---

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): As the Minister knows, Britain has opted out of the Schengen agreement, but will she confirm that under the QMV regulations that the House is being asked to approve we would no longer be able to do so and would lose control of our borders?

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I shall write to him in detail to explain why.

Illegal immigration knows no borders. We can work together to strengthen practices and procedures to ensure that they cannot be exploited by organised criminal gangs. It is important to secure cross-border co-operation on the trafficking of human beings, which takes place throughout the EU. Men, women and children are trafficked throughout Europe and, as the Minister responsible for reducing organised crime, I know only too well what that means. Hon. Members may know that we are conducting a review of prostitution. Many young women are caught by the vice market in EU cities, and we should seek to work together to end that unacceptable practice. We will continue our own independent efforts, but the EU can sometimes add extra value when tackling such issues.

The new justice and home affairs work programme represents a genuine opportunity to improve the freedom, justice and security enjoyed by UK citizens, both at home and abroad. I assure hon. Members that the Government will defend UK interests robustly in negotiations, but I hope that everyone accepts the justice and home affairs agenda, which is about real issues that affect real lives, including those of UK citizens, who may be victims of crime and can expect a reliable standard of justice wherever they are in the European Union.

1.37 pm

Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out from "orientations" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

"but believes that the Government has failed adequately to support the national interest in its response to the Tampere Programme, including its failure to halt the proposal to introduce co-decision and Qualified Majority Voting on immigration, asylum, visas and border measures and the Commission's aim further to harmonise the civil and criminal justice systems of Member States."

The approval in 1999 of an EU programme of action covering visas, asylum and immigration, civil and criminal justice, and police and customs operations to create an area of freedom, security and justice was always going to lead to an ambitious agenda. The way in which the programme has developed presents grave dangers to the sovereignty of this country. Our debate is particularly relevant against the background of the preparation of the proposed EU constitutional treaty, a substantial part of which impacts on the Tampere agenda.

Some of the concepts in the programme are complicated and couched in legalese. Others are more obvious, but we should not underestimate the huge implications for British justice and parliamentary sovereignty of giving up our veto in home affairs policy,
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 447
 
giving European police investigating powers and adopting minimum sentences. We should also be aware of the federal state implications of appointing a European public prosecutor. The communication from the European Commission that we are debating today, however, merely provides a summary of progress to date, whereas we clearly need a full evaluation of the measures that have been implemented in member states over the past five years.

Keith Vaz: The Tampere agenda, as agreed in 1999, dealt with co-operation between EU partners. Is it Conservative policy to oppose co-operation on crime and illegal immigration?

Mr. Djanogly: I shall specifically address the question of mutual recognition, but the Tampere agenda goes much further than co-operation and attacks the generally held concept of mutual recognition. It is bizarre that we are expected to endorse a set of proposals that form part of the programme for the next five years without a full review of those measures' potential benefits. I would like to say that I am confident that the Government will not attempt to commit our nation to the proposals, the end results and benefits for our citizens of which are unknown, but I am not. A blind Commission is leading a blind UK Government towards an undefined federal superstate, to which we say, "No, thank you very much".

Mr. Connarty : I wonder whether the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was listening to the Minister, who confirmed that the Government oppose Europol's having investigative powers. Had he taken the trouble to read the document, he would know that the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee are opposed to a European public prosecutor. He should stick to facts rather than mythology.

Mr. Djanogly: The Government maintain that they oppose further investigative powers for Europol, but that does not mean that the Commission is not suggesting that Europol should have those investigative powers or that the Government have stood up for British interests.

A key issue identified in the European Scrutiny Committee report is the Commission's desire to introduce co-decision and qualified majority voting on those measures—immigration, asylum, visas and borders—that fall within article 67(2) of the EC treaty, supposedly in an attempt to increase the amount of work that is completed. However, the alarm bells will start ringing for anyone who cares to examine those proposals.

The principle of unanimity and the possibility of veto, where required, are in place for a reason. Such checks and balances maintain our nation's right to decide which measures are most appropriate for British citizens in the European arena. The Commission itself has identified that many of the issues that fall within that programme remain at the core of national sovereignty, and so they should. That is why I am concerned by the prospect of the Commission imposing legislation on member states through QMV. That must be resisted at
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 448
 
all costs, and the Government are not actively fighting that threat to our country's ability to withstand legislation from Brussels that is not in the British public's interest.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): Did my hon. Friend share my amazement that the Minister did not seek to justify the proposals in her bad-tempered introduction to the debate? All she said was, "The system works wonderfully. We have got this example and that example. It is all absolutely super, isn't it?" If the system works so well, why do we need new proposals?

Mr. Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister's opening comments were extremely defensive and she did not constructively support the agenda.

Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): The Opposition are in serious need of some help. Some of the proposals, such as Eurodac, which is an enforcement unit that uses fingerprinting in order to deport people, are extremely good. Some countries opposed Eurodac, but QMV allowed us to achieve an objective that we could not otherwise have obtained, which was good. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the consequences if the House votes no after today's debate?

Mr. Djanogly: The Tampere agenda contains 23 proposals that relate to policies on crime, most of which have either been fulfilled or are on the way to being fulfilled—it is not a pie-in-the-sky agenda; it is a real agenda. After this debate, I hope that the British Government return to the Commission and start to say no on issues such as, most importantly, getting rid of our veto.

Mr. Cash: May I offer my hon. Friend some assistance on the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)? If the House were to reject the proposal—I hope that it does—the Government would be in the dog-house and would be obliged to give effect to the sovereign will of Parliament. That is the key question, and we should reject the proposals.

Mr. Djanogly: My hon. Friend states the obvious, although his point may be optimistic given the Government's position.

It has been proposed that the European corps of border guards should fall under the control of Brussels. We agree with the Minister that the long-term goal of establishing a European corps of border guards is objectionable in principle as well as being impractical. However, we support the development of co-ordination mechanisms designed to strengthen member states' ability effectively to guard their own borders. Although additional resources to support that function are welcome, they should not be ploughed into the creation of the European corps of border guards, but used by member states to improve their own national guards' training.

The British people want control of our borders and the right to draw up our own policy on asylum. In an ICM poll from earlier this year, 77 per cent. of those
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 449
 
polled wanted Westminster to exercise control over asylum procedures. We need an accountable and efficient policy that addresses the needs of those migrants who have a genuine claim and who seek our help, as well as preventing bogus claims from those who would abuse our system. Can we guarantee the British public that those requirements will be met by a single European policy covering all member states? I think not. Indeed, the Government currently fall short of those requirements. Given the disaster of the Government's asylum policy, they probably cannot wait to offload their problems on to Europe. Conservative Members regard that as a cop-out, pure and simple.

---