Select Committee on European Scrutiny Thirty-Second Report


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 baseArticle 30(1)(a) and 34(2)(c) EU; consultation; unanimity
Deposited in Parliament(b) 6 October 2004
DepartmentHome 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 CouncilNo date set
Committee's assessmentLegally 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.


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 28 October 2004