Brussels, 18/01/2008 (Agence Europe) - Many MEPs gave a welcome to the vote in Strasbourg on 17 January making the European Police Office (Europol) a full Community agency. The report by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (EPP-ED, Spain), adopted by a wide majority, met MEPs' various concerns, notably on data protection (see EUROPE 9582). Changing Europol's legal basis from a convention to a decision will mean Europol will be more effective and closer European Parliament scrutiny, particularly through the budget procedure, said Kathalijne Buitenweg (Greens/EFA) in a press release. The Parliament, she added, would exert all the pressure necessary so that the Council takes due account of its opinion in this consultation procedure. One of the main points adopted was the review clause, which, if it is adopted by the Council, will mean the instrument will be reviewed six months after the Lisbon Treaty comes into force setting up a co-decision system with the Parliament and scrutiny by the Court. “The Lisbon Treaty gives us the necessary powers to scrutinise and hold to account the activities of Europol,” stated Andrew Duff (ALDE, UK) in a press release. He was unhappy, however, that the member states were hurrying through the text so as to avoid democratic control. Alexander Alvaro (ALDE, Germany) said: “Today we have made an important step, but we still have to find a better solution for the extensive immunities of Europol agents. Their immunities are too extensive. They should also be subject to the law”. Also from among the ranks of the Liberals, Adina Valean (Romania) was pleased that Parliament would be involved in the appointment of the Director (two candidates are currently in the running, see EUROPE 9567), and also that there would be a restriction of data transfers by Europol to third countries. During the debate, some MEPs criticised Europol's becoming a Community agency. British Conservative MEP Charles Tannock slated what he called the transformation of Europol into “a kind of European super FBI”. While happy about intergovernmental cooperation, he felt, however, that Europol already had an extensive range of competences. He went on to say that he was against police officers being able to make arrests in states other than their own. Alexander Stubbs (EPP-ED, Finland) responded, “We just want to improve coordination between police forces. The wider Schengen becomes, the more international crime we will have, so the more important it becomes to cooperate”. During his speech, Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini supported many of the amendments adopted by the Parliament. He strongly supported amendment 24 on the role of Europol officers in coordinating joint investigation teams. The EP felt that, in some instances, a Europol officer should be designated to direct the investigation and his/her opinion should prevail overt that of the team leader. This coordination facility had not found favour within the Council, the commissioner regretted. For the Slovenian Presidency, Secretary of State for European Affairs Janez Lenarèiè noted that chapters 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the proposal were ready and that his country would now concentrate on the remaining areas, such as protecting the confidentiality of data and monitoring budget arrangements, and that it was going to try to resolve the most problematic points, such as removing immunity and the issue of budget neutrality. (B.C.)