---

Hague Programme

My parliamentary neighbour has only just arrived for the debate, which lasts only an hour and a half, so would he mind awfully if I made some progress? Otherwise, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk will not have an opportunity to speak. I have absolutely no doubt that whatever the right hon. Gentleman wants to say will appear in tomorrow’s Leicester Mercury in any event. On 19 September, the shadow Home Secretary wrote to the Home Secretary asking for an assurance that, on behalf of the British Government, he would retain the national veto over policing, our courts and our criminal laws because it is vital to the UK’s national interest and the rights of British citizens. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said in his letter:"““If you surrender the veto, and introduce part of the European Constitution by the back door, you will put those rights in jeopardy. I urge you to state publicly and categorically that the UK veto will not be surrendered.””" My right hon. Friend is yet to receive a reply from the Home Secretary. The Minister gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee on 18 October and made some further remarks this afternoon, but I am still not clear about where the Government’s true position lies. As I say, today we have an opportunity to ensure that the Government explain themselves and, if they will not, to be shown not to have done so. We are talking about a form of competence creep from the third pillar of European structures to the first. It has always been our understanding—and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) suggested a moment ago, we had thought that it was the Government’s understanding—that there should be no competence creep from one pillar to another. There should be no eliding of the pillars on matters of home affairs and justice. As my right hon. Friend said, that was the view not only of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), but of the Prime Minister. On 18 June 1997, one of the first occasions that he appeared before the House as Prime Minister, our current Prime Minister said:"““In the justice and home affairs area, we have agreed better arrangements for co-operation on police matters, crime and drugs…However, such co-operation will remain intergovernmental and subject to unanimity. Thanks to amendments that we also secured, the European Court will have no authority to decide cases brought in United Kingdom courts on those issues.””—-[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 313.]" There, at the outset of the Government’s coming to power, the Prime Minister made it quite clear that he was not prepared to see any elision between the pillar structure or any use of a passarelle or gangplank to allow constitutional travel between one part and the next. On 6 June 2005, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said in response to questions on a statement:"““The hon. Gentleman asked me whether we are intending to introduce any part of the constitution by the back door. The answer to that is no.””—[Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 994.]" He subsequently said that"““there will be no proposals made by this Government that seek to bring in this constitutional treaty, or elements of it, by the back door. That is clear.””—[Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1000.]" He said that precisely in the context of a form of constitutional competence creep, which has concerned not just Conservative Members but those of all parties on the European Scrutiny Committee. If the Committee had no concerns, it would presumably have let the whole thing go through on 18 October without requiring the matter to be reported to the House. I look forward to hearing from the Chairman, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, whether he is in any part satisfied by the answers that he was given on that day and in the Minister’s speech this afternoon.