Select Committee on European Scrutiny Twenty-First Report


6 Protocol amending the Europol Convention

(a)

(24006)

13254/2/02



(b)

(24387)

7496/03




(c)

(24388)

13254/5/02


Initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark with a view to adopting a Council Act drawing up, on the basis of Article 43(1) of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), of a Protocol amending that Convention.

Initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark with a view to adopting a Council Act drawing up, on the basis of Article 43(1) of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), of a Protocol amending that Convention: Opinion of the Europol Supervisory Body.

Initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark with a view to adopting a Council Act drawing up, on the basis of Article 43(1) of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), of a Protocol amending that Convention.

Legal baseArticle 43(1) Europol Convention; consultation; unanimity
Documents originated:(b) 20 March 2003)

(c) 19 December 2002

Deposited in Parliament(b) and (c) 27 March 2003
DepartmentHome Office
Basis of considerationEM of 10 April 2003
Previous Committee Report(a)HC 63-ix (2002-03), paragraph 6 (22 January 2003)
To be discussed in CouncilJune 2003
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decision(a)and (b) Cleared

(c) Not cleared; further information awaited

Background

6.1 The proposed Protocol, which Member States will need to adopt according to their respective constitutional requirements, puts forward a number of changes which the Danish Presidency considered needed to be made to the Europol Convention. We have scrutinised several versions of the proposal, and an opinion from the Joint Supervisory Body (JSB)[10] on it.[11] When we last considered document (a) , we decided to keep it under scrutiny until we received a further opinion from the JSB.

6.2 Our sister Committee in the House of Lords has produced a report on the proposal,[12] which is due to be debated in the House of Lords on 3 June.

The documents

6.3 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office (Mr Bob Ainsworth) has now deposited the JSB opinion (document (b)). He has also deposited the latest text of the proposal (document (c)), on which the Justice and Home Affairs Council reached a general approach at its December meeting, subject to consideration of the European Parliament's opinion, receipt of the further opinion of the JSB and parliamentary scrutiny reserves from two Member States, including the UK.

Document (c)

6.4 Although document (c) has not previously been deposited, the Minister told us about the differences between it and the earlier version in his letter of 10 January, on which we reported on 22 January.[13] We therefore concentrate below on document (b) —the JSB opinion.

Document (b): the JSB opinion

6.5 The JSB welcomes several of the amendments to the text since it published its first opinion. It states that the proposed Protocol is in general in compliance with data protection standards. However, it notes a number of continuing concerns as outlined below.

Access to the Europol Information System by authorities other than the national units.

6.6 The JSB repeats its earlier observation that access to query the information system should be limited to those competent authorities that have a legal task in preventing and combating serious international crime. However, it welcomes the proposal to publish the list of designated authorities in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Analytical files

6.7 The JSB considers that it should have "pro-active control" concerning the opening of analytical files, and greater involvement with regard to arrangements to be made with third parties involved in analysis work.

Transmission of data to third states and bodies

6.8 Although the JSB is content with the provision allowing departure from the rules on the transmission of Europol data to third countries in exceptional cases, it reiterates its objection to the derogation which would allow Europol to transmit personal data to third states and bodies in specific cases as long as it was explicitly authorised by the Member State which supplied the data. Given the general rule, it cannot see the need for such a special rule and urges the Council to reconsider this amendment.

Data retention

6.9 The JSB also urges the Council to reconsider the extension of the time limit for data storage from three to five years. It agrees that the three-year limit may be too short; but suggests that the present system should be changed. A provision for retention periods should be developed in relation to a whole data file as an entity, rather than simply to the personal data held within it. The JSB has put forward its own amendment along these lines, advocating the retention of data files for a period of up to three years. When strictly necessary, the Director of Europol could order the continuation of the file for a new period of three years, following a procedure to ensure that both the Management Board and the JSB were informed of the decision.

The Government's view

6.10 The Minister reminds us that it was the UK which pressed the Presidency to request a further opinion from the JSB. He tells us that, in general terms, the Government finds document (c) helpful, and notes the welcome to several of the amendments as well as the reservations and recommendations in respect of some draft Articles. With regard to the latter, he says:

"We broadly support the JSB's views on these Articles, and believe they merit further discussion, in particular with Europol on the operational practicality of the proposals. Clearly it is necessary to strike a balance between the need to improve the flexibility and effectiveness of Europol's working arrangements with the need to ensure adequate safeguards to protect the storage, processing and use of personal data. We will update the Committees at the earliest possible opportunity on the outcome of further discussions on this, and will keep them informed on how the Presidency intends to take forward the proposed amendments in the light of the JSB's opinion."

Conclusion

6.11 We thank the Minister for his Explanatory Memorandum, and for undertaking to keep us informed of the outcome of further discussions. We are pleased to learn that he broadly supports the JSB opinion, and hope that he will press the Presidency to take full account of it.

6.12 We clear documents (a) and (b), but will keep document (c) under scrutiny until we hear from the Minister again.


10   The Joint Supervisory Body monitors the activities of Europol in relation to data protection issues. Back

11   (24007) 13688/02; see HC 63-v (2002-03), paragraph 6 (18 December 2002). Back

12   Europol's role in fighting crime: Flfth Report from the Select Committee on the European Union, HL 43 (2002-03). Back

13   See headnote to this paragraph. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 28 May 2003