---

European Affairs

My central heating boiler has just broken down, so I will happily join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming an influx of plumbers into the country—they are much needed. I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s general comments about the importance of enlargement, but there are those who are trying to tie future enlargement of the EU to acceptance of a constitution that has already been rejected by the electorate of two major EU nations, and which the Home Secretary described on Monday as ““deceased, a dead parrot””. It was therefore heartening to hear the Foreign Secretary making clear on ““The Westminster Hour”” this week her view that institutional reform is not essential. She said: ““Some of this””— decision-making—"““could become more difficult but it would be too much to say that we’re not coping at the moment.””" She went on to say that things ““are not too bad””. When the Minister winds up, will he put the Government’s view on the record and confirm that they do not regard institutional reform as essential and that they will continue to support the further enlargement that the Foreign Secretary and I agree is desirable, regardless of institutional change? That is contrary to the view that he expressed in his speech at the Institute for European Affairs in Dublin on 20 November 2006, when he said:"““The current rules are unsustainable in a European Union of 25 states—let alone 27 or more.””" As the Foreign Secretary said, the Council will also tackle the controversial issue of EU involvement in decisions relating to justice, home affairs and immigration, and consider"““progress achieved in implementing The Hague Programme””." We believe that those matters are fundamental to national sovereignty. We agree with the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, who said so clearly in the Financial Times on 23 September:"““The whole criminal justice area is an area of national sovereignty in which there are huge sensitivities.””" He set out a more practical, alternative approach, which Ministers here would do well to follow. He said:"““My vision for Europe is that instead of constantly seeking to enlarge the competence of the union, that the justice and home affairs ministers should concentrate on practical measures of co-operation between states to enhance security and combat terrorism””." As recently as last Thursday, when the House debated an EU Scrutiny Committee report, the British Government appeared incapable of setting out even their own position, insisting on leaving open the possibility of using the so-called passerelle. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), said that the Government’s position was clear and that there was a ““debate to be had””. The Government’s preferred outcome for that debate was unclear. However, after the meeting of the Home Affairs Council, the Home Secretary pronounced:"““There’s a clear and probably overwhelming majority against””" giving up the veto. He continued:"““That’s our view … We should not by using weasel words attempt to revisit this at a higher level when there’s such a clear majority””." Will the Minister for Europe confirm for the first time that the Government now regard the matter as closed and that they do not want proposals for surrendering the veto over justice and home affairs to be"““revisited at a higher level””" at next week’s summit? The Foreign Secretary said that discussions would focus on immigration. Obviously, the Commission’s forthcoming report will be on the agenda. Will the Minister for Europe give a little more insight into the Government’s thinking? Will he state categorically, following the difficulties of recent years, that the Government’s priority now is to reassert control over our borders and that, as far as the UK is concerned, border control will not become a shared competence? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the UK will oppose Commissioner Frattini’s proposals for a ““comprehensive migration policy”” for the EU? Will the Government confirm that the proposed EU-wide criminal offence of employing irregular migrants is one of the first attempts by the EU to create criminal law using qualified majority voting, following the controversial ruling of the European Court of Justice last September?