The
Chairman: We now have until half-past 5 for questions to
the Minister. However, he has overrun the normally allocated time by a
few minutes, so if we get
to 5.30 pm and members of the Committee still seek to ask questions, I
shall be minded to extend the time available. I remind the Committee
that questions should be brief and that it is open to any Member,
subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary
questions. Damian
Green (Ashford) (Con): I start with the Minister’s
opening assertion that the issue has nothing to do with a common
criminal system and justice area. Is that his view, or is it what the
Stockholm programme will produce? To me, the documents suggest a move
towards the creation of a common justice area, which we believe
undesirable. Will he clarify his comments: are they his view of what
should happen, or are they his view of what the programme states should
happen?
Mr.
Woolas: It is my Government’s view, as well as my
own, that fears that a common criminal justice system is in train are
not well founded. Of course, all EU member states are party to the
European convention, but that sets out only minimum rights. With the
development of other tools such as, as I have mentioned, the European
arrest warrant, there is a consensus across the EU that higher
standards need to be guaranteed throughout member states. Those higher
standards mean that our citizens will be more easily able to access
justice systems in other member states, and that criminals committing
crimes across borders are more likely to be brought to justice. It is
not a question, as some have said in our country and elsewhere, of
having a common criminal justice system. There are different such
systems within our own country owing to the situation in Scotland. I
hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman, and I think that he agrees
with
me.
Damian
Green: The Minister mentioned the European arrest warrant,
which was held to be largely a security measure when it was introduced.
However, it has turned out to be used overwhelmingly in
non-terrorism-related cases. Does he regret
that?
Mr.
Woolas: I would not say with certainty that the Government
promoted the European arrest warrant as largely a counter-terrorism
measure. I remember that reports on those discussions highlighted that
point, but the Government see a number of benefits in this area. Again,
to reassure him, the Government are conscious of what I imagine the
hon. Gentleman would describe as mission creep, and with the
protections that have been put in place, the pendulum has swung towards
the UK point of view within the Stockholm programme. The Swedish
presidency agrees with our point of
view.
Damian
Green: The Minister made the point that before we proceed
with ambitious new programmes the previous ones should be in place. He
will be aware that quite often that does not happen. In particular the
Schengen information system 2 is massively delayed. This clearly means
that the previous programme—the Hague programme—cannot be
said to have been properly implemented yet. Does he feel that that
ought to have some impact on how we go
forward?
Mr.
Woolas: Yes I do. I am trying to find something to
disagree with the hon. Gentleman on here. There are those member states
and members of the European Parliament who want to run before we can
walk. It is important for the credibility of these measures that they
are embedded. I think that the emphasis that the European Union is
achieving in these pragmatic measures is very important. He mentions
SIS 2. There are other areas where the success of Europol would not
have been achieved if we had tried to go further in the policy
framework than the pragmatists allowed. We agree with the thrust of his
point. Paul
Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): The Commission claims substantial
progress in the development of justice, but there are still differences
in standards, notwithstanding the earlier question from the hon. Member
for Ashford. There are differences in the level of protection for
persons in criminal proceedings. There is a lack of minimum procedure
standards, for example. What is the Minister doing to try to ensure
that, while not having a common justice system, there is at least a
common base level by which these systems can
operate?
Mr.
Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. This
revolves around civil justice as well as criminal justice. The point is
valid on both. The policy that we are pursuing and which is
successfully reflected in the communication is to go for a mechanism
that ensures that we can co-operate with other European Union
countries. Mutual recognition enables member states to work together in
justice matters while at the same time keeping the traditions and
specific features of each member state system.
English
common law is the model for contract law in most of the world. European
states do not want to throw that out. I have already mentioned that the
ECHR is the minimum standard in criminal justice. It is in our
interests to bring up standards in other European countries. One
example that follows from that is the protection of rights of suspects,
where we are committed to driving up standards in procedures across the
European Union to ensure that suspects can have a fair trial as we
would recognise it. The road map, to which I referred in my opening
remarks, tries to do that. So, to summarise: mutual recognition, all
boats rising with the tide, but separate legal
systems.
Paul
Rowen: The communication promises to integrate justice
policies with other policy areas. It is not mentioned but I assume that
that means human rights, trade, development and foreign affairs. If the
development is going to happen, will there be an impact assessment,
greater detail and adequate financial resources, or is it just
words?
Mr.
Woolas: There is not an impact assessment as yet, as the
hon. Gentleman knows, because one has to get agreement on 30 November
in Brussels for that. There is a scenario assuming that the Lisbon
treaty is accepted and one assuming that it is not. We have a sensible
approach and have planned for both
eventualities. Under
the idea of a presidency of the EU, justice and home affairs would
continue to keep its rotating presidency, and within that there would
be Commissioners for justice and, separately, for home affairs. The
area on his list where policy is developing most is in development
policy of third country origin. The European Union migration
pact—this is a most exciting and significant
development—better looks at what the EU as a whole,
and member states in particular, can do to help capacity building in the
country of origin and better tie in migration policies in particular,
but also criminal justice policies, with those countries. That is a
long-winded way of saying
yes. Caroline
Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): In the response to the European
Union document, the Government suggest that there are concerns that
there was not enough about the role of justice and home affairs in
relation to external affairs. Will my hon. Friend expand on that and
explain what direction the EU should take on that
issue?
Mr.
Woolas: I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to
her work in this area. The EU is generally coming round to the British
and Irish view, which is shared by the Netherlands and other countries,
that in most areas, particularly immigration policy but also justice
policy, the EU external border needs to be protected. The advent of
Frontex, which has had some successes already, is evidence of that. To
choose the most contentious area, disrupting the flows of illegal
migrants through Libya and the people trafficking routes, for example,
has been a success of EU policy. As the right hon. Lady knows, it is a
very difficult area because we have obligations to protect the rights
of people dealing with the consequences of our policies in other
countries. The
second big area is the general idea of the European Union pulling
together and using its weight in relationships with third countries;
there are all sorts of practical benefits, such as consular services
and so on, but also diplomatic benefits. That is not getting rid of
British sovereignty, it is acting in cohort with our EU partners. The
idea of an EU looking outwards is more and more the accepted policy in
the Stockholm
programme.
Caroline
Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for his
reply. I was thinking more along the lines of police or legal
personnel helping in countries outside the EU. I suggest to the
Minister that part of the problem in maximising our impact is that how
good for someone’s career taking part in that sort of activity
is is not credited very much, in either the police or other services.
It is a very good way for people to share their skills overseas and
help countries to get a stability that sometimes we take for
granted.
Mr.
Woolas: I share my right hon. Friend’s point of
view. We are moving in that direction but not as quickly as I think she
would like. Co-operation between our security forces and our police
operations, for example through Europol, Frontex and joint work
overseas—airline liaison and SOCA officers being about to pool
effort, resources and, of course, intelligence—pays huge
dividends. The success, for example in Nigeria, which I think she has
spoken on before, shows that the EU co-operation is there. There is an
organic growth—if I can use that phrase—in that
co-operation because it has been proven to work, but I would not go so
far as to claim that it is a major thrust of the Stockholm programme.
That is not the feedback I am getting, although we do, of course, share
the thrust that she refers to.
Mr.
William Cash (Stone) (Con): How necessary does the
Minister regard it to draw a boundary between what is decided under
this subject matter by UK courts and
what he believes should be dealt with by the European Court of Justice
and the European Court in Strasbourg? Does he have any idea where that
line should be
drawn?
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the
differences between the two courts. It is commonly misunderstood that
the purpose of the two courts is separate. The European convention is
the minimum standard across the European Union. I will not be pinned
down on a figure but the hon. Gentleman knows that it is our view that
we pool decisions where it is to our advantage. If I may refer to the
Lisbon treaty, which is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government,
I would have thought that he would support the progress that we have
made and not oppose it, as I believe he has
done.
Mr.
Cash: I take, for example, the question of mutual
recognition. Page 10 of the papers in front of us clearly
states: “Judgments
in civil matters must be directly enforced without any intermediate
measure.” It
goes on to say:
“The exequatur
procedure, which is too often still required to enforce judgments in
civil and commercial matters issued in other Member States, should
therefore be generally
abolished.” It
goes on to
say: “the
principle of mutual recognition must apply at all stages of the
procedure.” Lastly,
paragraph 4.2—it is not lastly because it permeates the entire
question of creating one single legal process under one single
court—says there should
be “a
real European evidence warrant to replace all the existing legal
instruments.” Does
the Minister not realise what is happening? In my first question I
asked where the boundaries are. His answer, that I ought to approve, is
bound to be wrong because what is being proposed is a single legal
process with a single
court.
Mr.
Woolas: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s
premise. The first quote he read out assumes that such measures are in
place. If one reaches an agreement with a partner to cover certain
areas, one would expect those partners to implement jointly. The idea
that mutual recognition leads to a single justice system is not borne
out by the facts. We have been doing this for 10 years. The hon.
Gentleman has to accept—though I do not think he
does—that, as I pointed out in my opening statement, there are
2.2 million British people in other European member states and in the
area of business we are of course mutually dependent. We want to ensure
that standards of justice are met. That is not the same as saying that
we want a single criminal justice system. That is how it operates at
the moment, I would argue, between Scotland and
England. Dr.
Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): Following a tragic
murder in my constituency a few years ago, which might have been
avoided had two police forces shared information, I campaigned for the
setting up of a violent offenders register. The upshot was that today
that we have ViSOR, the violent and sex offenders
register—two registers combined. If a British person is convicted
in any of the other 26 countries of the European Union, do we have the
power to enter that person’s name on the ViSOR system? I am
sorry if I have asked a difficult
question.
Mr.
Woolas: No, it is a good and important question. It is
exactly the sort of issue on which all our constituents want
common-sense, practical co-operation. My understanding is that the
answer is yes. If it is not, I will quickly come back to my hon. Friend
when I have been inspired. I point him to the recently agreed European
criminal records information system. That programme promotes further
work on the issue, which we support, as the Government believe that
information about convicted offenders should be used to prevent
reoffending across the European Union. I think that all of us would
support that.
Kelvin
Hopkins: Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned strengthened
external EU borders in immigration matters. One welcomes that, but
clearly Britain does not trust that policing to be sufficiently strong,
which is why we have retained strong domestic borders and chosen not to
join Schengen. He said that other countries are starting to follow
Britain’s lead. Is there any prospect of the establishment of
stronger internal borders between other member states, in parallel with
Britain?
Mr.
Woolas: I cannot see that, in all honesty. However, I
think that in the past two to three years, the Schengen states have
accepted that the United Kingdom and Ireland choose to be outside that
agreement, partly because of geographical considerations, as we are the
British isles.
Often, one
finds that the same policy objective is reached by a different route
within Schengen. However, as I mentioned in answer to my right hon.
Friend the Member for Don Valley, as well as recognition of the
benefits of stronger external borders, counting in and counting out and
data sharing—the ability to share data is, of course, critical
to our ability to control our borders and implement criminal justice
measures—I think that there is a growing acceptance of the
benefits within Schengen countries, because controlling borders within
continental Europe is a different kettle of fish.
The other
thing that I want to mention is the benefit to all of us of what are
called juxtaposed borders, where border control is outside our
territory. The most famous, of course, is in Calais, and there are
other examples around the European Union. We are taking the argument
that a stronger border should not diminish our responsibilities to
countries of origin and third-party countries. However, as I said in an
interview two weeks ago, I think that it is the most difficult area of
public policy that we
face.
| 
