13 Police and customs cooperation
| (25706)
9903/04
COM(04) 376
| Commission Communication on enhancing police and customs cooperation in the European Union
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 15 July 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxv (2003-04), para 5 (30 June 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
13.1 Since 1999, the creation of an area of freedom, security
and justice has been one of the European Union's top priorities.
Key steps towards creating the area were:
- Title VI (Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters)
of the Treaty on European Union, which came into effect in May
1999.
- Council commitments to cooperation between Member
States' police forces and customs authorities (the Vienna Action
Plan and Conclusions 40 to 50 of the Tampere European Council).
- The incorporation into Community law of the Convention
Implementing the Schengen Agreement. (The Schengen acquis
abolished checks on the movement of people at the common borders
of the participating States; police cooperation was seen as one
of the necessary complementary measures to safeguard internal
security).
13.2 The Commission's Communication assesses progress
since 1999 in achieving these legal obligations and political
commitments. It also sets out the Commission's conclusions and
a large number of proposals for measures to improve police and
customs cooperation. One of the proposals concerns giving Europol
"certain investigative powers". The Commission says
that:
"An appropriate policy area to start with
[our emphasis] would be the fight against counterfeiting the Euro
… The discussion about such an important development would,
of course, have to be accompanied by deliberations about judicial
and parliamentary control over Europol. This is an important
debate for the next few years."[24]
13.3 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at
the Home Office (Caroline Flint) told us that:
"The Government notes that the Commission proposes,
but does not specify, 'certain investigative powers' for Europol,
and will need to know more precisely what is envisaged before
commenting."
13.4 When we scrutinised the Communication on 30
June, we recognised the benefits there can be from police and
customs cooperation. We said that many of the Commission's proposals
might usefully improve cooperation. But we agreed with the Minister
that much more needs to be known about the details before a view
can be taken on the acceptability of the proposals, and so, subject
to one exception, we reserved comment.
13.5 The exception concerned the Commission's proposal
that Europol should be given "certain investigative powers".
Europol is a criminal intelligence agency. It was created to
collect and analyse intelligence on international organised crime
and to disseminate the results; and to help improve operational
cooperation between Member States' police authorities. It was
not conceived as an investigative body. In our view, the Communication
does not provide sufficient reason to make a fundamental change
to its nature by giving it investigative powers. We noted that
the Communication suggests that the fight against counterfeiting
the Euro would be "an appropriate policy area to start with".
The clear implication is that the Commission has in mind more
extensive investigative powers for Europol. The Minister had
told us only that the Government would need to know more precisely
what is envisaged before commenting. We, however, were concerned
with the issue of principle. Accordingly, we asked the Minister
to explain the Government's position, in principle, on changing
Europol's character by giving it powers of investigation.
The Minister's letter
13.6 The Minister's letter tells us that:
"It is the Government's policy that Europol
should be an intelligence-sharing organisation. We have no intention
of departing from that position. We would not agree to proposals
which would extend Europol's mandate to give it any executive
functions in the Member States. Indeed, this view is also reflected
in Article III 177 of the Constitutional Treaty which states that
any operational action by Europol must be carried out in liaison
and agreement with the authorities of the Member States and that
the application of coercive measures shall be the exclusive responsibility
of the competent national authorities.
"The Commission's thinking is as yet only indicative
and detailed proposals are to follow. The Home Office will study
the detail of any subsequent legislative proposals the Commission
may present so as to ensure that the current settlement of the
position of Europol is respected."
Conclusion
13.7 We are grateful to the Minister for stating
the Government's position so clearly and unequivocally. On the
basis of her statement, we are content to clear the document from
scrutiny. For the avoidance of doubt, however, we seek the Minister's
confirmation that the power in Article III 174(2)(a) of the Constitutional
Treaty for Eurojust to initiate criminal investigations could
not be used, when read with Article III 177, to authorise investigations
by Europol without the agreement and participation of the Member
State whose territory is concerned.
24 Commission Communication, pp. 44-5. Back
| 
