22 Crime prevention
| (25487)
7763/04
COM(04) 165
| Commission Communication: crime prevention in the European Union
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 13 May 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xviii (2003-04), para 3 (28 April 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
22.1 We considered this Communication on crime prevention in April.
It concerns what the Commission describes as "volume crime",
such as domestic burglary, theft from vehicles, common assault,
street robbery and anti-social behaviour (e.g. noisy neighbours
and people who are drunk).
22.2 The Communication says that effective crime
prevention policies can be taken only at the local level, with
support at national level. But, in the Commission's view, some
things need to be done at EU level to support activities at national
level, avoid duplication of effort and use resources more effectively.
22.3 The Communication recommends that, over the
next few years, Member States and the Commission should focus
on five main areas for priority action:
- define the types of "volume
crime" on which Member States should concentrate their attention.
The Commission regards juvenile, urban and drug-related crime
as categories which are too broad and proposes to subdivide them;
- identify and implement good practice in crime
prevention;
- adopt an agreed methodology for the preparation,
implementation and evaluation of crime prevention projects;
- monitor and evaluate Member States' crime prevention
policies;
- establish consistent definitions and recording
procedures for crime statistics.
22.4 The Communication also says that the European
Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) should either be given its own
legal personality or be incorporated into the Commission's services.
Moreover, the Commission considers that Member States should incorporate
the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime into
their national prevention policies.
22.5 Later this year, the Commission will present
proposals to give effect to the recommendations in the Communication.
22.6 The Minister of State at the Home Office (Baroness
Scotland) told us that the document represented "the start
of a process designed to bring about a much-needed strategic and
structured approach to EU cooperation in crime prevention".
The Government supported some of the proposals but did not support
others or considered that they required clarification or modification.
22.7 The Minister told us that:
"The Communication complies with the principle
of subsidiarity".
22.8 We recognised that the Communication only outlines
the Commission's thinking and that its formal proposals will not
be presented until the end of this year. We also noted that the
Government will be seeking to add to and modify some of the Commission's
recommendations. We decided, therefore, not to comment on the
details of the Communication.
22.9 We considered, however, that the Communication
raises a major question that should be addressed straightway.
The crimes with which the Communication is concerned are essentially
local — domestic burglary, theft from vehicles, street robbery,
drunkenness and so on. As the Commission says, effective action
to prevent such crimes needs to be taken at local level, with
support at national level. Article 2 of the EU Treaty, read with
Article 5 of the EC Treaty, requires the Community to respect
the principle of subsidiarity. Protocol 30 to the EC Treaty specifies
guidelines to be used in examining whether Community action can
be justified. It was not apparent to us that the action the Commission
contemplates on the prevention of "volume crime" is
consistent with those guidelines. So we asked to know the reasons
for the Minister's view that the proposals comply with the principle.
The Minister's letter
22.10 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
at the Home Office (Caroline Flint) has replied to our question.
She says that:
"The Commission's thinking is as yet only indicative;
detailed proposals are to follow and these will be assessed on
a case by case basis and in particular whether they respect the
principle of subsidiarity. I shall therefore concentrate on the
point of principle that aspects of [the] prevention of volume
crime can benefit from being addressed at European level as well
as [at] national and local levels".
22.11 The Minister says that street robberies and
vehicle theft often involve products that are useable in other
countries. For example, stolen mobile phones are often shipped
in bulk to other countries where they are sold and reused. National
action cannot counter this problem but Community-level action
can be effective by setting common standards for the manufacture
and registration of phones so that they can be disabled transnationally
if they are stolen. This reduces the incentive to theft and so
can contribute to a reduction in local crime. Similar Community
level action can help reduce thefts of other electronic equipment,
credit cards and other products.
22.12 In the Minister's view, the exchange of information
about crime and its prevention needs to go beyond local or national
boundaries and needs to be collated, managed and distributed in
a systematic way. This requires action at Community level to develop
crime statistics that permit comparison and the identification
of trends; it also requires common methodologies to describe,
evaluate, publish and promote good practice.
22.13 The Minister concludes:
"Clearly, it would be inconsistent with the
principle of subsidiarity for the European Union to lay down rules
or binding guidelines on how we should police our streets or how
to tackle a particular form of volume crime; but nothing like
this is being proposed: the aspects of crime prevention outlined
by the Commission support action at local [or] national level
and are not contrary to the principle of subsidiarity".
Conclusion
22.14 We are grateful for the Minister's explanation.
We do not doubt that action by the Community can help to reduce
local crime in the ways she illustrates. Nor do we doubt that
coordinated action to, for example, set common standards for the
registration and manufacture of mobile phones can be consistent
with the principle of subsidiarity. But paragraph 1.2.1 of the
Communication expressly says "This Communication limits itself
to the prevention of non-organised crime"; and paragraph
1.2.2 says "Preventive measures should thus not only address
crime stricto senso, but also cover 'anti-social behaviour'
… Examples of such behaviour are noisy [neighbours], neighbourhoods
characterised by teenagers hanging around, drunk or rowdy people,
rubbish or litter lying around, deteriorated environments and
housing". These quotations leave us with serious doubts about
the consistency of some aspects of the Communication with the
principle of subsidiarity.
22.15 We note, however, the Minister's assurance
that, when the Commission presents detailed proposals, they "will
be assessed on a case by case basis and in particular whether
they respect the principle of subsidiarity". Those proposals
will also come to us for scrutiny and we shall examine them rigorously
to see if they conflict with the principle. There are, however,
no further comments we wish to make on the Communication itself
and no further questions we need put to the Minister at this stage.
Accordingly, we clear the document from scrutiny.
| 
