The European Police College House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee

House of Commons
European Scrutiny Committee
The European Police
College
Twenty-first Report of Session 2014–15
Document considered by the Committee on 19 November
2014, and recommended for debate
HC 219-xx
House of Commons
European Scrutiny Committee
The European Police
College
Twenty-first Report of Session 2014–15
Document considered by the Committee on 19 November
2014, and recommended for debate
Report, together with formal minutes
Ordered by the House of Commons
to be printed 19 November 2014
HC 219-xx
Published on 20 November 2014
by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
£5.50
Notes
Numbering of documents
Three separate numbering systems are used in this Report for European Union documents:
Numbers in brackets are the Committee’s own reference numbers.
Numbers in the form “5467/05” are Council of Ministers reference numbers. This system is also used by UK
Government Departments, by the House of Commons Vote Office and for proceedings in the House.
Numbers preceded by the letters COM or SEC or JOIN are Commission reference numbers.
Where only a Committee number is given, this usually indicates that no official text is available and the
Government has submitted an “unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum” discussing what is likely to be included
in the document or covering an unofficial text.
Abbreviations used in the headnotes and footnotes
EC
(in “Legal base”) Treaty establishing the European Community
EM
Explanatory Memorandum (submitted by the Government to the Committee)*
EP
European Parliament
EU
(in “Legal base”) Treaty on European Union
GAERC
General Affairs and External Relations Council
JHA
Justice and Home Affairs
OJ
Official Journal of the European Communities
QMV
Qualified majority voting
RIA
Regulatory Impact Assessment
SEM
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
TEU
Treaty on European Union
TFEU
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Euros
Where figures in euros have been converted to pounds sterling, this is normally at the market rate for the last
working day of the previous month.
Further information
Documents recommended by the Committee for debate, together with the times of forthcoming debates (where
known), are listed in the European Union Documents list, which is published in the House of Commons Vote
Bundle each Monday, and is also available on the parliamentary website. Documents awaiting consideration by
the Committee are listed in “Remaining Business”: www.parliament.uk/escom. The website also contains the
Committee’s Reports.
*Explanatory Memoranda (EMs) can be downloaded from the Cabinet Office website:
http://europeanmemoranda.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/.
Letters sent by Ministers to the Committee relating to European documents are available for the public to
inspect; anyone wishing to do so should contact the staff of the Committee (“Contacts” below).
Staff
The staff of the Committee are Sarah Davies (Clerk), David Griffiths (Clerk Adviser), Terry Byrne (Clerk Adviser),
Leigh Gibson (Clerk Adviser), Peter Harborne (Clerk Adviser), Arnold Ridout (Legal Adviser) (Counsel for European
Legislation), Joanne Dee (Assistant Legal Adviser) (Assistant Counsel for European Legislation), Joanna Welham
(Second Clerk), Julie Evans (Senior Committee Assistant), Jane Bliss and Beatrice Woods (Committee Assistants),
Paula Saunderson and Ravi Abhayaratne (Office Support Assistants).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the European Scrutiny Committee, House of Commons,
Telford House, 14 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NB. The telephone number for general enquiries is (020) 7219
3292/5465. The Committee’s email address is [email protected]
European Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report, Session 2014–15
1
Contents
Report
Page
Documents for debate
1
HO (34842) (36238) The European Police College
Formal minutes
Standing Order and membership
3 9 10 European Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report, Session 2014–15
3
1 The European Police College
Committee’s assessment
Committee’s decision
Politically important
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
(a) —
(b) Article 87(2)(b) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
Home Office
(a) (34842), 8230/13, COM(13) 172
(b) (36238), 12013/14, COM(14) 465
Legal base
Department
Documents
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.
4
European Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report, Session 2014–15
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
1
See our Ninth Report HC 219-ix (2014–15), chapter 5 (3 September 2014).
2
See his Written Ministerial Statement of 20 January 2011.
European Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report, Session 2014–15
5
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
6
European Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report, Session 2014–15
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
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.
European Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report, Session 2014–15
7
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 longterm; 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.”
8
European Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report, Session 2014–15
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.
European Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report, Session 2014–15
9
Formal minutes
Wednesday 19 November 2014
Members present:
Sir William Cash, in the Chair
Andrew Bingham
Mr James Clappison
Michael Connarty
Geraint Davies
Nia Griffith
Stephen Phillips
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Henry Smith
****
Draft Report, proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 1.20 read and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Twenty-first Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
****
[Adjourned till Wednesday 26 November at 2.00pm.
10
European Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report, Session 2014–15
Standing Order and membership
The European Scrutiny Committee is appointed under Standing Order No.143 to examine European Union
documents and—
a)
to report its opinion on the legal and political importance of each such document and, where it considers
appropriate, to report also on the reasons for its opinion and on any matters of principle, policy or law which
may be affected;
b)
to make recommendations for the further consideration of any such document pursuant to Standing Order
No. 119 (European Committees); and
c)
to consider any issue arising upon any such document or group of documents, or related matters.
The expression “European Union document” covers —
i)
any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with
the European Parliament;
ii)
any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European
Central Bank;
iii) any proposal for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position under Title V of the Treaty on
European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council or to the European Council;
iv)
v)
any proposal for a common position, framework decision, decision or a convention under Title VI of the
Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;
any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or
with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration
of any proposal for legislation;
vi)
any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.
The Committee’s powers are set out in Standing Order No. 143.
The scrutiny reserve resolution, passed by the House, provides that Ministers should not give agreement to EU
proposals which have not been cleared by the European Scrutiny Committee, or on which, when they have been
recommended by the Committee for debate, the House has not yet agreed a resolution. The scrutiny reserve
resolution is printed with the House’s Standing Orders, which are available at www.parliament.uk.
Current membership
Sir William Cash MP (Conservative, Stone) (Chair)
Andrew Bingham MP (Conservative, High Peak)
Mr James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere)
Michael Connarty MP (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)
Geraint Davies MP (Labour/Cooperative, Swansea West)
Julie Elliott MP (Labour, Sunderland Central)
Stephen Gilbert MP (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)
Nia Griffith MP (Labour, Llanelli)
Chris Heaton-Harris MP (Conservative, Daventry)
Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North)
Chris Kelly MP (Conservative, Dudley South)
Stephen Phillips MP (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Jacob Rees-Mogg MP (Conservative, North East Somerset)
Mrs Linda Riordan MP (Labour/Cooperative, Halifax)
Henry Smith MP (Conservative, Crawley)
Mr Michael Thornton MP (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)
The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament:
Mr Joe Benton MP (Labour, Bootle)
Jim Dobbin MP (Labour/Co-op, Heywood and Middleton)
Tim Farron MP (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)
European Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report, Session 2014–15
Penny Mordaunt MP (Conservative, Portsmouth North)
Sandra Osborne MP (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
Ian Swales MP (Liberal Democrat, Redcar)
11