| Draft European Police College (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004
|
|
The Chairman: Order. Interesting as the hon. Gentleman's comments are, I am sure that he realises that he is moving wide of the mark. The order relating to the college deals with immunities and privileges. I ask him to relate what he says to the question of immunities and privileges. Mr. Brady: I do not, of course, suggest that you are wrong to bring me to order, Mr. Illsley, and I am grateful for your guidance. However, I was referring to the immunities and the reasons for them. It is only by looking at the college's objectives and at the activities that it seeks to set in motion that we can make any case for or against the extension of immunities to those activities. On the issue of the extension of the immunities, I want to know from the Minister why it is necessary or appropriate to train ordinary police officers, as opposed to senior officers, in the police systems of other countries. Why are those immunities necessary in that regard? Will the Minister go into detail about the scope of and need for the immunities in terms of the annual work programme set out by the college? It is Column Number: 7 clear so far that the activities include 13 member states, of which eight are accession countries and two candidate countries. I do not know which of the countries have not participated and whether therefore there are some budget contributions, but it is important to look at the work programme if we are to form a view as to whether the immunities are appropriate.We welcome the benefits of co-operation: those benefits may be obvious in tackling drug trafficking, internet pornography or other cross-border crimes where we can see clearly that there may be a need for joint operations, particularly at a senior level. In the context of those joint operations, it may be necessary to have some of the immunities that would be extended either to national police officers or to other representatives of the Community institutions in other contexts. However, it is less obvious why, for instance, it is necessary for the immunities to be extended to the college's work programme activities in the field of domestic violence, which does not naturally seem to lend itself to a trans-national approach. In summary, we welcome co-operation, both in training and policing, and that must extend to our EU partners and beyond. We are concerned, however, that these measures are an instance of the EU stretching the legal basis of the existing treaties and the bounds of its current powers, or moving ahead in anticipation of a constitution that will never come into force. Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): I am in the happy position of following the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who must not have left this place over the weekend, so thorough has his preparation been for this Committee. The sad thing for me is that he leaves me with very few questions to ask that have not already been put. Without wishing to pre-empt the Minister's suggestion, should he choose to reply by letter to some of the detailed points, may I request a copy too? Mr. MacShane: I, too, congratulate the speakers in this debate. I thought that I was here to move a statutory instrument on the narrow issue of the International Organisations Act 1968, but we have had an interesting run round the houses on general aspects of justice and home affairs. I got the slight impression that I was hearing a rehearsal for the European Council debate next week, and we can clearly now see some of the lines that will be advanced. All the women who suffer the most appalling domestic violence at the hands of people who then return to another European Union country will be fascinated to hear that it is the position of the Opposition that that is of no consequence to international police co-operation. Other international criminals who are concerned that there will be enhanced co-operation under existing treaties and the new treaty will be interested to hear that the Opposition want to stop the new treaty coming into effect, and are actually calling into question the provisions of the existing treaty.
Column Number: 8 However, it is up to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West to make his case on the general question of whether we fight international crime and support battered wives when their husbands flee to other countries, or whether we reduce the matter to another miasma of hostility to membership of the European Union. I suspect that I may be widening the debate—not quite as far as the hon. Gentleman did—so I shall desist from doing so at this point.Very simply, the European Police College—CEPOL—is being set up in Britain, and I consider that to be a significant advance for Britain as the focal point in Europe and internationally for driving forward the new co-operation needed in the fight against international crime. It could have gone elsewhere, and I am delighted that the highly respected professionalism of the Police College at Bramshill will now cross-fertilise with the new institution that will be based there. It will be small to begin with; there will be 20 members of staff covering all categories. I do not know how large it will grow. It will organise seminars and conduct training via e-mail—the modern methods of training—with police forces across Europe on aspects of cross-border crime. Mr. Brady: Why is it necessary to have legal immunities in order to organise seminars? Mr. MacShane: I was coming to that. Before the hon. Gentleman delivers his speech next week, I should like him to reflect on whether these training procedures should be limited to senior officers only. I want to teach tomorrow's generation of younger police officers about the need to find ways of co-operating across cultures and languages, fully respecting national laws and internal policing legislation against international crime. These immunities are necessary because we have an International Organisations Act 1968. Technically, this has nothing to do with Europe. These immunities are being legislated under an International Organisations Act. If we want international organisations to be based in the United Kingdom, it is the norm that we give those immunities to the people who work for them, as British citizens who work for international organisations in other parts of the world enjoy similar immunities. There may be some people who think that it is terrible that Britain is host to international and European organisations, if that entails giving them immunities—although I am sure nobody in this Room thinks so. I take the opposite view; the more international outfits we have in Britain, learning and living among us and understanding our culture, the better. The hon. Gentleman asked what was the basis of CEPOL as an institution. As I made clear, that decision was taken at a Council of Ministers meeting in 2000. It is an organisation for the purposes of the 1968 Act; it has international legal personality. That means that it has the ability to enter into agreements with other international organisations or states. I think that our American colleagues and our colleagues working in UNICEF—those working on the great Column Number: 9 issues of trafficking of children, and so forth—will be pleased that CEPOL can enter into such formal agreements, if that is appropriate.Mr. Brady: The Minister has dealt with one aspect of the legal basis for the creation of this body, and he has referred to the decision in 2000. That was a decision to create a network of existing organisations in the member states. I specifically asked him to give us some guidance on the legal and treaty basis for the creation of something that is being termed a body of the European Union, because both I and the European Scrutiny Committee are unaware of any legal or treaty basis for any such body to come into existence. Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. The sovereign states of the European Union, gathered together in the Council of Ministers, decided that it would be a good thing to have a small secretariat to constitute a police training college, and we in Britain have won it. The hon. Gentleman is trying to get us into a debate, but I do not think that any other Committee member wants to spend hours debating his obsessions with Europe. The decision was taken by the Council in 2000 and CEPOL was set up as an EU body, not an EU institution, which means that the EU immunities protocol does not apply to it. Accordingly, we have had to find another mechanism to give the same rights to the people involved as are given to those involved with other international bodies working here. The basis for that, if the hon. Gentleman must have it, is title VI of the treaty of the European Union, particularly articles 30(1)(c) and 34(2)(c). I am happy to write to him with more information, if that will help him. Finally, on the budget, the fact that the EU Commission proposes to provide central funding means that the Court of Auditors will undertake an external audit of CEPOL finances. Much noise is made about the EU budget, but it is worth underlining the fact that up to 85 per cent.— possibly 90 per cent.—of all EU money is spent by national Governments. If there is a fault with cheques going out and Column Number: 10 accountability, it is with national Governments. One of the fundamental dishonesties of the anti-European case is pretending that every cheque leaving Brussels goes direct to the recipient, but that is not so. Everybody knows that and I wish that hon. Members would start telling the truth about that fact.The budget is based on the costs of delivering the annual work programme, which is agreed by the Commission. That will limit future spending. The Commission proposal also limits the staff and secretariat to 22 people covering all the different needs of the organisation, with a limited work programme. That will, in a modest way, help us to co-ordinate the activities of police forces throughout Europe. I am proud that Britain has won the institution for the United Kingdom and I commend the orders to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
|
| |
| Prepared 6 December 2004 | |
