European Union Bill

Indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who, as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, played an important role in the preparation of its report. As I am sure he will speak in the debate, and given his expertise as a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I shall restrict my own remarks, and leave it to him to deal with these questions in his own time and his own way. I simply make the point that these are well-founded concerns, and I can think of no reason on earth why the Minister would not want to accept these amendments. Perhaps he will, but while the Government have had regard to what the European Scrutiny Committee has said in a report that has been universally welcomed—by both Front-Bench teams and by all those with the competence to understand these matters—they have tended to ignore that almost entirely in considering our recommendations. I shall return to that issue later, but not today. I turn to the reasons that we gave in the European Scrutiny Committee report regarding questions of criminal law:"““To be consistent with the extension of shared competence under clause 4””—" we debated that yesterday—"““the application of both of these provisions””—" the two provisions and the amendments relating to criminal procedure and serious crime—"““should be premised on a referendum and Act of Parliament, as in clause 6; not an affirmative vote before the Government's opt-in decision and an Act of Parliament before it agrees to the adoption of the legislation.””" The fact that the report states that ought to be put on the record. Our view is that family law"““is…of similar if not greater importance to social or environmental policy and ought to come within clause 6, triggering a referendum as well as an Act.””" We can see no reason for not doing all those things. On opt-in decisions, I defer entirely to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. Our conclusion is that it"““would seem to us consistent with the aim of Part 1…for all opt-in decisions to be subject to formal Parliamentary approval.””" My hon. Friend the Member for Witham referred to fishing, and there she was in sensitive and deep waters. She explained very well the six-mile limit, the fisheries limit of up to 12 miles, the 2002 regulation and the associated issues, but that does not alter the fact that this is a serious problem for the fishermen of the United Kingdom. In considering the idea that there should be any restriction of our sovereignty and territorial limits in these matters, we should remember that the entire fisheries policy, which we shall not debate in detail today, I can assure you, Mr Caton, is a complete travesty. There is no question about it: it constitutes the most monumental waste of good fish, which are thrown away and literally left to rot. It is pathetic, and I need say no more than that. That we should regain a degree of sovereignty and territorial competence in relation to fishing is to my mind a given.