Mr.
Woolas: Much of what the hon. Gentleman has just said is
not within the remit of the Stockholm programme in the
communiquÃ(c). One area that I mentioned is the issue of working
with children, which the hon. Gentleman is on record as supporting. As
for the other areas, one has to stick to the maxim that I outlined in
my introductory remarks, which is that we want existing forms to bed
in. There is the danger that if we moved into areas such as
disqualification, those who wished to see the higher standards being
set across Europe would take away our rights to keep
decision-making.
Some of the
areas that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are not within the justice and
home affairs remit. I hope that it does not sound as if I am avoiding
the question; it is just that the question points to areas outside the
remit of the Stockholm programme. None the less, the disqualification
from working with children is one area that is clearly within the JHA
remit. Damian
Green: I should like the Minister to clear up one
apparently extraordinary statement on what will be a non-contentious
area of the documents, namely the “Sexual Exploitation of
Children and Child Pornography”. It
states: “In
Europe, 10-20% of children are at risk of sexual
abuse.” That
seems an extraordinarily high percentage, which would include up to six
children in every school class everywhere across Europe. Does the
Minister know what is meant by “at risk”? On the surface,
that looks like a huge overstatement of the problem and I would not
want the bad use of figures to prevent effective action against this
horrible
crime.
Mr.
Woolas: I am afraid that I do not know the source or the
definition of that figure. It seems extraordinary and if it were not
accurate, it would damage the credibility of the policy. I will write
to Committee members when we receive information on that point. A
similar topic came up in Question Time today; the hon. Gentleman has
made an important
point.
Mr.
Cash: We are told by the documents that
“the
Commission’s Communication on a Common Immigration Policy for
Europe, and the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum...brought
together 10 years of work and laid the ground for a coherent approach
in the
future.” They
refer to a common immigration policy. Another page states that those
proposals “laid
down the basic principles for the further development of the
EU’s common policy in the area of immigration and
integration.” To
go back to my earlier question, does the Minister not agree that
although these are proposals, they are clearly founded on a
determination to go ahead with a co-ordinated policy? That differs from
the line that he put to us a few moments ago. What legislative methods
could he use or what system could he invoke to stop that from
happening, as he apparently does not want it? The alternative is that
he does want it and he is giving the wrong impression to the
Committee.
Mr.
Woolas: I hope that I am not giving the wrong impression;
I do not intend to. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question
is Lisbon. If and when the Lisbon treaty comes into effect, the big
change in justice and home affairs issues will be that we have more
opt-in rights. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would
support that. He has debated this issue for many
hours.
Mr.
Woolas: It seems like years. It could be inferred from the
language that a common immigration policy means that the same criteria
would be used for decision making across the EU. That is not what is
meant. The EU migration pact that was agreed last year, and informs the
Stockholm process, is about the external relations of the EU and member
states, as I said in a previous answer. It is about how we can better
co-ordinate development policy, particularly in west and north Africa.
It also looks at what we can do mutually to help people to return by
helping to build capacity. We should not
have burden sharing if the policies would encourage more global economic
migration and more people trafficking. We have common interests with
our EU partners on that
issue. Integration
is also dealt with in the EU pact, and it makes sense for us to work
together in that area. I point the hon. Gentleman to the Dublin
arrangements, which are a good example of how the common
policy—to use his words—is of benefit to each member
state. That works through co-operation, not by giving up the power to
make
decisions.
The
Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is fortunate, he
will catch my eye during the
debate. Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That the
Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 11060/09, which
sets out the Commission’s view of the next five year
work programme in the field of Justice and Home Affairs; and supports
the position that the Government takes on its direction. [25th Report
of Session 2008-09, HC 19-xxiii, Chapter
1].—(Mr.
Woolas.) 5.34
pm
Damian
Green: This debate has been instructive, as has the
proposed third five-year programme. If we are honest, the Tampere and
Hague programmes have had less effect on our constituents than the
architects of the programmes hoped for. Some Committee members will
regard that as good; others will see it as less good. However, the
lesson is—to be fair to the Minister, I think that he has drawn
it—that it is relatively easy to write over-ambitious
programmes, but relatively difficult to implement them. In some ways,
the Conservatives welcome that, because the fears expressed by my hon.
Friend the Member for Stone are correct: the documents clearly contain
the desire to be both over-ambitious in practical terms and
unnecessarily centralising in terms of where the authors of the
documents wish the journey to end. I hope that when the Council
negotiates the terms of the programme, the Government will hold firmly
to all the reservations scattered through their own response to the
document. Having
said all that, some aspects of the proposals are welcome, particularly
one that we did not discuss much during questions. I draw the
Committee’s attention to the issue of data protection, on which
the Commission seems more enlightened in some ways than the British
Government. The clear thrust of many of the proposals is in favour of
sharing information, when necessary, on those who have been convicted
of an offence. One pitfall of data sharing into which the Government
have fallen is collecting information on the innocent and then either
wishing to share it or—even worse—losing it, causing huge
offence and grief.
In an
increasingly globalised world, people who commit violent crime in one
country, for example, may well go on to commit violent crime in
another. Who could object to any kind of data sharing that would
prevent that? If we are to maximise the benefits of sharing
information, however, it is essential that data protection measures
should be much better than they have been,
and that is all the more important when data sharing is done on an
international basis. A lot of debate in this country is infused with
the thought that if we give data on our own citizens to other
countries, those data might not be safe. That has always struck me as a
fairly insular debate, as the question of how safe it is here seems at
least as
relevant. Kelvin
Hopkins: It was put to me some years ago by a chief
constable that sharing information with certain countries in the
European Union was absolutely fine—he mentioned Germany
positively. However, he said that some other countries, which I will
not mention, were dubious and sometimes had uncomfortably close links
with
criminals.
Damian
Green: That is absolutely right. Like the hon. Gentleman,
I will not name them, but I think that we know which countries they
are. My point is that someone sitting in another country and looking at
this country’s record of keeping sensitive data secure might
worry about whether to share their information with the Brits. I do not
think that as a nation, we are necessarily in a particularly strong
position to preach to other people. However, the documents’
underlying point, which I welcome, is that great emphasis is laid on
more effective data protection
measures. Having
said that, I think that there are many aspects about which we ought to
be particularly concerned. The biggest is the clear desire within the
Commission to move to something much more than mutual recognition of
standards in legal systems—something recognisable as a common
justice system. There are two serious objections to that. The first is
that it is not necessary, as—to be fair, the Minister said
this—the mutual recognition route is a much more practical way
forward.
Secondly,
there is no democratic mandate for it in this country or others. I
detect no desire among people across Europe to tear up their own
national legal systems and have a common system across the European
Union. For all the Minister’s tales of how we will benefit from
greater opt-in rights if Lisbon is adopted, he will know that the
practical effect in this area of Lisbon, if it were to be adopted,
would be a greater use of qualified majority voting and therefore less
ability for the Government to hold
out.
Mr.
Cash: The European Scrutiny Committee gave considerable
attention to this question during the Lisbon treaty. It had serious
differences of opinion with the Government over their interpretation of
these provisions, which provoked a good deal of argument. The Committee
was overruled by the decisions in the House of Commons as a whole,
without a referendum. Does my hon. Friend agree that the invocation of
the procedure of co-decision—that horrendous labyrinthine
monster, which is likely to do a great deal to increase the powers of
the European Union in this field—adds to the very persuasive
remarks that he already made, albeit that I am sure he wants to be as
reasonable as possible?
Damian
Green: I always seek to be as reasonable as possible. I am
tempted to go into an exposition about the use of co-decision and its
effect, but I will resist. I detect no appetite from the Committee for
my views on co-decision at this stage.
Mr.
Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): Hear,
hear.
Damian
Green: Particularly from my
Whip. Moving
swiftly on, I share the Government’s worries about the mutual
recognition of asylum. That seems to get to the nub of a practical
point. If we had a single asylum system across Europe, we would have
lost control of the numbers that arrived in this country. Presumably,
if someone were granted asylum and recognised as a refugee in any other
European country and so gained all the benefits of that, one of those
benefits would be free movement. Therefore we would simply have no
control over the numbers of refugees—genuine refugees
even—who came here. I dare say the Minister agrees that that is
a very important aspect. I hope that he can confirm that one of the
points on which he will hold firm is that the ultimate decision on the
number of people who are allowed into this country, either through the
asylum route or through general immigration routes, should be taken by
the British Government and not by agencies outside
here. We
had a short exchange about Frontex. It is important for the future
security and borders across and around the European Union that Frontex
grows to become a seriously effective border force. As the Minister
will know, the Opposition propose a British border force. In that, this
country has fallen behind our partners in the EU, which have set up
their own border force. We should learn from their example. Certainly I
would wish Frontex to become more effective and for Britain to provide
such expertise as it can to help it.
Finally, I
urge the Ministers who will be engaged in the negotiations to do
everything that they can to make sure that the Council does not adopt a
maximalist, over-ambitious programme, but a practical, minimalist and
deliverable programme that will provide some practical benefits. We do
not want to have another debate in five years’ time with people
trying to remember exactly what was in the Stockholm programme and what
it was meant to
achieve. 5.43
pm
Paul
Rowen: Thank you, Mr. Gale. May I also welcome
the opportunity that we have had this afternoon to question the
Minister about the progress of the Stockholm programme? I express my
thanks to the European Scrutiny Committee for the work that it has done
in drawing together the issues that the communication brings
up.
We Liberal
Democrats do not believe that this is about creating a European justice
system. That is not something that we want to see. We believe that
there is a role for Europe in protecting fundamental rights and
co-operating together when that can be of mutual benefit. We do not
believe that the document does that or addresses some of the real
issues in respect of that. It seems to lack focus and to be just a
shopping list of proposals rather than a coherent strategy. Even, for
example, in the areas of criminal justice and border control, it seems
to flit around a range of issues. Taking up the point I raised earlier,
I hope that when negotiations are completed we can have a proper impact
assessment of the measures proposed, their cost and where they might
impact. That is important. Like the hon. Member for Ashford, we feel
that the document goes further in
the area of data protection than current Government policy. It talks
more about releasing only information that is vital and should be
released, and about protecting the rights of individuals. That goes
much further than the current Government. We believe that there are
other areas where more could have been done—for example, with
regard to EU citizens and justice, particularly in civil law—to
ensure that there are common standards while still respecting
individual states’
areas. Finally, I
would like to quote Jago Russell, chief executive of Fair Trials
International, as he makes an important
point: “European
co-operation in the fight against crime must not be at the expense of
basic principles of justice and
fairness.” I
hope that in dealing with the hotch-potch of areas covered by the
document, Ministers will not lose sight of that fundamental principle.
It is all right to have co-operation with regard to serious crime, drug
trafficking or human trafficking—I welcome some of the moves in
that regard—but we must not lose sight of the fundamental reason
why we are co-operating, which is to ensure that justice and fairness
exist throughout the
system. 5.47
pm
Kelvin
Hopkins: I shall speak briefly. I am pleased with what my
hon. Friend the Minister has said. The feeling is that in the European
debate we have now moved away from the extremes of federalism. That
might to some extent be due to those who have argued for retaining
independent member states, co-operating on a voluntary basis rather
than drifting into a federalist superstate. I have campaigned all my
life to retain democracy at nation state level as well as a voluntary,
co-operative approach to international matters.
We have seen
off the free-movement extremists. Sam Brittan, the well known economist
who has written for the Financial Times for many years,
suggested that there should be no border controls and that we should
have free movement of people across the world, and that would make the
market operate effectively. I think that was crazy and we have moved
away from it. In a strange way it mirrored the other extreme—
Trotskyists, who do not believe in the nation state either and believe
there should be a borderless world. Capital and labour would be a
seamless world order and they would no doubt struggle to some kind of
conclusion.
| 
