3 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)
Explanatory memorandum and impact assessment
|
| Legal base | Article 87(2)(b) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 29 November 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 11 December 2013
|
| Department | Home Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 13 December 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussion in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested; opt-in decision for debate in European Committee B
|
Background
3.1 The European Police College (CEPOL) was originally
established in 2000 as a network of national training institutes
for senior police officers. Its remit was to support Member States
in preventing and combating crime with a cross-border dimension
and in maintaining law and order and public security. CEPOL was
established as an EU Agency by a Decision adopted in 2005 ("the
2005 Decision") which also provided for it to be financed
from the EU budget.[9]
Its core objectives are to improve knowledge of Member States'
national police systems and structures and to increase awareness
of the instruments and structures (such as Europol and Eurojust)
available at EU level to strengthen cross-border police cooperation.
3.2 CEPOL is currently based at Bramshill, in Hampshire.
Its location is set out in Article 4 of the 2005 Decision. In
December 2012, the Government announced that the Bramshill site,
which also houses the UK's College of Policing for England and
Wales, would be sold and that CEPOL would be required to relocate.
Shortly afterwards, in March 2013, the Commission published a
draft Regulation which would repeal the 2005 Decision and a 2009
Decision establishing Europol — the Hague-based European
Police Office — as an EU Agency and merge their functions
within a single EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and
Training.[10] As most
Member States oppose the proposed merger, we understand that negotiations
on the draft Regulation are continuing within the Council on the
basis that CEPOL will remain a separate Agency. This means that
it will be necessary to agree a new location for CEPOL. In June
2013, the Government told us that a number of Member States had
expressed an interest in hosting CEPOL but that it did not yet
have a settled view on which alternative location would be appropriate.[11]
3.3 The Justice and Home Affairs Council in October
2013 reached a political agreement on "provisional arrangements"
to host CEPOL in Budapest, Hungary, from the date on which the
Bramshill site closes, pending the outcome of negotiations on
the draft Europol Regulation.[12]
The draft Regulation
3.4 The draft Regulation is a Member State initiative
to amend Article 4 of the 2005 Decision (which currently provides
for CEPOL to be located in Bramshill) by establishing a new base
for CEPOL in Budapest on a date yet to be determined later in
2014. It is based on Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union (TFEU) which provides for EU measures in
the field of police cooperation to support "the training
of staff, and cooperation on the exchange of staff, on equipment
and on research into crime detection". The initiative is
supported by 25 of the EU's 28 Member States — the exceptions
are Denmark, Ireland and the UK — and is subject to the
UK's Title V (justice and home affairs) opt-in. An explanatory
memorandum accompanying the initiative states that "a Regulation
adopted by the European Parliament and the Council is considered
to be the appropriate legal instrument to amend [the 2005] Council
Decision".[13]
The Government's view
3.5 The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and
Victims (Damian Green) notes that the UK, Ireland and Denmark
were not invited to co-sponsor this Member State initiative, as
Denmark is excluded from all EU justice and home affairs measures
and the participation of the UK and Ireland is dependent on exercising
their Title V opt-in. The UK has until 8 March 2014 to notify
the Council Presidency of its opt-in decision.
3.6 The Minister reiterates the Government's commitment
to approaching all opt-in decisions on "a case-by-case basis,
putting the national interest at the heart of our decision making".
He welcomes the draft Regulation as it will remove the existing
obligation on the UK to house CEPOL and offers "an obvious
benefit" insofar as it facilitates the move from Bramshill,
freeing the existing site for sale, but adds:
"We will also want to consider the consequences
of the Member State initiative for granting co-decision rights
to the European Parliament on a decision in relation to the location
of an Agency; a matter usually reserved to the Council."
[14]
3.7 The Minister indicates that the Presidency has
been very helpful in establishing a process to enable the move
from Bramshill to happen quickly. He expects the Budapest site
to be available from the end of August 2014 and the Government
has accordingly extended CEPOL's lease at Bramshill until September
2014. If the draft Regulation is not approved, the Minister suggests
that it may "become difficult to meet our aim of selling
Bramshill".[15]
3.8 Turning to the financial implications of the
relocation of CEPOL, the Minister refers to the Impact Assessment
accompanying the draft Regulation which:
"estimates that CEPOL will save approximately
£167K per year in functioning costs by moving from the UK
to Hungary. It estimates that the one-off relocation costs will
be £1.6M. What, if any, relocation costs will fall to the
UK is unclear at this stage. CEPOL currently pays the College
of Policing facilities management costs of £266K per annum.
The sale of Bramshill is expected to save the Government £5M
per year in running costs."[16]
3.9 The 2005 Decision, which the draft Regulation
would amend, is one of approximately 130 EU police and criminal
justice measures subject to the UK's 2014 block opt-out decision.
Command Paper 8671, published in July 2013, lists the 2005 Decision
as one of the measures that the Government intends to seek to
rejoin.
Conclusion
3.10 The Government told us last June that it
had not yet reached a settled view on a suitable alternative location
for CEPOL We ask the Minister whether he agrees with the choice
of Budapest and to explain why it would be an appropriate base
for CEPOL.
3.11 We note the Government's reservations concerning
the proposed legal base for the draft Regulation, which would
extend a power of co-decision on the location of CEPOL to the
European Parliament. We ask the Minister whether he considers
that a different legal base should be cited and, if so, which
one.
3.12 The explanatory memorandum accompanying the
Member State initiative asserts that a Regulation is "the
appropriate legal instrument" to amend the 2005 Decision
without explaining why. We ask the Minister if he agrees with
this assessment and to explain why a draft amending Decision would
not be appropriate.
3.13 We note that there is a degree of uncertainty
as to the costs which the UK may be required to bear for the relocation
of CEPOL. We trust that this issue will be resolved before the
Government agrees to the adoption of the draft Regulation (should
the UK decide to opt in) and ask the Minister to ensure that we
are informed of any costs falling to the UK.
3.14 Finally, the 2005 Decision (which the draft
Regulation would amend) is subject to the UK's 2014 block opt-out
decision. The conditions for exercising the UK's block opt-out
are set out in Article 10 of Protocol (No 36) on Transitional
Provisions annexed to the EU Treaties. Article 10(2) provides
that pre-Lisbon EU police and criminal justice measures which
are amended before the end of the five-year transitional period
established under Article 10(1) of the Protocol are subject to
the full jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and the Commission's
enforcement powers. We ask the Minister to confirm that a decision
by the UK to opt into the draft Regulation would remove the 2005
Decision from the list of measures subject to the UK's block opt-out
(and reduce by one the measures listed in Command Paper 8671 which
the Government intends to seek to rejoin). Given the wider implications
of the Government's opt-in decision for the UK's 2014 block opt-out
decision, we consider that it should be debated in European Committee
B. We expect the opt-in debate to address the consequences for
the UK of accepting the full jurisdiction of the Court of Justice,
should the Government decide to opt into the draft Regulation.
3.15 The draft Regulation remains under scrutiny.
We are drawing it to the attention of the Home Affairs Committee
because of its wider interest in the activities of Europol and
EU policing matters.
9 Council Decision 2005/681/JHA, OJ No. L 256, 01.10.05. Back
10
See (34843) 8229/13 and (34842) 8230/13: HC 83-iii (2013-14),
chapters 1 and 14 (21 May 2013). Back
11
Letter of 20 June 2013 from the Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)
to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. Back
12
See Council Conclusions at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/138925.pdf Back
13
See p.3 of ADD 1. Back
14
See para 18 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back
15
See para 21 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back
16
See para 24 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back
| 
