Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Monday 6 December 2004
[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]
Draft European Police College (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004
4.30 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Police College (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Police Office) Order 2004 and the draft European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the European Police Office) (Amendment) Order 2004.
Mr. MacShane:
The orders were laid before the House on 24 November 2004, together with an explanatory memorandum that is now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. The draft European Police College (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004 will allow Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the headquarters agreement recently negotiated with the European police college. The privileges and immunities agreed in the headquarters agreement are similar to those conferred on other organisations with headquarters in the United Kingdom. The European police college is known as CEPOL from the original French acronym for the organisation, College Europeen de Police.
CEPOL is, in fact, a network of senior police training colleges located in all European member states. The network is supported by a central secretariat, which is now permanently located in the United Kingdom at the headquarters of the Central Police Training and Development Authority at Bramshill. The secretariat provides administrative, financial and technical support to the CEPOL network.
CEPOL was established by a decision of the Council of Ministers, 200/820/JHA, in December 2000 to improve police co-operation, to identify and disseminate good practice and to develop and deliver training to senior police officers involved in the fight against international and cross-border crime. We are fortunate to have the secretariat established in the United Kingdom against strong competition from other EU member states. I am satisfied that the order is compatible with rights under the European convention on human rights and I trust that it will have the full support of all members of the Committee.
Both the other orders are required to amend the European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the European Police Office) Order 1997 by providing that Europol officials participating in joint
Column Number: 4
investigation teams shall not enjoy immunity from suit and legal process in relation to their official acts regarding their participation in such teams. Unusually, the orders do not confer privileges and immunities, but take them away. Europol staff members have privileges and immunities from prosecution in relation to their official duties. They are in line with members of other international organisations. Retaining the privileges and immunities would not be appropriate for Europol staff when they are working alongside law enforcement officers on international joint investigation teams. It would give Europol staff protection from criminal and civil liability, whereas the other members of the team would have no such protection. Therefore, in that context, the privileges and immunities are removed.
I am satisfied that the draft orders are compatible with the rights contained in the European convention on human rights. I trust that they are also non-controversial and will have the full support of all Committee members.
4.35 pm
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): Thank you, Mr. Illsley, for calling me. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and the Minister in his place; it was a triumph of just-in-time delivery—as the clock moved on, we wondered whether there had been an emergency reshuffle in the past couple of days.
When I first received notification through the usual channels about these proceedings, I was slightly confused because the Government Chief Whip appears to have got the names of all three statutory instruments wrong in her communication; she referred throughout to the immunities and privileges of a European police force. Had I made that error, the Minister would have been ranting and raving that I was a foam-flecked Eurosceptic in trying to suggest that the measures were taking matters much further than they are.
Mr. MacShane: That is a bit of a red herring.
Mr. Brady: That is a giant red herring, as the Minister has kindly reminded us.
I have specific points and questions regarding the activities of the European police college and I will examine the central issue of how far co-operation needs to be supplanted by the new institutions and structures, which are set out in greater detail in the orders. Co-operation between police forces in Europe and elsewhere on cross-border issues is necessary and welcome, but we must ask profound questions where there may be a danger that new approaches go beyond what is useful, and perhaps risk increased bureaucracy and waste.
First, I want to take the Minister towards the most fundamental question, which concerns the legal basis for the provisions. The decision of the Council of Ministers of 22 December 2000 set up CEPOL—I cannot say that with as much flair as the Minister did, in the original French—as a network with no legal personality or permanent location. The college is currently financed by contributions from member
Column Number: 5
states and in 2004 they amount to è3.1 million. I note from the evidence that I think was taken by the European Scrutiny Committee that the projected budget for next year will be è4.5 million, which represents a 50 per cent. increase. The Commission, and, indeed, the Council of Ministers, clearly believe that it is better to switch to central funding via EU resources.
However, that raises two questions: what guarantee can the Minister offer that the budget will not continue to increase in the same way? What steps has he taken to ensure a proper audit of that spending? As he knows, the Commission is not particularly adept at auditing and controlling its finances and expenditure. Therefore, the shift to an own-resources basis may raise concerns and it may be that the current funding by contributions from member states would mean better financial control and better accountability for taxpayers' money.
Earlier this year, the Council of Ministers agreed to give the college a legal personality and to name Bramshill as its permanent location. If it is right for it to have a permanent location, it is right for it be at Bramshill?. I join the Minister on that. However, the changes have serious legal implications. Title VI of the EU treaty makes provision for police and judicial co-operation, but not, in my reading of it, for the creation of new institutions.
With particular regard to the immunities that we are being asked to extend to the European police office and to the college, article 291 of the EC treaty makes allowance for immunities for the community for the European Central Bank, the European Monetary Institute and the European Investment Bank. However, as the Select Committee on European Scrutiny makes it clear in its thirty-sixth report, there is no basis for what is being described here as a body of the European Union, as distinct from being a body of the European Community. That report states:
''The Protocol referred to in Article 291 contains no reference to 'bodies of the European Union'. Although Article 41 of the EU applies a number of Articles of the EC Treaty to activities under Title VI of the EU Treaty, it does not so apply Article 291 EC.''
I would welcome the Minister's response on that and I am sure that he will make informed and detailed comments when he is able to do so.
Will the Minister give some of the answers that the European Scrutiny Committee seeks and is still waiting for from the Government? Will he explain the legal and treaty basis for the creation of a European Union body and how it is possible for the college to be given its own legal personality when, as yet, the EU itself has no such status?
The European Scrutiny Committee put a number of further questions. It went on to make the point that
''The approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States is excluded from the scope of the decisions that may be adopted under Article 34(2)(c) of the EC Treaty''
and asked
''the Minister to explain why the proposal in Article 3 of the draft Decision to confer immunities and privileges on the College, thereby affecting in a like manner the operation of the laws of all Member States in relation to the College, does not amount to an approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.''
Column Number: 6
I shall welcome the Minister's response on that specific point.
The Committee also asked why
''it is thought necessary to extend each of the privileges and immunities of the European Communities to the College, its director and its staff when no analogous provision has been made in relation to Eurojust''
and went on to say that
''Article 12 of the draft Decision proposes that every Member State should be required to appoint a 'national unit'. It does not appear to us that the Commission has provided a sufficient justification for this proposal. Moreover, it is not clear that the requirement imposed on Member States by Article 12 would satisfy the tests for compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.''
Will the Minister address that point?
Finally, the European Scrutiny Committee says that
''Article 22 of the draft Decision proposes that there should be an independent external assessment of the College once every five years.''
Will the Minister comment on the Committee's view that it might be more appropriate, particularly for a new institution of this sort, to review progress much sooner than that—perhaps after three years—given that we might expect some rapid improvement in effectiveness if the benefits that the Minister seeks are to be a reality?
I now turn to detailed questions about the college and its operations. The European Commission says that the college's objectives include
''to increase knowledge of the national police systems and structures of other Member States, of Europol and of cross-border police co-operation''
and that the college will provide
''appropriate training with regard to respect for democratic safeguards with particular reference to the rights of defence.''
It would be interesting to hear the Minister's views on what democratic safeguards have currency across the member states rather than being specific to member states, which have their own legal traditions.
The college's activities include, as one might expect, training for senior police officers, for middle-ranking police officers and for police officers.
| 
