---

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): My hon. Friend might recall the case of my constituent, Caroline Dickinson, the young school girl who was murdered in Brittany some years ago, which is still outstanding. It is a classic example of where we want to be absolutely reassured that standards of investigation and justice are common throughout the European Union. If this is a step in that direction, and I believe that he is right in accepting that it is, surely we should all support it.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was a tragic case and it perfectly illustrates the point that we wish to pursue.

Europol is an area where we may have a slight difference of opinion with the Government. We are concerned about the operation of Europol within the United Kingdom. Some hon. Members may recall that it was the Liberal Democrats who, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, opposed the statutory instrument that gave immunity to Europol officers within the UK, perhaps embarrassing the Conservative Opposition in so doing. We take seriously the limits to what Europol can and should do, although we do want it to be effective and accountable. At the moment there is a limit to its accountability. I should like to see a more direct relationship between Europol, as part of the European Union structure, and the European Parliament so that, for example, the director of Europol is confirmed before the European Parliament. That seems a perfectly sensible suggestion, albeit one to which the Government are not, I think, acceding.

I have concerns about fundamental rights in some of the new countries to have entered the European Union. I strongly support enlargement, but in some of those countries the basis for human rights is tenuous. We should be extremely careful to ensure that all member states live up to the responsibilities into which they have entered in joining the EU and, indeed, through membership of the Council of Europe. British Governments of all colours have constantly promulgated that.

Mr. Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman is kind to give way yet again. In relation to the European arrest warrant, is he aware that it is easier to have someone extradited to Slovenia than it is to the United States? Given his earlier comments on states that have just entered the EU, is he not concerned about that?

Mr. Heath: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had not said that because it tempts me into a debate on our extradition treaty with the United States. People can be extradited from Britain to the United States but there is
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 459
 
no reciprocal arrangement from the United States to Britain, and that is absolutely wrong. I would abuse my position, however, if I discussed that now.

It is absolutely essential that we have a degree of co-operation and co-ordination on asylum policy. Otherwise, anything that we do is likely to be meaningless because of the free movement of citizens within the EU, and I think that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden signed his name to that document. It is important that we have a common view on how to manage asylum and immigration issues properly.

I do not view the Law Society as the ultimate arbiter, nor do I view it as na-ve, as does the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). It assessed the Tampere process and broadly supports it because it believes that the agreement is in the interests of justice. That is an important accreditation.

Sometimes, the European Commission is its own worst enemy. An example of that is in its wording on qualified majority voting:

"The legal and institutional constraints of the current Treaties, where unanimity in the Council generally remain the rule, partly explain these difficulties. The Member States are sometimes reluctant to cooperate within this new European framework when their interests are at stake."

I should hope they are unhappy and reluctant to co-operate when their interests are at stake. If the Commission thinks that that is not the proper role of sovereign Parliaments and member states within the European Union, it needs a lesson in what the proper attitude towards subsidiarity is. That is the sort of language that allows the straw men to be put up by people who have no interest in what is contained in the documents, but want to foment an argument within the country that they believe to be to their electoral advantage. That is a sad reflection on the state of oppositional politics.

On this occasion the Scrutiny Committee has it about right.

2.24 pm

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) (Lab): I intend to please you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to disappoint Opposition Members by sticking to the Scrutiny Committee report and the subject of today's debate. I am pleased that the Leader of the House has given us this opportunity. I support earlier comments that it is a pity that we do not have more than one and a half hours to discuss such an important issue.

The European Scrutiny Committee published in July its report on the Commission's programme for the next five years. We say in the report that these proposals relate to matters that are "at the core" of our national sovereignty. Therefore the programme directly affects the lives of individual citizens. I am pleased that the report has been so widely supported in the House and in particular that the Government also support it.

Under the treaty of Amsterdam, the European Community acquired in 1999 a new objective:

"to provide citizens with a high level of security in an area of freedom, security and justice."

 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 460
 

In that year the European Council held a special meeting at Tampere to set priorities for the European Community as

"an area of freedom, security and justice."

That meeting approved a detailed programme for action for the next five years, covering civil and criminal justice, asylum and immigration, and police and customs co-operation. As we know, the measures under title IV of the EC treaty on visas, asylum and immigration and other policies relating to the free movement of people do not apply to the United Kingdom unless it expressly opts in to them. At Tampere, the actions were agreed by unanimity.

These new Commission proposals failed, in the Committee's view, to evaluate the practical benefits achieved so far as a result of the Tampere programme of 1999, in relation to

"creating an area of freedom, security and justice, covering criminal and civil justice, visas, asylum and immigration, and police and customs cooperation."

Our report questions whether there is a risk that the expression

"an area of freedom, security and justice"

is encouraging the notion that such an area is a unitary state separate from the member states which make up the European Union. Regardless of the countless assurances from Ministers, it is not easy to be comfortable with the Commission's rhetoric throughout its proposals.

On harmonisation of asylum policy, the European Scrutiny Committee argues that we should not go beyond the establishment of reasonable common minimum standards. The proposals for the creation of a European public prosecutor and a European corps of border guards and to give Europol some investigative powers excited the Committee. The report states:

"We have not yet seen sufficient justification for giving the European Union its own prosecutor, border guards and police force."

Again the Government have indicated support for that view.

The extension of the Community's activities into crime prevention could conflict with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. We also agreed that the scope of measures relating to civil and criminal justice should be strictly confined to those which are necessary for mutual recognition, and should not affect purely internal cases or otherwise encroach on the integrity of the legal systems of member states; otherwise there would be no limit in practice to EU competence to harmonise national legal systems. Our concerns are compounded by the Commission's apparent wish to rely on qualified majority voting to secure the adoption of its justice and home affairs legislation against the wishes of some member states. As has been pointed out, the Tampere agreement in 1999 was agreed by unanimity.

Mr. Connarty: Obviously it is a joy to hear such a clear elucidation of the points that we considered and put forward and with which, as my hon. Friend said, the Government have agreed. Does he not think it essential that in summing up our Minister makes it quite clear that, in terms of the motion before us, negotiation will
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 461
 
always be approached by the Government on the basis that they will stand by the commitments they gave to support the points put forward by him and by our Committee?

Mr. Hood: I certainly would agree with that; indeed, the last paragraph in the report asks the Government to do that. The Minister's contribution suggested that she has taken on board the comments we made; we should welcome that.

---