Prüm spawns twin

03 January 2008

A coven of EU justice ministers, including Britain's Jack Straw, has pulled a fast one over the Prüm treaty, writes Stephen Gardner. Britain declined to sign up to this legally-binding convention when it was tabled by the Germans in 2005 because it allows police officers to pursue fleeing villains across borders – something likely to cause tabloid apoplexy. But Prüm offers so much more than Eurocop snatch squads. It requires member states to open police databases to officers from other countries, and also allows them to invite in foreign police teams, including armed officers. This was too good an opportunity to miss for Whitehall's wagers of the war on terror. So, instead of ditching the German ideas, they simply signed up to a parallel binding decision that replicates Prüm, except for the hot pursuit bit. Britain must thus set up a system allowing other member states to search its DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration databases, and is required to provide personal data files even where there is only “reason to believe that the data subjects will commit criminal offences.” Armed squads of foreign officers invited into the UK, meanwhile, will in certain circumstances be able to use firearms “for purposes going beyond” self-defence or protection of others. In signing up to Prüm Mark II, Jack Straw ignored House of Lords reservations raised earlier this year, which noted that Britain's threshold for holding DNA profiles is “far lower than any other member state”. The British DNA 'crime' database includes persons arrested but not charged, incidental samples from crime scenes, and children. This information can now be transferred across the EU, and potentially, onto non-EU states. The Lords also asked that “at the very least” agencies putting Prüm in place should submit annual reports on the use of their new powers. This has been ignored. Cost concerns have also been over-ridden. The Lords pointed out that a decision of this nature, which originates from the EU Council rather than from the European Commission, is not obliged to include an impact assessment or cost estimates. The government has said it will cost £31 million to set up the Prüm-style systems, but has not said what on-going running costs will be. Ironically, it is extremely unlikely that Prüm or its twin would pass muster under the recently signed but not yet ratified Treaty of Lisbon. Under the new treaty, such decisions will be subject to co-decision, meaning the European Parliament, as well as the Council, will have the power to amend and even scupper justice legislation. A Council spokesman admits that if and when the treaty is ratified, “democratic scrutiny will be included.” But for now, it is missing. A version of this article originally appeared in Private Eye.

 

< Prev		Next >