Lisbon Treaty (No.1)

Thank you. Where I come from, that is called a compliment, on the basis that we in the industrial heartlands of Lanarkshire are not shrinking violets. However, the substance of the treaty is the matter of the debate, not questions of opting in or out. What does a proposal mean, what does it bring with it and do we want it? Does it give us an advantage and lead to better co-operation? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, asked, does it give us the power to catch more criminals and to defend our people better? On balance, I would say that a lot of things in the treaty do so. I have some examples from the Law Society guide. It states:"““EU criminal justice policy is built on police and judicial cooperation; minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences, and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crimes with a cross-border dimension; and the organisation of Europol and Eurojust.””" Those changes are welcomed. That is the view of that profession in its defence of people, companies and organisations in the UK. The guide says:"““The Treaty reinforces and consolidates progress in this area to date. It underlines the principle of mutual recognition, allowing a court in one EU country to recognise and enforce a criminal conviction from another.””" That is something to be welcomed; the society is correct in that assessment. On criminal law, it points out:"““Under the treaty the EU is able to legislate to influence national law in two circumstances:""1) serious crime with a cross-border dimension—e.g. drug-trafficking, terrorism and organised crime.""2) Where the law has already been harmonised in all EU countries.””" With regard to judicial co-operation, there is an intention to remove the veto, but"““the UK reserves the right to opt in on a case by case basis.””" That may remove the deadlock that existed in this area. All those aspects must be applauded with regard to co-operation and the results that they will bring. On police co-operation, the guide states that the treaty"““provides for cooperation for all police and specialised law enforcement agencies. That could impact upon the availability and permissibility of evidence in cross-border cases.””" The Law Society does not see that as a negative matter. On civil justice and family law, it states that there is a"““Greater impetus for more local cooperation in civil law with cross-border issues. The UK can opt out of these provisions.””" In family law,"““National Governments will continue to wield their veto””," which I think people will welcome. The Law Society has taken an objective, professional view of the matter, not a politician's view, as it pointed out to me, and it has welcomed the changes. We must consider other areas that should be welcomed. For example, we recently saw a report from the Commission to the Council on the application of the directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. I have to say that the UK did not come out well, although it was robustly defended by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who has just joined us. The report criticised us, and as someone who has had to deal with families who are justifiably seeking asylum, who had been treated less than humanely by this Government, particularly when they were locked up in Dungavel, I welcome such co-operation, which ensures standards for those of all nations. The report says:"““Minor difficulties were detected with regard to the application of the Directive in time.””" The UK is one of the countries criticised. The report also states that"““serious problems exist in terms of the applicability of the Directive in all premises hosting asylum seekers.””" Sadly, the UK is again mentioned. The report says that asylum seekers are duly informed by the UK in proper time, but that member states do not always comply with the documentation deadline, and once again, the UK is mentioned. The report continues:"““Certain deficiencies are noted regarding the possibility of appeals against certain negative decisions.””" When it comes to a lack of appeals, sadly, the UK is named again. I welcome the notion of cross-border, EU-wide policing and reporting. We had a debate in this place on common asylum policy, and in time we may choose the method of compulsion to ensure that other countries come into line with our standards. However, people who have not been treated properly in other countries often end up here. That is the problem. If they are not getting justice elsewhere in the EU, they come to the UK. We saw that with the recent floods of people who came in when there was much trouble in the world, particularly in the Balkans and Africa.