Asked by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town To ask Her Majesty’s
Government what assessment they have made of Michel Barnier’s
remarks at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on 19
June, and in view of those remarks, how they intend to secure
continued access to EU police databases and extradition
arrangements. Baroness Hayter of Kentish...Request free trial
Asked by
-
of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have
made of ’s remarks at the
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on 19 June,
and in view of those remarks, how they intend to secure
continued access to EU police databases and extradition
arrangements.
-
of Kentish Town
(Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have
given private notice.
-
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of
Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we note Mr Barnier’s comments, but we must bear
in mind that this negotiation is only just beginning. We
want to ensure that citizens across Europe benefit from the
strongest possible security relationship between the UK and
the EU after our exit, and to avoid a security gap. Our
objective in negotiations will be to secure this outcome.
In our view, this can be most effectively delivered through
a comprehensive new internal security treaty.
-
of Kentish Town
My Lords, this and other matters are serious. The
Government’s red lines, such as ruling out the Charter of
Fundamental Rights and the CJEU, will, as Mr Barnier says,
at the moment deny us access to EU databases and things
such as the European arrest warrant, the security pact,
which the Prime Minister has discussed, and recognition of
court judgments. Given the serious nature of this and all
the other issues of the negotiations, which have never been
in front of this House, does the Minister agree that we
should have a proper debate here on how the negotiations
are going and the Government’s objectives? The debate could
be on the White Paper, if it arrives on time at the
beginning of July. If it is further delayed, we should
nevertheless have a debate here on this range of really
important issues.
-
My Lords, I have on many occasions had debates on certain
elements of the issues that the noble Baroness raises. I
commend your Lordships’ House for the quality of our
debates on such matters. I am sure that the usual channels
will, as they are wont to do, make time for such a debate.
The issues that she raises are political choices. None of
them are insurmountable as a legal barrier. We are not in
Schengen now. We operated the EAW without CJEU jurisdiction
up to 2014. The charter creates no new rights. EU
citizenship matters only for those with constitutional
barriers and we are already close to a solution on that in
the withdrawal agreement, but I fully support her request
for a debate.
-
(CB)
My Lords, said in his
speech:
“To negotiate an ambitious new relationship with the UK,
which we all want, we need more realism on what is possible
and what is not when a country is outside the EU’s area of
justice, freedom and security”.
Would the noble Baroness agree that we need much more
realism on both sides, on the British side and on the
European Union side, if the negotiations, which matter so
greatly to the security of all our people, are to succeed?
I was also greatly alarmed to hear that these negotiations
have “only just” begun.
-
As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, these are
political choices that will be decided in the course of the
negotiations. I think that both sides will be realistic in
the final analysis and in what is ultimately agreed. I have
full confidence in that.
-
(LD)
My Lords, the European arrest warrant, as Mr Barnier said
yesterday, is based on trust underpinned by the European
Charter of Fundamental Rights, the jurisdiction of the
European Court of Justice and the concept of EU citizenship
and free movement. As the Government have rejected all
these foundations, how do they expect to retain access to
the European arrest warrant after we have left the EU?
-
As to the European arrest warrant and other matters, as I
said to the other two noble Lords, these are political
choices. What we have in the EAW and other matters, such as
ECRIS and SIS II, is strong co-operation between us and our
European Union partners. I know the noble Lord will agree
with me when I say that the most important thing when we
leave the European Union is that we have a safe Europe in
which our citizens can live.
-
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, whatever
Monsieur Barnier may say on this matter, the heads of
security and intelligence in the other member countries of
the European Union will make absolutely sure that we
preserve our relationship? Am I right in saying that, at
the moment, we extradite five times as many people to them
at their request—criminals and people they wish to charge,
including terrorists—as we request they extradite to us?
The interests of security are quite clear, whatever
Monsieur Barnier might say. He made a speech to the Agency
for Fundamental Rights. The most fundamental fundamental
right is the right to life, which is what the security
agencies are there to protect.
-
My noble friend makes that point very articulately, and he
is absolutely right on extradition—I am sure that he is. It
is in everybody’s interest that we preserve that national
security relationship. The UK has played its part in the
huge move, in the past 12 months to two years, to help
European countries when they have faced difficulties
through terrorist attacks. Our police have been at the
forefront of some of the aid that we have given to our
European partners. It would be a detrimental move for there
not to be co-operation between the UK and our European
partners once we leave the European Union. Life, as my
noble friend says, is the most important thing here.
-
(Lab)
My Lords—
-
(Lab)
My Lords—
-
(Lab)
My Lords—
-
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was first to rise
in his place.
-
My Lords, is not the key consideration in these negotiations
that there is a mutuality of interest between ourselves and
our EU partners in the field of security? Monsieur Barnier
must surely recognise that we have very much to offer, as was
shown recently by the remarks of the director of GCHQ.
-
(Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. We have a mutuality of
interest, as my noble friend has just pointed out—and, as I
have said, it would be inconceivable that some of the work
that we have done in co-operation with our European partners,
which has been of mutual multilateral interest throughout the
EU 27, would be lost in our exit from the EU.
-
(LD)
My Lords, it is absolutely true that it is in everybody’s
interest to have security co-operation. However, when the
Minister says that it is just a question of political
choices, that is complacent and, in the words of the noble
Lord, Lord Jay, unrealistic. There are legal constraints
governing that co-operation. If you are going to have mutual
recognition of judicial decisions, you have to have a common
legal framework and a common jurisdiction. Nothing else is
going to pass the European Parliament, I can be absolutely
certain.
-
I am sure that what is at the forefront of the European
Parliament at this point in time—and I am talking about the
politicians, not the bureaucrats—is the sometimes fragile
security situation that we have had in Europe over the last
two years. I will come on to the legal point. None of the
things that we have talked about today are insurmountable. I
am not arguing against a legal framework, but none of the
issues are insurmountable legally.
-
My Lords—
-
My Lords—
-
(Lab)
My Lords—
-
I am sure that the House would like to hear from the noble
Lord, .
-
My Lords, I was Home Secretary when we entered the European
arrest warrant as part of the negotiation at the time. I
reinforce the points made by the noble Lord, Lord King, and
my noble friend Lord Anderson. But I make a little offer. It
is entirely right that we have to persuade and others that it
is in everyone’s mutual interest to retain our facility and
access to the EAW, but in 2014 many of us had a real task in
persuading the coalition Government, I think probably because
of the Liberal Democrats, that remaining in or
re-entering—because we had the opt-out—the EAW was essential.
I offer my heartfelt skill in negotiating with , as we had to do
with the coalition Government.
-
I finish by thanking the noble Lord for his point.
|