Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Michael Connarty (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 30 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on Hague Programme.


Hague Programme

I accept that point. There is an accused who has been arrested and charged with a crime. No one has been charged with a crime in the evidence warrant scenario. Significantly, Germany said that it would accept the arrest warrant only if it had a derogation from six major areas in which the evidence warrant would be applied, because it thought it too vague, not relevant to trans-national crimes such as terrorism, and not strong enough to make it give up its right to dual criminality. The issue in question would have to be a crime in Germany and in the country from which the evidence warrant came. This issue foundered on the basis of hot pursuit and surveillance. My worry is that hot pursuit and surveillance are a clear signal from the Commission of its intent and where it wants to go. We as a Committee suggest that Parliament, and also the British people, demand that the Government and this Minister stand firm on that matter, now and in the future. She said in her letter that there were no ““significant gains”” for the UK from the passerelle. The judgment must be in terms of when we discuss this further. Until we find that there are significant gains in something to move the justice and home affairs Hague agenda forward, such Commission proposals should not be brought back to the House. I hope that the Minister will stand firm on that in any Council she attends.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
453 c1266 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Crime prevention Immigration controls Undocumented migrants Human trafficking European Union International cooperation EU action EU justice and home affairs Voting methods Terrorism EU immigration Europol Eurojust
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk