---

Hague Programme

On the whole, I welcome the Hague programme. It offers a practical approach to many problems facing Britain and Europe today. I also welcome the action plan adopted by the Council of Europe in June 2005. The European Scrutiny Committee has studied four communications from the European Commission, one of which was the annual report on the Hague programme. It said that progress had been satisfactory, except with regard to the measures proposed under article 6 of the EU treaty. The main reason for that was the alleged lack of unanimity among Council members, which the European Commission believes makes the case for change to qualified majority voting and the adoption of the passerelle clause under article 42. As we have heard, the Government believe that the debate about the passerelle clause has come to an end, but my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was right to point out that the Commission does not agree. Only the other day, Commissioner Frattini declared in a debate in Helsinki that the Commission believes that the debate is very much still going on. The Commission has not modified its position one iota: it still believes very firmly that the Council should adopt the passerelle clause. We must be clear about where Parliament stands on this matter. Although I believe that we should adopt the positive elements of the Hague programme, it is important that we reaffirm our opposition to the adoption of the passerelle clause. I have four concerns about this matter that I should like to set out for the House. First, opting in to the passerelle clause would have constitutional significance. We must be mindful that the clause could mean that it would not be possible for Britain to have bilateral extradition agreements with third countries. In other words, it might not be possible for us to have an agreement with a third country to extradite terrorists. Given that that is one of the main concerns for most British people, we need to be very careful about adopting such a provision. Secondly, it is important to stress that there is no provision for rescinding an opt in. If we decide to opt in to the passerelle process, we are in there for good—once in, always in. A linked problem is the extension into new areas of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. In addition, more powers are implied for the European Commission, as it would be up to the Commission to bring infraction proceedings, and there would also be new measures for the European Parliament. Thirdly, the passerelle would put the UK in a weaker negotiating position, because other member states would not take our position seriously unless we had decided to opt in. If we are serious about influencing the European agenda on justice and home affairs, it will be far better for us to oppose the adoption of the passerelle clause. My fourth and final point is that if the passerelle clause is adopted, it will undoubtedly introduce a high degree of uncertainty in respect of the future of Europe and the treaties. A linked worry is that because the constitutional treaty has not been agreed—indeed, it was emphatically rejected by two electorates in the EU—measures will be brought in through the back door. The issues that the passerelle clause will open up need to be debated, but fully and frankly as part of treaty negotiations; we should not simply slip into adopting measures by the back door. I am worried about that uncertainty and pre-emption. This debate is timely. The Council of Ministers is meeting on 4 and 5 December and as Commissioner Frattini made clear, the Commission is still arguing four-square for the measure, although it recognises that some member states, especially the UK, have strong reservations. Nevertheless, the Commission has not given up hope of agreement on a matter that it considers crucial. It is, therefore, important that we, as a national Parliament, send a clear message to the Government. There can be no question of equivocation and no suggestion of capitulation or compromise—we must stand four-square in our opposition. That is what we want and I hope that our position will be maintained by the Government.