Prum Convention — Data Sharing with Certain European Countries to Combat Crime and Terrorism — 8 Dec 2015 at 18:18

The majority of MPs taking part voted for greater cross-border cooperation with certain European countries, particularly the mutual exchange of information, including DNA profiles, fingerprint data, vehicle registration data, and other information to prevent criminal offences, maintain public order and security and prevent terrorism.

MPs were debating a motion relating to the Prüm Convention^[1], also known as the Schengen III Agreement, a treaty between a group of European countries on the exchange of data including DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registrations and on cooperation against terrorism.

MPs were debating the following motion:

• That this House, wishing to see serious crimes solved, to counter terrorism and to see foreign criminals prosecuted and deported,
• supports opting in to the Prüm Decisions;
• notes the views of senior law enforcement officers that the Prüm Decisions are an important aid to tackling crime;
• notes the success of a pilot that demonstrated that the Prüm Decisions mechanism is both swift and effective; and
• further notes that only a subset of the relevant national DNA and fingerprint databases, containing data relating to individuals convicted of recordable offences, will be made available for searching by other participating States, and that the higher UK scientific standards will be applied to matches in the UK.

The amendment rejected in this vote stated:

• (a), leave out from ‘deported’ to end and add—
• does not support opting in to the Prüm Decisions because of the need to protect the civil liberties of British citizens, because of the risks to UK sovereignty posed by accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in this area and because it would mean missing the opportunity to require a better arrangement, noting that the Government’s policy is to renegotiate the jurisdiction of the ECJ and the result of the referendum in Denmark preserving that country's opt-out from such measures that will require Denmark to negotiate on an intergovernmental basis;
• notes that necessary international cooperation against terrorism and serious crime does not, and did not prior to the Lisbon Treaty, require the UK to accept the supremacy of EU law, the jurisdiction of the ECJ or the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and therefore
• requires the Government to secure alternative arrangements outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.’.

==

• [1] Copy of the Prüm Convention lodged with the United Nations (Registration Details)

Debate in Parliament | Source |