European Constitution (Hansard, 16 December 2003)

§ 11. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire)(Con)
What the Government's policy is on asylum provisions in the draft European constitution. [144046]

§ The Minister for Europe(Mr. Denis MacShane)
The draft treaty provides a basis for common rules on asylum to be adopted by qualified majority voting. We will of course retain the right to decide whether to opt in to asylum measures. If the proposal was not in the UK's interests, we would not have signed up to it. The EU-wide database system—Eurodac—and the revised Dublin treaty have helped us to identify and return asylum shoppers to the EU countries where they first arriver or claimed asylum.

§ Andrew Selous
I wonder whether the Minister could clear up a little confusion by telling the House what was the purpose of the Leader of the House trying to delete seven sub-paragraphs from article III.167? Those sub-paragraphs dealt with asylum and would have enabled policy on the matter to be decided by a majority of other states. The amendment failed, so I do not understand how the Prime Minister could claim yesterday that we are not giving up the power to set our asylum laws".—[Official Report, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1334.] Was that not a vanishing red line that the Government did not even try to win?

§ Mr. MacShane
The draft constitutional treaty was not agreed, so the question does not arise, except theoretically.

§ Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con)
Will the Minister now give a reply to my hon. Friend? If all seven of those asylum powers were to be removed from the constitution by the amendment tabled by the then Minister for Europe, why, according to the White Paper, is the issue no longer a red line or even being demanded at the intergovernmental conference? Why have the Government dropped their objections and removed our powers to set our own definitions and details on asylum in any future constitution?

§ Mr. MacShane
Under article 63 of the existing treaty, there is a common asylum problem, and we have the right to opt in. We need to work with our partners. The closure of Sangatte would not have been brought about by the Conservatives' anti-European policy; nor would the setting up of our Europe-wide database. This is a theoretical discussion, as I have said, but QMV could have been very helpful to us in terms of advancing common European policy on asylum. If we want other countries to help us with asylum issues relating to returning or transit, it is vital that we should be there to discuss those issues with them. I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in raising this question. Perhaps when he tabled it, he did not know where things would stand today. This point remains to be debated, because we will not achieve a sensible asylum deal, which is of vital interest to all our constituents, by turning our back on co-operation and partnership with Europe.