There are several areas of importance to solicitors in England and Wales arising out of the work of the European parliament; in particular, upcoming issues from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on which I serve.

Since the Lisbon Treaty came into effect, the work MEPs do, and the co-decision process, mean we regularly prepare reports and legislation that will have a major effect on lawyers in the UK. As a solicitor and former Home Office minister, I sometimes wonder if there is sufficient knowledge among the profession of the work we do.

Our committee addresses such issues as: the European Arrest Warrant; a possible European Investigation Order to enhance law enforcement agency cooperation; a protection order to ensure the safety of victims of crime and vulnerable groups, wherever they are; and the rights of detained people to translators or interpreters while in custody.

The UK has opted out of some of the effects of what we do, yet we can still have a major impact on British citizens’ daily lives, including their work and travel. Let me highlight two areas currently under consideration.

The proposal for a European Public Prosecutor is of great importance when set against the background of the issue of harmonisation in specific areas of justice and penalties. The UK has made its position fairly clear in this regard; it does not favour such a post and regards these matters to be the responsibility of national agencies.

The background to this is a new report, soon to be considered, about whether there is any need (outside the Single Market and competition issues) for EU criminal law legislation per se. If so, what principles should apply to EU criminal law; and how, in any event, do we ensure coherence, comparability and quality of criminal law legislation in all EU countries? In prosecuting cross-border crime, the issues of proportionality and its 32 ‘double jeopardy’ offences are important.

However, the greatest challenge we face is in balancing the need to detain and try criminals while protecting rights of privacy and civil liberties. National sovereignty and the differing legal systems among the 27 EU member states arbitrate against any early changes.

Our work is increasingly focused on the question of how to tackle terrorism and serious crime, which, inevitably, have cross-border components. Both the (mostly airline) Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreements and the SWIFT (Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme) agreement, in which we have sought cooperation from the banking industry, have been challenging areas to negotiate within the EU and with partners in the US, Australia and Canada.

As the rapporteur responsible for delivery of the EU PNR proposals, I am preparing new control measures to be employed within all EU states, which will take up to two years to negotiate and finalise. During this process, we must get the right balance between the need to assist law enforcement agencies with information and the freedom of our citizens.

In all of these matters, we maintain a major concern about obtaining and retaining data on individuals: what information should be required; how should it be used; and for how long should it be retained. There must also be adequate legal and administrative redress for misuse or error.

There is great complexity in these areas. As a solicitor, I am in favour of employing best practice from our UK legal and judicial system. As a politician, I am also aware that I need to represent the people who elected me in a fair, sensible and balanced manner.

Timothy Kirkhope MEP (Yorkshire and the Humber) is Conservative spokesman on civil liberties, justice and home affairs at the European parliament