---

Keith Vaz: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) because, as the Chairman of the Committee points out, he has only just wandered in to give some legal advice to the hon. Member for Huntingdon. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield should wait his turn if he wishes to take part in the debate, or perhaps he was busy at the Dorchester, like the shadow Home Secretary.

The fact remains that mutual recognition is a core principle of what we have been discussing. My constituents want to know about the practical problems, which my hon. Friend the Minister so eloquently placed before the House, because if they go to France and have an accident or there is a problem they want to know whether they will have access to justice in such countries. Those are the practical questions being asked by our constituents, involving the practical co-operation that must exist between member states, the judicial authorities and the police forces. That is what we are talking about here, so let us hear no more nonsense about a federal state in respect of this document. Let us have some proper support from this Conservative Opposition—supporting the Government as they stand up for Britain's interests.

2.9 pm

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I open by thanking the European Scrutiny Committee for its work and for the quite sensible views it has expressed in the report. The subject has considerable import, and it should be put before the whole House. My only regret is that there is still a problem with our procedures. If the Committee considers a matter to be of serious import, it is somewhat bizarre that it should be debated on the Floor of the House to enable other Members may participate, only for the debate to be so brief that they cannot do so.

There would have been more debate if the matter had been referred to European Standing Committee A, B or C, because a Standing Committee would have had longer to consider it. I modestly suggest that it would be better for the matter to go first to the European Standing Committee, after which, with the benefit of its advice, we could debate it on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a most constructive suggestion about the matter going from the European Scrutiny Committee to the European Standing Committee and then to the House. Does he agree that when the European Scrutiny Committee
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 456
 
states that the matter is so vital that the whole House should consider it, there should be a full-day debate in Government time?

Mr. Heath: I am not sure that I would go quite that far, but the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments.

What saddens me is that, thus far, we have not had a debate about the European Scrutiny Committee report. We have had the nonsense of an amendment, thought up as a jolly wheeze by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who could not be bothered to attend the debate that he started, although he was happy to go on the radio this morning.

I am going to defend the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), because it was suggested earlier that he was not here. He may not have been sitting up and paying attention sufficiently to be seen on the other side of the Dispatch Box—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that time is limited for the debate. Perhaps we can concentrate on the motion rather than on some of the personalities involved.

Mr. Heath: I am happy to do so. I was defending the honour of another Member of the House, whom I felt had been traduced.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) used his rather lamentable contribution as a proxy for a debate on the European constitution. We know, or at least we think we know, that we will have a referendum on the constitution—we had certainly better have a referendum on it—so there will be an opportunity to debate those issues then; this is not that opportunity.

I am surprised that there has been no mention of the debate that is convulsing a lot of the European Parliament and European Commission: the identity of the person who will put these proposals into effect. The name of Rocco Buttiglione has not been mentioned, yet we have the extraordinary situation of the civil liberties committee rejecting his nomination as European Commissioner—on sound grounds, I think, given the views that he has expressed and the actions he has taken. I hope that the debate on his confirmation, or otherwise, will be on the right terms—that it will be not on what he believes but on the way in which he intends to pursue the proposals that are before the Commission. I also hope that Mr. Barroso will take careful note of what parliamentarians are saying about Mr. Buttiglione's suitability for that role. He may be a perfectly good commissioner in another role, but he is not the right man to take forward a programme that is concerned with the liberties of individuals and the fight against discrimination.

I hope that not a single Member of the House does not believe that co-operation between member states is essential to fight organised crime, terrorism and domestic crime, drug smuggling and the like.

Keith Vaz: The Conservatives.

Mr. Heath: I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that they simply choose to use this as a Hartlepool agenda to try to get themselves out of a hole.
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 457
 
It is an unfortunate misuse of the proceedings. It is a great shame that we have these announcements of doom every time we have a European debate. I am staggered—[Interruption.] A cameo appearance by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. It is staggering that we are debating this at all because we were told after Amsterdam and Nice that there would be no Parliament to have these debates—it was the end of the world every time. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to join us—[Interruption.] Yes, he is.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the House please settle down? This is a debate on a serious motion.

Mr. Heath: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman in his seat. Of course, his hand signed many of the treaties that his colleagues find so objectionable now.

I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we wish to maintain the integrity of our legal systems. I do not hear a single person who wants the English, Scots or Northern Irish legal systems to be eroded by decisions taken elsewhere. I hope that the Government will stand firm on that. I am confident that they will because they have said so—and, in this instance, I believe them.

I hope that we have effective border controls. I have my doubts about British border controls. I wish to see a single border force, which I think would be more effective than the disparate arrangements that we have at the moment. I recognise that we have had a massive expansion of the European Union, that there are significant new issues about border control that need to be effectively acknowledged within the European Union, and that new member states may need assistance from better established and perhaps richer states to provide the border controls that we want. That, however, should not affect what we do in this island state. We have an advantage over most of the other member states.

Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South) (LD): If we are going to help the new member states of the EU to tighten their border controls, is it not a bit invidious for anyone in the Chamber to suggest that we need not take the issue seriously? It is wrong if we are reluctant to take any strong action and to support a Government who, for once, are moving in the right direction.

Mr. Heath: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend.

We are trying to ensure that people cannot slip through the criminal net. Is there any hon. Member in the Chamber who wants criminals who ply their trade across borders to get away scot-free, simply because we do not have the apparatus to deal with them effectively? Of course there is not. Therefore, if we can find ways of recognising each other's judicial systems—improving them on occasion and recognising their strengths, in a context of respect—it is sensible that we do so.

Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok) (Lab/Co-op): Do the Liberals disagree with any Government policies on this matter? If not, would any of the proposals be red line items for the Liberals?

Mr. Heath: I am working my way down the list, but we believe that the Government and the European
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 458
 
Scrutiny Committee have the balance approximately right in most areas. As I develop my speech, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is the case.

Some people see the minimum standards as a Trojan horse, but, again, do we have no concerns about whether British citizens will be dealt with appropriately in EU member states? I suggest that we do, that we want reasonable standards of justice to pertain in the European Union and that that is a prerequisite for a common area of security, which is what this discussion is all about.

---