Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-110"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.8.3-110"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I would like to thank the House for being able to address them at this point in the debate as I will have to leave for Rome to participate in the launch of a feasibility study on the external border guard. So let us say that I am allowed to speak because I have to leave for the front.
Regarding the initiative for a Council decision setting up a network of contact points for national authorities with responsibility for private security, the Commission agrees that the growth of the private security sector in our countries, as well as in the candidate countries, requires a general policy discussion about division of responsibility between the public authorities and the private sector in providing security to our citizens. However, as much we would like to see a serious policy discussion taking place at European Union level on this subject, we must totally respect the division of competences established by the Treaties.
The Commission has pointed out on several occasions that even though it would be positive to establish contacts between the responsible authorities dealing with private security in the Member States, it should be underlined that, according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, private security is a service as any other service. As such it falls within the remit of the European Community, as Mrs Cerdeira Morterero has just emphasised, and creating a network based on Title 6 would violate Article 47 of the Treaty of the European Union, which states that "Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the Treaties establishing the European Communities or the subsequent Treaties and Acts modifying or supplementing them".
The Commission has therefore taken the necessary steps to proceed within the context of the first pillar to a study of the need for common measures to regulate the provision of security services by private providers in the European Union. In addition, the Commission would like to reiterate its argument on the inconvenience of creating another network with the administrative and budgetary consequences this implies.
Finally, concerning the proposal to set up a network for the protection of public figures, the Commission welcomes this initiative which identifies an area where the need for strengthened cooperation in the European Union has become evident. Although we must question the basic convenience of creating yet another network, it seems obvious that this initiative responds to a real need confirmed by experts in the field.
An important point made by the rapporteur, Lord Stockton, and shared by the Commission, is that the network should not be competent to harmonise Member States legislation and regulations. The network should have no power of decision but should only function as an advisory body and should have not budgetary implications. There is only one caveat to the support by the Commission for this initiative and this is linked to the question of the Commission's participation in the network: we should be more involved.
In conclusion, I would like thank the rapporteur, Lord Stockton, whose work is a valuable contribution to this initiative as regards its legal basis but also as regards the added value this network will bring to police cooperation.
The five initiatives that were presented by the Member States have different scope but all relate to police cooperation. I will start with the initiatives concerning Europol. The first one, initiated by Belgium, aims to adjust the basic salaries and allowances of Europol staff. It is a formality since it results from the application of the Europol Regulation and the Commission has nothing against such an initiative.
Concerning the second initiative of Belgium and Spain for a Council act drawing up a protocol amending the Europol Convention, this is a significant step to implement the provisions regarding Europol as laid down in Article 30(2) of the Treaty of the European Union, which, as you know, foresees Europol's participation in joint teams and the possibility to ask Member States to conduct and coordinate investigations. It also directly follows up to the Tampere Conclusions 43 and 45 on the subject.
The Commission is therefore pleased that the Justice and Home Affairs Council of last April arrived at a political agreement on this part of the initiative while awaiting the opinion of Parliament. Regarding the part of the initiative on the simplification of the procedure for amending the Europol Convention, the Council is currently considering two different alternatives. The Commission's firm opinion, and there I follow Mr Deprez' arguments, is that the Europol Convention should be replaced by a Council decision pursuant to Article 34(2)(c) of the Treaty of the European Union. On this point, the Commission fully agrees on the draft recommendations of Parliament on the future development of Europol and its formal integration into the institutional framework of the Union as introduced by Mr Deprez' report.
A Council decision will not only allow the amendment of articles of the convention through a simplified procedure but also the adoption of implementing measures with a qualified majority in accordance with Article 34(2). If Europol were to be established today, it would probably be based on a Council decision, this being the modern legal instrument. Furthermore, the legal basis of Europol will then be in line with the one chosen for Eurojust. Finally, a Council decision would bring the role of the Court of Justice into line with that which has been provided for in the Amsterdam Treaty.
I will now comment on the draft recommendation. We are in full agreement with Recommendation No 6 on the cooperation with Eurojust and OLAF and with almost all of No 4 of the Recommendation regarding democratic control. Regarding the latter, I am pleased that Parliament agrees with what the Commission proposed in the communication that we have launched on the democratic control of Europol. We have some misgivings with the proposal to have representatives of Parliament on Europol's management board. I believe there are alternative forms of parliamentary control that are more appropriate to the specific nature of Europol.
Concerning Recommendation No 2 on the budget, the Commission feels, as it has explained in the communication that I have mentioned above, that the question of Community financing should be settled in the context of Europol's possible future operational competences. As regards Recommendation No 3, the tasks, we can agree with everything except the first two points: participation in joint teams and asking Member States to open investigations. From a Commission perspective, these latter two points are superfluous since the Council arrived at political agreement on them last April.
As regards the three initiatives submitted by the Spanish Presidency, I would like to express to the Spanish Presidency the Commission's gratitude for putting this subject on the agenda as they meet a real need for progress in police cooperation in the European Union. With respect to police studies, the Commission has on different occasions underlined its interest in advancing cooperation in an area in which knowledge at European level is often insufficient. At the same time, however, we have warned against a multiplication of networks, the functioning of which, according to the experience gained the European Police College may prove difficult.
The Commission has, therefore, suggested a more pragmatic formula proposing to amend the Council Decision of 22 December 2000 creating the European Police College to allow the police studies institutes of the Member States, where these institutes are separate from police training institutions, to participate as full members of the European Police College network. I am pleased that this suggestion, which is very much in line with the suggestion of Mr Sousa Pinto, has found an echo in a number of Member States and now seems to be the most favoured option in the Council."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples