Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
TUESDAY 4 APRIL 2000
MRS BARBARA
ROCHE, MR
JOHN WARNE
AND MRS
LESLEY PALLETT
80. Has any estimate been made of the cost of
signing up to the SIS database?
(Mrs Pallett) It has not yet been finalised because
much of the cost will depend on how far it can be integrated into
existing police computer arrangements and specifically what methodology
is used for transmitting the data to the UK.
81. Can you say something, please, about the
Government's view towards both hot pursuit and law enforcement
officers of another country carrying weapons, with a view to using
them if needs be, into the United Kingdom?
(Mrs Pallett) Initially we put hot pursuit as an area
of co-operation in which we were interested in participating,
simply because—
82. It will be a little cooler because of the
water.
(Mrs Pallett)—we were seeking to participate
in whole areas of co-operation and that was an integral part of
the police chapter, if you like. After a discussion with Schengen
colleagues we all came to the conclusion that it was not sensible
or practicable because, as I have said before in working groups,
hot pursuit becomes rather tepid if you have to get across the
Channel.
83. Yes.
(Mrs Pallett) So that is now deleted from our participation.
(Mrs Roche) I think it is fair to say, Mr Corbett,
that a matter of hot pursuit is very much for land borders. I
think it was very quickly appreciated, as Mrs Pallett said, by
our Member States that this was not appropriate to us.
84. What would happen in the case of, say, a
hot pursuit involving a helicopter over the English Channel?
(Mrs Roche) Again, I think we have decided—
85. That could become very hot, could it not?
(Mrs Roche) Yes, that is why we have decided we should
not have the application basically.
86. Okay. Just to clear this up, Mrs Roche,
you will be aware that there was a headline in The Independent
the other day saying Blair u-turn on Schengen again, you know
we were going to sign up for the whole lot. There is no truth
in that or is there?
(Mrs Roche) I can only repeat, Mr Corbett, I did a
press conference because on that day I was at the JHA Council
and I used a technical term to describe The Independent
article which I think was "utter tosh". I cannot remember
whether I said "utter" or "absolute" tosh
but certainly the word "tosh", if I can confirm with
Mrs Pallett, was the word used.
(Mrs Pallett) It was.
Chairman: The Home Secretary did deny it, to
be fair, in a letter to The Independent the other day.
Right. Now I have completely lost my way. EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights, Mr Howarth?
Mr Howarth: There will be no tosh now. Chairman,
I did not think you were like the Government at all, you have
not lost your way. Before we leave the question of asylum and
so on, can I just say to the Minister that I do appreciate very
much her careful choice of words and her recognition that this
is a very sensitive issue. Can I put it to her that it is perfectly
legitimate, indeed it is the duty of Members of Parliament, to
speak up also for the culture and traditions of those perhaps
native born Britons who themselves do feel under threat. To say
that is not in any way to be improper or otherwise.
Mr Winnick: You are just indulging in the worst
form of xenophobia, Mr Howarth.
Mr Howarth
87. I hope the Minister will recognise that.
On the question of the proposed EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,
Minister, can you tell us what on earth this is all about? Why
do we need another Charter, we have already the European Convention
on Human Rights, do we not?
(Mrs Roche) I think that there is a recognition that
this is a good time to have a discussion, not only about rights
but also about responsibilities. Certainly we see it as important
to have some sort of declaration of this and actually to make
the rights declaratory. I think there is a feeling, also, that
it would be a good idea to actually set out in a very accessible
form for citizens of the Union exactly what those rights and responsibilities
are. I think this is a particularly good time for it. Clearly,
there are discussions that are going on about it and the UK is
very involved in those discussions.
88. If we are a nation state, why do citizens
of the Union need to have this Charter of Fundamental Rights when,
as I say, and I am afraid you have not answered my question, we
already have a Convention on Human Rights which we are about to
incorporate in United Kingdom law with effect from 1 October this
year?
(Mrs Roche) As you will know, Mr Howarth, that Convention
is not about the Union, it is something different from the Union.
This is the actual Union, the European Union itself declaring
what are rights and responsibilities. Clearly you and I would
probably have a different approach to this but also, of course,
I see people as citizens of the Union wanting to have this discussion.
I think it could be very fruitful just to say what it is in a
declaratory form that people have as their rights but also, I
must make this clear as well, what their responsibilities are.
The European Convention is not to do with the Union but it is
something actually quite separate.
89. Surely it covers most, in fact I think the
European Convention on Human Rights covers every Member of the
EU. I was at a meeting of the European Parliament Justice and
Home Affairs Committee at the end of last year on precisely this
issue. It seems to me this is just simply trying to duplicate
what we have got already.
(Mrs Roche) I do not think that is the case. I think
it is something different. The European Convention goes wider
than just the Union. I think that it is right to say that the
EU has come on, it has developed. The justice and home affairs
agenda has now moved much more centre to its deliberations. I
think it is quite important for there to be discussions about
what it means to be a citizen of the Union and about what the
rights are and to have a proper discussion about that. I am not
suggesting you are suggesting this in any way, Mr Howarth, but
I do not see there is anything threatening about this, why we
cannot have this process.
90. Some people would suggest it is a further
graphic example of attempts by the European Union to create a
United States of Europe by coming up with a common Charter of
Fundamental Rights which then can be enforced. Surely it is pointless
having this fundamental Charter if it is only declaratory and
will not be enforced? Those of us with suspicious minds think
to ourselves well, perhaps it will be declaratory in the first
instance but then it will seek to become enforceable and then
we shall have a conflict, will we not, between the European Convention
on Human Rights enacted in the United Kingdom by the Human Rights
Act and a new Charter which may differ, may it not, from the European
Convention?
(Mrs Roche) I would not like, Mr Howarth, to accuse
you of having a suspicious mind.
Mr Howarth: I am a Member of Parliament, I am
entitled to have a suspicious mind.
Mr Winnick
91. There could be other descriptions.
(Mrs Roche) I had a feeling that you might see it
in that way but I do not see it in this way at all. To say this
is all about that vision is just simply not the case. I think
it is a recognition that the Union has moved and developed and
it is time now to have a discussion in this area. I say it is
not just about rights, it is about our responsibilities also as
citizens as well and I think these are pretty fundamental issues.
Mr Howarth
92. I am sorry to keep pressing you on this,
you have been very untypically vague.
(Mrs Roche) That is kind of you, Mr Howarth.
93. On all the other issues we have discussed
you have been very clear and forthright. Here, forgive me, it
does seem to me there is a tremendous amount of waffle. What is
the British Government's position? Other than it thinks it is
a good idea to have a discussion on this, does the Government
think that there might be potentially a conflict between this
new Charter and the existing position?
(Mrs Roche) No.
94. Is the Government concerned that perhaps
there will be an increasing expectation that such declaratory
rights might become enforceable in the courts of the UK? Where
does the Government stand on this? Is it having a general chat
with its European partners?
(Mrs Roche) No, no. We do not think there is a conflict.
If I may say so, Mr Howarth, you are going rather ahead of the
process. There is a process going on, there is a convention looking
at it. Lord Goldsmith is the Prime Minister's representative on
that. We are at the stage of discussion on this. I do not think
there is anything to fear about us having an assessment now where
we are as far as the European Union is concerned, a realisation
that the Union has gone on, it has developed. It now has this
whole justice and home affairs agenda which in the early days
was very tangential to it but is now coming much to the forefront.
Of course, those Members of the convention will want to make sure
that it reflects the provisions of the ECHR. What Lord Goldsmith
is doing is liaising not only with the Prime Minister but with
all other Government Departments as well. We are in the very,
very early stages of this, Mr Howarth. Let me say to you, of course,
at all stages of the process we will continue to keep this Committee
and Parliament involved.
95. Is the Government not concerned that we
could end up having further erosion of the power of Parliament?
We have seen that power eroded by the European Convention on Human
Rights. Government policy has been forced to change because of
its acceptance of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly,
for example, in the case of homosexuals and the armed forces.
That was not Government policy, the Government argued against
it at the European Court of Human Rights, lost, and therefore
implemented it. Parliament has not been entitled to take a view
on it. Is this not another example of where we could be setting
up a whole new Charter of obligations on Member States which will
further erode the power of this place to represent the concerns
of the people who elected us, the British people?
(Mrs Roche) I do not accept that analysis at all,
Mr Howarth. Actually, if you look at the European Convention,
all we have done is to incorporate the Convention which, as I
understand it, was accepted by your own front bench as well, I
understand, I may be wrong.
96. I cannot remember.
(Mrs Roche) I do not think they opposed it, I think
they completely accepted it. You will know that as far as the
court is concerned the country has accepted those decisions and
acted on them for years. Not just this administration but the
administration that you supported, Mr Howarth, and administrations
before that. I do not think we should see this in any way as some
sort of big conspiracy, it is very, very far from that.
Mr Winnick
97. Are homosexuals part of the British people,
just to clarify the point Mr Howarth made?
(Mrs Roche) Absolutely, Mr Winnick.
Mr Howarth
98. Can I move on to another specific point
on the question of the membership of the United Kingdom's representatives
on this drafting body. Can you tell us who they are? How were
they selected? What role did the House of Commons have in determining
the selection?
(Mrs Roche) Certainly I can give you the full list.
The membership of the Convention was chosen according to a process
that was agreed at Cologne and Tampere. It gave the majority of
places to representatives of national parliaments and Members
of the European Parliament. I will give you a full list of those.[8]
99. Can I tell you who they are: they are Win
Griffiths—
(Mrs Roche) There you go, you see.
8 See Annex. Back
|
