---

Lisbon Treaty (No.1)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the debate, which has been interesting and wide ranging. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) asked several specific points, particularly in his role as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I confirm to him that we believe that the current arrangements in respect of Frontex will continue as part of the Lisbon treaty and that the June timetable for Europol is appropriate and is still on track. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) made his maiden contribution in his new role; we are all delighted to see him in that post, and his speech was thoughtful and well considered. He asked a number of specific points that I am sure we will continue to discuss throughout the progress of the Bill. He asked about parliamentary scrutiny: we believe that that is essential in respect of this matter and the wider European agenda, which is why clauses 5 and 6, which are not of themselves necessary to ratify the treaty, have been included in the Bill to ensure that there is a stronger power for Parliament to consider and ratify various moves across the EU. They are in place to enshrine the power of Parliament. I also note that the Leader of the House has announced 7 February as the day on which we will have the opportunity to consider motions reforming scrutiny of EU legislation, and this issue will be discussed then. I know that he is deeply involved in those conversations with his hon. Friends. We also heard an interesting contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. He talked in great detail and enormous knowledge about the specifics in the treaty and the Bill. A brief contribution was made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—perhaps mercifully. We also heard from the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Telling and regular interventions were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). We are all delighted that he takes such a close interest in this process, and in all the other processes and procedures of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) has been in her place throughout the debate. She made a number of telling and entirely appropriate observations and criticisms of the Opposition's approach to the Bill. A relatively brief contribution was made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who retains the status of being in a minority on the Opposition Front-Bench team as a pro-European Conservative. He spoke with fond memories of his debut, and maiden speech, during the Maastricht debate. In his role then, he was obviously a member of the Conservative Group for Europe. I do not know whether he still is a member of the CGE—[Interruption.] It is dangerous to disagree with a sedentary intervention from my Chief Whip, but it has not been abolished. More tellingly, it has actually joined the Coalition for the Reform Treaty. We are living in a world where EU co-operation is key to seizing the opportunities, and tackling the threats, of globalisation. On Second Reading, I spoke of the opportunities of globalisation, but, as hon. Members have mentioned, there is also a darker side of globalisation: crime, terrorism, human trafficking, drug smuggling and fraud. The list goes on, and hon. Members have referred to it. Although citizens can reap the benefits of globalisation, terrorists and organised criminal gangs are also exploiting its tools to carry out ever more lethal operations. The internet is transforming lives for the better, but it is also a recruiting ground for terrorists and a hiding place for child sex offenders. Global financial markets and the free flow of capital are, of course, vital to increasing prosperity, but finance is also at the heart of terrorism and crime. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. Terrorists and criminals can exploit the global financial system to move money more easily and hide funds in phoney assets. The Government fundamentally respect national boundaries and borders, but it is clear that criminals and terrorists do not. That is why EU co-operation at this level is so vital. It is only by working with our European partners that we can better combat organised crime, terrorism and illegal immigration, that we can bring criminals to justice and that we can ensure rights and legal certainty for all EU citizens. The European arrest warrant helps in that regard. Exchanging criminal records, which is a new measure, will help to ensure that offenders are not given unduly lenient sentences because the courts did not know of a previous conviction. EU co-operation through Eurojust and Europol is helping to break online child sex abuse networks and human trafficking rings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said. Of course, the Opposition see this new framework of action and co-operation as a threat. We see the EU as a way to make Britain stronger and more secure. A lack of co-ordinated action is the threat to the United Kingdom, rather than some phoney threat resulting from a belief in a conspiracy to destroy the nation state—an argument that exercised many Conservative Members. The UK has always been clear that EU co-operation must be in our national interest. That is why in each and every instance—on new proposals on JHA, on amending measures, on transitional measures and on Schengen-building measures—we negotiated the relevant opt-out and opt-in, and we did so in our national interest. We have ensured the right to choose across the board whether to participate in this co-operation. The Home Secretary has alluded to the fact that the Lisbon treaty is the next step in JHA—the Foreign Secretary has also spoken about that. By moving to a system where qualified majority voting and co-decision are the norm, the treaty will unblock decision making, which is crucial. Opposition Members claimed that the Bill and this treaty will create a Napoleonic legal system in the UK. That is surely a new entry in the hierarchy of hysteria in Conservative Euroscepticism, because the treaty does nothing of the sort. The Conservative approach would not only prevent the ratification of the treaty; it would make it impossible in principle to participate in any of the 82 measures in pillar three post-ratification. Those matters include the following: combating serious crime; the European arrest warrant; action on racism and xenophobia; combating terrorism; and combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. These minimum penalties and minimum standards are in our national interest, and the Conservatives' approach this evening has been a triumph of the ideology of isolationism over what is in our national interests. I commend the Government motion to the House. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 360.