6 Incorporating the Prüm Treaty
into EU law
| (28409)
6566/07
—
| Draft Decision on stepping up cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime
|
| Legal base | Articles 30(1)(a) and (b), 31(1)(a), 32 and 34(2)(c) EU; consultation; unanimity
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 19 April 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 41-xii (2006-07), para 6 (7 March 2007)
|
| To be discussed in Council | June 2007
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Previous scrutiny
6.1 In May 2005, seven Member States signed the Treaty of Prüm.[12]
Its purpose is to increase the signatories' effectiveness in combating
terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration by greater
cooperation.
6.2 Since the Treaty was signed, eight more Member States have
notified their intention to join the Prüm Treaty.[13]
6.3 In March we considered this draft Council Decision.[14]
It reproduces, with few differences, the provisions of the Prüm
Treaty on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters,
for which the EU Treaty provides a legal base (it omits the provisions
on illegal migration and other matters which fall within the scope
of the EC Treaty). The most notable features of the draft Decision
are the provisions giving Member States the right of access to
the DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration databases of other
Member States and the provisions on the processing and protection
of the data.
6.4 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office
(Joan Ryan) told us that the Government broadly welcomed the proposed
Decision. It was considering in detail the data protection provisions
and the cost to the UK of implementing the Decision.
6.5 We asked the Minister to tell us:
a) Why the Government had not become a party to the Prüm
Treaty and if it would now wish to become a party if the Decision
were not adopted.
b) The outcome of the Government's work on the
likely cost of implementing the draft Decision.
c) Why the Framework Decision on the exchange
of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities,
which was adopted by the Council last December, does not make
sufficient provision for police cooperation and why the incorporation
of some of the provisions of the Prüm Treaty is needed in
addition.
d) Whether the proposed Data Protection Framework
Decision would take precedence over the draft Decision if there
were a conflict between the data protection provisions of the
two measures.
The Minister's letter of 19 April 2007
6.6 The Minister's letter replies to some, but not
all, of our questions.
Costs
6.7 In the light of a meeting of experts from the
UK and other Member States, the Government's provisional estimate
is that the total start up cost for the UK would be in the region
of £31 million for the exchange of DNA, fingerprint and vehicle
registration data (she stresses that the estimate is based only
on the information currently available and may change when further
information is available). She says that:
"We do not consider this an unreasonable
figure considering the benefits that the draft Council Decision
will bring. It has the potential to improve the safety of UK citizens
by aiding UK authorities in criminal investigations including
those against foreign nationals who may have committed crimes
in the UK and crossed borders to avoid detection."
She adds that the German Presidency intends to propose
an implementation agreement, which will be subject to negotiation
in the Council.
Framework Decision on the exchange of information
and intelligence between law enforcement authorities[15]
6.8 The Minister says that the draft Council Decision
is intended to complement the Framework Decision, "which
sets out some general rules governing the exchange of information
between law enforcement officers".
Data Protection Framework Decision
6.9 The Minister tells us that:
"The Data Protection Framework Decision
(DPFD) will set overarching minimum standards of data protection
across the whole of the third pillar[16]
… including the draft Council Decision on elements of Prüm.
It is not possible to comment definitively on the relationship
between the data protection provisions in [the] draft Council
Decision and those in the DPFD at present because both texts are
still under negotiation. However, the DPFD is designed for general
application so its application will be superseded by any specific
data protection provisions in other third pillar instruments:
as a consequence, the specific data protection provisions in the
draft Council Decision on elements of Prüm will apply to
data that is processed under that Council Decision.
"… There would be no conflict between
the provisions in the DPFD and those in the Council Decision:
the Council Decision would simply supplement the data protection
safeguards set out in the DPFD, so where stricter, we would expect
the Council Decision to apply over and above the DPFD."
6.10 Finally, the Minister tells us that the German
Presidency hopes that agreement on the draft Decision will be
reached at the JHA Council in June.
Conclusion
6.11 We are grateful to the Minister for her letter.
While it answers some of our questions it does not answer others
and prompts further enquiries. Accordingly we ask the Minister:
· to
answer our previous question about why the Government did not
become a party to the Prüm Treaty;
· to
explain why the DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data
could not be provided under the Framework Decision on the exchange
of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities;
and
· if
she will seek an amendment to the draft Decision to make it explicit,
in the event of an overlap between the provisions of the Council
Decision and the Data Protection Framework Decision, which of
them is to take precedence.
Pending the Minister's reply, we shall keep the
draft Decision under scrutiny.
12 The English version refers to the document as a
"Convention"; but the versions in other languages describe
it as a "Treaty". In this Report, we refer to it as
the Prüm Treaty.
The signatories were Austria, Belgium,
France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain. Back
13
The eight are: Bulgaria, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia and Sweden. Back
14
HC 41-xii (2006-07), para 6 (7 March 2007). Back
15
Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA: OJ No. L 386, 29.12.06,
p. 89. Back
16
The third pillar is shorthand for measures relating to police
and judicial cooperation in criminal matters under Title VI of
the EU Treaty. Back
| 
