THE PROVISIONAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EUROPEAN
POLICE COLLEGE (EPC)
(21381)
9679/00
—
|
Portuguese Presidential proposal for a Council Decision on the provisional establishment of the European Police College (EPC).
|
| Legal base: |
Articles 30(1)(c) and 34(2)(c) EU; consultation; unanimity
|
| |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 27 June 2000 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 30 June 2000 |
| Department: |
Home Office |
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 13 July 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| December 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
4.1 In October 1999, the Tampere European
Council agreed to the establishment of a European Police College
(EPC) for the training of senior law enforcement officials. It
was also agreed that the EPC should initially operate as a network
of the existing national institutes, but that the possibility
of a permanent institution at a later stage should be left open.
4.2 The UK, France and Italy have all expressed
interest in hosting the EPC secretariat.
The document
4.3 This draft Decision has been drawn up
by the Portuguese Presidency, following a study by the General
Secretariat of the Council on which Member State experts were
consulted.
4.4 It sets out the aim of the network and
the kind of actions it may undertake. (These include specialist
training to combat organised crime, and the provision of training
for police authorities from applicant countries.) It also outlines
the proposed organisational structure. This involves Member States
in either setting up special units within their national police
institutes, or designating national representatives of the College.
The Directors of the national institutes will form the governing
board of the College which will be chaired by an institute Director
from the Member State holding the Council Presidency.
4.5 The draft Decision requires the governing
board to submit a report to the Council — at the latest
during the third year after the measure's entry into force —
on how the College should develop, in particular at institutional
level.
The Government's view
4.6 The Minister of State at the Home Office
(Mrs Barbara Roche) tells us:
"The Government has strongly supported the establishment
of such a Network, and has contributed fully to the discussions...
"The Government is seeking the acceptance of
the Decision as a Draft, subject to further discussion on the
details therein. Once the document is agreed as a Draft, the UK
will push for a number of minor amendments. These are as follows:
"Article 2(a) refers to the Network delivering
annual training sessions. The UK is seeking further discussion
around the word 'annual', as it may restrict flexibility for course
design at this early stage of development.
"Article 2(i) refers to a virtual EPCN [European
Police College Network]. This is a new addition since the paper
... which originally set out the draft proposals. The UK does
not oppose the inclusion of this measure but would welcome further
discussion on its content.
"Article 2(g) only provides for training and
consultation with law enforcement officials who are within EU
or Accession Countries. While agreeing that the focus of the EPCN
must be on Europe, the UK would like consideration to be given
to the inclusion of other foreign countries within this provision
(as in [the original paper]) to allow flexibility for the EPCN
to learn from good practice in other law enforcement agencies
globally.
"Article 4. The UK would prefer the presidency
of the Governing Board not to be held by a representative from
the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council of the
EU at that time. This would lead to frequent changes of presidency
and could lead to an inconsistency in the management of the EPCN.
The UK would prefer the president to be elected for a 2 year term
by the members of the Governing Board.
"Article 8 (1). The UK is concerned that annual
contribution by Member State calculated on GDP may mean the UK
contributes a higher sum (relative to other Member States) than
the benefits it would receive. The UK is considering its position
on this issue."
4.7 In relation to the financial implications
of the proposal, the Minister says that no projections about the
level of the costs incurred by the network are yet available.
It is proposed that they should be borne by the Community according
to Article 41 TEU.
4.8 She also informs us that the UK has
offered to meet the costs of the secretariat if its bid to host
it succeeds. The costs are estimated at £150,000 a year and
would be met from Home Office funds. Bramshill is the preferred
location.
4.9 The Minister tells us about the views
of European organisations. ELEC (European Law Enforcement Co-operation)
supports the establishment of the Network subject to final agreement
of its functions and its relationship with ELEC; the Association
of European Police Colleges (AEPC) is supportive of the proposals
and will review its rôle in light of the new body. The Scottish
Police College supports the UK bid to host the secretariat at
Bramshill.
4.10 The timetable outlined by the Minister
indicates that adoption of the Decision will be sought at the
JHA Council in December 2000, with the first meeting of the governing
board of the EPCN scheduled for February 2001.
Conclusion
4.11 We are pleased to see that progress
is being made on this matter. We do not, however, understand what
is meant by the sentence: "the Government is seeking the
acceptance of the Decision as a Draft, subject to further discussion
on the details therein." From whom is the Government seeking
this acceptance — from us, from the French Presidency, or
from the Council — and at what stage of the timetable? The
vagueness of the statement makes us unwilling to clear the document
in case there is any danger of its being agreed in Council before
we know the outcome of negotiations on the Government's amendments.
4.12 If the French Presidency issues
a second draft of the Decision in the autumn (as indicated in
the timetable), we will be content for the statement to be clarified
in the new Explanatory Memorandum provided by the Government.
If there is any doubt about there being a new document, however,
an earlier response would be appropriate.
4.13 Meanwhile, we do not clear the document.
| 
