14 Cross-border vehicle crime
| (a)
(25301)
5450/04
—
(b)
(25990)
7839/4/04
—
|
Draft Council Decision on tackling vehicle crime with cross-border implications
Revised draft Council Decision on tackling vehicle crime with cross-border implications
|
| Legal base | Article 30(1)(a) and 34(2)(c) EU; consultation; unanimity
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (b) 6 October 2004
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | (b) EM of 4 October 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a) HC 42-xi (2003-04), para 11 (25 February 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (a) Cleared
(b) Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
14.1 About 1.2 million motor vehicles are stolen every year in
the EU. An estimated 30% to 40% are stolen by organised crime
groups and then exported elsewhere in or outside the EU. There
are links between vehicle crime and other crimes, such as trafficking
in drugs, firearms and human beings.
14.2 This proposal was initiated by the Netherlands.
Its purpose is to strengthen the prevention and detection of cross-border
vehicle crime through closer cooperation and the sharing of information
between Member States' police, customs and vehicle registration
authorities.
14.3 When we considered document (a) in February,
the Minister told us that the Government welcomed the proposal
but had reservations about some of the provisions of the draft
Decision.
14.4 We recognised the importance of preventing and
detecting cross-border vehicle crime. But we had four main concerns
about the text of document (a).
14.5 First, Article 4(1) proposed that Member States
should be under a duty to organise consultations between law enforcement
agencies, vehicle registration authorities and the private
sector, including insurers and the car trade. Articles 30(1)(a)
and 34(2)(c) of the EU Treaty were cited as the legal base for
the measure. Article 30(1) is confined to common action in the
field of police cooperation; and Article 34 is confined to consultation,
coordination and the exchange of information between Member States
and collaboration between the departments of their administrations.
Neither Article extends to the private sector. It appeared to
us, therefore, that there is no legal base for the requirement
in Article 4(1) of document (a) for mandatory consultation with
the private sector.
14.6 Second, Article 10 required Member States to
ensure that specialist training in the prevention and detection
of vehicle crime is provided by their national police and customs
training bodies. It seemed to us that it is for Member States
to decide the curriculum and that the proposed duty breached the
principle of subsidiarity.
14.7 Third, Article 5(2) required Member States to
authorise their contact points to exchange "general and technical"
information. It was not clear if the exchange of personal information
would be precluded. In our view, the text should leave no scope
for doubt one way or the other and, if personal data is to be
exchanged, provision for its proper protection is needed.
14.8 Fourth, since document (a) would impose obligations
directly on Member States' authorities, its terms should be precise.
Yet important terms were undefined and it was difficult to understand
the meaning or effect of some of the provisions.
14.9 We asked the Minister, therefore, to subject
the text to rigorous examination in the light of our concerns
and to seek amendments to clarify the document and remove any
doubts about the lawfulness of its provisions. We also asked the
Minister to keep us informed of the progress of the negotiations
on document (a).
Document (b)
14.10 Document (d) contains a revised draft of the
proposed Decision. The main revisions are:
- A definition of "national
competent authorities" for the purposes of the Decision has
been added to Article 1. The competent authorities are to be any
national authorities designated by Member States, and may include
police and customs authorities, border guards, judicial authorities
and vehicle registration authorities.
- Article 3 retains the requirement for Member
States to take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation between
their national competent authorities to combat cross-border vehicle
crime. But the Article has been amended to provide that these
steps are to be "in accordance with national law".
- Article 4(1) still requires Member States to
take the necessary steps to organise periodic consultations with,
among others, "representatives of the private sector (such
as holders of private registers of missing vehicles, insurers
and the car trade) with a view to coordination of information
and alignment of activities. But the Article has been amended
to provide that the consultations are to be organised "in
accordance with national law".
- Article 5(2) retains the requirement for Member
States to authorise their designated contact points to exchange
information on vehicle crime. But an addition has been made excluding
the exchange of personal data.
- Article 7(2) has been amended to provide that
law enforcement authorities must, when requested to do so, inform
vehicle registration authorities whether a vehicle that is being
registered is the subject of an alert on the Schengen Information
System or is included in the Interpol database of stolen vehicles.
- Article 10 retains the requirement for Member
States to ensure that the curriculum of their institutes for training
the staff of law enforcement authorities includes specialist training
in the prevention and detection of vehicle crime. But an amendment
has been made to provide that, where appropriate, the national
institutes should consult the European Police College.
- Article 12 (partnerships and cooperation with
third countries to combat vehicle crime) has been deleted.
The Government's view
14.11 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
at the Home Office (Caroline Flint) tells us — in response
to our view that there is no legal base for the requirement in
Article 4(1) for consultation with the private sector —
that the Government secured an amendment providing that the consultations
should be "in accordance with national law".
14.12 The Minister also draws our attention to the
inclusion in document (b) of an amendment to Article 5(2) expressly
to exclude personal information from the data which may be exchanged
between national contact points.
14.13 In February, we said that we considered that
it is for Member States to decide the curriculum for training
their law enforcement staff and that the requirement in Article
10 appeared to breach the principle of subsidiarity. The Minister
tells us that:
"Other Member States are generally sensitive
to issues of subsidiarity but on Article 10 there was insufficient
support for our view that amendments to it were necessary in order
to clarify that the principle of subsidiarity would not be threatened
by it. Given the lack of support for our position there is little
scope for re-opening discussions of this Article. However, this
will not have an impact on the provision of police training in
the United Kingdom since training in vehicle crime prevention
and detection is already covered in the training available to
police officers. It is also in our interests that standards of
vehicle crime reduction training are high across the EU. I am
therefore satisfied that [the] Article is consistent with our
interests."
Conclusion
14.14 While we remain sympathetic to the aim of
the draft Decision, our concerns about it have not been fully
allayed by the revised text in document (b).
14.15 In particular, we do not understand the
effect of the addition to Article 3(1) of the words "in accordance
with national law". It is not apparent how this addition
would affect the requirement in the Article for Member States
to take the necessary steps to increase cooperation between their
national authorities. Moreover, we cannot assess the likely affect
of the addition in the United Kingdom because we have not been
told what the relevant "national law" would be.
14.16 Document (b) retains the requirement in
Article 4(1) for Member States to consult the private sector.
But we remain of the view that, for the reasons spelt out in our
previous Report, such a requirement is outside the powers of the
EU Treaty. It does not appear to us that the addition to the requirement
of "in accordance with national law" can remedy that
defect. Moreover, we have not been told what the relevant law
of the United Kingdom would be.
14.17 Article 1 of document (b) includes a new
definition of "national competent authorities". The
revised text refers to such authorities in some places but retains
the previous references to, for example, law enforcement agencies
in others (for example, in Article 5(1), 6, 7 and 8). The reasons
for the lack of consistency are not apparent.
14.18 We note the Minister's view that Article
10 (training in prevention and detection of vehicle crime) is
in the United Kingdom's interests. But, in our opinion, that is
not a proper reason for acceding to the Article. It remains our
view that it is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity for
the Article to impose a requirement on Member States about the
contents of training for national law enforcement agencies.
14.19 Article 13 requires the Council to evaluate
the implementation of the Decision after three years. We consider
such evaluations to be important. But document (b) is silent about
how the Council is to conduct the evaluation of the Decision or,
for example, what powers it is to have to require information
for the purpose.
14.20 For these reasons, we consider that the
revised text of the draft Decision is not satisfactory. We ask
the Minister to comment on our concerns and to seek suitable amendments
to the text to overcome the deficiencies we have identified. Meanwhile,
we shall keep document (b) under scrutiny. We clear document (a)
because it has been superseded by the revised text.
| 
