Heeding the Brussels call

British lawyers should develop an interest in European Union affairs if they want to influence decision-making, writes Timothy Kirkhope MEP

Unfortunately, most Britons take little notice of regulations and reports emanating from Brussels unless they are portrayed in the British press as either onerous or in some way ridiculous - of the 'straight bananas' or 'frothy beer' ilk.

Of course, many of these stories are exaggerated and some are not true at all, but the impression remains of an overwhelming negativity about Brussels.

From a lawyer's point of view, it is essential that notice is taken of developments here - especially those things which effect not only the legal position of clients, but also the way we look after our clients in the professional relationship.

A classic example of the latter situation was the money laundering directive which was put in place following the 11 September attacks.

We were required to pass this quickly but lawyers were concerned that if implemented as drawn it would radically affect the traditional relationship of confidentiality between lawyer and client - this should not be casually discarded.

As a result of my work, we obtained a conciliation process which resulted in the directive being amended to produce a compromise with which we, as lawyers, could be satisfied.

The proposals for a new European arrest warrant to replace extradition procedures in Europe is also an interesting matter.

I do not wish to see the harmonisation of our criminal laws, nor do I want to see the ending of extradition procedures - with their checks and balances - in favour of this new procedure, which from a lawyer's perspective could in certain circumstances deny the human rights of our clients.

For example, take the plight of the 'plane-spotters in Greece.

If the arrest warrant was in place, then many cases like that could arise where the disproportionality of penalty could be transferred across Europe.

That, in turn, could have an unfair effect on clients with little - certainly in the British courts - to stop the execution of proceedings.

My recent reports on setting up national football information points of contact between European police and justice departments to help curb the football hooligan problem, and my other contact point report to exchange information on alleged war criminals and perpetrators of human rights atrocities, will have an effect when domestic legislation is drafted.

The issues of human rights are of obvious concern to British lawyers.

I was a member of the Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights which tried to establish parallel rights to the European Convention on Human Rights, but exercisable in the European Court of Justice rather than the Court of Human Rights.

This set of 'alternative' rights waits for some legal base - but we may well find it cited in court cases in the UK before long.

As a member of the new Future of Europe Convention, I am now having to grapple with complicated constitutional questions as we try to find a lasting formula for the relationships between the current and prospective members of the EU.

As an elected member of the European Parliament, I find that being a lawyer has been of great benefit - even more so here than when I was a Home Office minister in Westminster in the 1990s.

However, I must always bring a perspective to my work which reflects the fact that I am an elected politician, not specifically a lawyer employed in an objective sense.

Therefore, it is all the more important that our profession, as a whole, takes more interest in the things that I and my colleagues are doing here and acquaint themselves with the processes at an early stage when we can really have an impact on the outcomes.

See Focus

Solicitor Timothy Kirkhope MEP is the Conservative spokesman on justice and home affairs