HC Deb 16 June 1986 vol 99 cc859-82
Mr. George Robertson

As this is a Committee stage I think that it would be appropriate for me to intervene briefly from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

It is a carve up.

Mr. Robertson

I can tell the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that if there is a carve-up, it appears to be taking place among him and his colleagues. I am a free agent and, as the Opposition spokesman, I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he has not been involved in any private discussion to keep out my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) who is the only hon. Member with any direct experience of these courts? Bearing in mind the fact that we have not had one Law Officer here all day—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not casting reflections on the Chair.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

No, not in any way.

The First Deputy Chairman

There has been no kind of arrangement as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Robertson

Who is called in a debate and who chooses to intervene are not matters for me. Some important issues have been raised in this important debate and it is only right and proper that all hon. Members who wish to take part in a Committee stage should have the opportunity to do so. I have sat here from the beginning of the debate and have listened carefully to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. I have as much right as any other hon. Member to make an intervention.

Mr. Bill Walker

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I hope that he will not think me out of order in saying that I am surprised that he is intervening at this a stage when some Back-Bench Members still wish to speak on these important amendments. Front-Bench spokesmen usually wait to hear what Back Benchers have to say before making their own comments.

Mr. Robertson

It is incredible that some hon. Members seem to be suggesting that they will be teaching their grandmothers how to suck eggs. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is a good colleague of mine, has considerable experience in these matters and could teach me a great deal in areas of detail. I hope that he will be able to participate in the debate. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) —Newham plays an important part in our debates—and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), not to mention the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), all wish to make contributions.

However, it is open to me to come in at any stage. There has been no concordat or agreement—

Mr. Cash

In view of the circumstances in which I find myself, I should like to put it on record that I shall not be engaged in a filibuster. I am here to make some serious points and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to jump in to prevent me from saying a few things that are based on a small amount of experience in these matters.

Mr. Robertson

How can a be suggested that I, as an Opposition spokesman, am seeking to prevent a Conservative Back Bencher from speaking?

Mr. Teddy Taylor

The usual channels.

Mr. Robertson

I am not a member of the usual channels.

Mr. Taylor

The hon. Gentleman is so.

Mr. Robertson

I am not a member of any usual channels. I have sat through the whole debate and I wish to intervene at this stage.

Mr. Taylor

The dirty tricks department.

Mr. Robertson

No, there is no question of—

Mr. Marlow

Will the hon Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson

No. I intend to make, and have always intended to make, a brief contribution. A number of lengthy speeches have been made and I hope that we shall be able to exhaust the important issues involved in the debate. I hope that there will be adequate opportunity for everyone who wishes to participate in the debate to do so. I am sure that it is not the intention of the Chair or anybody else to curtail this or any other debate. There are another seven groups of amendments to come. I am sure that it will not have escaped hon. Members that if a deal had been done to prevent discussion of one group of amendments, debate could easily be prolonged on other groups of amendments.

Mr. Marlow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson

I will give way for the last time.

Mr. Marlow

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has just implied that there are several other groups of amendments, and that we could debate this subject during our discussion of them. I am not quite sure why he said that. This group of amendments is massively important and concerns the whole judicial future of the United Kingdom. The surrender of sovereignty by some of our courts may be involved. After only four Back-Bench speeches, why does he, as Opposition spokesman, feel that it is time to intervene in the debate?

Mr. Robertson

It is obvious that the amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Southend, East that he opened the debate, and that hon. Members have been free to speak at any juncture and to do so repeatedly. If the closure is moved after I or the Minister speaks, the Opposition will oppose it. There is no question of us being involved in any filibuster. I cannot believe that the Government would wish to terminate a debate on such an important issue at this stage.

Hon. Member after hon. Member has pointed out that. as the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, we are in a fog about the Government's intentions in this crucial area. There is no explanatory White Paper, and no opportunity for the Committee to consider in detail some of these important issues, and so we have to rely on the reports of the Scrutiny committee. However, one such very important report was published only this morning, thus giving hon. Members no time to reach any conclusion. Consequently, we have to ask the Minister questions concerning fundamental points of legislation relating to our consitutional future, yet there are no answers.

10.30 pm

Hon. Members feel frustrated because questions are asked about an incredibly complicated Bill, which depends on the Single European Act being brought into force—the Act itself being dependent on the treaties party to the EC — and yet they receive no real answer. My hon. Friend the member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) made some detailed and valid points, yet they are not likely to be answered to the satisfaction of hon. Members. We are ill served by the institutions of Government when Parliament is faced by a major constitutional Bill, which was trailed as being a very significant and important Bill, and yet there is no explanatory memorandum of any consequence and no white paper to explain the legal and constitutional details that lie at the very heart of it.

We shall have to consider other aspects in some detail later.

Mr. Butterfill

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also regrettable that no SDP Member is present for the debate?

Mr. Robertson

That may well be regrettable, but it is hardly surprising that those who protest the loudest about their conviction concerning the necessity for a united Europe and about their commitment to the ideal of the EC are rarely, if ever, here. Indeed, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who is, I understand, the principal Front Bench spokesman for the Liberal party on Scottish and European affairs, is the sole representative of the alliance during many of our long and somewhat esoteric debates. Out of the massed ranks of the alliance, he alone should be congratulated on his commitment to the European cause —

Sir Russell Johnston

I hope that I will be permitted to express my warm, heartfelt appreciation of those tributes. I speak on European, as well as Scottish affairs.

Mr. Robertson

As a former Scottish affairs spokesman I can see the link between Scottish and European affairs.

Mr. Budgen

Does not the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) think, on reflection that he was rather ungenerous to the SDP. One of the courageous characteristics of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is the persistent way in which he expounds the need for greater expenditure in the EEC and the wonderful way that he regrets the niggardly limits on VAT-based expenditure in the EEC. He wants that to go to 2 per cent. as quickly as possible. Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed of the way—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. I find it impossible to relate those remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Robertson

Those remarks were irrelevant to the amendment. One might say that the SDP was irrelevant to the amendment, to the Bill and to the House. If a representative of the SDP were present tonight, he and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber might not agree on thier view of the amendment. However, that should lie upon the Table.

We need to know whether we are talking about the European Court, which we know, or about a number of subsiduary, lower tier courts as part of the new structure. We must have a genuine answer. We have had an interesting debate so far. Who knows how interesting it will become?

I studied the Foreign Affairs Committee report to see whether I could find the answer. Both Government and Opposition Members have to rely on deliberations by the House of Lords and House of Commons Scrutiny Committees. One seeks in vain for the answers to important questions.

Mr. Spearing

In case there is any mistake, the hon. Gentleman should know that the Select Committee on European Legislation was not able to examine the Single European Act treaty, or anything relating to it, because its terms of reference did not allow it to do so. I add that, because it might be thought that we abrogated our duty to the House.

Mr. Robertson

I would not dream of suggesting that my hon. Friend abrogated his duty. I recognise the careful distinctions between the remits of the House of Lords and House of Commons Committees. The Government have made a commitment to examine our scrutiny.

Paragraph 30 of the Foreigh Affairs Committee report takes us some way down the road suggested by the hon. Member for Southend, East. I disagree with the emphasis that he chose for the debate, but he explored serious and important issues. There are some safeguards in the system. Some of the questions he asked deserve clear answers. He suggested that some of the court decisions might pre-empt decisions by the European Council, even where unanimity has been specifically inserted as a result of the negotiations at the Luxembourg summit. The court might, somehow, take the power away from the politicians and, by a process of interpretation, seek to impose upon nation states within the EEC obligations that they would not otherwise have chosen.

Paragraph 30 of the report states: Article 18 of the Single European Act provides (in new Article 100A(4) of the EEC Treaty) that a Member State may apply separate national provisions on grounds of major national needs, hut"— I emphasise this point— also enables the Commission or another Member State to take that Member State to the Court of Justice on grounds that it is 'making improper use' of this provision. The hon. Member for Southend, East has hit on an important and far-reaching aspect of the Single European Act. If the Community did go in that direction, it would be against the very spirit of the Luxembourg agreement. Indeed, it would go against the specific guarantees that the Prime Minister gave the House regarding the way in which these degrees of unanimity on the reserved areas would operate.

Although we are now in the area of the purely hypothetical — and undoubtedly the Minister will say that we are hypothesising about something that will never happen and that, after all, we have the Prime Minister's guarantee that none of this will happen—the fact that the Committee reached that conclusion should at least make hon. Members, even those in favour of the reforms, stop and wonder whether this step is being taken without a full examination of the consequences.

The Select Committee on European Legislation in the other place last week produced a damning report, which may have alerted a number of hon. Members who may not have been aware of the importance of the Single European Act—that peculiarly named animal that is neither an Act nor is it single, although it is certainly European— that something grave and important was happening, and in their speeches they made some of the points made in that report.

The Bill, the Single European Act and the many glosses put upon the issue by the Secretary of State and the Minister in the Committees before which they appear do not disclose the real changes in the law and their implications for the unwritten British constitution. That is a defect that the Committee is right to criticise and question. By the standard of the contributions that have already been made, and may yet be made, mine is a brief speech. I simply seek to endorse the view put by other hon. Members that we are being ill-served by the fact that there is not the detail, the information or the background to such an important issue to enable the Committee to reach a conclusion. The process of debate, which is the hallmark of this Parliament, underlined that with considerable force.

Before you returned to the Committee, Sir Paul, I was being accused of a variety of heinous crimes. I know that hon. Members on both sides still wish to make brief and relevant contributions, and I hope that in the process of doing so they will highlight the points which have been made already, which validly and rightly should be made.

10.45 pm
Mr. Cash

I participate in the debate as someone who is by no means an anti-European, as I have made clear on a number of occasions in previous debates. I believe that that has been acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Minister. I am in no sense engaged in a filibuster. I have spoken at length on occasion in other debates, but I have no intention of doing so now.

One of the great difficulties that faces the European Court of Justice, Britain and Parliament, is our lack of knowledge of European law and procedure. Britain has been a member of the Community since 1 January 1973, yet that seems to have had little impact on the ability or the determination of the various colleges of law to ensure that lawyers know what is going on. It is a matter of some concern to me — I made such a remark in an article which appeared in The Times today — that this deficiency should be put right. As the debate has shown, it is impossible for the House of Commons to know and understand the basis upon which it is considering these matters unless the principles of law and the basis of interpretation of the Community court are well understood by those participating in it. Unfortunately, they are not.

Although the European Community is a glazed-eye subject and is extremely boring to many, it happens, if I may catch the attention of Opposition Members for one second, to be a matter of considerable importance to the British people. When matters of this sort are being debated, it would help enormously if more of those who have had direct experience of the European Community were to participate to ensure that we have a proper discussion of the principles that apply, especially those that bear on the amendments that are before us.

Mr. Budgen

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who was an MEP, is in her place and she may well wish to help the Committee in that way.

Mr. Cash

That may be. Only time will tell.

I shall conclude by quoting from a case in which Lord Denning made the following statement: English courts have been exhorted to divine the spirit of a treaty and gain inspiration from it. If they find a gap they must fill it as best they can. They must do what the framers of the instrument would have done if they had thought about it. When we are dealing with the interpretation of Community law, which has a direct bearing on our economy and industry, and when we have a debate which is as important as this one, we have the feeling, rather like the hunting of the Snark, that we are looking for something that hardly exists. In fact, we are debating issues of which the people, our courts and the House of Commons have little knowledge and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take this opportunity to exhort those who teach our lawyers to take a more serious interest in the practical questions which arise so that we have a constructive approach to the European Community in this context.

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred to knowledge by hon. Members of whom he is one—he knows something about the affairs of the Community—but, more importantly, knowledge of the citizens of this country who are subject to the laws of this House and those of the EEC. As he is a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, I should underline that, much as the Committee might have wished, to provide a comprehensive view of the legislation — if it is not European legislation I do not know what it is — our terms of reference constrained us from doing so.

We did, in fact, produce a report on the impact of the Single European Act for parliamentary scrutiny, which was our concern. But we were not able to address ourselves to the issues we are discussing tonight—the introduction of what I hope we can call the lower tier European court, who should determine its terms of reference, its membership, who can go to it, and the penalties and adjudication that it should have.

The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in its limited time available, did not go far down that road. It established, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) has said, that the answers were not even available to the Government. I suggest that the major difficulty we have faced tonight has been a repetition of questions from hon. Gentlemen. The Government do not know the answers to questions which have been raised on a Bill which they introduced. That is the position at which the Parliament of the United Kingdom has arrived. It has arrived at that position as a result of the consequences of the European Communities Act 1972. We are not debating that Act tonight, and we are not debating the advantages or disadvantages of membership or continued membership. We are discussing whether or not the judicial powers of the EEC should be expanded into a lower tier court.

The House has not heard what the Government have said on the issue, surprisingly enough, in a command paper. The Government issued Cmnd. 9761 dated March 1986 called "Developments in the European Community July-December 1985". I shall read to the House what the Government said about the European Court of Justice. Paragraph 2.10 states: On the European Court of Justice agreement was reached inter alia on new treaty articles providing power to set up a Court of First Instance. it is hoped that when this power is exercised it will enable the Court of First Instance to deal with staff matters and cases raising complex issues of fact, (especially competition and anti-dumping cases). The changes are designed to reduce the Court's heavy workload. That does not suggest what we have gleaned tonight. A much bigger scope is envisaged than the modest clearing away of complex cases and dealing with staff. The sentence at the end: The changes are designed to reduce the Court's heavy workload. is a little ambiguous. Whilst, it would relieve the workload of the European Court of Justice as such, it would not relieve the total workload of the courts of justice of the European communities, which is a different thing. The number of cases going for adjudication would almost certainly be greater. The figure may be three times that of the 1973 figure. If the figure was not greater, there would be no need to set up a lower tier of court to clear away the ground.

Mr. Marlow

Is not the best reference Professor Parkinson? Would he not say that we would not expand the operation, but the work that it did?

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Gentleman may be right. I think that Professor Parkinson's law is universal. There is another factor, which the hon. Gentleman has forgotten. It has not been mentioned much tonight. If the scope of the European Community were enlarged by definition —in other words, if the area over which it is given jurisdiction widened—the number of cases taken to the court would be likely to increase, even if that jurisdiction were of equal controversiality as that of the existing legislation. I understand that the position is different. Later, we shall discuss widening the scope of the European Community.

Lord Cockfield presented a Green Paper containing 300 regulations in the appendix. Those regulations are waiting to descend on us when the internal market is perfected between now and 1992. I hazard a guess that it was difficult to formulate those regulations and that they are probably more controversial than those that we have already considered. I suggest, therefore that there might be more litigation than we already have. Not only will the scope of EEC legislation be wider but the amount of litigation that it throws up may be greater.

Mr. Cash

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no opporunity to appeal against a decision by the Court of Justice? The court's decisions are final, which raises certain peculiar difficulties which may be overcome in part by the provisions of this article. As I said before, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is effectively being supplemented. The courts are tied to what the treaties allow them to do and the article provides an opportunity to expand their jurisdiction. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the jurisdictional provisions of the treaties have been observed as follows: No international tribunal has ever been equipped with so varied a jurisdictional competence as has the Courts of the European Communities". The court has, in fact, a wide degree of competence.

Mr. Spearing

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he should be careful. As I understand it, this is not an international organisation in the normal sense of international treaties. All these treaties are supra-national, which is very different. I think that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, because there is no appeal against a decision of the European Court of Justice, there should be a higher level of court, a sort of House of Lords in Europe—as well as the lower tier which we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman should be careful because he suggests creating possibly three tiers of European courts of justice. By the very nature of the ongoing legislation from the European Community, those tiers would, I suggest begin to absorb an increasing proportion of matters that are justiciable in the United Kingdom. It may well be that aspect that has caused a certain flurry in the legal professions and in the columns of The Times. An expansion of European law within the legal system of Britain would begin to have severe repercussions on the legal professon and on those who need to take matters to the lower tier court.

I shall hasten on because my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment and a frequent participant in European discussions, may wish to catch your eye, Sir Paul. I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions in addition to those posed by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Under article 4 of the Single European Act, proposed article 32d of the treaty of Rome states that it is the request of the Court of Justice that there should be another court. Will the Minister confirm that the terms and conditions of the lower tier court will be created not by the European Council but by the Court of Justice acting — uncharacteristically, I should have thought, as a court—in effectively an executive capacity? The Court of Justice, following decisions agreed unanimously by the Council, is acting at least in a semi-executive role in producing the regulations by which it will administer the lower tier.

Article 4(3) states: The members of that court shall be chosen from persons whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the ability required for appointment to judicial office". Since there will he no appeal from these courts, other than on a point of law, perhaps I am inaccurate in calling it the lower tier. It is the court of first instance, and may be the court of last instance for many people or bodies. I do not know how far the natural human body, which was mentioned earlier extends. Does it extend to trade unions, employers' organisations, manufacturers' associations or to associations of those engaged in some sorts of retail trade? All those bodies will be heavily involved in the avalanche of harmonisation to which the House may soon be subjected, and may have recourse to the courts.

11 pm

The Minister must tell us—the Government may not decide this, but she may have heard a whisper from the Court of Justice—what the court intends. If there has been no information from this great court to Her Majesty's Government, we should adjourn the debate and not proceed with the Bill. If we do not get firm replies about what is intended, it would be improper for us to proceed with this part of the Bill. If it is improper for us to proceed with this part of the Bill, that must be true of the entire Bill.

Paragraph 4 states: That court shall establish its rules and procedures in agreement with the Court of Justice. I presume that that means that the lower-tier court shall establish its own rules, provided that the Court of Justice agrees. It is yet another example of self-legislation by the courts, not even under the control of the Council of Ministers. It does not say that it shall be subject to unanimity, only that it must be approved by the Court of Justice. The lower-tier court will establish that in the first instance.

Mr. Butterfill

The hon. Gentleman should have read the next line, which states: These rules shall require the unanimous approval of the Council.

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Gentleman is right, but the generation of such proposals lies entirely with the second-tier court. It cannot be initiated by the Council of Ministers or, surprisingly, by the Court of Justice.

If we translated that position to the United Kingdom, it would be extremely strange. The administration of justice here stems from statutes passed in the House, to which the High Court of Justice and lower courts are subject, save only for the common law. This is almost the reverse.

As a London Member of Parliament, I frequently show parties of visitors from schools and, alas, nowadays, the unemployed, round the Palace of Westminster. When we pass through the Royal Gallery, I explain that judges come there once a year. I ask them ''What do you see in courts?", and they say, "The royal arms." I say, "Yes, that is the King's court. The King or the monarch dispenses justice. The courts in this land arc the courts of the Crown, and the judiciary which is responsible alone to the monarch who gives royal assent to statutes passed by the House."

Some time ago — I apologise to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) for not giving him notice that I would raise this point, but he is big enough to take it—when the European Communities Bill was going through the House, the right hon. Gentleman, then Prime Minister, made a speech, reported in The Times, to the effect that the position of the Queen would not he affected. I read that with some incredulity, because any first-year law student—I have not been one, but I understand that they consider the British constitution as a starting point—knows only too well that Britain's laws, at least until 1973, were made only with royal assent or in regulations by the Crown in Privy Council. Justice and courts were under the jurisdiction of the Monarch. After 1973, in accordance with the Act, that changed. The Monarch and the Crown was no longer central to our system of legislation expenditure, administration and justice. In all those aspects the Crown was short-circuited. Laws were imposed on this country, or at least were accepted through the medium of that Act, which came directly from Brussels. They did not pass through this Chamber and they did not need the Royal Assent. Therefore, far from the Queen not being affected, she and her heirs and successors, as long as the Act is on the statute book, will be bypassed. We then had the position, extraordinary as it may seem, of the Prime Minister not knowing the basic fundamental constitution of the land.

I would suggest that we are now faced with the second stage of that constitutional change. We are now setting up a second tier of courts to which the citizens of this land, and perhaps corporate bodies, will have first recourse, which are not under the aegis of the Crown, will not have the Royal Arms above them, will not be subject to the statutes of the House or to its determination. They will not even be subject, as we have seen, to the chain of accountability through the Council of Ministers. The fact that that is so has been amply demonstrated today in debate by the fact that so far—the Minister has yet to speak—she and all the publications of the Government have not explained how it will work.

Mr. Deakins

My hon. Friend keeps referring to the European courts in plural, not just the European Court of Justice and its new subsidiary court, but the chances of several subsidiary courts being established. I believe that in that view he seems to have the support of Her Majesty's Government. They have chosen wording in clause 2 of the Bill which refers to "any court" under the European Court of Justice whereas in the Single European Act it merely refers to "that court". I do not know if my hon. Friend can answer, but I hope that the Minister can say why the Government have taken it upon themselves to go beyond the terms of the Single European Act in making provision for any European court when there is only one and there can be only two under the Single European Act? Why do they not specify the subsidiary court in the terms of amendment No. 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)?

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, I shall now try to choose my words carefully. It ought not to be necessary because if we had had it spelt out in a White Paper one would have thought that most of this debate would have been unnecessary and the Government's concern over the time factor would not be as great.

As I understand it, the word "court" in the singular implies a level of judicial authority. Let us take the High Court in the Strand. It has three divisions, but it is the High Court, singular, although we all know that it sits in multiple in many courts with many divisions. I believe, from what I have heard and hope to see ere long, that in Luxembourg the European Court sits, but it sits in multiple chambers with multiple numbers of judges and could, under the existing European statues, multiply itself, provided the Council voted the money, ad infinitum. For some reason, it has not been chosen to exercise that solution to the problem of workload which the Government showed us in their White Paper. Even if it had 20 or 30 courts, in the normal everyday sense of the word, taking 20 cases at one time, it would still be the European Court of Justice.

I answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. When I refer to the European Court, I refer to at least two levels the present level of what is described as the European Court of Justice in the Single European Act, and what I have dubbed the lower tier court, which could nevertheless sit in multiple. This is a demand-led issue, according to the number of cases that has to be met. I could foresee a lower tier European court on the northern circuit, perhaps calling at London, Edinburgh and Copenhagen. Perhaps there would be a circuit based on the Franco-Belgian tradition, calling at Luxembourg, Belgium, Paris, Strasbourg and Bordeaux. We must not forget our Spanish friends—the Lusitanian tradition, and the tradition of the Iberian peninsula, with the court perhaps calling at Lisbon, Madrid and Rome. There are our Greek friends as well. There could be many multiple courts. My hon. Friend is right. Clause 2 says just "any court attached thereto". It is wide open. There is nothing to prevent all that happening under the Bill.

Mr. Marlow

The hon. Gentleman is coming to a very important point. The debate has been brought about because of the Single European Act, but for some reason best known to the Government, the Bill is much more widely drawn. Is it not right that there is nothing in the Bill to stop the European Court subsuming national courts? If the hon. Gentleman knows of anything that stops that, I should be relieved to know it. Perhaps individual areas of policy could be subsumed, but under the Bill as it is written—not the Single European Act—the European Court at a later stage could totally subsume national sovereign courts of the United Kingdom and other countries.

Mr. Spearing

I shall come to that.

I should like to take up what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government have not explained anywhere that I have seen why the terms of the Bill are apparently that much wider than those of the Single European Act. But is there anything in the Single European Act as drafted that would prevent the rather fanciful Gilbertian picture that I painted? The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) may know better, but I suggest that there is not. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether there is nothing in the Single European Act article to prevent it. Is there something that the Government know that we do not, so they have drawn the clause so wide? If that was not envisaged, why did they put it at that width? The only suggestion that I can offer is that they did what parliamentary draftsmen and wise Ministers do. They said, "Let's make it wide enough so that we do not have to have legislation again," but that is not a good reason.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Apart from the extension to which the hon. Gentleman refers, does he accept that the crucial extension of the work of the court under the clause is the extra powers of interpreting the new Single European Act—matters such as tax harmonisation, over which there are no powers at present? The court now has the ability to make determinations on those matters. Does the hon. Gentleman further accept that that major extension of the work of the court is in the interpretation of the new clauses that include the convergence of economic policies, tax harmonisation, environment, technology and many other issues?

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was about to say. I was about to refer the House to the fact that Title VII on page 17 of the Single European Act, Cmnd. 9758, introduces for the first time, specifically, areas over which the European Community has legislative rights. At present the legislative rights of the European Community are restrained within the terms of the Treaty of Rome. They can be excepted only by use of the existing article 100. That article states that any matter which affects the operation of progress of the Common Market requires unanimity. There has been much discussion within the Community as to whether the Common Market requires expansion in that area. In fact article 100 of the treaty states that The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, issue directives for the approximation of such provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the common market. 11.15 pm

I would draw the House's attention to the words "directly affect". There has been much argument as to how far the article can be pushed. Regulations arise from the Commission to the Council on matters such as the environment, public health, conditions in slaughter houses and about the conditions of health for workers and so on, and it has been said that in order to obtain a Common Market there must be common regulations on a wide range of issues. Others have said that that is pushing things too far. Until now, as we know so well, from the trailers to this debate, any one country in the 12 can say "No dice". The country does not even have to say that the matter affects the national interest, it need only say that it does not agree and that the matter goes too far. As the matter must be unanimous under article 100, it is finished.

The controversy about support at that stage is truncated. If the Bill is enacted, we will be in a new ball game. The House will consider article 100A later, together with article 100B—the latter being a goad to speed up 100A and is a long stop provision. We will then have to face the establishment of the internal market by 1992. That is presaged by the Cockfield White Paper and there are 300 draft regulations in waiting.

As I said earlier in an intervention, by definition the 300 regulations are likely to be controversial. If they were not, they would already have been passed.

Mr. Butterfill

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the creation of the internal market is likely to benefit this country? The internal market in services, especially the financial services, is something that we have been prostrated on for some time. There have been many non-tariff barriers to trade against our exporters and the purpose of the creation of the internal market is to deal with those problems.

On the point which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised about the court being different from any other court that we have previously known, does he not agree that that applies to any court of reference that arises out of a treaty obligation? It is no different from our agreeing to refer a matter to the International Court at the Hague in the past. We are only subject to the court as long as we are subject to the Treaty. This Parliament is sovereign and can de-ratify or renege on the Treaty at any time it wishes.

Mr. Spearing

I do not wish to proceed too far down that road, as it leads outside the realm of litigation. I want to keep my remarks within that realm and that brings the matter within the scope of the debate. However, there are widely differing views on the matter. It is true that the Government have said that the expanding internal market will be beneficial to this country in spite of the £10,000 million trade balance in manufactures. When the Minister was asked about that in Committee she said that those trends existed. Therefore, there is some doubt whether the expansion of the internal market is beneficial. But it is undoubtedly true that the Government say that whatever the form of harmonisation, it is advantageous to Britain so long as it brings in market forces and allows them to move freely over the EC. The hon. Gentleman may agree with that view, and it is certainly the view of the Front Bench, but I do not think that it carries universal agreement among Conservative Members. A modicum of scientific observation and a little statistical analysis might have called that into question.

The Government are going ahead with that area of regulation which will automatically require and produce a vast amount of litigation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Article 130B title V commits member states to conduct their economic policies in such a way as to reduce disparities between the various regions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been easy a fortnight ago for the Cornish tin miners to have taken the British Government to the European Court, saying that the Government were not applying that policy? Will not this Act massively extend the work of the European Courts because for the first time they are being given the right to make judgments on the economic policies of member states?

Mr. Spearing

I shall come to that area of litigation in a minute, but first I should like to put to the House another area.

I understand that some of the regulations now under discussion include such matters as the harmonisation of income tax and of excise duties on wines, spirits and beers. That is under the jurisdiction of the internal market council, and I am not sure whether it has reported fully to the House. When regulations are passed in that sort of tender area, I like the hon. Friend, can imagine people, for example, with high salaries subject to enormous differentials of pay—for the sake of cross party amity I shall not mention some current personalities who are earning high sums—investing money in lawyers to take their case to the European Court. They do not want their income tax to be harmonised to their disadvantage. It may also be to the advantage of corporate bodies to take their case to the court.

Title VII is headed "Environment" and article 130R, paragraph 3, states: In preparing its action relating to the environment, the Community shall take account of: —available scientific and technical data; —environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community; —the potential benefits and costs of action or of lack of action; —the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions. That includes tin mines. I can see some litigious persons looking at some regulation and saying, "But the Government did not take that into account," and going immediately to the court. Why not? The environment is a minefield for any Minister of any Government in any country. That is just one group.

What about research and technological development which is worth much more money? There is a whole batch of new articles to the Treaty of Rome, 130F, 130G, 130H, 130I and 130K to 130Q, which relate to statutory arrangements for framework programmes, and to the implementation of multiannual framework programmes and of research, technological development and demonstration programmes. We already have such arrangements, but these are being written into the statute.

Mr. Marlow

The hon. Gentleman drew the Committee's attention to title 7 on the environment, paragraph 3, the last sentence of which says: The Community shall take account of … the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions. One of the greatest problems that the Government have when they want to build, for example, a road, is the great planning inquiries. Programmes can be held up for months or years on end.

It is possible under this title that if a motorway were postulated between, say, Cardiff and Edinburgh, the Italians could go to the European Court and say that it was unfair and would he advantageous to us and that they wanted one in Italy. Surely there will be an immense amount of litigation.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am working alphabetically backwards in the litigation litany in drawing the attention of the House to new articles of the treaty of Rome—130A, B, C, D, and E. They relate to a heading which I find intriguing—"Economic and social cohesion". Whether one can legislate for that I doubt, but Article 130C says: The European Regional Development Fund is intended to help redress the principal regional imbalances in the Community through participating in the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind and in the conversion of declining industrial regions. I suppose that that is a fine aspiration, but many of the articles will clearly give rise to increasing sensitivity to litigation of the very sort with which the lower tier court was presumably designed to deal. I think that the Government said that it was "of considerable complexity".

My point is that there will be greater need of these lower tier courts. that they will not be courts of her gracious Majesty—

Mr. Moate

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spearing

I regret that I must continue.

Despite being a great impact on many British citizens and many corporate interests, it will not be possible for the House to protect those interests adequately because not only have we not got complete control over legislation —I make no point about that tonight—but we have not even got control over those who will create, run and cause regulations to be made for these new courts.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means

Mrs. Lynda Chalker.

Mr. Leighton

On a point of order, Sir Paul. I hope that the Minister is not seeking to wind up before other members of the Committee have spoken.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The Minister has risen and I have called her. Mrs. Chalker.

Mr. Bill Walker

On a point of order, Sir Paul. I draw your attention to the fact that the proposer of one of the amendments that we are debating is not here. I am the second proposer of that amendment and I trust that, because you have quite properly called the Minister, that will not debar me from speaking on that amendment.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. It is a matter for the discretion of the Chair whom the Chair calls and it is customary, when Ministers rise, that they should be called. Mrs. Chalker.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)

After over three anti half hours of a wide-ranging debate, I may be able to outline why the court of first instance has been included in the Bill and perhaps clear up some of the matters resting in the minds of hon. Members.

First, the proposal for a court of first instance reflects what has been a threefold increase in the work load of the European Court over the past: 10 years. The number of cases brought before the court rose from 297 in 1983 to 433 in 1985. More than half of those cases were about staff terms — promotion, conditions of employment, salary increases and so forth. They were not the sort of case which had normally been associated with the European Court of Justice, but they rightly went to it.

11.30 pm

The proposal is that the court of first instance will do no more than relieve the Court of Justice of some of the existing burden of work. That is exactly what was said in Cmnd. 9761, published in March, in paragraph 2(10) on page 9, and as I replied in giving evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in paragraphs 180 and 181.

The court of first instance will be attached to the European Court of Justice. It will hear certain classes of action brought by individuals or companies and its decisions will be subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice. It will not hear cases brought by member states, nor will it hear cases brought by the institutions of the Community. Such cases will go to the European Court of Justice. It will not take on new work and it will not have new powers. It will be there to deal with some of the detailed probing that is necessary in cases that now come to the European Court of Justice.

I was quite right to say in response to questioning in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that we await precise proposals from the European Court of Justice about the kind of work that the court of first instance could most suitably take on. Because it does not take on new work and will not have new powers, its work will be limited. We anticipate that the European Court of Justice will probably recommend that the court of first instance should take on the sort of cases that I have described—those which involve time-consuming fact finding and those of minor legal importance. Such cases will include applications about employees terms of service with Community employers which currently account for half the cases that come before the Court of Justice. These sometimes take the form of disputes between a Community institution and one of its employees who may feel that he was not receiving the pension to which he was entitled under staff regulations.

Other work that may be devolved to the court of first instance is in the commercial field, in particular competition and anti dumping cases, where unravelling the complicated issues of fact often entails a disproportionate amount of time and can be done by a subsidiary court of first instance working directly to the European Court of Justice.

Sir Russell Johnston

Why did the Government not wait to receive from the European Court of Justice a detailed proposal about exactly what the court wanted before agreeing to go ahead?

Mrs. Chalker

I can only tell the hon. Member for Inverness, Nair and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that it was made quite clear, although I was not in this job at the time, that the European Court of Justice gave, as I have just given, examples of the issues that it wanted considered. I do not know why, but as far as I know, the issues have not been put in formal terms. I understand that they are no different from the terms that I have described.

Mr. Leighton

Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Chalker

I will not give way. I have waited a long time to try to clear up matters. I shall now do that. If other questions are asked, so be it. Quite understandably, some hon. Members have expressed concern at the provision in the Single European Act which empowers the Council, acting unanimously at the request of the Court of Justice, to amend title III of the court's statute to meet changing needs. Hon. Members anxiety is that this could be a constitutional innovation allowing the Council to amend a protocol to the treaty without reference to the Parliaments of member states. That is a mistaken view. Article 3 of the protocol of the statute of the European Court of Justice deals only with the procedures of the court. It does not deal with substantive powers or with its composition or organisation. The provision in article 12, which refers to the EC treaty, simply allows the court's procedure to be amended in the Council by unanimity. That would make it easier and quicker to produce procedural reforms, but not substantive reforms or reforms of composition or organisation. It is severely limited.

The substantive powers of the court, about which hon. Members were rightly concerned, are laid down in the EC treaty and not in the protocol. We have been speaking only of the protocol. Those substantive powers of the court can be changed only by treaty amendment and that would require the unanimous agreement of the member states and the consent of national Parliaments. The fear in that regard does not hold good.

We are not proposing a constitutional innovation. Articles 165 and 166 of the EC treaty provide that the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Court, can already increase the number of judges and advocates-general and make consequential amendments to the court's statute.

A number of hon. Members referred to the words "any court" in clause 2. I fully understand why the phrase may have seemed a little strange on first reading. The Single European Act does not establish the court of first instance. It enables the Council, acting unanimously, to establish such a court on a proposal by the European Court of Justice. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber pointed out, no such formal proposal has yet been made and the Council of Ministers has not therefore been in a position to take a decision. We shall consider a decision only when a formal proposal is made. Anyway, a decision could not be taken until the Single European Act was in force throughout the Community. I am not a lawyer, but I am told that it is premature in legal terms to talk about "the court", as the court of first instance does not yet exist. Therefore, the court does not have a name and the legal terminology "any" is the correct term. The only court for which the provision will be used is that provided for in articles 4, 11 and 26 of the Single European Act, whatever form it takes.

The word "any" also covers the possibility that the European Court of Justice may propose a single body or, for example. two specialist chambers, one for staff cases and one for preliminary fact finding in commercial cases, which would be separate, but similar, exercises.

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend started by saying that she visualised only one further court being spawned by the European Court, but now she says that there might be two courts. Does she deny that, given the way in which the Bill is written, there could be a proliferation of courts at a later stage and that the House would be unable to do anything about it?

Mrs. Chalker

Yes, that could be possible, in order to speed up the work of the court and to get through the time-consuming but necessary fact-finding. However, the thought and the intention have always been to establish a sensible and clear manner of proceeding—not one that grows in the way that my hon. Friend fears, but one that is decided by the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously. We have the very safeguard for which my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Although my hon. Friend believes that there is protection in the unanimity of the council, does she accept that there is genuine concern about a proliferation in the number of courts. Might not the answer be to amend clause 2 so that these agreements by the Council of Ministers are subject to the approval of the Parliaments of member states just as most of the regulations promoted by the Council of Ministers are? Would that not be a useful amendment to the Bill, and will the Government suggest it to the Council of Ministers?

Mrs. Chalker

I shall look again at what my hon. Friend has said. However, because we are talking about procedures and not about the composition, organisation or substantive powers, I think that my hon. Friend is unnecessarily concerning himself.

Mr. Budgen

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Chalker

I should like to get on, because we have had a long debate and the hour is late. I should like to comment on the points that have been raised.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) opened the debate, he commented on the provision in article 12. I have already explained that the provision in article 12 simply covers the court's procedure. We are seeking to make it easier and quicker to introduce procedural reforms. But I assure him that substantive changes of the Court's powers will have to go before national Parliaments. There is nothing in the Single European Act or in this Bill that alters that in any way. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that the court's procedure is largely a technical matter. It is unnecessary for it to go through the full treaty amendment procedure. It is the unanimity requirement that constitutes the safeguard in the unlikely event that a proposed change of procedure would adversely affect the interests of member states, or individuals or bodies within those member states. That is the safeguard. I am not prepared to accept the amendment, because it would change the substance of the Single European Act, as it was agreed by the Heads of Government. However, I take on board all that my hon. Friend said in this somewhat long debate. I understand that he is asking reasonable questions—as he sees them —and although I may not agree with him, he has every right to ask them.

I was also asked about several items that I have not covered previously. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked about the size of the staff of the court of first instance and its cost. He was concerned that it should not grow. Indeed, I share the concern that staff numbers should not grow out of proportion. He cited figures for employment in the Commission, but he took a very different situation from the one facing us. We are now a Community of 12, and we are not likely to be other than a Community of 12 for as far as anybody can reasonably foresee.

I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East estimates until the European Court of Justice makes proposals for the terms of reference of the court of first instance. But because those terms of reference will be determined by the Council acting unanimously when it decides on the establishment of the court of first instance, it will be possible for the member Governments, acting together in the Council of Ministers, to satisfy themselves on the level of staffing and costs before agreeing to the establishment of such a court. I assure my hon. Friend that that will be done.

Mr. Budgen

I have taken a slight interest in Turkey's application to join the EEC. As it happens. I obtained a copy of tomorrow's edition of the Financial Times. On, think, page 3 there is a large article about the new application from Turkey to join the EEC. There is a great deal of vague and friendly talk, particularly from the French, about Turkey. From her position of great importance and power, my hon. Friend has, in an important part of her speech, blocked the way for Turkey. Those of us who wish to see an on-going, generous, open-armed FEC have great hopes for Turkey. We want to draw attention to—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I find it difficult to relate that intervention to the amendment.

11.45 pm
Mr. Budgen

But my hon. Friend denied Turkish application for membership as an important part of her argument. Since she speaks with enormous authority and, plainly, from a prepared brief, we should have an immediate statement so that those in Turkey who are preparing their new application may know whether the Minister speaks with the authority of the Prime Minister and the Government.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I hope that the Minister will not be tempted to stray out of order.

Mrs. Chalker

Whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) says, he will not soft soap me into stepping out of order.

I was trying to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. I have already covered what he said about article 12 and rule changes. He asked how often rule changes could be made. It is for the Council of Ministers to change rules when necessary. I cannot imagine that the court would wish to have its rules constantly changed. There would have to be good reasons for the Twelve, acting together, to change the rules. My hon. Friend also asked about the increasing power of the European courts. There is no increase in their power.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) asked about articles 4, 11, and 26. Three articles are required because the European Court of Justice acts for the three treaties. Article 4 amends the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community; article 11 amends the EEC treaty in identical terms; and article 26 amends the European Atomic Energy Community treaty to provide for the court of first instance. All three treaties must be amended in this way because the European Court has a single statute and rules of procedure, but they cover all three Communities, so the amendment must affect all three. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

I was asked about the unusual phrase, "natural or legal person". A "natural" person is an individual, I am told, and a "legal" person is a body corporate — mainly companies, but it does not apply to institutions or to member states. That means that as defined in paragraph 1 of article 32 of Chapter I of title II of the Single European Act, we are dealing with individuals or bodies corporate, not with member states or institutions.

Mr. Foulkes

Can the Minister deal with a point with which I have been waiting for her to deal since 7 o'clock this evening?

Mrs. Chalker

We did not start until about a quarter past.

Mr. Foulkes

I was anticipating the hon. Lady's speech, of course. Indeed, I thought about it this morning.

Will the Minister now deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) said about individuals who are resident in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man but who are British citizens and have British passports? Will account be taken of them?

Mrs. Chalker

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has someone extra special in mind, but if he is a British citizen he is covered, as any other British citizen is covered, if he has a case that is within the rules.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked whether any natural or legal person could bring a case before the European Court of Justice within the treaty rules. Under article 173(2) he could—the nationality or employment provided for in the rules are immaterial in that case. Whether a case would go to the full European Court of Justice would depend not on the status of a person as an individual but on the subject matter of the case and whether it should be allocated to the court of first instance or rest with the European Court of Justice. Those details still have to be settled by the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously.

I was asked a series of other questions about cases that have been before the European Court of Justice and how compliance had been insisted upon. Once the court had ruled on the distribution of political funds— the example quoted—and that the matter was outside the powers of the European Parliament, it was for the European Parliament to implement the judgment. I understand that the European Parliament is now considering what to do. The point is that once the European Court of Justice has ruled, it is for the body on which it has ruled to take the appropriate action. If it does not do so, there may be a further intervention by the court, but that would depend very much on the case.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked about chambers of the court rather than the court of first instance, and I understand why he raised that point. The European Court of Justice already divides into chambers, but it is still swamped by the very many cases and the intricate detail of them. What would not be done by creating additional chambers, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, would be to dispose of the enormous work load on the judges of the court. It would make much more sense to deal with the additional work load by determining a particular class or type of action that could be dealt with separately, such as unravelling all that detail. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that in some constituency cases we wish that there were someone to unravel the detail before reaching a conclusion. It is something not unlike that.

The important thing is that the European Court of Justice will be free to devote itself to cases that are brought by member states or Community institutions and not widen, as hon. Members rightly feared, the scope of the cases coming before it.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because she has been patient. It is an important point on which there is some ambiguity. We can understand a lower court preparing a case and unravelling the details before it goes to the higher European Court of Justice, but we understand from the terms of the treaty that there is no appeal other than on a point of law. Is she saying that in certain circumstances the new courts will, nevertheless, at the request of the European Court of Justice have some form of preliminary hearing, or will it be the whole case? If it is unravelling the difficulties, there must be a passage from one court to the other, other than on a point of law.

Mrs. Chalker

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the detail of how exactly this will work has still to be determined, which is why I have been interested in the debate this evening. In determining exactly what should be referred to the court of first instance, it can delineate what can be left there and what can go back up to the European Court of Justice. Given the terms under which the idea of the court of first instance was arrived at, that is not something that will give us any difficulty. The aim is to relieve the work load of the European Court by lessening the detailed work that it has to undertake. The European Court will hear the cases once the detail has been unravelled.

It is evident from the debate that an infinite number of questions could be asked on these matters. Many of the questions this evening have been hypothetical, but it is important that I tackle two of the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. My hon. Friend asked whether rule changes to the European Parliament would be subject to national Parliaments. I hope that I have satisfied him on that score. He then asked whether the Government had sought the views of the United Kingdom courts on the impact and the power of the European Courts. As I have already explained to him, as there is no change in the power of the European Court of Justice, its impact and power will be no different from that which we face now. It is for the House to decide, as it will do in a moment, no doubt—

Mr. Budgen

Is my hon. Friend assuming the power of the Chair now?

Mrs. Chalker

That was a manner of speaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West forgets how late the hour is.

I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East about Clause 2(b) on the issue of false statements in the court of first instance. My hon. Friend wanted to know whether the issue would be tried and, if necessary, whether punishment would be imposed by the European Court rather than the British court. That will not happen. Section 11(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 provides that those who make false statements during sworn evidence before the European Court shall be guilty of an offence under United Kingdom law and may be proceeded against in a British court as if they had committed the perjury here. My hon. Friend need not have concern on that ground.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East raised a number of other matters, one of which I shall try to answer without straying from the rules of procedure. My hon. Friend asked about European Commission action against the United Kingdom if we were to fail to harmonise in accordance with the obligations of the Single European Act. The European Court will have the jurisdiction in future, just as it has now, to decide whether member states are acting in accordance with their obligations. That will apply to the Single European Act as it does in respect of the three Community treaties.

Mr. Marlow

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Chalker

Yes, if my hon. Friend will allow me to finish what I am saying.

The Commission will not be able to bring actions against member states in the court of first instance. That is expressly excluded by the final sentence of the first paragraphs in the new provisions in articles 4, 11 and 26 of the single Act, which I described in response to the speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow.

On the specific issue of the harmonisation of VAT and excise duties, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, the amended article 99 makes it clear that any decisions imposing new obligations on member states must be taken by unanimity. I suspect that we shall be dealing with that in a later debate if the relevant amendment is called.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

My hon. Friend has been helpful on an important issue and I am grateful to her. She said that the Commission could not take the power to say that Britain had not harmonised its VAT adequately for the purposes of article 99 in the court of first instance. That is clear and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Would it be possible for the Commission to take action in the normal Court of Justice because Britain had not harmonised in accordance with article 99. That is something that every taxpayer wants to know.

Mrs. Chalker

It would be, if that were the case and we were so subject, but the position is not altered by the Bill. It is not altered by the Single European Act. I think, Sir Paul, that you will allow me to debate that when we consider amendment No. 7, and you would rule me out of order if I went further down that path.

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend has said that the court will take account of the Single European Act. To what extent will the court take account of the preamble?

Mrs. Chalker

I intended to refer to that. The preamble concerns aims and objectives. The preamble in no way changes rights or responsibilities. Therefore, it fits together with the rest of the Act. It does not, in itself, confer a right or an obligation. As a statement of aims and objectives it is part of the whole. It is not a covert step, as my hon. Friend seeks to say.

We have had a long debate on a complicated issue, which has been further complicated by the misapprehensions of a number of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen. This sensible, clear-cut and eminently practical measure can ease the load on the European Court of Justice in a forthright and sensible way. Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 38 would not help in any way. In fact, they would hinder that objective. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Marlow

Sir Paul, on a point of order—

Mr. John Cope (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Marlow

(Seated and covered): Sir Paul, on a point of order. I raised a point of order before the Whip rose to speak. That was quite clear. I think that all Conservative Members would rightly, like me to raise the point of order. Am I entitled to raise my point of order?

The Second Deputy Chairman

I shall not take the point of order during the Division.

Mr. Marlow

(Seated and covered): I raised a point of order before the Division was called.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I will hear the hon. Member after the Division.

Mr. Marlow

(Seated and covered): The point of order will not be relevant after the Division. Are you trying to silence Back-Benchers?

The Committee having divided: Ayes 117, Noes 34.

Division No. 225] [12.01 am
AYES
Ancram, Michael Knox, David
Arnold, Tom Lang, Ian
Ashby, David Lawler, Geoffrey
Baldry, Tony Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Best, Keith Lester, Jim
Boscawen, Hon Robert Lightbown, David
Burt, Alistair Lilley, Peter
Butterfill, John Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Cash, William Lord, Michael
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Lyell, Nicholas
Cope, John McCurley, Mrs Anna
Couchman, James MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Durant, Tony Maclean, David John
Favell, Anthony Major, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Malone, Gerald
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Freeman, Roger Mather, Carol
Galley, Roy Maude, Hon Francis
Garel-Jones, Tristan Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Gower, Sir Raymond Merchant, Piers
Gregory, Conal Meyer, Sir Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Ground, Patrick Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Hargreaves, Kenneth Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Harris, David Moynihan, Hon C.
Harvey, Robert Mudd, David
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW) Newton, Tony
Hayes, J. Nicholls, Patrick
Hayward, Robert Norris, Steven
Heathcoat-Amory, David Onslow, Cranley
Hickmet, Richard Ottaway, Richard
Hicks, Robert Pawsey, James
Hirst, Michael Portillo, Michael
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) Powell, William (Corby)
Hunt, David (Wirral W) Powley, John
Hunter, Andrew Raffan, Keith
Jackson, Robert Renton, Tim
Jones, Robert (Herts W) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Key, Robert Roe, Mrs Marion
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) Sackville, Hon Thomas
Knowles, Michael Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Skeet, Sir Trevor Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Walden, George
Soames, Hon Nicholas Waller, Gary
Spencer, Derek Ward, John
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W) Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Stanbrook, Ivor Watts, John
Stern, Michael Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) Wheeler, John
Taylor, John (Solihull) Whitfield, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter Wood, Timothy
Thompson, Donald (Calder V) Woodcock, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) Tellers for the Ayes:
Trippier, David Mr. Michael Neubert and
Trotter, Neville Mr. Tim Sainsbury.
Twinn, Dr Ian
NOES
Alton, David Pike, Peter
Beith, A. J. Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Budgen, Nick Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Clay, Robert Proctor, K. Harvey
Foster, Derek Raynsford, Nick
Foulkes, George Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Robertson, George
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) Skinner, Dennis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Johnston, Sir Russell Snape, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan Spearing, Nigel
Lewis, Terence (Worsley) Steel, Rt Hon David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Maxton, John Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Moate, Roger Tellers for the Noes:
Nellist, David Mr. Eric Deakins and Mr. Ron Leighton.
Penhaligon, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Marlow

On a point of order, Sir Paul. Before the Division and before the closure, I sought to raise with you a point of order. I rose to my feet as the Minister was sitting down, and I got to my feet before the Whip got to his feet. I asked to raise a point of order. My hon. Friends are well aware of the fact that I sought to raise the point of order before the Whip got to his feet.

I do not know how one can have an objective assessment of this, but can I ask you to listen to the Hansard tapes, when you will find out that I sought to raise that point of order before the Whip got to his feet? I know that it was a great convenience for the Government to get the closure, because I would have asked that we report progress. I would have done so at this time of night because it is an important debate and many hon. Members who wished to speak did not have an opportunity to speak. If it is the case that I wished to raise that point of order before the Division, knowing that my hon. Friend will now ask you to report progress, can we reverse the situation, do without that closure and continue the debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman

Points of order were put to me simultaneously and I exercised my discretion to take the point of order on the closure—

Mr. Budgen

rose—

Mr. Moate

rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I allowed the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to raise his point of order, but I must immediately put the Question on amendment No. 1—

Mr. Teddy Taylor

rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I must put the Question on amendment No. 1.

Question put accordingly, and negatived.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Cope.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.