Luxembourg, 26/10/2004 (Agence Europe) - Moves are being made towards compromise towards qualified majority and co-decision on immigration, borders and visas. Following the discussion at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, the Dutch minister of immigration Rita Verdonk announced on Tuesday that the presidency would negotiate up to the European Council of 4-5 November with Member States on just how far unanimity would be abandoned. Verdonk declared at a press conference that, "We want the maximum…, 1st of April at the very latest". Legal immigration will very probably still be determined by unanimity, faced with the resolute opposition of Germany, indicated European diplomats (EUROPE yesterday p 9). Commissioner Vitorino (who was taking part in the JHA Council for the last time) underlined the difficulty of getting an agreement with 25 Member States on the multi-annual programme, which demonstrated the need to streamline procedures for decision-making and abandoning unanimity. He stressed that this was not the miracle solution but would put pressure on Member States to agree to negotiations.
Except for the issue of qualified majority and the European Prosecutor, the minister of justice Piet Hein Donner and minister Verdonk announced that the presidency would not change the draft programme very much by the time of the European Council, which is expected to adopt it on 5 November in its conclusions. It is likely that the reference to the European Prosecutor will be dropped. There may also be other adjustments on the question of information exchange. This is the most important section in a not very ambitious justice chapter. All quarters support the principle of improving information exchange but implementation remains the subject of debate. The presidency is proposing that information from law enforcement agencies from Member States be "available" to other from 2008. Belgium and France are insisting that certain information be reserved for the legal authorities. The United Kingdom and Ireland want national security interests to be valid reasons for refusing access to information. Germany and other Member States have highlighted the fact that it is not necessary to create a new base but rather input what already exists into the network. Italy has reservations about information exchange and underlined that there was a lack of a European legal framework in this connection. Luxembourg, however, supports exchange and considers that the presidency's proposal is the lowest common denominator.