| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Djanogly: To the extent that the Labour party will support a yes vote for the European constitution, I cannot see how it will wish to destroy its own campaign—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) is clearly not prepared to give way.
Mr. Djanogly: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given way many times, including to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), and I am about to conclude my speech.
I cannot see why the Labour party should wish to destroy its own campaign by attacking elements of the treaty, such as the giving up of our veto on home affairs, that are included in the Tampere agenda. This therefore becomes Labour's Trojan horse whereby it is preparing to sell this country for the sake of its constitutional treaty. It is a chilling prospect for our nation, but one that we need to face up to in the context of the Government's continued silence on this programme's true implications for our justice system and our national sovereignty.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many Members hope to catch my eye but we have limited time for the debate, and I hope that they will bear that in mind when making their contributions.
1.59 pm
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): This is an extraordinary debate, partly because of the contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), but also because of the astonishing absence of the shadow Home Secretary. I know where he was last night; he was at the Dorchester hotel—celebrating Diwali, tucking into his chicken tikka masala and rice.
I know where the shadow Home Secretary was this morning; he was on the "Today" programme, debating with my hon. Friend the Minister. Where is he this afternoon? Why is he not here? A new precedent has
14 Oct 2004 : Column 453
been set—shadow Ministers do not bother to come to the House of Commons to defend their position—but I am not surprised that he is not here: my hon. Friend gave him such a trouncing on the "Today" programme that he is too frightened to enter the Chamber.
I had the privilege of representing the Government at the Tampere Council between 15 and 16 October 1999. I remember it well, because it was the first time that member states came together to consider the issue of justice and home affairs in this way. An agenda was set out, and it is right that we should be reviewing it now.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Before the hon. Gentleman gets to his main thrust, does he agree that there are four Opposition spokesmen, covering constitutional affairs and home affairs, on the Front Bench, whereas only two Ministers are present?
Keith Vaz: Never mind the quality, feel the width, I say. The point is, where is the shadow Home Secretary? It is a disgrace that he is not here.
The purpose of the Tampere Council was to create an area of security, freedom and justice in the European Union, and it is right that we should be reviewing it this year. It is also right that the European Scrutiny Committee has produced such an excellent report, and recommended that we should have a discussion on the Floor of the House. I commend members of the Committee for doing so.
The fact remains that this agenda was important in 1999 and became even more important because of the events of 11 September. The achievements of the agenda over the past five years have kept the issue of justice and home affairs right at the centre of the Government's thinking. I commend the Minister and her colleagues for going to the justice and home affairs meetings, defending the Government's position time and again, and making a positive contribution to the way in which the agenda has been taken forward.
As with all European agendas, there are disappointments at the fact that certain benchmarks have not been achieved that should have been achieved by now, but the purpose of December's European Council is to give this whole agenda a new thrust to ensure that we consider it in the light of what has happened over the past five years.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): Does the ex-Minister not think that the EU, instead of pursuing its hegemonistic ambitions in justice and home affairs, should concentrate on matters closer to home and not permit such disgraceful episodes as the sacking of the chief accountant, Mrs. Andreasen, for exposing fraud, maladministration and corruption in the European Commission?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are wandering rather wide of the motion.
Keith Vaz:
I shall abide by your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
14 Oct 2004 : Column 454
The fact remains that we must make progress. I want to raise three brief points, because I know that lots of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate. First, there has been success in combating illegal immigration because of the work that has been done by the Home Secretary and his predecessor, the Foreign Secretary. Other EU nation states must take responsibility for the immigration problems in their areas. We cannot solve the problem of illegal immigration unless there is good, strong co-operation between our countries. That is shown, frankly, by the number of asylum seekers and of claims for asylum, which have declined over the past few years. That has been one of Tampere's successes.
The second point relates to combating crime. Surely the Conservative party must appreciate the importance of ensuring that those who commit crimes are brought to justice as quickly as possible. They should not be able to hide in another member state to evade justice. If they were able to do so, that would make a nonsense of the EU, which is why the European arrest warrant has been such a success. It was so difficult to get extradition before impetus was given to the justice and home affairs agenda. If someone commits a crime in another area of the EU, they must be brought to justice. By and large, people have to be brought to justice in their member states, because that is usually where the crime is committed.
The third point—the question of different judicial systems—is important. That is brought home to us by the European Scrutiny Committee's excellent report. Why is it that every time a European document is debated in the House, Opposition spokesmen go quite berserk, saying, "This is the last straw and the superstate will be created"? I am surprised that the hon. Member for Huntingdon did not mention the abolition of the pound. I realise that every speech that Conservative Members make is written with reference to what Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Kilroy-Silk might think about it, because all Conservative Members are concerned about is protecting their position from the United Kingdom Independence party.
The fact remains that we need a serious debate—a grown-up debate—in the House on European matters, which will allow us to explore the crucial issues that are at stake in the EU. There is absolutely—
Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Keith Vaz: No, because time is short.
There is absolutely no question of our judicial system being changed because of this take-note document; it is absolutely ridiculous. We have a completely different judicial system from that in Scotland, and we know that four of the six Members who serve on the Committee have Scottish constituencies. Their judicial system is completely different from ours in England. There is no question of one being created. There is no question that we will be harmonised with the French judicial system or the German judicial system, which are quite different from the systems here.
The one point on which I can agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon is that we have a judicial system of which we can be extremely proud. Of course it is the role of our Government—not just the Home Office, but the Department for Constitutional Affairs—to protect the integrity and independence of our judiciary.
14 Oct 2004 : Column 455
Finally, I want to address the question of mutual recognition. Of course we want to ensure that there is mutual recognition. It is absolutely vital that decisions taken by courts in member states—
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con) rose—
Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) (Lab): He has just come in!
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |