1 The European Police
College
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Not cleared from scrutiny; further information requested; opt-in decision recommended for debate in European Committee B on 3 September 2014
|
| Document details | (a) Commission Communication: Establishing a European Law Enforcement Training Scheme
(b) Draft Regulation establishing a European Union agency for law enforcement training (Cepol), repealing and replacing Council Decision 2005/681/ JHA
|
| Legal base | (a) —
(b) Article 87(2)(b) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department
Documents |
Home Office
(a) (34842), 8230/13, COM(13) 172
(b) (36238), 12013/14, COM(14) 465
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
1.1 The European Police College — CEPOL — is an EU
Agency based in Budapest responsible for providing training and
learning opportunities for senior police officers on the European
dimension of policing. A Commission proposal to merge the operational
police cooperation know-how of Europol (the Hague-based European
Police Office) with the training expertise of CEPOL through the
creation of a single EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation
and Training was abandoned earlier this year, as a result of opposition
by the Council and the European Parliament. Europol and CEPOL
will continue to operate as independent EU Agencies.
1.2 Document (a) is a Commission Communication proposing
a comprehensive European Law Enforcement Training Scheme ("LETS")
to strengthen cross-border law enforcement cooperation and broaden
access to all officials with responsibility for law enforcement,
regardless of their rank. Document (b) is a draft Regulation which
would establish a new legal base for CEPOL, align its structure
and governance with the principles set out in the Common Approach
on EU decentralised Agencies agreed by the Commission, Council
and European Parliament in July 2012, and enable CEPOL to implement
a new training approach based on LETS. The draft Regulation is
a Title V (justice and home affairs) measure and is subject to
the UK's Title V opt-in. The deadline for the Government to notify
the Council Presidency of its opt-in decision is 24 November 2014.
1.3 The Government raised a number of concerns in
relation to both documents on which we sought further information.
In light of the Government's reservations, we considered that
an opt-in debate was warranted and said that the debate should
take place before the Government notified its opt-in decision.
1.4 We recommended at our first meeting after
the summer recess, on 3 September 2014, that an opt-in debate
should be held:
"before the Government notifies its opt-in
decision to the Council Presidency. As well as exploring the factors
relevant to the opt-in decision, the debate should also address
the consequences of not opting into the draft Regulation and the
implications this would have for UK participation in CEPOL."[1]
1.5 Two and a half months later, the Government
still has not scheduled an opt-in debate. The Minister offers
no explanation or apology for the delay. Nor does his letter address
the consequences of not opting into the draft Regulation for the
UK's future participation in CEPOL.
1.6 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" and to strengthen Parliament's oversight
of EU justice and home affairs matters.[2]
It is wholly unacceptable for the Minister to offer to "inform"
us as soon as the Government has established its position without
having first considered the views of Members expressed by means
of an opt-in debate. Although time is short, it remains possible
for the Government to schedule an opt-in debate before notifying
the Council Presidency of its opt-in decision by the 24 November
deadline. We expect the Government to do so, not least so that
the many concerns raised by the Government, including its opposition
to any increase in EU competence for law enforcement training,
can be considered by the House.
1.7 We agree with the Minister that the draft
Regulation is subject to the principle of subsidiarity. Our earlier
Report asked him to address the possibility that the concern expressed
in the Government's Explanatory Memorandum, and again in his letter,
that "the professionalism and training of the police and
other law enforcement agencies should be led and developed by
those organisations themselves, at a national or local level"
suggested that the Government considered further action at EU
level to be unnecessary, unjustified and contrary to the principle
of subsidiarity. The Minister's letter does not address this point.
We ask him to do so when he next writes to us.
1.8 We also ask the Minister to explain whether
he believes it would be legally or politically feasible for the
UK to continue to take part in CEPOL, on the basis of the current
2005 Decision, if the Government were to decide against opting
into the draft Regulation.
1.9 We note the Minister's opposition to the inclusion
in the draft Regulation of a provision stipulating the location
of CEPOL, on the grounds that this would infringe the principle
that the seat of EU Agencies should be determined by common accord
of the Governments of the Member States, without the involvement
of the European Parliament. Given the importance attached by the
Government to this principle, we are surprised that the Minister
describes its breach, earlier this year, when the Government endorsed
a draft Regulation confirming Budapest as the new seat for CEPOL,
as a "technical" matter. We question whether the UK's
support for that draft Regulation will be regarded by other Member
States as "an exceptional case" and consider that the
principle will be difficult to defend in future.
1.10 Pending further information from the Minister,
the draft Regulation and the Commission Communication remain under
scrutiny.
Full details of
the documents: (a) Commission
Communication: Establishing a European Law Enforcement Training
Scheme: (34842), 8230/13, COM(13) 172; (b) Draft Regulation
establishing a European Union agency for law enforcement training
(Cepol), repealing and replacing Council Decision 2005/681/JHA:
(36238), 12013/14, COM(14) 465.
Background
1.11 Our Third Report of Session 2013-14, agreed
on 21 May 2013, provides a detailed overview of the Commission's
original proposal to merge Europol and CEPOL and its Communication
setting out the content and objectives of LETS. Our Ninth Report
of Session 2014-15, agreed on 3 September 2014, describes the
content of the draft CEPOL Regulation and sets out the Government's
concerns. Details of both Reports are listed at the end of this
chapter.
1.12 The Government expressed support for the work
of CEPOL but suggested that the draft Regulation would extend
its current mandate and reduce the flexibility for Member States
to decide how police and other border and law enforcement training
should be delivered. The Government's concerns included:
· the
extension of CEPOL's mandate to encompass a broader range of law
enforcement officers from all ranks, not just senior police officers;
· the
expansion of CEPOL's tasks to include the development of "common
curricula" on cross-border criminal phenomena, the assessment
of the impact of EU-related law enforcement training policies
and initiatives, the management of EU funding to support capacity-building
in third countries, and promotion of the mutual recognition of
law enforcement training and European quality standards; and
· the
inclusion of a provision establishing Budapest as the "seat"
(location) of CEPOL, since this would give the European Parliament
a right of co-decision on the location of an EU Agency.
1.13 The Government also considered that the requirement
to designate a National Unit to cooperate with CEPOL would represent
an additional burden for the UK's current national contact point
(the College of Policing) at a time of budgetary restraint and
cost-cutting.
1.14 We asked the Government to clarify the extent
to which the draft Regulation would create additional obligations
for Member States and whether the concerns it had highlighted
called into question the proposal's compliance with the principle
of subsidiarity. We noted that a provision specifying CEPOL's
new location was included in a recent Regulation confirming the
decision to relocate CEPOL from Bramshill in the UK to Budapest.
The Government told us then that there was "no scope to resist
the Parliament's involvement" on that occasion.[3]
We asked the Government to explain how it proposed to do so this
time.
The Minister's letter of 12 November 2014
1.15 The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice
and Victims (Mike Penning) reiterates the Government's concern
that the draft Regulation "goes beyond the current scope
for CEPOL and creates additional obligations for Member States".
He continues:
"One of my main concerns is that the Regulation
as drafted gives CEPOL the legal mandate to implement the European
Law Enforcement Training Scheme (LETS) as set out in the Commission
Communication published in March 2013. This document can be changed
and amended at any time by the Commission, and referencing LETS
within the text would make the document legally binding on Member
States. The LETS strand on thematic policing specialism will eventually
require certification of specialised training according to agreed
quality standards. The strand on civilian missions and capacity
building in third countries requires all law enforcement officials
who take part in such missions to have pre-deployment training.
"My strong view is that the professionalism
and training of the police and other law enforcement agencies
should be led and developed by those organisations themselves,
at a national or local level, and I do not support any increased
role for the EU in this area."
1.16 The Minister highlights other concerns:
"CEPOL's target group is also broadened
to include all law enforcement officers and not only police officers
of senior rank as is the case under the current CEPOL Decision.
I strongly believe that it should be a matter for Member States
to define and determine which law enforcement officers may come
under CEPOL's remit. CEPOL will also, for example, be able to
devise common curricula for officers to train them for participation
in Union missions, assess the impact of existing law enforcement
training policies and initiatives, and develop and provide training
for Member States' law enforcement officers participating in Union
missions. I oppose any increase in EU competence for law enforcement
training.
"The draft Regulation also mandates Member
States to establish a National Unit and obliges them to contribute
to CEPOL's work programmes and to supply, and respond to, requests
for information. The existing Council Decision left it to Member
States to decide whether to set up a contact point, whose remit
would be effective cooperation between CEPOL and the national
training institute. Currently this function is carried out by
the College of Policing and I am concerned that any additional
obligation would represent an increased financial and administrative
burden for the College, which is already facing the need to reduce
costs."
1.17 With regard to subsidiarity, we asked the Minister
whether, in light of the objections raised in the Government's
Explanatory Memorandum on the draft CEPOL Regulation, he considered
further action at EU level to be necessary and justified. The
Minister replies:
"On subsidiarity, the limits and use of
EU competences are governed by Article 5 of the Treaty on European
Union, which states that:
i. EU action is constrained by (a) the principle
of conferral - i.e. the EU may only act within the limits
of the competences conferred on it by the Member States under
the Treaties; and (b) the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,
which govern the use of EU competence.
ii. Under the principle of subsidiarity, the
EU may only act — in areas which do not fall within its
exclusive competence — so far as the objectives of the proposed
action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States themselves.
Under the principle of proportionality the EU may not exceed what
is necessary to achieve Treaty objectives."
1.18 The Minister adds:
"The legal base of the new Regulation falls
under Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU) which governs the area of Freedom, Security and Justice.
Under Article 4 of the TFEU this is an area of shared competence
between the EU and the Member States and is thus governed by the
principle of subsidiarity. Therefore, in relation to the draft
Regulation, the EU may only act so far as the objectives of the
proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member
States themselves under the principle of subsidiarity."
1.19 Turning to the inclusion within the draft Regulation
of a specific provision on the location of CEPOL, the Minister
observes:
"We only supported a similar provision in
Regulation (EU) No 543/2014 because the underlying measure being
amended (Council Decision 2005/681/JHA) already specified the
location, meaning that any change had to be made by legislation.
The principle that legislation should not specify an agency's
seat was breached when the original Council Decision was agreed
by the previous Government. In addition, it was important that
the Council Decision was amended to remove our obligation to house
CEPOL in the UK and to allow the sale of the Bramshill site. The
Presidency and other Member States would likely have reacted badly
if we had opposed the seat provision on what would be seen as
technical grounds. That was, however, an exceptional case which
does not affect our position that the seat of an EU Agency should
generally be determined by common accord of the Governments of
the Member States, as laid down in Article 341 of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union. There is no guarantee the
seat will remain as Budapest in the long-term; that may change
again. Removing the reference to the location of the seat would
also prevent any future expenditure of Member State and EU legislature
resources."
1.20 Finally, regarding the Government's opt-in decision,
the Minister undertakes to:
"inform you as soon as this position is
established".
Previous Committee Reports
Ninth Report HC 219-ix (2014-15), chapter 5 (3 September
2014). Our Third Report HC 83-iii (2013-14), chapter 1 and chapter
14 (21 May 2013) is also relevant.
1 See our Ninth Report HC 219-ix (2014-15), chapter 5
(3 September 2014). Back
2
See his Written Ministerial Statement of 20 January 2011. Back
3
See letter of 1 April 2014 from the then Minister for Policing
and Criminal Justice (Damian Green) to the Chair of the European
Scrutiny Committee. Back
| 
