It is just an issue about whether we wish to tie the Government to a position where, under primary legislation, they would have to force a vote and vote against something when it might be that, after Parliament had considered the matter, we would all be in favour of doing it in any case.
I will try to speak more briefly to amendments Nos. 42 to 45. Extending the powers in the treaty to establish minimum standards at EU level for criminal procedural rules is intended to define additional offences and sanctions for further areas of serious cross-border crime. Though important, it does not permit an existing policy area to move from unanimity to QMV or co-decision.
Justice and home affairs amending provisions do, of course, have to secure legally watertight safeguards in the treaty against any unwanted extension of criminal procedure or criminal offences powers. Under the treaty, we have a triple lock on any use of those amending provisions. Lock 1 is that any move to identify new aspects of criminal law will be subject to our opt-in. Lock 2 is about unanimity, so we have a veto; and lock 3 is an emergency brake, which applies to both these areas of policy.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 would allow member states to establish a European public prosecutor, but we have a double lock on that matter, so we see no need to establish such provisions. Lock 1 is that the UK opt-in applies, so we can choose whether to participate. We would be highly unlikely to opt into a proposal to create the European public prosecutor; and on lock 2, unanimity is retained for any decision to establish such a European public prosecutor.
Let me conclude with some wider points about the protections set out in clause 6. We went further in the Bill's provisions than any other Government anywhere in the European Union who are currently using the process of ratification. The Bill gives Parliament a power that is not given anywhere else in the treaty or for any of the passerelles: prior control over the Government's veto. The treaty does not give national Parliaments prior control of any passerelle decision and a parliamentary lock is set out in the treaty.—[Interruption.] The Bill also provides a parliamentary lock on six separate passerelles, which, under the treaty, have no parliamentary lock at all—[Interruption.]
European Union (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jim Murphy
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 4 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union (Amendment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c1669-70 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:35:35 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_451400
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_451400
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_451400