text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  PrÃ¼m Convention - Data Sharing with Certain European Countries to Combat Crime and Terrorism
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  @ MP voted aye against greater data sharing with certain European countries aimed at combating terrorism and cross-border crime. 
  @ MP voted no for greater data sharing with certain European countries aimed at combating terrorism and cross-border crime. 
  
  The majority of MPs taking part voted for greater cross-boarder 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 [[PrÃ¼m Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%BCm_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 PrÃ¼m Decisions;
  :''notes'' the views of senior law enforcement officers that the PrÃ¼m Decisions are an important aid to tackling crime;
  :''notes'' the success of a pilot that demonstrated that the PrÃ¼m 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 âdeportedâ to end and addâ
  :''does not support'' opting in to the PrÃ¼m 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 Governmentâs 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.â.
  
  ==
  
  * [1] [https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%202617/v2617.pdf Copy of the PrÃ¼m Convention lodged with the United Nations] ([https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280263b7b Index page])
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  