15 Measures which present a significant
risk of infraction
481. We have only included two connected measures
in this category, although there are several other measures for
which transposition or implementation has not been completed and
which may therefore present a lesser degree of infraction risk.[128]
| Measure |
No. | Page
(Cm Paper)
| Purpose and content of measure |
| Prüm Decisions on cooperation to combat terrorism and cross-border crime
Council Decisions 2008/615/JHA and 2008/616/JHA
| 79
80 | 106 | Requires the reciprocal searching of each others' databases for DNA Profiles, Vehicle Registration Data and Fingerprint images.
|
482. In her Statement to the House on 9 July
2013, the Home Secretary made clear that the Government would
not:
leave the UK open to the threat of infraction and
fines which run into many millions of pounds by remaining bound
by measures we simply cannot implement in time. That would be
senseless.[129]
She added that this was an example of the Government
being "pragmatic".
483. Council Decisions 2008/615/JHA and 2008/616/JHA
(Nos. 79 and 80) — the so-called Prüm Decisions —
seek to establish more effective mechanisms for cross-border police
cooperation and the exchange of information to prevent and investigate
terrorist and other serious criminal offences. Implementation
is costly and complex because the Decisions establish rules and
procedures for the automated searching and transfer of DNA "reference
data" (containing individual DNA profiles which may be used
to establish a match or "hit", but which do not reveal
the identity of the data subject), fingerprint data and certain
vehicle registration data. Member States had until August 2011
to implement these provisions but progress has been slow, and
the Government has been clear that it will not be in a position
to do so by 1 December 2014.
484. We accept that the risk of infraction
is particularly acute in relation to the Prüm Decisions,
given the significant delay before the UK would be in a position
to implement them in full, and that the Government's pragmatic
approach is justified in this case. The Government's decision
not to rejoin the Prüm Decisions with effect from 1 December
2014 does not, however, prevent the Government from doing so at
a later stage. We note that significant investment will be required
to implement Prüm in full, and that the Government has succeeded
in securing EU funding to take forward work on the DNA elements.
Although the Government has stated that its acceptance of funding
should not be taken as an indication that it intends to opt back
into Prüm, we think that a clearer statement of its intentions
regarding future UK participation in Prüm is warranted.
128 These include Joint Action 98/699/JHA on money
laundering and the confiscation of the proceeds of crime (No.
17), Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA on the mutual recognition
of `probation decisions (No. 88), Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA
on conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters (No. 107), Framework
Decision 2003/577/JHA on the execution of orders freezing property
or evidence (No. 48), Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the mutual
recognition of confiscation orders (No. 68) and Framework Decision
2009/299/JHA on the mutual recognition of in absentia judgments
(No. 92). Back
129
HC Deb, 9 July 2013, col. 177 Back
|
