---

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: I want to make a little more progress.

Europol is improving the exchange and analysis of criminal intelligence. The police college is exchanging best practice, not so that there is one training system for police throughout Europe, but simply to share best practice. The UK is leading on the police college and it is a way of improving co-operation. Eurojust is improving co-operation in cross-border prosecutions so that criminals can be properly punished wherever they go.

Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East) (Lab): I thought that the Minister would emphasise the Government's position, which is supported by members of the Committee. We do not support the idea of giving Europol its own investigative powers, which would turn it into a European police force.

Caroline Flint: I concur with my hon. Friend. We do not think that there is a role for that, but there is a role for exchanging intelligence and information. We want some of the other member states to put more into that process to give our police the ability to share intelligence information to track the criminals who cross different borders. I thank him for making that point. It is another aspect of the justice and home affairs work programme. We need to examine what we have agreed and ensure that it is implemented before we embark on new ideas.

Mr. Cash: Does the Minister concur that the Committee made it clear that the work programme affects policies that are at the core of national sovereignty? Furthermore, there is a risk that the proposals on the area of freedom, justice and security encourage the notion that such an area is a unitary state, separate from the member states that make up the EU community. In relation to the Committee's recent consideration of procedural rights in criminal proceedings—another draft framework decision—does she also accept that she has not tackled the argument that we put in the Committee, that the EU measures should stick to cross-border cases because criminal proceedings are a matter for national Parliaments?

Caroline Flint: I agree that it is right to take every opportunity—the Committee is right in that regard as well—to reaffirm our red lines on European co-operation. I was going to say something about that later, but let me deal with it now. The Commission's document is for discussion. It does not set out concrete proposals. No one has signed up to it. That will be done by Ministers who are sent by nation state Governments to decide on such issues.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: No, I want to finish this point.
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 444
 

On judicial co-operation, we strongly support the embedding of mutual recognition as the cornerstone of criminal judicial co-operation. It is important to recognise that those words are not just mine; the Commission uses the same phrase in its document. We welcome the fact that it recognises that as the first principle. It ensures, through mutual recognition, good co-operation between member states without requiring harmonisation of member states' criminal justice systems.

We will work with other member states because we are not on our own. One of the benefits of being at the heart of Europe is that we can make the case and make our position stronger. We will ensure that the EU continues to respect the distinct and diverse legal traditions of member states. Let us not forget that the United Kingdom does not have just one legal system. In particular, we will ensure that the things that concern us will not be changed. So the prosecution of individuals must remain a national competence and we do not support the proposal for a European public prosecutor, and many other member states agree with us. We have ensured through the treaty that we have safeguards so that if there is a threat to our legal system and criminal procedural law we have an emergency brake that we can apply to make sure that there is a unanimous decision.

Mr. Hawkins: Is the Minister giving a firm undertaking at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government that if anything that they oppose is changed before the matter comes before the Council of Ministers they will veto it? All too often, Ministers say that they do not agree with parts of EU documents that subsequently go through on the nod at the Council of Ministers. The Government claim that they tried to protest, but to no avail. That is the thin end of a very large wedge that is destroying Britain's independent sovereignty, and that is why we are so angry.

Caroline Flint: If Opposition Members wish to make a speech, they should put their name down on the list and queue with everyone else who wishes to speak. However, I challenge the hon. Gentleman to look at my record at the Justice and Home Affairs Council—I assure him that I never pass anything on the nod. There is no question of the UK signing up to a harmonised legal system, and the communication does not propose one. The constitutional treaty, as I said, rightly protects key areas of our criminal procedural law, but we accept some approximation of criminal acts and penalties. It is important to look at the issues involved, such as serious cross-border crime.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: No, I am in the middle of explaining something, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman listened.

The European framework decisions on combating terrorism are important. Previously, eight countries in the EU did not have adequate counter-terrorism measures, but as a result of co-operation and discussion they have since implemented legislation. The UK is fortunate to have adequate legislation on counter-terrorism. I make no apology for saying that the sexual
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 445
 
exploitation of children in the EU is another important issue in cross-border crime, but we would need to see robust justification for any new measures. Criminals do not respect national boundaries, and increased practical co-operation between the police, courts, immigration and customs services has the potential to make a difference.

The Commission communication rightly recognises that people must experience the many benefits of justice and home affairs co-operation to appreciate the value of Europe, which is why we agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that in the next work programme we must evaluate the impact of measures already agreed and focus on making them work at a practical level. We need less rhetoric and more action and accountability.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Lady now give way?

Caroline Flint: I will do so, provided the hon. Gentleman makes a point, not a speech.

Mr. Wilkinson: It is just a small point. Will the hon. Lady assure the House that there will not be an extension of qualified majority voting in justice and home affairs?

Caroline Flint: The position on which matters QMV can be used has already been discussed, and we are in full agreement. We have made sure that we have safeguards on both criminal procedural law and asylum and immigration so that we do not have to take part in certain discussions if we do not want to. We believe, however, that in some cases QMV is helpful, enabling us to get things done quickly and effectively to achieve a genuine impact on our communities.

I am conscious that Members wish to contribute to our debate, but I wish to deal with immigration in a little more depth. In the past 24 hours, the Conservative party has peddled the myth that we are giving up control of our frontiers. I want to nail that myth, which is quite wrong. We can opt in, where it is in Britain's interest, to measures that tackle asylum and immigration issues. There is no justification for the Tory suggestion that there is a threat to control over our frontiers.

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Does the Minister not find it odd that a Conservative spokesperson pontificated on the "Today" programme this morning but does not have the good grace to come to the House to make his points at the Dispatch Box?

Caroline Flint: I quite agree. If someone is going to perpetuate myths and allegations they should at least be here to hear the answers.

The new justice and home affairs work programme should seek to strengthen external borders, concentrating on practical measures to improve cross-border co-operation and to respond to operational demands. It should continue to embed and evaluate measures that are helping to reduce the number of people who are using and abusing the asylum system—there has been a fall in applications of 70 per cent. since October 2002. We should exploit new technology to improve document security, including biometrics and identity cards. We can use all those methods to try to
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 446
 
make sure that we have a better system in which we co-operate where necessary but act on our own where that is in our national interest.

---