithio i'r cymwydei yw nhw'n gweithio i'n gweithio i'r gweithio i'r gweithio i'r gweithio i'r cyntaf o'r cyfgaredd o'r sbectrwynt ydyn nhw'n ysgrifennu ar gyfer y cyfrifoedd. Ond, ddiwrnod, yn y sgwrdd ar y Sgwrdd Cymru, nad oes gofyn ymddi'r gweithio'n cyfrifor i'r un drwy'r ddiwylliant ym 1973, o'r erbyn y cyfrifor i ddweud yn y 2,000. Mae yna gweithio ymddi'r gweithio mewn ei ddweud yn y gweithio'r llunydd i'r cyfrifor. Onaет o'r cyntaf hwn i'w cymorth yn fanyfodol, ac mae'n gweld i'r cyfrifiad ddefnyddio i'r cyfrifiad, ac mae'n cyfrifiad bod willodygau, chi ei wneud cyfrifiadol yn ddiddordeb cyfrifiadol. Byddwn yn adleidio i gan Eurwyr, ac yn ddiddordeb wef – wrth alw, yn ymdegi ein gwylliant o ddweud â'r newydd cyfrifiadol i'r ddweud o gael ll targyr salaries, a'u ffordd cyfrifiadol at y Cyfrifiadol. Eurwyr cyfrifiadol yn y gallu yma wedi gweld i'r gael cyfrifiadol ar y cyfrifiadol a Plynyddio Llyfrgell yn yng Nghydroloedd. The Llyfrgell eraill yn cael ei pethau, yn ni'r cyfle llwyddoeth yn y Llyfrgell, ac yn fawr y cyflwyso cyffredig yn Llyfrgell mae'n gy которуюy picodol yng Nghydroloedd Cywylliant gyngor mewn cyflwyddiad nid y Llyfrgell yn y Llyfrgell, sy'n rhoi'r siech gyngorol retailer yng Nghyrch. Efallai bod y grictin o gyflwysoch y Llyfrgell mae Llyfrgell yn ymferodi. Llyfrgell er�ill yn ddigonol, ac nid oed yn ddigonol ac mor hwnnw埋 cynhyrchiau ddull rebellion â gydynghyn, maiddu syniadol architecturen gw monthsmdeigll, cyfonol i'r Llyfrgell, swath-glUN five-cir 때도b mae'n dechydig ymlwn wrth started i'r Gweithухau κcin scrambled i rhagynodiau i hynny. Fawr deims oa cyfnariaethИl yn y bydd ynghyd iír han夙o ar yr awr algwyr. Mae cyfnod oeswn ar fynd coirol ac mae gyda'r hyn mae'r gweithio cyfgareddau hynny'n eu hunain yw hynny o'r rhai ddweudio. Llywodraeth, wrth gwrs ac i'r cwmpio'r llyfr ar gael o gyfanyddio eu bod i eu gweithio'r cyfrannu. Mae'r cyfrannu a chylywodraethau wedi'u gweithio'r polisi a'r dyfodol sy'n gofynol sy'n cyfanyddio'r ffordd o'r bydau sy'n cydweithi'r cyfrannu a'r llyfr yn y meddwl i'r amser. We have tried however to work around these concerns by securing special positions for our countries under the treaties to protect our interests in an attempt to balance our national needs and the protection of our sovereign discretion, sorry excuse me, sovereign discretion with the need to support and develop work in this important area of policy across the EU. This is a difficult balance to strike and as one can see by the perusal of parliamentary o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r hyn sydd o'r pethau, mae'n ffrindwyr bod yn fengyrch yn dda i'r rhan o'r rhan, ac mae rhan o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd. Ond bod yn rhoi ffyrdd o anodd o'r cyhoeddiaeth ynglyn â'r rhaid i ddod yn yr unigol a'r amser yn y ffrindwyr dyma, mae'n rhoi'r gweithio ar y cyhoedd bryd. We have some good, if never perfect stories to tell. Within the last decade, a large number of EU criminal justice measures have been introduced, and many of these measures have had a positive impact on our ability to prosecute cross-border crime and protect our citizens. The most notable of the measures, based on the mutual recognition principle, was the introduction of the European arrest warrant in 2004. Although this is often viewed as a revolutionary new approach to extradition, it wasn't really such an alien concept to the UK and Ireland, who have, after all, operated their own scheme for extradition based on the recognition of each other's arrest warrants. This scheme was incorporated in UK law under the backing of warrants Republic of Ireland Act 1965. However, that process was not without its difficulties, which have been entirely ironed out under the EAW scheme that is now in force, and has played a key role in enabling us to secure the swift return of suspects to the UK for trial. Between January 2004 and April 2010, the European arrest warrant scheme has allowed the UK to extradite over 1900 alleged or convicted offenders to other member states. Join the same period has resulted in 447 suspected offenders being surrendered to the United Kingdom to face justice. Most significantly, perhaps, it allowed for the very swift return of one of the 21st of July bombers, Hussain Osmond, from Italy to the UK in 2005, a country where one might say that in the past getting an extradition was likely to take a very long time indeed. We've also seen the establishment and development of the European judicial network and Eurojust, which are both organisations that can effectively support practitioners involved in cross-border cases. The role of Eurojust has been strengthened even more this month, with the coming into force of the council decision agreed on 16 December 2008. The decision is designed to strengthen and improve Eurojust and introduces a number of changes, which include the requirement for national desks to provide 24-hour cover to respond to requests for urgent assistance, setting out the tasks of Eurojust acting as a college, therefore when to intervene in conflicts of jurisdiction, establishes a national coordination system in each member state and sets out new rules on information that Member States should provide to Eurojust in relation to complex cross-border cases involving more than two Member States. Another important tool for criminal justice practitioners introduced by the EU are joint investigation teams. Set up on the basis of an agreement between two or more Member States and or parties such as Europol for a specific purpose and limited duration. This type of co-operation can be more beneficial than working through traditional mutual legal assistance channels. It allows prosecutors and law enforcement officers to work directly with their opposite numbers in the participating Member States or States with support from Eurojust and Europol. The UK has been involved in a number of these joint investigations, including Operation Golf, which was particularly successful. That team was set up in September 2008, was the first ever JIT to receive full EU funding amounting to 1 million euros. Its activities centred on tackling organised crime groups who traffic predominantly Roma children to the UK to work as beggars and exploit the UK benefits system for criminal gain. This joint investigation team achieved the first UK conviction of trafficking of human beings of a child, rescued five further victims of child exploitation, as well as uncovering the evidence of systematic and widespread benefit fraud. I think this is an excellent example of what can be achieved when we work together with European partners using the measures that are available to us. So, what is the UK's approach to justice and home affairs? In policy terms, this government's approach is one of full engagement in the EU, whilst being careful to safeguard our national sovereignty. To quote from the coalition agreement. The government believes that Britain should play a leading role in an enlarged European Union, but that no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum. This approach strikes the right balance between constructive engagement with the EU to deal with the issues that affect us all and protecting our national sovereignty. The UK recognises that Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which sets out EU cooperation in justice and home affairs, can help to enhance our security and provide opportunities for practical cooperation and capacity building work on immigration, organised crime and judicial cooperation. With that in mind, the coalition government has undertaken that all proposals will be assessed on a case by case basis. We will put the national interest and the benefits to our citizens and businesses at the heart of our decision making. The government's committed to make a written statement to Parliament on each opt-in decision to ensure that Parliament is fully informed of the decision and of the reasons why it believes its decision is in the national interest. But as an issue of principle, the government will not opt-in to proposals concerning a European public prosecutor and has no intention of joining Schengen measures that involve the abolition of border controls. We believe that our approach to JHA policy is pragmatic, measured and proportionate, having regard to Britain's wider interests. We want to ensure that we participate in measures that are in the best interest of our businesses and citizens and that our decisions are informed by the views of Parliament and on rigorous assessments of each measure against a set of criteria. These criteria are set out include potential impact on the integrity of the UK's justice systems, national security, effects on civil liberties and rights and the potential regulatory impact of the measure and wider impacts. Having spoken in general about the UK approach to JHA, I'd like to talk to you about the steps the UK coalition government is taking to provide more accountability for the decisions it takes in relation to how the EU develops. To ensure there's no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. The government's bill on the EU currently going through the House of Lords will require a number of things. Firstly, any proposed future EU treaty agreed by all EU Member States governments including the UK government, which seeks to transfer areas of power or competence from the UK to the European Union, would be subject to a referendum of the British people. And secondly, the use of ratchet clauses or passerels, which are provisions in the existing EU treaties allowing the powers of the EU to be modified or expanded without the need for a formal treaty change, would require a formal act of Parliament before the government could agree to its use. The bill additionally includes a clause underlining parliamentary sovereignty, I might say a rather controversial clause which is currently being debated in the House of Lords with lots of amendments being proposed, making clear that EU legislation has effect in the UK only because and for such time as Parliament wills it. For measures in the GH area, the bill introduces specific provisions that a referendum would be required to remove the requirement for unanimity to use any of the following powers. A, to approve UK participation in any proposal to create a European public prosecutor. B, to approve UK participation thereafter in any subsequent proposal to expand the powers of a European public prosecutor. C, for any decision under article 4 of the Schengen protocol that removes border control of the United Kingdom. D, for any amendment to the treaty that would move JHA legal bases from unanimity to qualified majority voting. And E, for any treaty change that would remove or amend the emergency break mechanisms contained in articles 82-3 and 83-3 of the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union. The emergency break available to all Member States is an important protection mechanism available for us. The bill will make it clear that any attempt to change the treaties so as to remove the emergency breaks from this or future treaties would also be subject to a UK referendum. Both for the emergency breaks and for the measures listed, other Member States could of course go ahead without us. However, the referendum stops the United Kingdom Government joining in such a change unless the United Kingdom public confirm that they support it. Additionally, the bill provides as an act of parliament must approve any UK decision to use the Justice and Home Affairs Ratchet clauses contained in, excuse my rather technical list, article 81-3 TFEU, committing the application of ordinary legislative procedure in place of special legislative procedure in family law. B, article 82-2D TFEU to add to the list of criminal procedures on which EU directives may be made. C, article 83-1 TFEU to add to the list of serious crimes with a cross-border dimension on which directives may be made. These ratchet clauses would apply a lesser voting requirement to measures in family law areas or for areas relating to criminal law enable an expansion of the issues over which the EU has competence. For example, as crimes develop that simply didn't exist until relatively recently like cybercrime. There are indications that the commission will wish, for instance, to propose adding female general mutilation and or violence against women to the list of serious crimes with a cross-border dimension on which the EU can act in article 83-1. If that were the case and the government indicated it would wish to support this proposal, an act of parliament would be required to approve the UK's adoption of any proposal to add these offences to the list. The government made further comments in the written ministerial statement of the 20th of January this year which sets out a package of measures to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of EU business. Reinforcing the government's commitment to honour the Ashton commitments providing for enhanced scrutiny over European justice and home affairs matters. But highlighting that the government would undertake further extensions to those parliamentary scrutiny arrangements. So, the government now commits itself to a written ministerial statement on each opt-in decision or where appropriate and necessary ministers will make this statement on an opt-in decision or a letter parliament. The written ministerial statement outlined that the government actively urges the House of Commons and Lords scrutiny committees to take full advantage of their existing rights under the Ashton commitments, including the right to call a debate on an amendable motion on any opt-in decision. The committees have thus far exercised this right only twice. The Commons called a debate on the cross-border enforcement road safety offences directive and the House of Lords called a debate on the minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status and on the minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted. Finally, the government also expressed its willingness to set aside government time for a debate in both houses on a motion on the government's recommended approach to any opt-in on issues where there's a strong parliamentary interest in the decision whether or not opt-in should occur. The government has already committed itself to holding just such a debate on the very big topic of the 2014 opt-out decision. What the EU bill doesn't cover is the ordinary use of the UK's opt-in protocol. That falls outside the scope of the bill because it was agreed under the Lisbon Treaty and it is considered that it would be contrary to the UK's national interest to lose the flexibility which we currently enjoy there. While it's important to us to have the safeguards I've mentioned to you in place, we also consider that it's important to be as fully engaged in justice and home affairs work as possible, particularly in the context of Stockholm. The UK has worked hard to feed into the new JHA work programme that replaced the Hague programme earlier this year. The Stockholm programme sets out what it considers should be the priorities in all JHA areas for the next five years. More specifically on criminal justice, the programme, as you will be aware, envisages the extension of the principles of mutual recognition for all stages of criminal procedure, including measures to protect victims and witnesses, and disqualifications arising from convictions. Training of prosecutors and judges is seen as an essential element in increasing mutual confidence and the EU envisages more work in this area. Evaluation is also highlighted as a priority to improve the implementation of legislation. There are five key areas of organised crime which will be targeted. Human trafficking, sexual exploitation of children, cyber crime, financial crime and drug trafficking. Judicial cooperation will also be strengthened with priority given to work to improve the exchange of criminal records and enhance mechanisms to exchange evidence, accompanied by work on strengthening the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings. This is all an important area of work that the UK entirely supports, subject of course to detailed scrutiny of the proposals. We've already seen some important measures issued at EU levels since the introduction of Stockholm. Cludes the European investigation order, a proposal for an EU directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings, EU directive combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, the European protection order and the cyber crime directive. The UK has chosen to opt in to all these proposals. In addition, the UK is awaiting parliamentary approval on a recommendation to participate in the human trafficking directive post adoption and we are currently considering whether to opt in to the recently published victims directive. Although all these proposals for EU criminal justice measures are important, the investigation order is likely to have the most impact on criminal justice practitioners when it's eventually introduced across Europe. We'll certainly streamline the process of mutual legal assistance between EU countries. UK practitioners frequently describe the current system as fragmented, confusing and subject to delays. The EIO seeks to simplify the system amongst member states through introducing a standardized request form providing formal deadlines for the recognition and execution of requests and by replacing the majority of the existing instruments with a single instrument. The UK government carried out a consultation with police and other UK law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, private practitioners, academics, the Law Society of England and Wales, criminal law solicitors associations, fair trials international, justice and many other organisations. It was interesting that the majority view was that the UK should opt in. Now, there are some anxieties expressed that it could lead to the forced harmonisation of criminal procedure, but despite that we took the decision that we should opt in. So you're all aware, all these new proposals introduced under Stockholm are subject to the post Lisbon procedures. Protocol 21, on the position of the UK and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, has secured important safeguards for our two countries and introduced a process that allows us to decide whether or not to opt in to any proposals or initiatives presented by the council pursuant to Title 5 of Part 3 of the Treaty. Although this is a new process for criminal justice measures and civil matters, it isn't of course a new concept for us as we have actually been operating a similar process for asylum and immigration matters for many years. It's important to us to have secured an opt in process, but it does pose additional challenges for practitioners and policy makers. As you will be aware, under the protocol our countries are allowed three months in which to consider whether we wish to participate in a new measure. This, to put it mildly in the workings of central governments, and I suspect it applies to yours as much as to mine, is rather a short time to analyse the impact of the measure at national level and to allow for parliamentary scrutiny of the proposal to take place. The latter is particularly challenging if the proposal is issued during a period of parliamentary recess. I've already spoken about the requirements introduced by the written ministerial statement of the 20th of January 2011, which means that parliamentary scrutiny of JHA measures post Lisbon is going to be much more thorough than it was previously for third pillar instruments which were subject to unanimity. I understand that Ireland has also experienced these difficulties and that you're introducing even greater government scrutiny for JHA measures. Detailed scrutiny of these measures will be a continuing challenge for our policy makers and parliaments. Although our ability to choose whether we participate in justice and home affairs measures or not sets us apart from other member states. We must not forget that the most notable difference that distinguishes us from the majority of our European partners, which goes back rather further than the EU treaties, is the difference through our shared common law legal tradition. Again, this isn't a new challenge. We frequently face these hurdles together, join the negotiation of measures with countries which don't share our common law tradition and misunderstand concerns we have because our criminal justice process is so different. The most notable areas that seem to be misunderstood are the investigative processes in common law jurisdictions, the very different role that victims and witnesses play during our proceedings. If any such points arose pre Lisbon, we could be reassured that unanimity would offer us the protection if our civil law partners were unable to understand any concerns we had. Now post Lisbon, we may frequently find ourselves in situations where any concerns resulting from our different legal systems are shared only by a minority of member states. The measure is of key importance to European judicial cooperation, where then faced with the dilemma of whether to opt into a measure containing provisions we may not be confident we can amend under qualified majority voting or opting out of an area of work that could potentially benefit us in tackling cross border crime. This is an area where we need to work together to give our civil law partners a greater understanding of our different legal systems and the very specific issues we face as a result of our common law heritage. But that said, I am encouraged by recent proposals issued under the Stockholm programme, which do appear to seek to respect and accommodate the different legal traditions operating amongst all European partners. I hope that this talk, in this talk, I've been able to set out for you something of the principles with which the UK will seek to approach the undoubted opportunities, but also the challenges of the development of the EU's home affairs and justice policies. We're determined not to take a blinkered approach and very conscious that we should look to our European and international partners who meet common standards of human rights and of justice for co-operation in combating crime. This of necessity requires pragmatism and a willingness to share powers to achieve sensible goals, but we will ensure that we only participate in measures that are in the interests of our businesses and citizens and our decisions will be informed by the views of parliament and rigorous assessment of each measure against the sets of established criteria that I have outlined. We believe this balance can allow us to be fully engaged in an important area of work at European level, while preserving our national sovereignty and the civil liberties of our citizens and, most important of all, upholding the rule of law. In striving to achieve this, I know that we will wish to look to you here in Ireland, where your national legal traditions are so close to our own and the challenge is so similar. Yet, perspectives may at times be quite different for a dialogue and mutual critique of how best we can approach these matters. Our ability to do this for each other appears to me to be one of the best of the many good legacies of the efforts of Garrett Fitzgerald and many others in both our countries in transforming our bilateral relations in the last quarter century. We must strive to ensure that we build on their good work. Thank you very much.