Lisbon Treaty (No.1)

I am concerned to find myself supporting some of what the Government have said, because their record on criminal justice is appalling. On almost every occasion when we have debated such issues I have found myself voting on the liberal side—I do not mean Liberal Democrat, of course, as there is little as illiberal as the Liberal Democrats—to bring to the Government's notice the serious damage they are doing to the freedoms of the British people. In worrying about our freedoms, I reflect on how the Labour Government have damaged us in the criminal justice Bills that they have introduced. Crime, immigration and many other issues that we have spoken about today can no longer be dealt with as they have been hitherto. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that we need a new mechanism to guard the liberties of the people we represent. It is not just that I have an interest in what happens to my constituents as they travel so much more regularly today in the rest of the European Union; and it is not just that I want minimum standards, should my constituents be arrested for traffic or any other offences when they are driving in Slovenia, Slovakia, Vienna or elsewhere. Those reasons are important, yes, but my constituents are threatened by international crime, human trafficking, drug trafficking and other actions that cannot satisfactorily be dealt with under present arrangements. Let me draw the House's attention to one of the saddest moments in British history. The League of Nations agreed that all nations should accept a minimum enforceable standard. The incoming Government said, ““Yes, that is a wonderful idea, but of course it should not apply in Britain because we are so good that we do not need the regulations.”” It seemed that the then Government could not understand that if they wanted others to reach similar standards, they had to accept the same restrictions as applied to others. I find it very difficult to accept the argument that because something is new, it must be wrong, and that even though circumstances have changed, we do not need to alter our present arrangements—[Interruption.] Yes, we are all for co-operation—as long as it does not reach the point where we commit ourselves to act together on issues in respect of which, without that commitment, we cannot act effectively.