The government is about to take a position on the issue of switching to QMV (qualified majority voting, where the EU Council of Ministers can take decisions by over 71% of the votes) instead of unanimity (100% of the votes) for some types of EU decisions in the field of judicial co-operation. This would be a possibility if the so-called "Passarelle" (bridge) clause of the current treaties were used to transfer matters from the EU’s “Third pillar” to the “Community Pillar”. Under the latter, governments have the option of changing from a procedure requiring unanimity in the Council of Ministers and no parliamentary approval to one allowing QMV with parliamentary approval. It should also be pointed out that Britain anyway has the right to opt-in or stay out of measures adopted in this field of policy.

The House of Lords EU Committee has pointed out that there is a problem in resisting change to QMV in fields where, under the protocol for Britain and Ireland, we anyway have the right to opt-in or out of the decisions taken. The Lords report on this matter said that as “the UK would not have to participate in proposals brought forward, the Government will need to consider carefully whether the UK should stand in the way of other member states deciding to transfer criminal law competence to the Community”.

The Lords also point to the advantages of QMV in terms of decision taking. They point to the paralysis suffered by the requirement for unanimity among 25-27 national governments highlighting the time taken to agree the European evidence warrant and the failure to make progress on the framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings for people charged in other member states. The Lords report says – “we believe that the proposal deserves careful examination and caution against any knee-jerk reactions resulting from media coverage”.

The Law Society also considers that “the full incorporation of the Justice and Home Affairs pillar into the Community structure offers the best guarantees that the rights and freedoms that are in the interests of individuals will be balanced against the security concerns of the member states”.

It is therefore all the more shocking to read the language used by the Commons scrutiny committee. Granted, this committee has always attracted rabid Eurosceptics like Tory MPs Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory, but it has generally had a pro-Europe majority. Yet, it is now arguing against the proposal , describing the “passarelle” as a “gangplank” and questioning “whether it would be acceptable for the European Parliament to have the right of co-decision on measures (…) when most of its Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of the UK”?

This is a remarkable argument. By analogy, from a Welsh (or a Scottish) perspective, is it acceptable for the Westminster Parliament to take decisions when most of its Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of Wales (or Scotland)?

Whatever level a decision is to be taken, the Parliament of that level should be involved. If a matter is to be decided at EU level (which we should decide on objective usefulness or otherwise of having common decisions in these areas), then the European Parliament will be involved - and of course it contains non-Brits!

Michael Connarty MP, the (Scottish) Labour chair of the Committee, may find he is inadvertently giving succour to SNP diatribes against Westminster!