3 The European Police College
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Not cleared from scrutiny; further information requested; recommendation for opt-in debate in European Committee B made 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
Document numbers
| Home Office
(a) (34842), 8230/13, COM(13) 172; (b) (36238), 12013/14, COM(14) 465
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
3.1 The European Police College — CEPOL — is an EU
Agency based (since September 2014) in Budapest. It provides training
for senior police officers on the European dimension of policing.
3.2 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
subject to the UK's Title V (justice and home affairs) opt-in.
It would repeal and replace a 2005 Council Decision on which CEPOL
is currently based.
3.3 In light of concerns expressed by the Government
that the draft Regulation would extend CEPOL's current mandate
and "limit the flexibility for Member States to decide how
police and other border and law enforcement training should be
delivered", we considered that an opt-in debate was warranted
and that it should take place before the Government notified its
opt-in decision to the Council Presidency. The deadline for the
Government to notify its opt-in decision expired on 24 November
2014.
3.4 We also asked the Government to:
· clarify
its position on subsidiarity, given that its view 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 its opposition to an increased
role for the EU, might suggest that there was no justification
for further EU action[2];
and
· explain
whether it would be legally or politically feasible for the UK
to continue to take part in CEPOL, on the basis of the current
2005 Council Decision, if the UK were to decide not opt into the
draft Regulation.
3.5 Nearly four months after the expiry of the deadline
for opting into the draft Regulation, the Minister for Policing,
Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning) writes to inform us
that the Government has decided not to opt in and to address the
questions raised in our earlier Reports.
3.6 The Government's delay in notifying us directly
of its opt-in decision, and its failure to schedule an opt-in
debate, are reprehensible and unacceptable. The Government has
failed to "ensure full transparency and accountability of
opt-in decisions", despite the commitment it made to Parliament
in January 2011 to do so.[3]
Although the Minister tells us that the Government takes debate
recommendations "very seriously" and seeks to schedule
debates "in a timely manner", the evidence during this
Session is entirely to the contrary. There have been persistent
delays in scheduling debates and, as in this case, no compelling
reasons given to explain the Government's evident reticence to
expose itself to scrutiny by the House and be held accountable
for its decisions. We will be looking to the next Government not
only to re-affirm the commitments made to Parliament by the Minister
for Europe in his Written Ministerial Statement of 20 January
2011, but to demonstrate that there is the political will to honour
them.
3.7 The Minister's letter makes no reference to
the possibility that the UK may seek to opt into the draft Regulation
once it has been adopted, or to the negotiating objectives the
Government intends to pursue in the meantime to ensure that UK
interests are protected. When the Government provides its next
update, we expect to hear how active a role the UK is playing
in negotiations, what changes it is seeking to the draft Regulation,
and whether, if achieved, the Government would be willing to contemplate
a post-adoption opt-in.
3.8 We note the Government's view that CEPOL,
in its current role, "plays an important role and adds value".
We ask the Minister to ensure that any changes to CEPOL's existing
mandate remain consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and
add value to, rather than supplant, Member States' primary responsibility
for law enforcement and training.
3.9 As the Minister's letter indicates, there
remains some uncertainty as to the political and practical feasibility
of remaining part of CEPOL on the basis of the 2005 Council Decision
rather than the new Regulation (if adopted). We expect the Government
to provide a detailed analysis of the options available to the
UK to continue to participate in, or otherwise cooperate with
CEPOL, once the draft Regulation has been adopted and the question
of a possible post-adoption opt-in arises.
3.10 We note the Minister's opposition to the
inclusion in the draft Regulation of a provision on the location
of CEPOL. As we have previously stated, we consider that the UK
position will be difficult to defend in future, in light of the
UK's support for a 2014 Regulation expressly confirming Budapest
as the new "seat" for CEPOL. We look forward to hearing
how negotiations evolve on this aspect of the draft Regulation.
3.11 Pending further information from the Minister,
as well as the regular updates he has promised on the progress
of negotiations, the draft Regulation and 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
3.12 Our earlier Reports, listed at the end of this
chapter, provide a detailed overview of the Commission's original
proposal to merge Europol and CEPOL (which has been abandoned,
following opposition in the Council and the European Parliament),
its Communication setting out the content and objectives of LETS,
and the content of the draft CEPOL Regulation.
3.13 Whilst expressing support for the work of CEPOL,
the Government voiced reservations about:
· 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 in the draft Regulation
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.
3.14 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.
The Minister's
letter of 12 March 2015
3.15 The Minister (Mike Penning) confirms what we
have seen elsewhere — in the Government's Fifth Annual Report
on the UK's Title V opt-in and Schengen opt-out Protocols (published
in February 2015), and in its Balance of Competences Report on
EU police and criminal justice matters (published in December
2014) — that the Government has decided not to opt into
the draft Regulation. He apologises for the delay in informing
us of the Government's position and notes that the House has been
informed by means of a separate Written Ministerial Statement.[4]
He continues:
"I apologise that no date has been set for
the debate you recommended. We take ESC debate recommendations
very seriously and seek to schedule debates in a timely manner,
but unfortunately this is not always possible."
3.16 Turning to the Government's position on subsidiarity
and the justification for EU action, the Minister recognises the
importance of cooperation between law enforcement agencies across
Europe:
"We consider that CEPOL plays an important
role and adds value in providing training in matters with an EU
dimension that affect policing. However, it is also vital that
we protect the autonomy of UK law enforcement agencies which must
be able to determine what training they provide to their officers."
3.17 The Minister confirms that the UK will remain
bound by the 2005 CEPOL Decision if it does not opt into the new
Regulation after it has been adopted. He continues:
"The UK would be working with CEPOL according
to the old Council Decision, while other Member States work according
to the new Regulation.
"Practically speaking, this may not be impossible,
especially if the new Regulation does not significantly alter
the focus of CEPOL. However, if the Commission considers that
UK non-participation makes CEPOL inoperable, it could seek to
have us ejected from CEPOL (from the 2005 Decision) through the
provisions set out in Article 4a(2) of Protocol 21 of the JHA
opt-in Treaty.
"Clearly, this depends on a number of questions
that are currently hypothetical: whether we opt in post-adoption;
and whether, if we do not, the Commission seeks to trigger the
ejection mechanism. However, should we reach that stage, it would
be important to note that the Protocol sets a very high threshold
for ejection. It requires the measure to be 'inoperable' - not
merely inconvenient or difficult to operate. And it must be inoperable
for the other Member States, not just for the UK. These are tough
tests for the Commission to meet. But we are a long way from that
point at the moment."
3.18 The Minister reiterates the points he has made
in earlier correspondence concerning the inclusion of a provision
in the draft Regulation stipulating the location of CEPOL. He
explains that the Government only supported such a provision in
a Regulation adopted in 2014, providing for CEPOL to move from
its previous base at Bramshill, in the UK, to Budapest, as it
was amending the 2005 CEPOL Decision which already included a
provision on the location of CEPOL. He adds:
"This was an exceptional decision, based
on the fact that the change had to be made by legislation. However,
our general position remains that the seat of an EU Agency should
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."
3.19 The Minister undertakes to provide regular updates
on the progress of negotiations.
Written Ministerial Statement
3.20 The Minister's Written Ministerial Statement,
published on 12 March 2015, restates the Government's concerns
about the draft Regulation and concludes:
"The Government believe that the focus of
an EU-wide law enforcement training strategy should be to encourage
Member States to collaborate on matters that are mutually beneficial
but to avoid mandating training requirements. The Government do
not want the police and other UK law enforcement agencies to be
accountable to an EU Agency and we need to be satisfied that our
training and other operational priorities are not subject to EU
determination.
"The option to opt into this measure post-adoption
remains open to the UK and Government will make a decision on
that when the final text has been agreed."
Previous Committee Reports
Ninth Report HC 219-ix (2014-15), chapter 5 (3 September
2014) and Twenty-first Report HC 219-xx (2014-15), chapter 1 (19
November 2014). Our Third Report HC 83-iii (2013-14), chapter
1 and chapter 14 (21 May 2013) is relevant.
2 Letter of 12 November 2014 from the Minister for
Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning) to the Chair
of the European Scrutiny Committee. Back
3
Written Ministerial Statement of 20 January 2011 by the Minister
for Europe (Mr David Lidington). Back
4
HC Deb, col. 32WS, 12 March 2015. Back
| 
