2 Relocation of the European Police College
(CEPOL)
| (35619)
17043/13
+ ADDs 1-2
—
| Initiative of Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany. Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision 2005/681/JHA establishing the European Police College (CEPOL)
|
| Legal base
| Article 87(2)(b) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department
| Home Office
|
| Basis of consideration
| Minister's letter of 1 April 2014
|
| Previous Committee Reports
| HC 83-xxxviii (2013-14), chapter 9 (19 March 2014);
HC 83-xxxv (2013-14), chapter 1 (5 March 2014);
HC 83-xxvi (2013-14), chapter 3 (8 January 2014);
(35741) 5522/14 is also relevant: HC 83-xxxiv (2013-14), chapter 23 (26 February 2014)
|
| Discussion in Council
| 6 May 2014
|
| Committee's assessment
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision
| Not cleared; further information requested; opt-in decision recommended for debate (decision reported on 8 January 2014)
|
Background and previous scrutiny
2.1 The European Police College (CEPOL)
is based in Bramshill in Hampshire. Its location is set out in
Article 4 of a 2005 Council Decision establishing CEPOL as an
EU Agency.[2] The draft
Regulation would amend the 2005 Decision to provide for the relocation
of CEPOL to Budapest, following an announcement by the Government
in December 2012 that it intends to sell the Bramshill site and
a political agreement reached by the Justice and Home Affairs
Council last Octoberto host CEPOL in Budapest.
2.2 The draft Regulation is subject
to the UK's Title V (justice and home affairs) opt-in. In his
Written Ministerial Statement to the House on 20 January 2011,
the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) expressed the Government's
full commitment to rigorous scrutiny of its opt-in decisions,
adding:
"The Government urges the [Scrutiny]
Committees to take full advantage of their existing right to call
a debate on an amendable motion on any opt-in decision and expresses
its willingness to participate in these debates to ensure full
transparency and accountability of opt-in decisions."
2.3 We first considered the draft Regulation
at our meeting on 8 January 2014 and recommended that the Government's
opt-in decision should be debated in European Committee B. The
three month period available to the Government to reach a decision,
under the Title V opt-in Protocol, expired on 13 March without
the Government having scheduled an opt-in debate. We wrote to
the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
on 12 March, drawing his attention to a Council press release
of 10 March which indicated that the Committee of Member States'
Permanent Representatives (Coreper) had approved a compromise
on the draft Regulation on 5 March (to be formally ratified by
the Council and the European Parliament (EP) at a later date),
and requesting an urgent explanation for the Government's delay
in scheduling the opt-in debate. Our letter crossed with one
sent by the Minister on 14 March informing us that that the Government
had decided to opt into the draft Regulation for reasons that
are set out in our Forty-first Report, agreed on 19 March 2014,
and reproduced in a Written Ministerial Statement published on
31 March.
2.4 The Minister also told us that the
Government supported the relocation of CEPOL to Budapest, but
that the costs of the move, and how they are to be allocated between
Member States, remained to be determined. He accepted that the
legal base for the draft Regulation, which gives the European
Parliament (EP) a right of co-decision with the Council as regards
the location of CEPOL — a matter usually reserved to the
Council — was appropriate, but did not expand on the concerns
set out in his initial Explanatory Memorandum about the precedent
that this might set for EP involvement in determining the location
of other EU Agencies. We asked him to do so, and to explain the
basis on which he expected the move to Budapest — estimated
to be in the region of €2 million — to be funded, as
well as the anticipated cost to the UK.[3]
The Minister's letter of 1 April 2014
2.5 Turning first to the opt-in debate
we recommended at the beginning of January, the Minister (Damian
Green) explains:
"I am sorry that it was not possible
to hold a debate before the opt-in deadline and I understand that
the Leader of the House of Commons wrote to you on 19 March regarding
the scheduling of debates in European Committee. A debate has
now been scheduled for 30 April.
"Our concern from the outset has
been to minimise the impact of the sale of Bramshill on both CEPOL
staff and on the operations of the Agency. With that in mind,
we are very pleased to see that an agreement on legislative matters
for the move is now within sight. Our primary aim has always
been to ensure that the move takes place as quickly as possible
and we are committed to do all we can to assist with the relocation."
2.6 The Minister notes that the funding
of relocation costs is still to be determined, but adds:
"we are prepared to meet some of
the costs involved in the move. To that end, we will seek to
enter into detailed discussions with the Presidency, Commission
and all relevant Union partners to seek a swift resolution to
this important issue."
2.7 The Minister explains that the Government's
general position is to object to the inclusion of a specific seat
(location) in the legislation establishing EU Agencies on the
grounds that such decisions should be taken by "common accord"
of the Member States, and not by the co-legislators. He continues:
"I appreciate the importance of
this, and in particular of resisting any expansion of the European
Parliament's competence in this area.
"However, in this case it was inevitable
that the European Parliament would be involved in the decision
because the existing CEPOL Council Decision already states the
location of the European Police College. Under Article 87(2)(b)
TFEU, any legislation amending that Decision must be agreed by
the ordinary legislative procedure, which means that it must be
agreed by the European Parliament as well as the Council. There
was therefore no scope to resist the Parliament's involvement
on this occasion.
"We will also submit a formal 'minute
statement' when the measure is adopted, making it clear that we
are only supporting a measure that states the seat of an Agency
in the exceptional circumstances of this case, where the underlying
measure being amended already specifies the location."
2.8 The Minister expects the European
Parliament to vote on the draft Regulation at its plenary session
on 16 April and the Council to adopt it on 6 May.
Conclusion
2.9 The Minister refers to a letter
from the Leader of the House (Mr Andrew Lansley)[4]
which expressed regret for recent delays in scheduling debates
and stated:
"The delays have been due in
part to time taken in obtaining the information from the European
Commission requested by your Committee (for example in the case
of the EU Staff Regulations) and in part due to the need to secure
agreement across Government."
2.10 Responding to our request for
a Government commitment to observe specific Committee recommendations
for the timing of debates, the letter continued:
"I am afraid that I cannot give
an unqualified commitment. Whilst we do what we can to accommodate
the legitimate requests of the Committee, there may be wider business
management reasons which make this difficult to achieve on occasion."
2.11 In our view, neither of the
reasons advanced by the Leader of the House for the near four-month
delay in scheduling the opt-in debate would appear to apply.
First, the draft Regulation is a Member State initiative and,
whilst the UK is not amongst its sponsors, there is nothing to
suggest that obtaining information has been an impediment in this
case. If it were, it is difficult to see how Coreper could have
approved a compromise with the European Parliament as early as
5 March.[5] Second,
the Minister tells us that "our primary aim has always been
to ensure the move takes place as quickly as possible".
This would suggest that the Government, along with other Member
States, has been keen to expedite the timetable for agreeing the
draft Regulation, an assumption that appears to be borne out by
the agreement reached in Coreper.
2.12 We remind the Minister that
all opt-in debates are time-critical and serve a vital dual purpose:
to enable Parliament to express a view before the Government
reaches a definitive position; and, in the words of the Minister
for Europe (Mr David Lidington), to "ensure full transparency
and accountability of opt-in decisions".[6]
A debate after the Government has decided to opt in is
contrary to the spirit of the undertakings given by the Minister
for Europe in his Written Ministerial Statement of 20 January
2011 on enhancing parliamentary scrutiny — it removes the
tools needed to enable Parliament to do its job effectively.
2.13 The Government's own Code of
Practice on scrutiny of opt-in decisions provides:
"All debates concerning the
Government's opt-in decision should usually take place in the
four weeks that follow the initial eight-week period of consideration
after publication of a proposal. Where Parliamentary time cannot
be found for an opt-in debate to be held on a government motion
(for example, recess), debates could be held on a take note motion
early in the three month window."
2.14 Whilst we appreciate that the
Minister is not responsible for scheduling debates, he must bear
the consequences of the Government's failure to make time available
within the three month opt-in period. When the opt-in debate
takes place on 30 April, we expect that he will be in a position
to explain the "business management reasons" which prevented
the Government from scheduling a timely debate. We also expect
him to explain what position the UK took in the Coreper discussions
on 5 March and, in particular, whether the UK was able at that
stage to indicate support for the compromise text agreed.
2.15 As we made clear in our Forty-first
Report, we do not dissent from the Minister's view that Article
87(2)(b) TFEU is the correct legal base for the draft Regulation.
Given that, as a result, he accepts that EP involvement in determining
the location of CEPOL was "inevitable", we question
why his Explanatory Memorandum suggested a need to "consider
the consequences" of conferring co-decision rights on the
EP.
2.16 Finally, with regard to relocation
costs, we agree with the Minister that "a swift resolution
to this important issue" is necessary. We ask the Minister
to confirm that the Government will not support the adoption of
the draft Regulation until this matter has been resolved. Meanwhile,
the draft Regulation remains under scrutiny.
2 Article 4 of Council Decision 2005/681/JHA, OJ No.
L 256, 01.10.2005. Back
3
The Impact Assessment accompanying the draft Regulation (ADD 2)
indicates that "one-off expenditure" for relocating
CEPOL may approach €2 million. Back
4
Letter of 19 March 2014 from the Leader of the House to the Chair
of the European Scrutiny Committee. Back
5
See our Forty-first Report, HC 83-xxxviii (2013-14), chapter 9
(19 March 2014). Back
6
Written Ministerial Statement of 20 January 2011. Back
| 
