1 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 27 February 2014
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 83-xxvi (2013-14), chapter 3 (8 January 2014);
HC 83-xxxiv (2013-14), chapter 23 (26 February 2014) is also relevant
|
| Discussion in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested; opt-in decision recommended for debate (decision reported 8 January 2014)
|
Background and previous scrutiny
1.1 The draft Regulation — a Member State initiative
presented by 25 Member States (excluding Denmark, the UK and Ireland)
— provides for the relocation of the European Police College
(CEPOL) from Bramshill (Hampshire) to Budapest. It follows an
announcement by the Government in December 2012 that it intended
to sell the Bramshill site and a political agreement reached by
the Justice and Home Affairs Council last October on "provisional
arrangements" to host CEPOL in Budapest. Relocating CEPOL
would require changes to a 2005 Decision establishing CEPOL as
an EU Agency and providing for it to be based in Bramshill.[1]
Our Twenty-ninth Report, agreed on 8 January 2014, sets out the
background to the proposed move and the content of the draft Regulation,
which is subject to the UK's Title V (justice and home affairs)
opt-in. The Government told us that it had until 8 March to notify
the Council Presidency of its opt-in decision.
1.2 The Commission opposes the draft Regulation,
which is inconsistent with its own proposal to merge and co-locate
CEPOL with Europol in The Hague.[2]
There is little enthusiasm amongst Member States for the Commission's
proposed merger. In her Written Ministerial Statement to the
House on 27 February, the Home Secretary indicated that the Presidency
would seek, at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 3-4 March,
to:
"secure formal agreement not to proceed
with the Commission's proposed merger of the two agencies. The
UK will support this position and there is expected to be a strong
overall consensus in favour of opposing the merger."[3]
1.3 A provisional press release issued after the
first day of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, on 3 March,
confirmed that provisions in the draft Europol Regulation concerning
the proposed merger of CEPOL and Europol would be removed, and
continued:
"The Council also held an orientation debate
on the future of CEPOL. Member States agreed on the need to update
the existing decision in the light of the Treaties post-Lisbon
and invited the Commission to present a legislative proposal on
the new legal basis for CEPOL as soon as possible."[4]
1.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum on the draft CEPOL
Regulation, the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims
(Damian Green) told us that the relocation of CEPOL to Budapest
offered "an obvious benefit" insofar as it would release
the UK from its existing obligation to house CEPOL and facilitate
the move from Bramshill, freeing the site for sale later this
year.
1.5 We asked the Minister to clarify the Government's
position on a number of issues, in particular:
· whether the Government agreed with the
choice of Budapest, and why it would be a good base for CEPOL;
· whether the draft Regulation should cite
a different legal base, in light of the Government's concern to
avoid EP involvement in decisions on the location of EU agencies;
· whether a draft Regulation was the appropriate
legal instrument to amend the 2005 Council Decision establishing
Bramshill as CEPOL's base;
· the costs which the UK may be required
to bear for the relocation of CEPOL; and
· the implications of the Government's opt-in
decision for its 2014 block opt-out of pre-Lisbon EU police and
criminal justice measures (in particular, confirmation that a
decision to opt into the draft Regulation would remove the 2005
CEPOL Decision from the list of measures subject to the UK's block
opt-out).
1.6 We recommended that the Government's opt-in decision
should be debated in European Committee B and suggested that the
opt-in debate should 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.
The Minister's letter of 27 February 2014
1.7 The Minister (Damian Green) explains the Government's
reasons for the sale of Bramshill and its support for the draft
Regulation:
"As you know, CEPOL currently shares the
Bramshill site with the College of Policing. The need to seek
greater efficiencies and improve the support that the College
will be able to provide to policing in the future meant that the
decision had to be taken to close the site and relocate the College
of Policing. This was not an easy decision, but with running
costs of some £5m per annum, the UK is no longer able to
justify keeping this historic site in the public estate at the
tax payer's expense.
"As soon as Bramshill was placed on the
market in the summer of 2013, we initiated discussions with the
Lithuanian Presidency with a view to finding a new temporary host
for CEPOL as soon as possible. Further to the common accord by
Member States on the selection of Budapest as the temporary seat
at the JHA Council in October 2013, the next step is for the Council
and the European Parliament to reach agreement on [the] initiative.
"The formal publication of the Regulation
is an important step towards ensuring that CEPOL vacates the Bramshill
site in good time for any sale. Buyers would expect vacant possession,
so in the context of securing the sale it is very much in UK interests
to support the proposal."
1.8 The Minister adds that the Government is considering
its position on whether to opt into the draft Regulation and undertakes
to:
"write [...] again as soon as this position
is established and respond to the points you raise in your Report."
Conclusion
1.9 We understand that the deadline for notifying
the Government's opt-in decision is 13 March, not 8 March as we
were originally informed. To date, no opt-in debate has been
scheduled, even though our debate recommendation was made nearly
two months ago, at our meeting on 8 January. The Minister offers
no explanation for the delay; nor does he provide a response to
the questions we raised in our earlier Report, despite the fact
that none pre-empts the Government's opt-in decision. The paucity
of the information so far made available to the House would make
it difficult for Members to come to an informed view at the conclusion
of the opt-in debate. Given the short time now available, we
ask the Minister to ensure that the information we have requested
is provided before the debate takes place. We also expect to
receive a full explanation of the reasons for the delay in scheduling
the opt-in debate, and ask the Minister to clarify what was agreed
at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 3-4 March and to set
out the next steps for determining the future of CEPOL. Meanwhile,
the draft Regulation remains under scrutiny.
1 Article 4 of Council Decision 2005/681/JHA, OJ No.
L 256, 01.10.2005. Back
2
See (35741) 5522/14: HC 83-xxxiv (2013-14), chapter 23 (26 February
2014). Back
3
HC Deb, 27 February 2014, col. 27WS. Back
4
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/141295.pdf. Back
|
