| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity given by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and his amendment to discuss this important question. In our earlier discussion, I gained the impression, perhaps wrongly, from the reply the noble Lord received, that the Foreign Office did not know about the legislation passed in 1997. If so that is very worrying because I believe that we should have joined-up government and that every department should know exactly what is going on in another department and what they negotiating over in Europe.
It seems to me that as a result of the document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the safeguards and constraints which apply to our own police forces do not apply to the foreign police agents of the EU, because that is what they are and no mistake should be made about it. As I understand it, the Police Complaints Authority will be powerless to act in abuse cases as will police forces and individual police officers, due to the immunity granted by the order.
I seem to recall that when the order was discussed the impression was given that immunity would apply only to a very narrow band of crimes, for example, fraud against the EU and drugs smuggling. Now, with the advent of the European arrest warrant, these foreign agents of the EU may perhaps be able to intervene and investigate all the crimes mentioned in the framework agreement on the European arrest warrant. I believe that they total 39. Frankly, that covers just about everything, so far as I can see. It is an important issue which the noble Lord has brought forward. I feel sure that those who fought and died to keep this country free must be turning in their graves at the thought of policemen, perhaps from the countries they fought to maintain that freedom, coming to this country to arrest people and have them tried in another country.
I say also to the press that there are great dangers here for them. If we follow the line of "no xenophobia" and whatever, the Sun will not be able to print headlines such as "Up Yours, Delors!" for fear of those responsible being arrested by Euro policemen, taken across the water and being incarcerated for six months or more before trial and then, if found guilty, incarcerated in a foreign gaol. I hope that that is not taking matters too far. These are the dangers that can arise. It is right that we should at least discuss them before a tragedy occurs and all hell is let loose.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness a specific question. When a foreign diplomat commits an offence in this country, he has complete immunity from prosecution. On the other hand, if the offence is a serious one—an assault, for example, as opposed to a minor traffic violation—he is normally asked to leave the country. Will the same request be made to Europol officers who behave in such a way?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I have limited sympathy with one aspect of the amendment: it is useful to be sure that we are well informed as to what levels of immunity will be given to the new bodies. Having said that, I remind those who spoke to the amendment that your Lordships' Committee on the European Union has produced reports on Europol and Eurojust which investigated those matters in considerable detail. I am not sure whether those noble Lords took part in our debate on those reports.
The British police and judicial authorities find the European arrest warrants not so much a threat as useful. British criminals tend to go elsewhere in the European Community and it takes a long time to get them back. That is something that happens with
increasing cross-border transactions. So I see the provisions not as Gestapo-led threats to British justice but a normal consequence of large numbers of British citizens moving to Spain, for example, for usually legal, but occasionally, sadly, illegal, reasons, whom it is difficult to get back. There are also lengthy court proceedings in Dublin, in which people attempt to avoid extradition procedures intended to return them to the United Kingdom. That is one aspect of the Treaty of Nice that we ought all to welcome.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that I am a little perplexed by the amendment. Although his remarks about Europol were interesting, I was not sure that they were about the amendment. The amendment is addressed to the establishment of Eurojust, but his remarks were addressed entirely to Europol. Officers of a number of institutions have the same degree of immunity as Europol. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord with as much information as I am able to garner on the subject. Indeed, I have already asked the Home Office to respond to some of the points that he raised about Europol. The provisions of the Bill that the noble Lord's amendment would delete are absolutely not, as he suggested, about establishing some sort of supranational European police force. The part of the Bill covering Eurojust is about inter-governmental co-operation, not some sort of super-European police force.
Previously, the noble Lord has raised his concerns about a number of issues relating to the Napoleonic code. The provisions are not about the Napoleonic code. They do not give Eurojust the opportunity to range far and wide without being answerable. Eurojust is directly answerable to justice and home affairs Ministers within the Justice and Home Affairs Council. There is no concept of a European public prosecutor concerned with the establishment of a single EU jurisdiction—to answer another point made by the noble Lord. Eurojust does none of that, as we discussed on several occasions in Committee and on Report.
The amendment would delete from the Bill the closer co-operation between judicial and other competent authorities of the member states and paragraph 2 of Article 31, which provides for Eurojust co-operation. The noble Lord ranged wide of that remit by talking about Europol. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. Yes, Europol will have a degree of immunity. I shall try to give him some more information, but there is nothing unprecedented in that. In that spirit, I hope that he will accept that I shall do what I can to help him—although I am bound to say that that is not terribly germane to the amendment. None the less, I shall do what I can to answer the noble Lord's questions.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and to the Minister for her more helpful reply. It is probably
not worth our having a long debate about the intricacies of the treaty at this juncture. Article 29 includes the new words:
- "including cooperation through the European Judicial Cooperation Unit ('Eurojust')".
I take it that the Minister agrees with my other point, which is that taken together, the whole juxtaposition of Europol, Eurojust, the European judicial network and the arrest warrant constitute the first step towards the European legal order, or corpus juris, as it is known in the European jargon. That ought to be on the record in your Lordships' House; it is an extremely dangerous departure for the European Union. Those powers are largely taken under the bogus cover of darkness of the events of September 11th. They have little to do with terrorism.
I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken and to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he would take my silence to be assent to his point. I am sure that he knows well enough from our previous debates that he should not do that, because I have been quite explicit to the contrary.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in that case, will the noble Baroness answer my question? Should we not have a separate debate on the progress towards corpus juris, encompassing the aspects that I mentioned: Europol, Eurojust, the judiciary and, in particular, the infamous arrest warrant and everything else that is on the way in the creation of this European federal order?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say that we have a great deal of discussion of such issues. If the usual channels find it helpful, I am sure that they will facilitate a debate of that nature. I would not want the noble Lord to take my earlier silence in any way to indicate that I followed his logic and reached his conclusions on the argument. It is a matter for the House whether we have a debate on the extremely interesting matters that the noble Lord has raised. I am bound to say that that would probably be a more appropriate channel for such a debate than the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I shall leave her with her silence. I trust that the House will leave me with my assertion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page