---

Hague Programme

I congratulate the House authorities on allowing this debate on the Floor of the House within two weeks of a European debate. May I say to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that his style would have been more suited to a three-hour debate? He could have been more concise, so as to give many members of my Committee, who have been denied the chance to speak in the House for some time, a chance to take part in the debate. On behalf of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am happy to present our 41st report for 2005-06. It starts with the evidence given on 18 October. We had serious concerns, which are expressed well on page 5 of the evidence by a member of the Committee who pointed out that if we were to move to qualified majority voting and to give the EU that power over any part of justice and home affairs—which are at present defended by a veto—and"““if the EU acquires competence over something internally then the EU becomes the single, unified body which deals with all the external negotiations relating to that matter.””" It was on that point that the discussions foundered, because the Irish Government spotted the issue very quickly and made a strong case that echoed around the negotiations. The position was stated not at that evidence session, but quite clearly in the letter of 30 October, which can be found in our conclusions on pages 14 and 15. The Minister says that"““the Government considers the debate about the passerelle ‘to be over’.””" I therefore welcome the position that the Government are taking at this moment in the motion, which says that the"““Home Affairs Informal Council showed that there was little support amongst Member States for the proposed use of the Article 42 passerelle””." The Government have taken that position in saying that the focus of the Council"““should instead be on developing practical co-operation to combat the transitional challenges of terrorism, organised crime and migration””" and away from institutional change. For the reasons that have been given, and in relation to the Government’s position, we have moved forward considerably, and I hope that members of my Committee will vote with the Government if a Division is called on the proposal, but I must bring to the attention of the House three pieces of further evidence, because my concern and that of my Committee is to be evidenced-based in what we say. The first piece of evidence is in the statement to Parliament by Baroness Scotland, following the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 5 and 6 October 2006:"““The presidency is still reflecting on what its next steps should be, but we consider the current debate to be over.””" She then said:"““The Commission urged the Presidency to reach agreement on the passerelle by the December European Council.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 November 2006; Vol. 687, c. WS77.]" It might indeed be urging the presidency to reach a conclusion that the passerelle is in fact a dead parrot, but then I read what Commissioner Frattini said at the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union conference just two weeks ago, which I attended with my hon. colleague from Wales.