European Community (Right of Residence)

HC Deb 08 February 1990 vol 166 cc1100-24

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Before I call the Minister, I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment, but Members may raise points on the amendment during the debate.

9.16 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd)

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7706/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 8th January 1990 relating to rights of residence; and supports the objective of facilitating the free movement of European Community nationals.

This debate is an opportunity for the House to note the progress of the right of residence directives and their likely impact on the United Kingdom should they be adopted.

For some 10 years, the proposal that Community nationals should enjoy a general right of residence in other member states has been under discussion in Europe. Finally, recognising that deadlock had long been reached, the European Commission, in May last year, withdrew its earlier proposal and later submitted three new draft directives in its place. It is these new draft directives that are under discussion tonight.

Hon. Members may have with them tonight Commission document 4234/90, which was deposited in the House on 30 January. It may be helpful if I give a brief explanation of what it contains. It incorporates some of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament on 13 December. It does not include the latest text of the proposals upon which political agreement was reached at the last Internal Market Council and I will mention tills again a little later. It is a purely formal document issued by the Commission in response to the first opinion of the European Parliament on the original text of the proposals. However, the supplementary explanatory memorandum, which we submitted to the House on 8 January, is an accurate reflection of the latest text of the proposals.

These new measures are designed to provide a right of residence throughout the Community for categories of Community national who do not already have such a right under the free-movement provisions of the EC treaty. Their purpose is to promote the free movement of EC nationals within the Community—a principle to which the Government have long been committed. We have therefore sought to respond throughout the discussions in Europe in the most positive manner possible.

Since July, rapid progress—in the light of the earlier discussions unexpectedly rapid progress—has been made towards agreement among member states. There have been intensive discussions and at the last Internal Market Council, on 21 December, the presidency noted that political agreement on the substance of the directives had been achieved.

The important matter of treaty base, however, remains unsettled. and adoption of the directives cannot take place until the European Assembly's further opinion has been made available and considered by the Council. It may therefore be that formal adoption of these proposals will not be possible at the next meeting of the IMC, on 22 February. If this is the case, the next opportunity for their adoption will arise at the IMC scheduled for 3 April.

I would like to stress at this point that the Government are extremely conscious of the importance of the arrangements which enable Parliament to play a full and effective part in the scrutiny of Community legislation. However, we believed that the situation which arose suddenly in December, when there seemed a strong possibility of agreement to the directives at the IMC meeting, met the exceptional criteria laid down for adoption before a debate. In the event, however, the contingency which we foresaw did not materialise, and I am very glad indeed that the House has this opportunity to consider the draft directives before the question of adoption arises.

There are, as I have said, three draft directives to be considered. They are aimed at students, pensioners, and other non-economically active persons respectively. It may be helpful to the House if I outline in brief the basic provisions of each.

First, the directive on students will apply to any EC national enrolled on a vocational or professional training course at a recognised educational establishment. The spouse and dependent children of the EC national will also benefit, but right of residence will be conditional on possession of sufficient resources to prevent the beneficiaries becoming a financial burden on the host member state. Sickness insurance will also be required where relevant—for example, in countries which operate a medical insurance system rather than a health service as in the United Kingdom.

Secondly, EC nationals who have been employed or self-employed will benefit from the directive on pensioners. They must be in receipt of an invalidity or early retirement pension, or old age benefits, or a pension in respect of an industrial accident or disease. Along with their spouse and dependent relatives, such EC nationals will be accorded a right of residence provided there are sufficient resources to prevent them from becoming a financial burden on the host member state. Sickness insurance will also be required where relevant.

Thirdly, any other EC national will benefit from the Directive on other non-economically active people provided there are sufficient resources to ensure they, and members of their family admitted with them, will not become a financial burden on the host member state. Again, there is a requirement for sickness insurance, if necessary.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Has any attempt been made to quantify the sort of resources that would be needed, concerning the definition of "dependent relatives", and the length and breadth of that expression?

Mr. Lloyd

The length and breadth of the expression is detailed in the draft directives, and is there to be seen. The mimimum amount of resources will be social security payments, whichever form they take, in the relevant country. Resources must be at least at that level.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

Am I right in inferring that those people from Hong Kong to whom the Government are to give the right of abode—I totally support the Government in that—will also benefit from these directives?

Mr. Lloyd

Yes—like any other British national, they will be able to take advantage of the directives, under the migratory workers provisions of the treaty, to live in any part of the Community as long as they have the resources to do so.

Although there are three separate directives, there are common threads running through them all, not least the requirement that beneficiaries of each directive should not become a financial burden on the host member state. Member states have agreed that, if the right of residence is to be available on such a wide scale, there must be some protection for their social assistance systems.

Consequently, the directives have been drafted in such a way as to prevent the possibility of EC nationals going from one state to another from becoming a charge on social security funds in each, or even moving solely to maximise their entitlement to social security assistance payments.

In calculating the adequacy of the resources available to applicants, account will be taken of the personal circumstances of those involved. That will avoid the situation of a pensioner in receipt of a small pension, but with substantial personal resources, failing to qualify. Adequate resources are deemed to be resources higher than the level at which social assistance is paid within the relevant member state, as I just told my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It is the Government's view that the provisions of the directives contain adequate safeguards to ensure that their implementation would not result in any drain on our social security system.

Each directive also makes provision for family members. In the case of students it will be limited to the spouse and dependant. Pensioners and "others" will be able to have with them their spouse and any dependent relative in the ascending and descending line. Specific provision is also made in each directive to enable the spouse and dependent children of the main beneficiary to work in the host member state. Similar provisions have been in place for a number of years in the case of migrant workers, so for most people the provisions do not add to what is already available.

The provisions about resources being sufficient to prevent claims for social security benefits apply to those dependants in the same way as to the applicant.

Each directive contains an important provision ensuring that the right of residence will exist only so long as the persons concerned continue to meet the criteria that I have just outlined.

In common with other measures relating to free movement, derogation from the provisions of the directives will be possible only on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. These are the basic provisions of the directives as they now stand. Member states have reached agreement thus far, but such an achievement is the result of considerable effort.

Amendments to the original proposals have had to be made. For example, a scheme to reimburse the host member state for social security claims made by students has been replaced with the requirement to show adequate resources. Similarly, on pensioners it was agreed that simply having a pension was insufficient.

In order properly to assess the resources of pensioners and "others" it has been agreed that the personal circumstances of the applicant, and where appropriate those admitted with him, will be taken into account; and it has been agreed that the necessary amendment will be made. Another amendment has been agreed in recognition of the concerns of member states about the definition of family members. Initially, those family members who were to benefit from the pensioners and "others" directives were defined by reference to article 10 of regulation 1612/68 EEC.

Several member states noted the outstanding proposals to amend that particular provision in such a way as to widen considerably the definition of family members. Such a degree of relaxation was regarded as an unwelcome development by member states, at least in respect of the right of residence directives, and as a result the directives will now specify precisely to which family members they apply.

We understand that a statement for the Council minutes will be included to the effect that the given definition of family members may be reviewed in the light of any changes to article 10 of the regulation.

It is the Government's view that, if the treaty base for all three directives is changed to article 235—I will mention this again a little later—they represent proposals which should be acceptable to the United Kingdom. Improvements have been made to the original texts, and we believe that it is in the United Kingdom's interests to signal agreement to the proposals.

Acceptance of the proposals will facilitate the free movement of EC nationals within the Community. Naturally, that will work to the benefit of British citizens who will, provided they can meet the requirements of the directives, be free to live elsewhere in the Community should they choose to do so.

We are satisfied that the directives are framed, as far as possible, in such a way as to prevent abuse, and we believe that the overall effect on the United Kingdom and its citizens will be beneficial. The Government do not consider that the number of people who might take advantage of the directive, if made, will significantly increase the numbers of persons entering the United Kingdom.

More people will be able to come here to spend their retirement years, to study or simply to live in the United Kingdom. Equally, British citizens will have the freedom to choose another country of residence if they so wish. British students will be able to move easily to study in another member state. Residence cards will be issued to those exercising rights under the provisions of the directives in much the same way as they are already issued to EC nationals exercising rights of free movement under the aspects of the treaty covering migrant workers.

No new bureaucracy need be created, and in administrative terms the directives will require a minimum of change to our current measures for dealing with EC nationals. Consequently, it is the Government's view that implementation of the proposals would create no significant costs to this country.

One important feature of our consideration of the directives has been the need for the Government to examine the question of Community competence, in particular as it relates to EC nationals who are not workers or otherwise economically active.

We have looked carefully at the development of Community law and we have concluded that the free movement of all Community nationals, whether they are economically active or not, is an objective of the treaty. The right of residence directives therefore fall within the competence of the Community.

Earlier, I mentioned that the important issue of the legal base of the directives, which governs the majority which must be obtained for adoption, remains unsettled. The original Commission proposals were to base the directives on article 7 for students—qualified majority voting; articles 48 and 54 for pensioners—qualified majority voting; and article 100 for "others"—unanimous voting.

Those treaty bases are unacceptable. The United Kingdom has made it clear throughout that we consider that article 235, which requires unanimous voting, is the only appropriate legal base for all three directives, and that view is shared by several other member states. At the last Internal Market Council in December, the Commission undertook to give further consideration to the issue of legal base.

We fully expect, in the light of the discussions to date, that any revised proposal which the Commission may make will reflect the concerns expressed by us and the other member states.

The Government consider that acceptance of the right of residence directives, provided that the legal bases are changed, is the proper course of action. Measures of this kind, which reduce unnecessary obstacles to the freedom of EC nationals to choose where they will live in the Community, is a good example of what the Single European Act means when it speaks of the establishment of an area without internal frontiers in accordance with the treaty. They have no effect on our right and determination to combat the evils of terrorism, drug trafficking and international crime, or to control immigration from third countries.

I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that we in the United Kingdom have nothing to fear from these proposals but much to gain. We have been presented with an opportunity to further the principle of free movement in terms which the Government consider acceptable to the United Kingdom. I therefore commend the proposals to the House.

9.32 pm

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)

The directives once again point up the flaws and unfairness of the United Kingdom's immigration rules. Unless the European Community's proposals, welcome though they are, are accompanied by corresponding changes in our rules, they will place some British citizens at a disadvantage compared with EC nationals. British citizens will have less right to family unity, which is at the heart of these rules, than other EC citizens coming to this country.

Europe could give us the opportunity to treat our citizens equally and fairly, which simply is not happening at present. A paragraph of the declaration signed last December by Immigration Ministers says: There is a growing aspiration, particularly on our continent, that people should be able to move about freely beyond State frontiers: we believe that EC Member States should be all the more diligent in reinforcing their co-operation in that it provides an incentive for others, in other parts of Europe and the world at large, to develop this freedom too.

Those brave words were uttered when western and eastern Europe were beginning to change. As I shall show, some British citizens—potentially, all of us—are not as free as that grand declaration envisages. With freedom of movement, and with the move to harmonisation of the rules of the EC, we should take the opportunity to remove some of the restrictive rules that cause hardship and, in some cases, are quite blatantly discriminatory against British citizens. If we are to create a people's Europe, we need to go far further than the proposals allow.

We have heard a great deal recently about Hong Kong; the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has already intervened on the subject. This evening, we have the chance to remind ourselves about the rights and limitations of rights that are placed on people living in this country.

There are three proposals before us. The first relates to students. At present, a male student can be joined by his wife, but a female student cannot be joined by her husband as of right. When I raised that question with the Minister's predecessor, who is now the Patronage Secretary, he replied in a written answer that he did not propose to change that rule and that there were sound reasons for not doing so. It is good that only six months later, the Government have become more accommodating. Now, not only can students be joined by their spouses, but, according to the directive, they can also be joined by their families, should they so wish.

The second proposal is more far-reaching. Retired people from the European Community can come to this country and be joined by their families, as can people of independent means who have come to this country to stay for either a short or a long time. No matter how welcome that new proposal may be and no matter what its justification, it brings into sharp focus the difficulties that are faced by people in this country who want to enjoy the same rights. The proposal of family unity points up the disadvantages that British European Community nationals face and will continue to face.

The concept of family unity should be the cornerstone of our policies in this aspect of immigration law. The Minister has been at pains to point out that, even with the new rights, the spouses of people coming to this country and their families will not be a burden on people living in this country. I can see why he made that point, but as I listened, it occurred to me that he was at pains to stress that they would never become a burden on people in this country. What machinery is he proposing is to ensure a continuous assessment of people so that they do not reach a point where they might want to rely on resources from this country?

If family unity is the principle on which the rules are based, that unity must be just as important for rich people as for poor. There may come a time when someone living in this country will, for one reason or another, want to take advantage of some benefit. That seems to argue for examining the rationalising of benefits and public support provisions throughout Europe. I appreciate that that is not the Minister's responsibility, but we should consider that point.

I come to the heart of my criticism of the proposals. I do not oppose them on their merits, but I believe that they point up the difficulties for many in this country. At present, a Frenchman can marry a woman from Pakistan, for example, and can enter the United Kingdom if he is a worker within the meaning of European legislation. He could also be joined by his children under 21 and by his parents because they all come within the European Community's definition of "family".

A British citizen living in England, for example, does not have that automatic right. To marry a non-European Community national, he has first to satisfy the primary purpose rule—rule 50—in the immigration rules. He has to prove that the primary purpose of the marriage is not for his spouse to gain admission to this country. There are other tests that have to be passed. If he wishes his family to join him, there are even greater and more formidable hurdles. They have to satisfy the immigration authorities that they will have adequate accommodation and that they will not be a burden or otherwise come to rely on public funds.

Furthermore, some British citizens have to satisfy the authorities that they are related to their children. Last summer, there was a great deal of controversy about the Government's proposals to impose DNA testing on people who wanted to prove that they were related to their children. Under these rules, the Frenchman to whom I referred does not have to bother with any of that. It is sufficient for him to arrive at Dover or at Heathrow and to say, "This is my wife, these are my children and these are my mother and father. I'm coming in here."

Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicestershire, East)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a question of the immigration rules, which, as he has rightly pointed out, are discriminatory, but of the use of delays in the operations of the Home Office? Such delays have now become an accepted part of the way in which immigration is conducted in this country. Administrative delays are used as a means of immigration control. It is not just a question of satisfying the tests that my hon. Friend has outlined, but of having to wait in Bombay, New Delhi or Islamabad for many months before an interview is granted and of then having to wait while the information is passed from the Foreign Office to the Home Office. There are then delays at Lunar house, which are still quite prevalent. Does my hon. Friend agree that those delays, which are not part of the rules, exist and cause much hardship and anxiety?

Mr. Darling

I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that point. I know that he has a great deal of experience in these matters. Both the Foreign Office and the Home Office use the weapon of delay as an instrument of control. I am dealing with the case of a constituent who hopes to be joined by his wife. A great deal of delay arose because we had to discover whether the Home Office or the Foreign Office should answer our correspondence, and indeed, whether a Minister or something called the correspondence unit should answer my letters. The delays are inordinate. No one will tell me what they are trying to find out.

The declaration to which I referred at the beginning of my speech talks about free movement and a free people's Europe. Some British citizens living in this country do not enjoy the freedom that will be conferred on European nationals under the regulations. It is wrong that the Frenchman to whom I referred is placed at a great advantage compared with an English, Scots or Welshman who wants to do exactly the same thing as the Frenchman. It is ironic that an EEC national of another country should have more rights than a Briton. The Government will have to address that problem.

The same problem arises with children. Under the EEC regulations, young people under the age of 21 are counted as children. Under the United Kingdom immigration rules, a child is counted as a child only if it is under the age of 18. I suspect that all hon. Members consider that if they have children they will always be the parents of those children. Nothing magical happens at 18 or 21 to stop them being their children. Under the EEC regulations, the definition of family does not have a cut-off point.

The regulations are welcome, but they point up the difficulties faced by immigrants. The Government are not prepared to tackle those problems. The Minister should tell us whether, in the people's Europe that we are now entering, he is prepared to consider the plight of many people resident in this country who find it increasingly difficult to be joined by their families—to whom they are closely attached—or to marry the person of their choice. I suspect that the Minister will reply in the negative.

It is ironic that the European convention on human rights provides that everyone of marriageable age should be free to marry. In theory, we are all free to marry, but not if we choose to marry someone, for example, from the Indian sub-continent. Although in theory the primary purpose rule applies to everyone, in practice it is applied only to spouses from certain parts of the world.

If everyone in the House is in favour of family unity, we should give it some substance and not simply use the words as a slogan to collect votes at election time. I fear that many hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, say one thing to their constituents and vote the other way when given the opportunity.

Europe gives us an opportunity to harmonise rules. We are not talking about primary immigration. We are discussing the need to treat our citizens equally. If the regulations are put into effect, the extraordinary result will be that people living in continental Europe will have greater rights to live with their wife, mother, father or children than people who live in Britain. People in Britain will wonder how that can he the case.

It will be open to a British citizen to go to Paris or Germany and become a worker in the sense of the EEC regulations and then come back to Britain to get round the British regulations. We should avoid that ridiculous position.

I wish to deal with three further points. I understand that the regulations are at a preliminary stage and that the Government will come back with definite proposals. As I understood it, the Minister welcomed this opportunity of a preliminary debate on the substance of the directives. No matter: I shall make the points anyway, because they have some substance—

Mr. Peter Lloyd

I commended the draft directives to the House and said that, although the Government were determined to see that the legal base was changed, we believe that the political agreement that has already been reached is sensible and satisfactory and we hope that the House will agree with us on that.

Mr. Darling

I obviously misunderstood the Minister. However, the point that I am about to make still stands because the issues will arise time and again.

First, I refer to harmonisation—

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on this point, about which we should be absolutely clear. It is my understanding that there will not be an opportunity to discuss the regulations again, providing that the understanding to which the Minister referred materialises and that the regulations obtain a two-thirds majority at the Council of Ministers, possibly at the end of next month. If my hon. Friend thinks that there may be an opportunity to exercise other matters at large, that is one thing, but I believe that there will be an opportunity in respect of these regulations also.

Mr. Darling

I fear that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall now preface my three points with the obvious remark that these issues arise now and will arise again and again and again, because they do not directly fall within the scope of the directives. My hon. Friend has made a good point about the directives, because the discussions are between Ministers, and the House will not get an opportunity to discuss them further, despite the fact that the constituents of many hon. Members will be concerned, not only with the directives and the subject matter that they cover, but with the matters that they could have covered but do not.

At long last, I reach the three other points that I have wanted to mention and on which I shall be grateful for the Minister's comments. First, what is happening about the Schengen agreement? No debate on immigration rules would be complete without a reference to it. We are not a party to the treaty, which is between the Benelux countries, France and West Germany, but we send observers. Completely against the odds, the Schengen agreement was not signed last December because of objections mainly from European non-governmental organisations that were concerned about the ramshackle bureaucracy that it would create, together with the potential for discriminatory practices in the control of movement.

I should be grateful if the Minister could let us know the Government's view on the current state of the Schengen agreement, because it has some bearing on this country. There is no doubt that it is the blueprint for the regime that will prevail after 1992 and it is referred to when the Trevi group of Ministers meet from time to time.

My second point is entirely connnected with the directives. Undoubtedly, as we move towards more harmonisation and common rules throughout the EEC, we shall need safeguards and an appeals system. The Minister has talked about the test of whether someone will become a burden on the public purse. There are always two or three interpretations of individual circumstances. The need for an appeals system in this matter, just as with every other immigration rule, is growing greater by the day. As the decisions of immigration officers often cannot be questioned and hon. Members' rights to intervene have been severely curtailed, the quality of the decision-making is deteriorating. That is not in the interests of any view of justice or of the good workings of Europe. The time for an independent watchdog to supervise such matters is long overdue, but I dare say that we shall return to that matter on many occasions.

Thirdly, our system for dealing with emergency applications to enter this country leaves much to be desired. The directives are about the right of families to come to this country. I need hardly remind the Minister that, only two weeks ago, we had the appalling spectacle of a family trying to come to their father's or their uncle's funeral in this country and being cross-examined by an immigration officer about the number of water buffalo that one of their relatives had owned when he lived in Pakistan.

That sort of thing is thoroughly distasteful, and we really ought to avoid it. What we need is an efficient and speedy system of resolving these problems.

Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock)

The hon. Gentleman talks about an efficient and speedy system. Surely the system will be far more efficient and speedy if it is simply a matter of rules laid down by the House being interpreted honestly and with integrity—as they are—by the professionals concerned, rather than those professionals having to put up with the interference of Members of Parliament, who are concerned not so much with whether the rules are being properly applied as, for obvious reasons, with getting votes in their constituencies.

Mr. Darling

That is a fatuous point. I am aware of the hon. Member's views on these matters, but it would not be particularly useful to go into them. Most hon. Members will know that, with the best will in the world, officials interpreting any rules, whether about immigration or any other matter, make mistakes. It seems to me that there is a great deal of merit in having an appeal system. My experience is that, if one knows that one's decision may be questioned or queried, it tends to be of a higher quality than it is if one knows that it will never be looked at again.

Lastly, I should like the Minister to talk about what is happening generally about the imposition of a common visa regime in respect of third countries. Quite clearly, that has a major bearing on the way in which these directives will work. It seems to me that, as Europe grows larger, in the political sense—perhaps by the day—there will be more movement. It will be a Europe in which people move across the old borders. There will be increasing demands from those who wish to marry or to form relationships with people outside Europe, and those demands will have to be considered and accommodated.

I hope that we shall be able to avoid having a web of rules. I hope that we shall be able to avoid an extension of bureacracy—an extension which I fear we could get. If, at some future time, the Government come forward with proposals to remove the obvious difficulties that we have created by conferring rights on EEC nationals while ignoring the plight of a large number of our own citizens, many people in this country will be profoundly grateful. At long last they will begin to think that all British citizens are treated equally, rather than that some getting treatment at the expense of others.

9.52 pm

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has done the House a service by drawing attention, in the main part of his speech, to the fact that the document highlights a new dimension of inconsistency between immigration rules under British law and immigration rules under EC law. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no doubt whatever that much greater rights are now being given to EC nationals than are available to our own citizens. That matter should be the subject of a proper, and perhaps detailed, debate in the House.

Before turning to the kernel of that argument, let me begin, as so often on these nocturnal occasions, with a ritual protest about the inadequate way in which the House continues to scrutinise EC legislation. Rarely have we seen a more shameful example of our weak powers and unsatisfactory procedures in that regard. It is a matter of record, in Hansard recently, that during the past 12 months the European Commission sent to the House 765 directives or documents, consisting of well over 10,000 pages. A great many of them have become, or are in the process of becoming, law applicable to our subjects. Those documents, if they are scrutinised at all before being rubber-stamped, are scrutinised in late-night debates lasting only one and a half hours. They come to us in indigestible lumps. The situation is totally unsatisfactory, and this directive is a classic example of the need for better scrutiny.

Mr. Cormack

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a very good idea if, once every two weeks, we were to devote a day to these matters? Does he agree that that would have the added advantage of helping the Government in their legislative desires and ambitions?

Mr. Aitken

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I would be in favour of the extra day and of curbing some of the legislative excesses. I have a suspicion, perhaps an unworthy one, that tonight in particular my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have indulged in skilful stage management by putting on the debate as late as possible, when the House is as empty as possible, with the Minister making as technical a speech as possible, thereby luring us all into such a comatose state that we do not notice what is happening.

A radical change is being instituted in our immigration laws. We are right to draw attention to it. Let us begin by reminding ourselves of the status quo on immigration law. This is a highly populated island. Successive Governments for over a quarter of a century have exercised a policy of strict and, on the whole, fair immigration control. The basis of that control is a mixture of laws and immigration rules, which are carefully worded, which have been lengthily debated and which on the whole are precise.

The EC directive drives not merely a coach and horses through our immigration laws but, in effect, a whole succession of European juggernauts, which will completely change much of the basis of our immigration laws. For example, the directive extends the right of residence in Britain not merely to all 280 million EC nationals but to their families and relatives, many of whom will not even have to be EC nationals themselves. It may not add up to the River Tiber—

Mr. Peter Lloyd

I am sorry to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend's argument, but he seems to be developing the line that the directive is making a huge change. It is not. The big change came with the signing of the treaty, which enabled those who are economically active to move freely about the Community. The directive will add a few much smaller groups. It defines them and makes it possible for them to move under the treaty. It is not the vast change that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Aitken

I was not born yesterday. I have read the document. Of course it is true that hitherto workers have had the right to move freely around the Community, but this is a big extension and not a trivial add-on, as the Minister suggests. I shall come to the precise definitions, woolly and vague as they are. They include not merely pensioners but a category of non-economically active persons and, most interestingly, a massive extension of the dependant category. We shall consider that closely.

I do not wish to over-dramatise the position. Before the Minister interrupted me, I was about to say that I do not think that the changes in the immigration rules will amount to the Tiber foaming with much blood, but it will be a case of the immigration headquarters at Croydon bulging at the seams with new applications. We should recognise that there will be a significant and substantial extension.

One asks the question: have the British people been consulted about the changes? Can even the Minister understand the implications of the changes that he is pushing through? The reason I ask that follows the Minister's intervention. I am not sure that he can have satisfactorily read the directive; certainly I shall be fascinated if he can satisfactorily explain the definitions of families who will be able to come in.

I shall read to the House two or three lines from the Government's explanatory memorandum. The paragraph headed "Policy implications" deals with the rights of dependants of EC nationals to exercise their right of residence in this country. It says: The new wording specifies that the family members who may benefit from the provisions of the Right of Residence Directives are those currently covered by Regulation 1612/68. That is the change to which the Minister referred as not very great. The paragraph continues: It is, however, proposed to include in the Council minutes a statement as to the possibility of a review of the given definition of members of family in the light of the outcome of proceedings on the proposal for a Regulation amending Article 10 of Regulation 1612/68. What does all that Euro-jargon mean? It means that no one has a clue what the definition of dependant, families or relatives of EC nationals who will have the right of residence in this country will be. If ever there was a foggy, inadequate, vague definition of dependant, this is it. The Government's explanatory memorandum, which is a polite title for the verbiage that I have just read, shows how extraordinarily vague the category of dependant will be.

As the category of dependant cannot be satisfactorily defined, will the Minister give a definition of the phrase "non-economically active persons"? We are giving right of residence in this country to pensioners and other non-economically active persons. I am anxious about that phrase, because I suspect that it will mean the unemployed, the unemployable, the underclass and the "don't want to work" class.

I say this with some feeling, because I represent a constituency that was much troubled by what was known as the "dole-on-sea" phenomenon a year or two ago. As a result of boarding house keepers placing advertisements in the poorer districts because they could not fill their rooms, they were able to recruit large numbers of people who could not find work or, as we more often thought, people who did not want to work, to the south coast by a sort of magnet approach. All sorts of social problems flowed from that migration. I do not like the notion that we shall have a dole-on-sea syndrome with people from, not just the north of England, but the whole of Europe being attracted into a district. That is wrong and we need a much more precise definition than anything given in the explanatory memorandum.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)

Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that, in the light of the greenhouse effect that some people are forecasting, the legislation could have the opposite intention?

Mr. Aitken

I presume that my hon. Friend means that my constituency is likely to become the riveria of Europe.

That would no doubt be agreeable but, once again, the immigration consequence of the document needs to be considered.

Hong Kong has been referred to tonight. In this House, certainly on the Government Benches, we are contemplating a battle royal on the subject of Hong Kong. The heavy artillery of the Foreign Secretary and the big guns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) will shortly be locked in combat. We shall hear a great deal about the flow of Hong Kong immigration and whether we should give 50,000 passports.

If we look closely at the document and consider its implications because of the new rights given to EC nationals, residents and their families, we see that there is a huge, not just loophole, but bolthole, in the EC rules for Hong Kong residents and many others. The House may not be aware, but the easiest place in the European Community to get a passport today is Portugal. All one has to do is buy a modest residence, keep it for three years—one does not have to live there—and having done so, one can get a Portuguese passport and thus become an EC citizen and resident.

Therefore, any Hong Kong nationals who are denied passports and entry into Britain simply have to club together, so that somebody buys a small villa in Portugal at a low cost. Within three years, under these extremely vague rules, they can bring in their entire family, dependants, and presumably many other relatives, without any of the checks and balances that exist under our immigration rules. If the British public want this, and it is intended by Parliament, so be it. However, such immigration by stealth, round the back door, through those EC methods, is not what this Parliament has yet accepted as right.

Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

Will my hon. Friend consider that a Hong Kong resident would not have to go to Portugal to buy a villa, but would be able to go to Macau, just across the water from Hong Kong? All Macau residents will be able to move to Portugal at any time they wish.

Mr. Cormack

When my hon. Friend answers the point raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), will he consider that residents from Hong Kong, from wherever they come, are perhaps more likely to enjoy living in the climate of the south of France, than Bolton or Bootle? Therefore, the argument can be turned to good effect by those of us who feel that the Hong Kong people may come here, but many of them may choose to live not in Great Britain but in other parts of the Community.

Mr. Aitken

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) is a case of special pleading and seems to be a question of hope over experience, because all evidence suggests that this country is still a mecca for people from all over the world. they come for language and many other reasons, and the flow of Hong Kong nationals within the Community, from wherever they come, is more likely to be to here than from here to other outlying parts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) raises a significant point. It is correct—I omitted it—that the loophole is even wider than that which I illustrated when I spoke of people buying Portuguese villas. Hong Kong nationals can easily go to Macau, get European residence by that route, and then, as EC nationals, they can, with the extensive rights and privileges granted to them, have full right of residence in this country.

I am simply arguing that, instead of turning up at a late hour and nodding these big changes through, we should be aware that they have profound implications, which deserve the full parliamentary attention that was originally requested by the Select Committee.

Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)

I am listening with care to the hon. Gentleman's xenophobic ramblings. Given the weather in this country, the relatively low social security benefits and the general decline in the quality of life that has accompanied 10 years of Tory misrule, is he really saying that people from the four corners of the world are panting to come to Ramsgate?

Mr. Aitken

The hon. Lady's eloquence on behalf of Ramsgate means that, if she were to lose her seat, there might be a job for her as the tourist promotion officer there. At the end of the day, these significant changes in the rules are valuable to European nationals. They are not available yet to British citizens. I suspect that the hon. Lady handles as many immigration cases as any hon. Member. She must recognise, as the whole House should—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central recognises—that whether one is for looser or tighter immigration, there is something intrinsically wrong with being offered, on the one hand, a set of British immigration rules that say one thing, and now suddenly, in a midnight debate in the House—[Interruption.] It is not quite midnight, although it feels like it; it has been a long day. On the other hand, we now have a different set of immigration rules offered to us by Europe.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the House should debate such matters in a better way. Would the people who are economically inactive, of whom he spoke, who might come to Ramsgate or wherever, automatically qualify for British social security benefits, pensions and so on by coming here?

Mr. Aitken

No. I gather that the Government assure us that, by a mechanism not yet devised—when it is devised it will almost certainly not be large enough to operate, or be quick enough to be operated, in a satisfactory way—somehow there will be no financial loss to Britain because those social security benefits will be transferable across frontiers.

I am not arguing on an economic basis, but pointing out that we are now getting, as a result of the directive, two different sets of immigration rules and two standards. With such double standards, whether one favours one or the other, it is unacceptable that it should happen in this way, in a late-night debate, via a European directive.

The Government, whose relations with the Select Committee on European Legislation are normally good, have not behaved courteously or correctly in this episode, because the Select Committee demanded a debate on the subject, recognising that it was of considerable political importance, but has been denied one. We are now debating it, in effect, after the horse has bolted. The Government seem to have made every decision and made every concession except one—that is, whether unanimity is required or whether it can be done by majority voting. Other hon. Members who serve on the Select Committee on European Legislation may develop that theme, because the Government have not behaved in a constitutionally correct way towards the Committee. The House should recognise that the changes in the immigration rules are being carried out in a wrong parliamentary way.

10.11 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) finished on a note that I wish to take up. There are two themes to tonight's debate—the substance of the matter and the merits that have already exercised the minds of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and the hon. Member for Thanet, South. However, the underlying theme is that of the constitution and parliamentary procedure, and it is to the latter that I wish to direct the attention of the House. While I agree with the hon. Member for Thanet, South in his reference to the relationship between the Government and the Select Committee—which is not good on that matter, although I hasten to add that there is a good understanding on most matters—the damage is not to the Committee but to the House and to parliamentary procedure.

The issues before us are of considerable constitutional significance because they show that we do not deal properly with advising the House on what is afoot in the European Community in respect of institutions and developments. The Committee that I have the honour to chair cannot do that, because the House has not provided it with adequate terms of reference, a matter that we hope will soon be addressed by the Government. The current arrangements could work better. They have broken down in spirit, if not in letter, on this occasion. Therefore, if I appear to be tedious in reading some of the verbatim reports of the Committee and the correspondence that has passed between the Minister and myself on behalf of that Committee, I apologise. However, it is important to have these matters on record because, irrespective of whatever of the substance of the matter may come back to haunt us in the future, the procedural matters relating to this debate may do so, although I hope not.

The treaty base was referred to by the hon. Member for Thanet, South. The Single European Act changed the whole outlook in respect of decision-making in the Community. No longer was it possible for a single member to delay or to hold up decision-making; indeed, the purpose of parts of the Single European Act, as the Leader of the House told us when he was Foreign Secretary, was to streamline and speed up decision-making. Vast areas of decision-making were transferred from, in effect, unanimity to qualified majority voting.

There are 76 votes on the Council of Ministers, 54 of which are required to pass a matter requiring a qualified majority, and 23 to block. The United Kingdom has 10 votes. I shall not go through the other member states as it would take too long. The important question is whether the Commission promulgates a regulation under an article of the treaty that requires qualified majority voting, simple majority voting or unanimity. It is those three choices. If it promulgates it under unanimity, the powers of the Government and the influence of the House—because that is what these debates are supposed to be about—is much the greater.

The articles that have been quoted in respect of these regulations are 7, 8A, 49, and 54. As the Minister said in his opening speech, they require qualified majority voting. Articles 100 and 235 require unanimity.

The difference of opinion that the Government have with the Commission, probably rightly, is on whether freedom of movement and residence of economically non-active persons can properly come under the first four articles that I read out. There has been some discussion and, as we heard from the Minister and as we shall hear later, there is probably an expectation—I put it no higher than that—that ultimately these regulations will be retabled or withdrawn or the Council could agree unanimously to translate them into articles 100 and 235, but on condition that we agree to the matters in hand. That was part of the deal.

Let me deal now with our scrutiny procedure. For the record, because it is relatively unknown I want to read out the resolution of the House of 30 October 1980. It says: "Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European Legislation which has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation, &c., for consideration by the House before the House has given it that consideration unless—

1. (a) that Committee has indicated that agreement need not he withheld, or
2. (b) the Minister concerned decides that for special reasons agreement should not be withheld; and in the latter case the Minister should, at the first opportunity thereafter, explain the reasons for his decision to the House."—[Official Report, 30 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 843–4.]

That matter was recommended by the Williams committee, which sat between 1976 and 1978, and was put through the House under the leadership of the noble Lord St. John of Fawsley, now a well-known Member of the other place.

The proposals before us have a long history. They were first promulgated in 1974 in a different form and subsequently withdrawn. They were retabled by the Commission as recently as 29 June 1989. On 20 October, the Government then published, as is their wont, the memorandum, from which the hon. Member for Thanet, South quoted, and on 25 October the Select Committee, in its 35th report, HCI5, XXXV, said: The explanatory memorandum recalls that the United Kingdom has reserved its position on these proposals but, if they were agreed, this wider definition of family members would also apply in the case of persons covered by the draft Directive on pensioners and other non-economically active people. This would have the effect of further increasing the number of third-country nationals with the right of entry to the United Kingdom under Community law. All that is well known to the House—it has been rehearsed in debates already—but I want to put on record the exchanges between ourselves, the Minister and the House in that respect.

The next thing that happened was that the Select Committee received a letter from the Minister on 19 December 1989. It is fairly long, but it is right that I should quote it in full. It says: At its meeting on 25 October the Scrutiny Committee understandably concluded that in view of their legal and political importance these documents should be debated. We have recently been seeking to arrange a debate, but it has not proved possible to re-arrange business in the short time available before the House rises and I thought you ought to know that there is a possibility of agreement being reached in the Community before a debate can be held. This is because progress in the discussions (after, as you know, a very long period of deadlock) has recently quickened markedly. At a meeting of the Internal Market Council on 23 November, a settlement was reached which adequately deals with the concerns which we and a number of other Member States had to ensure that non-economically active EC nationals who take up residence in another country would not become a burden on that country's public funds. In the light of this settlement the French Presidency has been pressing hard for the adoption of the Directives, and the European Council on 8–9 December referred to them as 'an important measure which is scheduled for adoption by the end of the year'. At the same time, the Government has looked again at the question of Community competence and has concluded that our longstanding reserve can now be lifted, provided cur earlier concerns about the legal base can be resolved. The matter will come up again at the meeting of the Internal Market Council on 21–22 December, at which the Presidency will be pressing for a final decision on all three Directives. As the drafts currently stand, we will have a difference with the Commission and with some other Member States over the proposed legal bases. Given the Presidency's eagerness for a decision there is, however, now a chance that we can secure the legal bases we want provided that we and other Member States can agree to accept the Directives at this meeting. That was the meeting of 21–22 December. In these circumstances, in order to secure negotiating advantage, we would like to hold open the possibility of agreeing to the Directives, without putting on a scrutiny reserve, notwithstanding that it has not yet proved possible to arrange a debate on the legal bases which we consider more satisfactory. It is of course conceivable that matters will not go quite this way and that it will after all be possible to have a debate before final conclusions are reached. Needless to say, that would normally be our strong preference. We shall in any event be submitting a further Explanatory Memorandum and seeking to arrange debate as soon as possible in the New Year. After anxious consideration, however, we are satisfied that, given the extra momentum which the proposals have gathered since the end of November, it would be wrong to pass up the chance of a satisfactory outcome on the grounds that it has not so far been possible to arrange a debate.

Happily, there was no final agreement on the date. I ought to say here and now that the members of the Committee and I are obliged to the Minister for that letter: it was full and frank, and it told us the exact position. To be fair, any of us in the position of the Minister sitting in that chair might well have done the same thing.

I ought to add that the matters that I am now rehearsing represent the unanimous view of the Committee which understands the Minister's position; but it means that, by the end of the year, the following position has emerged. After nearly 10 years, we have a proposal, albeit a modified one. We recommended a debate many years ago on this topic, but we have a debate recommended on the proposals but there is a possibility that the Government will agree to them in substance prior to debate and—here I quote from our memorandum of 20 December— agree to adoption of these proposals prior to a debate being held. In essence, the Minister anticipates that it may be possible to trade willingness to agree at the Internal Market Council on 21–22 December for the Government's preferred choice of Treaty base. That was a new element that the Committee espied in these matters: in our view, there was a very big jump between package bargaining over a fairly wide area, which we well understand must take place, and the fact that, in order to change the treaty base, one must agree to the substance of the proposal.

The Minister kindly wrote to me again on 9 January and I will put what he said on the record. He has dealt with us scrupulously on this matter, and I want to emphasise that. He said: At the IMC on 21 December it was noted that neither Danish nor United Kingdom Parliamentary scrutiny procedures had been completed; there was further discussion, but no final agreement, on the question of legal base; and a number of other, minor, issues remained unsettled. As a result, no vote was taken on any of the Directives. The Presidency recorded, however, that political agreement on the substance of the texts had been reached, subject to the completion of Danish and United Kingdom Parliamentary procedures, and suggested that the IMC should give further consideration to the draft Directives at its next meeting on 22 February.

In his opening remarks, the Minister told us that that expectation was to come—the expectation that the treaty base will be changed—but of course that does not really alter the fact that at an earlier stage the Government were willing to go ahead—perhaps justifiably, perhaps not—before a debate in the House, and that the issue of trading—these are the words we used—treaty base in substance has in our judgment probably occurred.

Therefore, the Committee issued another report, which I hope hon. Members have been able to get from the Vote Office, on 17 January, HC II-VII of this Session, which says: The Committee was therefore surprised to learn that political agreement was reached on the substance of the proposals at the Internal Market Council on 21–22 December, subject to United Kingdom and Danish scrutiny reserves, and that the only remaining issues for consideration are the appropriate legal bases for the Directives and a number of minor matters. In effect, the Government appeared to have agreed to the substance of the proposal, albeit with a Parliamentary scrutiny reserve, without securing agreement on its preferred choice of legal base.

I interpolate here a reference to what the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, which was that that was expected, and of course it could well be part of the political agreement to which he referred.

The report continues: The Department's Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the Government now accepts that it is reasonable to interpret Treaty provisions on freedom of movement for persons as applying to non-economically active as well as to economically active Community nationals. It is also content that amendments to the proposal have strengthened the understanding that beneficiaries should not become a burden on host Member States. The Committee notes the Government's view that the draft Directives do not pose any major or unacceptable policy implications for the United Kingdom, and its position on the relevance of Article 235 as the appropriate Treaty base in each case. Nevertheless, the Committee maintains its recommendation for the early consideration of these proposals. The Committee remains disappointed that the Government has not found it possible to afford the House the opportunity to consider these proposals in the decade since the original recommendation until after substantive decisions on their content had been taken. It also reiterates its concern that the Government should have regarded, in this or any similar circumstances, the choice of Treaty base as being negotiable in a similar fashion to the substance of a Commission proposal, given the possible legal implications of adopting Community legislation on inappropriate treaty bases. In view of the intrinsic importance of the draft Directives, and the circumstances which led to political agreement being reached at the Internal Market Council, the Committee considers the debate which it has recommended should be held on the Floor of the House, and not in a Standing Committee on European Community Documents. There was a motion down for this batch of documents to be sent to a Standing Committee, but representations were made and that is why we are here now. I place that on the record for the judgment of hon. Members as to the relative importance of this matter—whether it be of substance or procedural, and whether it should have been debated on the Floor of the House or in committee.

The amendment put down by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is entirely on the matter of procedure. Whatever his own views may be on substance, and he has not told us them—not that I necessarily expect him to be here—his amendment reflects absolutely the view of the Select Committee. It has not been selected, and I make no complaint about that, but I wish to put it on record that the unanimous view of the Select Committee is in line with the sentiments expressed in that amendment.

The womb of law in the United Kingdom has been until fairly recently this Chamber and that of the other place. We are now, of course, in a completely different situation; and the linkage between what Ministers do in the Council of Ministers and the influence that we can bring to bear on them before they go to the Council—the extent, to use an in phrase of the moment, of pre-legislative glasnost—is very important. I can only hope that the rather lengthy and perhaps tedious quotations that I have had to put on the record this evening will assist in improving visibility in these matters in the future.

10.29 pm

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for setting out so clearly and carefully the full effect of the draft directives in relatively few minutes, and I shall try to be brief.

I appreciate the full importance of the EC as a trading bloc, and its necessity to our future prosperity, but I should like to make a few comments on these fairly wide-ranging measures—especially wide-ranging for a Thursday night.

I understand the three draft directives to some extent. I certainly understand the first, which concerns students, and the second, which concerns employees and self-employed pensioners. However, the third directive causes me some concern. It involves the rights of residence for nationals of member states who do not enjoy this right under other provisions of Community law, and members of their families. I thought that my hon. Friend mentioned that this amounted to only a few groups of people, in which case, I must be, as usual, totally naive, because I looked at the directive again and again and I have come to the conclusion that it could apply to everybody.

As the directive concerns only a few groups, can my hon. Friend say whether he has any idea of the potential numbers of people involved, particularly in view of paragraph 23 of the explanatory memorandum, headed "Financial Implications", which says: there should be no direct increase in costs as a result of these proposals. If that is so, presumably no great numbers of people will be involved. Once we know the number, perhaps we will be able to say what effect it might have on the housing situation, because in this country we have a greater population in a smaller number of square miles than many other member countries, and therefore that is of particular importance to us.

Can my hon. Friend say what will be the position of the citizens of East Germany if Germany reunites? Will they automatically have the right of abode here?

The third point I would put to my hon. Friend—and I appreciate that this involves some detail—is that I have always understood that citizens of the French overseas territories have rights of abode, and presumably that will apply in Britain, but it seems unfortunate that some of our own dependencies and protectorates do not have the same privileges. Could my hon. Friend comment on that?

I am not—I say this almost thankfully—a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, but I read the note that the Committee was surprised to learn that political agreement was reached on the substance of the proposals of the Internal Market Council on 21 December. That seems to be very strong meat.

The criteria used to determine sufficient resources in this case seem to be pretty basic—nothing like the Hong Kong £150,000. How do we determine whether there are sufficient resources? Is some form of means test involved, and how will it be brought about in practical terms?

I also have a copy of the supplementary explanatory memorandum on European Community legislation which I see is somewhat ominously entitled "final" on the front page. Turning to what I guess is the main issue, I see that paragraph 14 suggests: the legal base for all three draft Directives remains under discussion pending final agreement. I wonder, therefore, whether my hon. Friend believes that this is the most suitable time to debate this matter. There seem to be several fairly profound legal and political implications.

Indeed, paragraph 15 describes the full operational procedures, and I am afraid that I must read it out in full. It says: Proposals based on Article 7 or Article 49, among others, attract the Co-operation procedure. If, however, the Commission were to revise their proposals by substituting Article 235, as the legal base for each Directive, the Co-operation procedure would not apply. Until there is agreement on the question of legal base it is not possible to be certain whether the co-operation procedure is relevant. That seems to me to be of paramount importance.

Mr. Spearing

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I made a long speech. He has raised an important point—the bifurcation of a second reading by the European Parliament. He may be under a certain misapprehension about the timing of debates. There has always been a feeling in the House and the Committee that debate at an earlier stage rather than when the final document is ready is more likely to influence the Minister in the Council of Ministers, particularly prior to the common position being taken if the matter is debated a second time. Therefore, rather than having a debate too early, the feeling has been that, for the reasons that I have outlined, it is rather too late.

Mr. Knapman

Perhaps I should have said that we should be careful about drawing conclusions at this stage. Perhaps that would be more acceptable.

Should we be applying to the European Court of Justice to determine these matters, or should we be insisting on article 235? At what stage will my hon. Friend consider whether a veto should be used to force the matter?

Paragraph 16 states: Similarly, until the legal base is settled it is not possible to say what the voting procedure will be. However, in the event of Article 235 being chosen, each draft Directive will require unanimity. Does my hon. Friend accept that it is vital to know whether majority voting or unanimity is applicable? Unless we know, we are taking something of a leap in the dark.

If national frontiers are to become things of the past—that is not putting it too strongly—we must be certain that the frontiers of Europe assume even greater significance.

10.36 pm

Mr. Peter Lloyd

A great many points have been raised. The House would not take it kindly if I tried to address each of them, so I shall comment on what I consider to be the crucial and essential points. I apologise in advance if I leave out any items that hon. Members consider important. If they draw my attention to them during or after the debate, I shall reply to them in a letter, which I hope will be as full and frank as the one that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) commended for its content if not for its conclusion.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said little about the directives, so I presume that he was not too unhappy with them. He wanted us to harmonise the rules that we in the United Kingdom operate for the immigration of dependants from third countries with the European rules governing the movement of dependants between EC countries. We have the rules that best suit our circumstances and we should take decisions on them in the light of our particular national needs.

However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in changing them in certain directions. The EC rules for the movement of those who are economically active predate our entry into the Community. We had no hand in formulating them; they existed during the Labour party's last period in government. The Labour Government did not seek to bring them in line and I quite understand why.

If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central feels able to tell us now, would he change the rule for dependants so that the maximum age for child dependency is not 18, as it is in our immigration rules for third countries, but 21? The House would be interested to know, and so would I.

He asked about Schengen. We are not associated with Schengen. We do not have observer status there. We are extremely interested in what eventually emerges. No treaty has yet been signed. If it is, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assumption of what our attitude would be. We do not regard it as a blueprint or model for the rules and arrangements in the wider Community.

Mr. Darling

I am surprised by that, because I had always understood from official and unofficial sources that, first, the Government are kept informed by a civil servant at Schengen and that, secondly, as everyone in Schengen is a member of Trevi, in which the Government are represented, it would be inconceivable for the Benelux countries, France and West Germany to adopt the Schengen rules but seek to do something entirely different by Trevi. If I am wrong, I should welcome a Government statement on that. The previous Home Secretary made a helpful statement—I am not suggesting that he made an admission—saying that the general thrust of what I am saying is right.

Will the Minister explain why a Frenchman and his wife and family are allowed to enter this country, whereas a British citizen and his wife cannot automatically do the same? That shows the inconsistency in the definition of the "family".

Mr. Lloyd

The French are responsible for those who enter France from third countries. That is not regulated by Community law; nor are our immigration rules. Movement of people from one Community country to another is regulated by Community law. Community nationals are of primary significance and their dependants derive their rights from the EC national. That is why a distinction is made, but it is a smaller problem than the hon. Gentleman thinks.

We are not part of the Schengen discussions. We know only what we are told, what we learn and what we read. Obviously, we are kept in touch, but not in the detail that the hon. Gentleman believes. I have made it pretty clear that what we believe may have been the objective of those discussions, but which has not emerged yet, ought to act as a blueprint for the rest of the Community.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked about the common visa. Again, that has little to do with the directives or with immigration. Discussions are being held to see whether we can agree similar rules for visas for short-term visitors to the Community—not people who wish to settle, but holidaymakers or people who are visiting for a limited period—so that each member country does not have to issue a new visa if a visitor wants to visit several countries and to make it easier for visitors to move between countries. That bears no relation to the directives that we are discussing or to long-term immigration for settlement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said that the directives drive a coach and horses through our immigration controls, but they do not. They extend the rights of movement and residence in the Community, but the reality of those rights exist already for the economically active, who are most likely to move and who represent the greatest numbers. They are not completely insignificant, because pensioners may decide to move to another country if they have the resources to do so. Well-resourced pensioners from the south of France or the Mediterranean may move to the midlands because they like the weather, but I suspect that the movement will tend to be in the opposite direction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South also thought that the category of "dependant" was extremely unclear. In fact, it has been clear since before we joined the European Community, because it is set out in regulation 1612/68. We are writing in the category in detail and we especially wanted to insist on that because there were proposals in the European Community that the rules should be expanded. We wanted to be certain that no expansion appeared in the new directives as a result of changes to which we might agree elsewhere or which might have taken place without our agreement, so we wanted to insist on that detail. What my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South found most confusing was really a recognition that there was discussion over regulation 1612/68 which at present governs this area, but which may not if it changes. However, there is no doubt that the definition is there to be read and is easily understood.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) also asked about non-economically active people. They comprise everybody who does not come under some other category and who has sufficient resources to maintain himself at or above the social security levels in whichever European Community country he determines to settle. There is no question about such a person becoming a cost, because he will not be eligible for benefits or social security payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud thought that there must be a cost somewhere. To the country, there must be a movement in of resources because people must bring with them the resources with which they will maintain themselves and any dependants whom they might bring with them.

Mr. Janman

I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying about the cost effect if such immigration were to occur. However, immigration is a subject about which the people of this country feel very strongly, not only in terms of the possible costs to the taxpayer, but as a result of the other concerns, about which I am sure my hon. Friend is aware and about which I do not need to go into detail. If one used his logic about the weather and the direction of immigration and emigration, clearly we should have had massive emigration from Britain to the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent as opposed to immigration into Britain from those places.

If one takes the matter in the context of the European Community, there is a danger of fairly substantial immigration from the countries within the Community that have a lower gross domestic product per head than we do, such as countries in the more southern part of the Community. The concerns about which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has hinted are very real.

Mr. Lloyd

If there is any such danger—and I do not want to go down that track with my hon. Friend now, as the clock is ticking on—it already exists because of the treaty and because of the movement of the economically active, which has nothing to do with the directives. If there is a movement upwards, it will be as a result of the freedom to migrate that people have. There certainly is a movement towards the Mediterranean, which is manifest in the number of British pensioners who are currently resident in Spain. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) may have a point, but it is related not to the directives, but to the treaty itself and to the freedom of movement of those who are economically active.

The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is not here at present, but I want to respond to his point. He suggested quite unwarrantably that queues are used as a weapon and he seemed to be thinking especially of the Indian sub-continent. The queues that were very long there have been reduced sharply in recent years and they are far shorter than they were when we came to office. We have increased the number of officers there in an attempt to make the queues shorter, and we have succeeded in that.

The points made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation and was speaking on behalf of the Select Committee, were most important. I understand his concern that there was a suggestion that there would be full agreement on the issues without a debate. He is right to press the point and I understand why he does. He spent some time going into the background, about which I wish to say a few words.

We were advised only a few days before the meeting on 21 December to which the hon. Gentleman referred that the presidency appeared to be determined to bring the matter to a conclusion before the end of its presidency. The base for two of the directives—I refer again to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—was a qualified majority. It was extremely likely that not only the substance of the directives but a legal base that we did not think right or justified could have been imposed on us.

The hon. Member for Newham, South is frank and honest. He said that he understood that, if he had been in my right hon. and learned Friend's position, he might have made the same decision. We came to the conclusion that, because the directives were to be decided by qualified majority voting, we had to use our best endeavours to ensure that the legal base was changed. We judged that the best way was to agree to the substance and the changes made in the few weeks beforehand, which we were basically in agreement with, but stated that we were not satisfied with the legal base.

I disagreed strongly with the hon. Gentleman when he suggested that the legal base was negotiable. It was not negotiable by us. We have always been prefectly clear that there is only one proper base—article 235. We have stuck to that. The whole purpose of agreeing to the substance of the directives was to give us more leverage to ensure that we secure the proper base. It now looks as if we may be successful. We have had this debate before a final agreement has been made. I am happy on both those points. I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes some satisfaction from that.

Mr. Spearing

I am not sure that I can. It is for the members of the Committee to read the report of the debate. I understand from the Minister—perhaps we have not given adequate weight to this—that the changes in the proposals were conterminous with speeding up the timetable. I concede that the Minister was placed in a difficult position with the presidency, but apparently that is how it works. We regret that there was no opportunity for a debate. There should have been one before Christmas and perhaps one fairly soon afterwards.

Mr. Lloyd

We regret that there was no opportunity for a debate. We should have regretted it even more if we had been lumbered with the directives on the wrong legal base. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his Committee agree with that.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)

The main principles of the measures will be widely welcomed by the people affected by them. Although the treaty base is regularly discussed by the British Government and the Commission and may ultimately be referred to the European Court of Justice, the thrust of the measures is welcome. Will my hon. Friend confirm that they do not affect the British interest because under the treaty of Rome, Britain still has powers to protect the national interest from drugs and other dangers?

Mr. Lloyd

That is absolutely right. We retain those rights both at our frontier and under the fairly narrow but real public policy limitation to remove EC nationals whom it is against the public interest to have here.

I emphasise that, under the treaty of Rome, EC nationals already have freedom of movement and residence to take employment or become self-employed in any other member country. All that the directive does is extend the rights that are implicit in the treaty in defined terms to the other groups that I mentioned. In the process, we wish to make sure that people do not become an expense to our Exchequer or those of other member countries. I commend the proposals to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7706/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 8th January 1990 relating to rights of residence; and supports the objective of facilitating the free movement of European Community nationals.