EU: Justice Opt-ins Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office

EU: Justice Opt-ins

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts
Wednesday 10th December 2014

(10 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates Portrait Lord Bates
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We have been very clear that, as the treaty of Lisbon states, the presumption as regards criminal law should be that we operate by mutual recognition rather than harmonisation. We have taken very clear steps to say that, because we have the ability to opt in under the Lisbon treaty, we exercise that choice. That is the reason why the Prime Minister decided to opt out of 135 measures before opting back in to 35; otherwise, European Court of Justice jurisdiction would have extended to all of those. Therefore I recognise the noble Lord’s point, but the Prime Minister is arguing our case well.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, will the Minister not agree that, now that the Government have successfully rejoined the 35 key measures, it would make more sense to concentrate on some of the measures that we have in principle opted into but which have not yet completed their negotiating track? Can he therefore say what progress the Government are making in dislodging the blockage by the European Parliament on the passenger name record directive, which would be of great assistance in dealing with terrorism?

Lord Bates Portrait Lord Bates
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not have a direct answer on that, but I think that in principle what the noble Lord says is absolutely right. We have made our position clear and argued our case, and have avoided an operational gap by the decision we took on 1 December. Now we ought to get on and make sure that the measures we have opted into work well. However, I will write to him on that point.