| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend knows that I fought those battles for a number of years from the Front-Bench position that he now occupies. Since the Government came to power, they have promised in the House to oppose things, but then signed up to them, however reluctantly, because of the inclusion in the same package of something else that is good. They have spent years saying that they will oppose things and then failed to do so.
Mr. Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I think that he will relate to my conclusions.
Having had the pleasure of participating in the Statutory Instrument Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee B debates on both the European arrest warrant and the harmonisation of criminal sanctions, I have become particularly familiar with the Commission's ludicrous proposals on criminal justice. The principle of mutual recognition has long been deemed the cornerstone of European judicial integration. The Commission denies that it intends to challenge legal systems in individual member states through the promotion of harmonisation—so far, so good—so why does the communication say that it is necessary to avoid a situation in which two separate legal regimes cover cross-border crimes and internal disputes?
The communication also states:
"duality could be inconsistent with the aim of a single area of justice for all".
How is it possible to adhere to mutual recognition, which apparently supports the judicial traditions of each member state, without the operation of separate regimes? The answer, of course, is that it is not possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said earlier in the debate. That is a clear indication that the Commission deems the ultimate result to be interference in the judicial systems in operation in each member state. It strikes me that the Government seem all too willing to accept the Commission's proposals at face value without true, open consideration of the Commission's real aims. This represents a clear threat to national sovereignty. Is the Minister going to stand by and let these measures—which purport to further the principle of mutual recognition, but in fact aim towards a unitary legal system—creep in? In no way can such aims comply with and respect the subsidiarity principle. The Scrutiny Committee got it absolutely right and went to the heart of the matter when it said in its report:
"If Parliament has not chosen to unify the separate legal systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we see no justification for this being attempted by the European Union."
That is spot on. We see no justification for it either, and we urge the Government to do everything in their power to prevent it. Trust is based on knowledge, and without greater knowledge of the workings and standards of judicial systems in other member states, it is difficult to see how even the procedure supporting mutual recognition will be adequately implemented.
The Commission has stated that it supports further action to define and fix minimum penalties for certain offences, to end life sentences, and to move towards further approximation—for which I read harmonisation—of national laws to secure effective mutual recognition of judgments. Again, harmonisation rears its ugly head. At the extreme end, we are facing a massive overhaul of the criminal laws of all member states, yet that prospect raises insurmountable practical problems in a Union where national systems are so incredibly diverse and bear so little resemblance to each other.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great care. Over the past few months, he and I have appeared many times in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, where we have both prayed in aid the views of the Law Society. Has he, too, received the Law Society's very long briefing—it runs to 33 pages—which makes it clear that it supports the mutual recognition programme because it has considerable advantages for practitioners?
Mr. Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman misses my point. I support mutual recognition, as does he and as do the Government, but this agenda is not, in practice, about mutual recognition. That is our worry.
Aside from the practical issues, we also believe that the agenda is objectionable in principle. Do we, as a nation, want to submit our decision-making power on criminal policies and sanctions to the will of Brussels? I do not think so. This country has developed to date a legal system of which we can and should be proud. Accordingly, we should firmly rebuke any potential threat to it.
Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman refers to a legal system. Is he not aware that there are three different legal systems in the UK? Will he explain the position of the Scottish Conservative party in that regard and give one example of any concern that has been expressed north of the border?
Mr. Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman may have missed my earlier comments in which I referred specifically to the different judicial systems in the United Kingdom and how their own systems are respected. This agenda will end that.
A prime example of a crime in one country that may be entirely overlooked in another is that of animal rights terrorism, which is prevalent in my constituency. Public opinion on that has changed massively in this country over a very short space of time, yet many other member states have no concept of what the crime is, let alone ideas about how to tackle it. The power to determine which crimes attract which sentences should never be removed from Westminster. It is only by retaining control over our own system that the British public will feel secure about the fact that justice is obtainable and adaptable to the demands of the day.
14 Oct 2004 : Column 451
We also oppose the creation of a European public prosecutor, as such a position promotes harmonisation rather than co-operation.
Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): We are discussing the five-year JHA—justice and home affairs—programme. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House, in all seriousness, that he believes that in five years' time this country will be unable to have laws dealing with animal terrorism, which he cites as an example of how that programme will go wrong? If he really believes that it will affect our right to have laws on animal terrorism, he should say so; if he does not, he should accept that he has raised a completely irrelevant and nonsensical issue as part of his scare campaign.
Mr. Djanogly: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has got completely the wrong end of the stick. I am simply maintaining that the definition of a crime and the sentence that attaches to it will be considered differently in each member state and should therefore be the prerogative of that member state's judicial system. I do not think that the Government would detract from that—the problem is that they are not going over to Brussels to tell it what we want.
As I said, we oppose the creation of a European public prosecutor. Sufficient justification has yet to be provided for such a move, which seems more suited to preparing Europe for federal statehood than to any practical purpose. The attainment of security throughout the member states of the Union underpins the achievement of freedom and justice. As the Minister said, the biggest threat to that in recent years has been terrorism, so the prospect of increased co-operation between law enforcement agencies of all member states is to be welcomed.
We do not believe, however, that there is justification for extending the powers of Europol to become a separate, fully functioning European police force. In its current form, Europol makes large contributions to the exchange and analysis of information, rather than undertaking investigatory work. As such, it has a significant role to play in increasing co-operation and the sharing of best practice between member states, and it should continue to do so. That is not to say, however, that Europol needs to become a full Union agency feeding from the Community budget.
As with the Government's position on the Commission's Green Paper on criminal sanctions, I sense that although they have a lukewarm response to much of this communication, they are not prepared to do much about it. That is dangerous. It leaves the door open to creeping harmonisation, whereas what is needed is a strong rejectionist stance in favour of maintaining the British interest such as that which my party would provide.
Why are the Government taking such a soft position on this? In the conclusion to the communication, the Commission took the opportunity to reinforce their approval of the proposed constitutional treaty. This statement particularly grabbed my attention:
"the final adoption of the Constitutional Treaty and its rapid entry into force are becoming essential, as this will offer the legal and institutional means of meeting . . . expectations".
The key word is "essential". As Conservative Members have argued time and again, the constitutional treaty is by no means essential either for our country or for the European Union. If this agenda is to go forward, the Commission's proposals for the next five years must be viewed as a way of seeking increased intergovernmental co-operation and progress in the fields of justice and home affairs. That ceases to be the case at the point where the proposals represent an attempt by the Commission to reinforce their desire to gain the ability to impose potentially unwanted legislation on member states that have lost their right of veto and the power to control their own country's policies and, therefore, their futures. That is exactly the situation that could become a reality under the umbrella of the constitutional treaty.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |