BRITAIN is ready to surrender its veto over European Union decisions on police and judicial matters in a dramatic policy change.

Ministers will set out conditions tomorrow for the transfer of control to the EU over the creation of new crimes that will apply in Britain as well as standardised court procedures, The Times understands.

The move, to be proposed at a meeting of EU justice ministers in Tampere, Finland, will be subject to a series of conditions but has already provoked an outcry from the Conservatives, not least because the ending of the national veto revives a proposal in the doomed EU Constitution.

The European Commission has been pushing for the move because it insists that it will speed up the EU’s response to cross-border terrorist activity. It also wants to introduce harmonised minimum standards for court procedures, such as standards of evidence and access to translators.

Franco Frattini, the EU Justice Commissioner, has said that he wants to speed up the creation of pan-European crimes, such as incitement to racial hatred.

John Reid, the Home Secretary, has decided not to attend the summit and is instead sending Joan Ryan, a junior Home Office minister. Ms Ryan gave the first hint that Britain’s veto could be abandoned in June when she told the Commons that “we would have to consider very carefully the potential risks and benefits and the overall impact of such a move”.

Most EU countries are understood to be in favour of moving to majority voting over criminal justice matters but no final decision will be taken at Tampere. Germany and the Irish Republic are understood to have reservations about the proposals.

Nevertheless, David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, has written to Mr Reid, saying that he is astonished that the Government would consider getting rid of the veto, given its previous assurances that it would do no such thing. “Retaining the national veto over policing, our courts and our criminal laws is vital to the UK national interest and the rights of British citizens,” he said.

Britain and other countries such as Ireland have traditionally said that retaining control over law-and-order policies is central to national sovereignty. Recent examples of EU-wide laws include the European Arrest Warrant, where a judge in one country can request the arrest of a citizen in another, and the European Evidence Warrant, whereby a court in one country can order police in another, to collect evidence.

Tony Blair told the Commons in 1996 that Britain would keep control over the sensitive area of criminal justice. “We restate our agreement to justice and home affairs remaining outside Community competence,” he said.

But Geoff Hoon, the Europe Minister, confirmed the about-turn in a parliamentary answer this week when he said that the Government was “giving careful consideration” to introducing majority voting on EU laws on police and judicial co-operation. Mr Hoon added: “We will need to be satisfied that any proposals would genuinely improve the decision-making process, and that such a move would be in the UK’s national interest.”

In May José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, said that the standardisation of law-andorder rules had widespread support. “The most effective response in the field of security is the European response,” he said. “People are asking for ‘more Europe’ in order to combat terrorism and organised crime. It is our duty to respond to this appeal, with or without a constitution.”

Two years ago Caroline Flint, the Home Office Minister, said that Commission proposals to give Europol, the pan-EU police force, investigatory powers and create a joint public prosecutor would be resisted.

She added: “We will ensure . . . that the EU continues to respect the distinct and diverse legal traditions of member states.”

Times Recommends

• A doctor, a daughter and a man called Johnny
• Mona Lisa's smile may belie ill health
• ‘Parasite economy’ lies behind Greek tragedy