15 Drug precursors
| (23903)
12064/02
COM(02) 494
| Draft Regulation on Drug Precursors. |
| Legal base | Article 95 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| Department | Home Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 7 May 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-v (2002-03), paragraph 11 (18 December 2002) and HC 63-ix (2002-03), paragraph 4 (22 January 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 19 May 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
15.1 This proposal is concerned with precursor chemicals —
substances which can be diverted from their legal use for the
illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
At EU level, two measures currently put the requirements of the
1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (the Vienna Convention) into
effect — a Regulation (3677/90/EEC) which controls the trade
in precursors between the Member States and third countries, and
a Directive (92/109/EEC) which controls the internal market. The
proposal is to replace the Directive with a new Regulation.
15.2 We have considered this proposal twice. On the last occasion
(in January), we decided to keep it under scrutiny until we heard
again from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home
Office (Mr Bob Ainsworth). He had undertaken to write to us again
in three months' time, or earlier if negotiations progressed more
swiftly.
The Minister's letter
15.3 The Minister has now written to tell us that the three points
raised in his initial Explanatory Memorandum have been resolved.
15.4 The first point related to the UK's preference for this proposed
change to the legislation to be examined as part of the larger
review (currently under way) of all EU legislation on precursor
chemicals. The Minister now tells us that the issue of enlargement
has altered priorities. He explains:
"The Regulation needs to be in place by the date of accession
of the new Member States … (1 May
2004), and it is unlikely that the results of the review will
be implementable by then. As I explained in my original Explanatory
Memorandum, the list of chemicals subject to control varies
as illicit manufacturers change their methods, as new precursors
and new drugs emerge, and so on. These changes require
changes to the Directive, and changes to the Directive require
implementation in the domestic law of the Member States. This
already gives rise to difficulties in a Union of 15 Member States.
The difficulties would be magnified in a Union of 25."
15.5 The UK's second concern was that the wording
of Article 4.3 of the draft Regulation (on customer declaration
and authorisation) might lead to a weakening of current UK controls.
The Government never thought the draft was intended to have this
effect and the Minister is content with the latest wording.
15.6 The third concern was with the proposed move
to mandatory, rather than voluntary, disclosure of suspicious
transactions. The Government feared that such a change might antagonise
industry. The Minister now tells us:
"Officials argued for the continuance of a voluntary
system, but there was little support for this position from other
member States and, since decisions are taken by qualified majority
voting, they have had to give way.
"However, having now been able to consider the
draft regulation more closely on this point, and to discuss its
implications with the Commission, they are now satisfied that
mandatory disclosure of suspicious
transactions will not
detract, as they had feared, from engendering
co-operation with industry. The good level of existing co-operation
means that, in practice, the level of reporting is likely to remain
much the same, The prospect of prosecution would only arise where
the authorities dismantle an illicit laboratory, identify precursors
that seem to have come from a licensed operator, and find solid
grounds for suspecting serious negligence in failing to report
a suspicious transaction. That is little different from the position
now, where the authorities would have to investigate the source
of the precursor to establish the possibility of a criminal offence.
Member States will have flexibility to apply penalties as they
see fit, so will have the ability to apply penalties sensitively;
and the Commission intends to produce guidelines to help industry
identify suspicious transactions. In these
circumstances, a requirement on industry to report suspicious
transactions seems unobjectionable."
15.7 The Minister tells us that the proposal is to
be submitted to the Competitiveness Council on 19 May for approval.
He hopes that we will now feel able to lift the scrutiny reserve.
Conclusion
15.8 We thank the Minister for his letter. We
note that the UK has changed its position on both the first and
the third of its original concerns.
15.9 The situation with regard to the third
point — mandatory, rather than voluntary, disclosure of
suspicious transactions — seems
rather odd. In his original Explanatory
Memorandum,[37]
the Minister told us that the UK "along with most other Member
States" would oppose mandatory disclosure, and in his letter
of 5 January,[38]
he reported that discussion with the Commission had suggested
that voluntary co-operation with industry would remain.
15.10 It now appears that there was little
support from other Member
States, and that voluntary co-operation with industry has indeed
been replaced by a mandatory system — but that the situation
will not be very different, after all.
Although we are not impressed by the gloss the Minister puts on
this back-tracking, we are prepared to clear the document. We
ask, however, for clarification about whether the provisions about
mandatory disclosure will have any implications for UK legislation.
37 Reported on in HC 63-v (2002-03), paragraph 11 (18
December 2002). Back
38
Reported on in HC 63-ix (2002-03), paragraph 4 (22 January 2003). Back
| 
