'Eurojustice' is not a death knell to the nation state.

In fact, Many of the proposed standards are desirable, argues Roger Smith.

The Daily Telegraph is not neutral on the European Union.

'Eurojustice is death knell for the state' was a headline to an article on 29 April.

The writer, the home affairs editor, did not mention the European Commission's proposal for a framework decision on the rights of suspects and defendants that had been published the previous day.

Had he done so, it is unlikely that he would have modified his argument.

Minimum rules throughout the EU on criminal matters might be upheld by the European Court.

Thus, he concluded: 'Individual states would thereby lose exclusive control over their criminal justice systems'.

This is, as the Home Secretary might say, bonkers - particularly if applied to the commission's present proposals.

These follow a green paper consultation published last year.

They are part of a set of proposals setting out minimum provisions that can be agreed by all states in the EU and that cover minimum rights for suspects and defendants.

The main issue in this proposal is legal aid, but also covered is the need to provide translators and interpreters, the need to protect vulnerable people who cannot understand or follow the proceedings, the need to provide a 'letter of rights' and consular access.

Other matters, including bail and double jeopardy, are being dealt with simultaneously but separately.

It is surely desirable that there are minimum rules within the EU to provide defendants and suspects with the kind of safeguards that they should be able to expect.

The commission has a commendable goal.

In the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001, member states rushed to prove that they could be first in the war against terrorism.

So, the initial response was a proposal for a European arrest warrant, shorn of all the accretion of human rights that would otherwise apply.

Of course, this all proved a bit too precipitate even for the UK.

The Extradition Act 2003, which implemented the warrant, ended up by specifically recognising that the whole scheme is subject to human rights considerations.

The commission wanted the EU to recognise, if belatedly, that there should be minimum standards that should apply in all criminal cases.

Member states are distinctly shifty on such safeguards.

Britain and Spain do not like the idea of any immediate right of access by a detainee to a lawyer because they have terrorism legislation that allows suspects to be kept incommunicado.

Ireland, France and Austria have also been quoted as seeking to water down other protections.

But the commission battles on.

Commissioner Antnio Vitorino, with the brief for justice and home affairs, proclaimed the latest proposals as 'inspired by the need to guarantee for all European citizens common minimum rights in judicial procedures.

The European area of freedom, security and justice...can only be consolidated if our legislative action achieves the correct balance between the search for security and the guarantee of fundamental freedoms'.

This does not appeal to the assembled ministries of the interior.

So, a concerted effort has gone into watering down the commission's original proposals.

This has been done so successfully that the required minimum standard for legal aid does not meet that set by the European human rights convention.

On legal aid, the proposed framework decision admittedly states that a suspect should be entitled to legal advice at all stages of proceedings.

However, legal advice must be made available only where the suspect is unable to understand or follow the proceedings, is a minor, or is the subject of a European arrest warrant.

The convention gives a broader right - free legal aid should be available 'where the interests of justice require' in cases where the suspect or defendant 'has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance'.

The Widgery criteria, now contained in section 5 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, expand the interests of justice test.

It now includes: likely loss of liberty or livelihood; consideration of a substantial question of law; inability to understand proceedings; need to trace or examine witnesses; or where it is in the interests of another person (usually, the victim).

This was always rather in advance of European Court jurisprudence, but the leading case (Quaranta v Switzerland) allowed for the seriousness of the offence and severity of the potential sentence, complexity, and the personal situation of the defendant.

Thus, we have a situation that is the worst of all worlds.

The member states have forced the commission below the standard it originally canvassed, and even below those set out in the convention - to the extent that the proposals would not even require legal aid in a murder case unless the defendant were a minor, unable to follow what was going on, or in the course of being extradited or surrendered.

The states are clearly trying to sabotage the whole enterprise, because those who support common standards, but at the convention-approved level, will be drawn to oppose this proposal because of the danger of condoning lower standards than under the convention.

'Eurojustice' is not a death knell to the nation state.

Many of the proposed standards - such as the mandatory letter of rights - are desirable.

European citizens should be able to depend on their nation states to demand the highest possible common standards throughout the EU.

Roger Smith is the director of the law reform and human rights organisation, Justice