5 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 11 May 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 41-xviii (2006-07), para 6 (25 April 2007) and HC 41-xii (2006-07), para 6 (7 March 2007)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 12 June 2007
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Previous scrutiny
5.1 In May 2005, seven Member States signed the Treaty of Prüm.[9]
Its purpose is to increase the signatories' effectiveness in combating
terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration by greater
cooperation. Since then, eight more Member States have notified
their intention to join the Treaty.[10]
Jointly, they have proposed this draft Council Decision.
5.2 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.
5.3 When we considered the proposal in March,[11]
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.
5.4 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.
5.5 The Minister replied on 19 April. In our view,
her letter answered some of our questions, but did not answer
others and prompted further enquiries. Accordingly, we asked 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
would 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.[12]
The Minister's letter of 11 May 2007
5.6 The Minister tells us that the Government seriously
considered becoming a party to the Prüm Treaty. It decided
not to do so because of the Treaty's provisions on immigration
and some other matters. The Government believes, however, that
the provisions incorporated in the draft Decision would help law
enforcement authorities detect, prevent and investigate terrorism
and cross-border crime.
5.7 The Minister says that the Framework Decision
on the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement
authorities provides a legal framework for the sharing of data
on DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration. But it does not
make the necessary detailed provision to put the exchange into
practice. The draft Decision contains the detailed provision.
5.8 The Government does not think that it is appropriate
at the moment to seek an amendment making it explicit which provision
is to take precedence in the event of an overlap between the data
protection provisions of the draft Decision and the proposed Data
Protection Framework Decision (DPFD). The Minister says that,
at present, it is not possible to comment definitively on the
relationship between the two sets of data protection provisions
because both texts are still being negotiated. But, on the basis
of the current drafts, the Government believes that there would
be no conflict. The Minister says:
"the draft Council Decision on Prüm would
simply supplement the data protection safeguards set out in the
DPFD. Where these are stricter we would expect the draft Council
Decision on Prüm to apply over and above the DPFD."
She also says that:
"We are in further negotiations over the data
protection provisions so that they are consistent with UK national
law and operational processes."
5.9 Article 12 of the draft Decision would require
a Member State to give another Member States access to its vehicle
registration data. The Minister tells us that she believes that:
"the recitals and subsequent implementing agreement
will ensure that the application of Article 12 will focus on the
exchange of data for the purposes of tackling serious crime".
5.10 The draft will be discussed again at a meeting
in Brussels on 22 May. The German Presidency will seek agreement
to the draft Decision at the JHA Council on 12 June.
Conclusion
5.11 We are grateful to the Minister for the further
information she has provided. We remain concerned, however, about
the data protection provisions of the draft Decision. The Minister
tells us that there will be further negotiations to make them
consistent with UK law and practice; that it is impossible to
comment definitively on the relationship between the data protection
provisions of the draft Decision on Prüm and the proposed
Data Protection Framework Decision; but the Government "believes"
there would be no conflict between the two. It seems to us, therefore,
that there remains a lot of uncertainty about the data protection
provisions. Leaving uncertainty to persist on such an important
matter is not satisfactory. Yet the Presidency is pressing for
agreement to the draft Decision on 12 June. We question whether
that deadline would allow sufficient time for the proper completion
of the negotiations on the data protection provisions; and we
are not aware of any sufficient reason why it is imperative for
the Council to reach agreement on 12 June.
5.12 We should be grateful for the Minister's
further comments on those points and for a progress report on
the meeting to be held on 22 May. We do not understand the Minister's
remarks about Article 12; in particular, will the Article apply
only for the purposes of detecting, preventing and investigating
serious crimes and, if so, how would that be achieved?
5.13 Pending receipt of the further information
we have requested, we shall keep the draft Decision under scrutiny.
9 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
10
The eight are: Bulgaria, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia and Sweden. Back
11
See HC 41-xii (2006-07), para 6 (7 March 2007). Back
12
See HC 41-xviii (2006-07), para 6 (25 April 2007). Back
| 
