TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

HC Deb 02 December 1992 vol 215 cc293-368

Amendment proposed [1 December], No. 93, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I'.—[Sir Russell Johnston.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 108, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert

• 'I (except Article F on page 8 cm. 934)'.
• No. 313, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article E)'.
• No. 344, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article A)'.
• No. 345, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article B)'.
• No. 346, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article C)'.
• No. 347, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article D)'.
• No. 348, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article F)'.

Rev. Ian Paisley

On a further point of order, Mr. Morris. On the point made to you by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about a preamble, are you suggesting to the Committee that, although we are on clause 1, you could take a proposition for a preamble to the Bill?

The Chairman

I am not suggesting anything. When I have something in writing, I can have a look at it; until it is in writing, I cannot.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Last night, just before the Committee reported progress, I said that I was about to turn to article F3, which I had raised on a point of order earlier, but which I had not dealt with in my speech.

I am deeply concerned about the provisions of article F3, which incidentally are also covered by an amendment which has been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. I think that due weight needs to be given to that.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

rose—

Mr. Cash

I will give way, because I am always willing to play some kind of game with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robertson

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not playing games, nor will I ask him a question which would prolong his speech. I simply repeat the point that I made yesterday. Amendment No. 108 in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, other hon. Friends and myself is purely a probing amendment. At the appropriate time, we will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw it. The hon. Gentleman should not read anything more into it than the fact that it is a probing amendment.

Mr. Cash

That is typical of the cowardly way in which the hon. Gentleman treats these matters. This is an important provision in title I. I will read it out: The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary"—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into the well-known habit of reading from the Bill or a text. Hon. Members have read the treaty. All he needs to do is refer to the point and make his comment. He does not have to keep quoting from the treaty.

Mr. Cash

Indeed, Mr. Morris. As I have said, the union shall provide itself with the means necessary to carry out its objectives and to be able to carry out its policies. That is what article F3 says. If I happen to remember it, Mr. Morris, I hope that you will forgive me for repeating the point that I have already made.

When the article refers to "the means necessary", we are dealing with questions which go to the very heart of these matters. Will the money be made available to achieve the objectives of the treaty and carry out its policies? Will it require disciplinary action? For example, we know of a proposal that the European Court of Justice should be able to fine countries which do not comply with the requirements of parts of the treaty. Disciplinary action may not be just a question of a fine.

If the title includes such a vague provision, which is introduced under prerogative powers but is at the same time an international legal obligation, who is to say that it will not include in certain circumstances the use of force? What about the power to tax? In order to carry out a policy in line with an objective, and in order to be able to comply with that objective, money will be required. That raises another question which I raised earlier on a point of order, which is why and to what extent we are not being provided with a money resolution to cover these provisions. That is a very important point.

Furthermore, a booklet entitled "Europe after Maastricht" has been published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a memorandum to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I have made allegations that we have not been given the whole picture when, in the absence of a White Paper, there are documents like the notorious pamphlet written in Europe, which gives only half the picture.

"Europe after Maastricht" is not merely a pamphlet but a memorandum to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which purports to describe Europe after Maastricht. What does it say? I shall not have to refer to the document, because I can remember that it states that article F provides for the implementation of the European convention on human rights and that European union shall subscribe to ensuring that national identities and democracies shall be sustained.

However, paragraph 10 of that important memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee does not mention the matter that I have just raised—the fact that the treaty says: The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to ensure its economic objectives and to carry out its policies.

Some people might say that that is misleading. Why should not the attention of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee be drawn to that important provision? The pamphlet is going to be published for the public—in the absence of any White Paper—so why are such things left out?

The same argument applies to the pamphlet "Britain in Europe", which contains no reference to article F3. I included it in one of my amendments for that reason.

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington)

My hon. Friend is talking about giving information to the public so as not to mislead them. Perhaps he should explain why he voted in favour of Europe in the six votes before the Maastricht vote. He was in favour of passing all those pieces of legislation—including the exchange rate mechanism. I have heard a story that he wants to become a Member of the European Parliament. Perhaps he can clarify that for public consumption, so that we understand the background to his arguments.

Mr. Cash

I have no problem about that—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I voted for the Single European Act because I genuinely believe in the European Community and want it to work properly. People want to participate in the processes of the Community because they want that Act to work properly. That is why I made recommendations to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry last year, to help it to look into the single market.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted down a route that he should know better than to be tempted down. He should get back to the Bill.

Mr. Cash

I assume that that was a no ball. If I hit it for six, I can make sure that it is notched up on my score.

Mr. Ian Taylor

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that his view is far from unrepresentative of the people of Britain, who previously thought that all those Bills were a good idea and now realise that Maastricht will be the end of liberty and freedom? Does he appreciate that, instead of being attacked by hon. Members shouting from the Back Benches, he should say, "What I'm saying and doing is what the people of Britain are saying—that this treaty is bad for Britain," and that the people want the right to have a say.

Mr. Cash

In opinion poll after opinion poll, 68 per cent. of the British people have said just that.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

Order. No one has taken any vote anywhere yet on amendment No. 93. I ask the hon. Member for Stafford to make progress on his speech. He was making an important point about article F, and I think that the House wishes to hear it, rather than to hear him accepting diversions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I heard the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) talking about this, that and the other regarding the amendment. I was listening carefully. Then he was knocked off his subject by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).

Are you saying, Mr. Morris, that, when hon. Members are challenged about whether they are pro-European or pro-Common Market, they are not allowed to answer, because that was what the hon. Gentleman was attempting to do? He gave an answer with which I do not agree, but he should be allowed to answer. If you want to stop the debate, stop him—but remember the people of Northampton.

The Chairman

Order. The people of Northampton remember me very well.

Mr. Skinner

They do not like Maastricht.

The Chairman

Order. I am enjoying it immensely.

I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and all hon. and right hon. Members that the hon. Member for Stafford was straying beyond the intervention. Mr. Cash—back to amendment No. 93 please.

Mr. Cash

If I can deal with article F3—

Rev. Ian Paisley

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no Member of the House has any right to impute motives to a Member of the European Parliament and say that, because he is an MEP, he cannot be against Maastricht? That is ridiculous.

Mr. Cash

I could not agree more. The issues we are dealing with in the treaty and in the Bill are essential to the future of this country. It is a slur to imply such things of MEPs and I regard it as disgraceful, but I shall get back to article F3 immediately, Mr. Morris.

5.15 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has made a comprehensive and distinguished contribution to the debate so far. I hope that I may assist him in ending on a high note.

Has he noticed that the provision of necessary resources in article F makes no mention of money and taxation? Nor is there any provision in the remainder of the treaty for the amendment of the treaty. Does it occur to the hon. Gentleman that many of those resources and powers might well be obtained under article 236 of the treaty of Rome, and that those institutions might well expand their competence, powers and finances to fulfil the treaty of union—the two being close together?

I hope that the Minister who replies to this debate, after full consideration, will respond to my queries: first, on the amendment; secondly, on resources; thirdly, on relations with the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Cash

I am grateful for that intervention, which speaks for itself, and I agree with the basis upon which it was put.

Article F is an important provision in the treaty. I saw Chancellor Kohl on the television this morning, stipulating the basis on which the Bundestag is proceeding. It does not surprise me that he gave economic and political union as its vision for Europe. That is the basis for the provisions of article F3, which talks of the "means necessary" to achieve those objectives and to carry out those policies. Those policies are part of the union which is referred to in title I—economic and political union.

Furthermore, it does not surprise me to discover that the Bundestag has imposed another restriction on the powers of the German Government. It now insists on at least a two-thirds majority in both Houses of that Parliament to ensure that such provisions do not go through without its consent, and it will have a veto over a single currency. It is seeking to get that put back into the provisions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Illegally."] Yes, it is seeking to do so illegally. That raises essential questions on the money-raising powers of the union.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay)

Does my hon. Friend agree that article F3 has the most dire political implications for this country? Is it not a paradox that the article is wholly inconsistent with the lack of a money resolution attached to the Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that article F3 and the inclusion of a cohesion fund, which is all part of Maastricht, will have political, economic and financial consequences for every family in this country? Can he explain why there is no money resolution?

Mr. Cash

My hon. Friend is bang on the nail, as he always is, in both his public and his private life. No money resolution is attached to the provision because title I is dealt with under prerogative. Because it is not a part of the Bill, there will be no requirement for a money resolution.

Article F3 is representative of my main objections to the Bill, as it represents political and economic defeatism. It is a withdrawal of political responsibility and a denial of parliamentary accountability. For those reasons, I object to the treaty.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)

The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has made a useful contribution to the debate. He has opened up the subject matter of the treaties in a way that was not done by Front Bench spokesmen. Whatever may be said about the length of speeches, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has helped significantly our understanding of the treaties.

This group of amendments, more than any other that has been selected, enables us to focus on the treaty's nature, character and purpose, which has eluded discussion. We are all capable of talking about the minutiae and major provisions of the treaty, but the totality of the treaty—what it is about and what sort of creature European union is—is at the heart of the debate. Ultimately, that will determine not only how hon. Members feel about and react to the treaty, but how our fellow countrymen outside the House will come to judge the treaty of Maastricht, this treaty of union.

Yesterday, several points were made about the Attorney-General's absence. I should like to reinforce those points because I believe that.we are faced, almost immediately, with the character and legal personality of the union that is being created by the treaty. It is not simply a further amendment, although it may partially take that form, of treaties with which we have become familiar, such as the European Community and various amendment Acts to that; it is a new creature—a European union.

I submit that it is the aim of the new European union to become a new state embracing the 12 existing member states of the European Community. I also submit that I am not certain whether the treaty's existing provisions create such a state, but there should be no doubt about the purpose. That leads me to the paramount issue facing us all: whether we are content to see our future as a province of a united states of Europe or as an independent, democratic nation state.

Mr. Winnick

Are not my right hon. Friend's arguments strengthened by article F, which contains the nearest reference to member states' national identities? Article F1 says: The Union shall respect national identities of its Member States". That is all that it says. There is no mention of respecting member states' national sovereignty or institutions. Surely that illustrates only too well what my right hon. Friend has said. The treaty takes the federal road, which will lead to one state whereby national Parliaments, including the House of Commons, will have little more power than county councils.

Mr. Shore

Furthermore, the phrasing of that paragraph—"the Union shall respect"—implies that that new entity, that superior body, will kindly respect nation states' national identities. That shows that a new creature of immense significance is facing our country.

Sir Trevor Skeet (Bedfordshire, North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore

No. I would rather make some progress. I do not intend to conduct a lecture on the treaties because that would carry my speech far beyond the compass which it is fair to inflict on the House after the admirable speech that we have already heard. I am conscious of the fact that I am only the second Back Bencher to be called and it is important that many more hon. Members are heard in this significant debate. The Committee must have an opportunity thoroughly to decide what kind of treaty we are dealing with and what its implications are.

It is extraordinary that so many hon. Members—I am thinking in particular of the interrogation of the hon. Member for Stafford yesterday—fail to recognise that the Bill's purpose is to set up a European union and create a quasi state in the reasonably near future. We should understand that the House of Commons and the British public generally are totally out of tune with the thinking and discussions taking place on that issue in Europe today. It is only here that the assertion that a new state is being created is being made, where the character of that state is open to discussion, and people seek to challenge it. Everywhere else in Europe it is taken for granted that we are at least talking about a federal union.

Naturally, I understand why so many people are anxious not to accept that reality. Those include the people who are most enthusiastic about that purpose. The federalists long to conceal their commitment to federalism and the unitarists long to conceal their dedication to a European union. We therefore get the pretence at every stage of the European Community's development that nothing significant is happening and that those great issues are not involved.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones)

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but the "unitarists", as he calls them, throughout Europe have made it perfectly clear that they regard the Maastricht treaty as a significant setback for them. They have said so in public on numerous occasions.

Mr. Shore

That is frankly open to the greatest dispute. The Minister is not the only Member of this House who has had contacts with European leaders in the past two or three years, indeed in the past year. I shall give evidence of the difference of view in a few minutes.

Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)

Is it not fair to say that Chancellor Kohl has said that the treaty is an essential step towards a united states of Europe?

Mr. Shore

Yes. That was quoted only yesterday in the speech by the hon. Member for Stafford.

What has eluded so many people in the country and the House has been the sea change in the Community's attitude towards federalism in the past two or three years. Federalism was always in the original treaties but it was a recessive rather than a dominant element. The dominant element was the view put forward, above all, by General de Gaulle about a "Europe des patries". That was the dominant view, but there was a great change and we should recognise it. It was the abandonment, by the French in particular, of a belief in a Europe de patrie following the reunification of Germany.

5.30 pm

One of the consequences of bringing down the Berlin wall and uniting east and west Germany was the abandonment by the French of that belief. They decided that they had to enwrap and enclose a united Germany in the bonds and other restrictions that they hoped a European federal treaty would impose upon an otherwise too powerful Germany. That is the basis of the whole change and if we do not understand that we shall not understand what is really happening.

I shall illustrate the point. In December 1990 on the eve of the opening of the IGC on political union a joint letter and communique was issued by Mitterrand and Kohl. They said: We express the wish that the IGC…should establish the basis and structures of a strong and mutually supportive Political Union, which pursues firmly, and with the people in mind, the course that corresponds to its Federal Vocation. The Commission opinion on political union which preceded that letter and communique by a couple of months refers without a blush to the course charted by the treaty of Rome leading eventually to a federal type organisation. Mr. Andreotti, at that time Prime Minister of Italy, addressed the European Parliament on 22 November 1990. Speaking about the single currency, he said: For the first time in the history of Europe we shall confer upon the Community one of the distinctive and essential competences on which national sovereignty is historically built. That is fairly clear evidence of intent, but what about the European Parliament itself? A report of its Institutions Committee dated 21 May 1992 refers, continually of course, to the federal purpose and intent and describes how it sees the evolution to the next stage, perhaps the final stage. Dealing with the Council of Ministers, which after all is the one remaining instrument, as it were, of a non-federal character among the European institutions, the committee states: Its development into a second legislative chamber in the sense of a genuine chamber of states and alongside the European Parliament must be accelerated, with the Council of Ministers becoming a standing body of the union, its meetings on legislative matters—being held in public"— I agree with that, and taking majority decisions with equal co-decision with the European Parliament, the qualified majority being redefined using new criteria…

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

The right hon. Gentleman must remember as well as any hon. Member the immeasurable damage that was wrought in Europe by independent, competing foreign and defence and other policies. The whole of the past 50 years has been devoted to trying to find ways to achieve a different form of order in Europe that will avoid such damage. In view of his anxieties about the debate on the form of those structures, what are his alternative proposals for preventing Europe from again tearing itself to pieces?

Mr. Shore

Oh, really. The guarantee of peace in Europe and in the world over the past 40 years or more has been the existence of NATO of which we are a member. It would be absurd to pretend that our future security within a European union which excluded the United States and Canada would be better than it is now. Peace has been due to NATO's existence and the fact that there is no separate German high command. The hon. Gentleman should think about that. There is no possibility of France, Germany, Britain or Italy ever engaging in aggression against each other. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman. I was not seeking to establish merits and demerits but to offer the Committee evidence of the nature and purpose of the current union treaty. The hon. Gentleman's intervention did not in any way disprove my contention.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his definition of federal is different from that of the Italians, Spaniards and Germans? Government in Germany is greatly decentralised and the system was introduced with the support of the British and other occupation forces and the British trade union movement. That system was designed to be internally decentralised. Does he also agree that many people in other European socialist parties fail to understand Britain's peculiar obsessions with some historical feelings and words? Almost every other socialist party in Europe is in favour of the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Shore

It is extraordinary that other European socialist parties are in favour of the Maastricht treaty and that they have agreed to a document which, apart from anything else, inflicts by treaty deflation upon the whole of western Europe and undermines the central purposes for which democratic socialist parties exist. [Interruption.] I shall not be diverted because I wish to cover the subject in an orderly way.

My last piece of evidence in support of what I said about the nature and character of the treaty is to remind the Committee that the first article in the treaty, right down to Maastricht itself, speaks about the federal destiny or goal of the treaty. The Prime Minister was desperately anxious to have those words removed and at the last minute he managed to persuade Europe by saying, "If I have to take that back to Britain I shall be in desperate difficulty, not only with my own side but with the British people and the British Parliament."

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)

The objective of France, Germany, Spain and Italy and other European countries was to create a federal union. However, the Maastricht treaty that emerged after the negotiations is far from being a federal treaty. It faced in both directions, but our Prime Minister managed to negotiate a treaty that is a step away from the federal objective.

Mr. Shore

I do not think so, but I shall certainly deal with that matter later in my speech. The so-called pillars, which I prefer to call buttresses of the treaty, go a long way towards European union. I accept that they have not gone as far as to be totally incorporated within the machinery of the Rome treaty, but there should be no doubt about what our partners are up to or that resumed pressure will fall upon us.

It is not only the sources that I have mentioned that give credibility, I hope, to my claim about the purpose and nature of the treaty. The other leaders of European countries are admitted federalists: they do not argue about it. The Prime Minister of Holland, Mr. Lubbers, is being considered, quite naturally, as a successor to Mr. Delors in the European Commission because he is a proper person for the Commission to choose. He shares every bit of the federal purpose, he wants it and wills it. So does Felipe Gonzales, the Prime Minister of Spain. We know from my quote from Mr. Andreotti's speech that that is also the purpose of the Italians. Beyond that there is a fringe of what one might almost call client states of Brussels which receive large subsidies and hope for even larger ones and are anxious to make progress with European treaties. We are in a difficult and isolated position, backed only by those stalwart people, the Danes.

Sir Russell Johnston

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I agree with what he is saying, but does it lead him to conclude that title I should be inserted in the Bill? That is what the amendment is about.

Mr. Shore

The danger of inserting it into the Bill in the proposed manner—I hope that ingenuity can find a different way to deal with the treaty—is to make it a Community treaty; in other words, to make those parts that are not Community treaties into Community treaties and therefore even more binding and having even greater impact on our powers. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity, through the amendment, to discuss the purpose of the treaty. However, I shall not be supporting him in his efforts to incorporate it, for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Marlow

Is not the beauty of including, through the amendment, title I in the Bill that there will be further debates on Report and that whereas it might be helpful to the Committee that title I was in the Bill and made things clearer, on Report we could pass amendments to take certain parts of title I out of the Bill? Therefore, we could select those parts of title I that the House then thought to be the most appropriate.

Mr. Shore

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a liking for danger, but it would be a hazardous procedure to put in something that is clearly unwelcome in the hope that we may be able to remove it at a later stage.

Against this background of trying to define what the treaty purpose is about, I move on to the provisions of title I.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

I have been listening to the debate and I cannot see what difference the insertion of title I will make. I have heard the Minister talk for an hour and I have heard Members of the Opposition talking. Apart from the psychological factor involved in that it will make us feel more European, will the insertion of title I make any difference to anyone, in Britain or in Europe? I shoud love to know the answer.

Mr. Shore

It would have not only a psychological but a practical and legal effect if it were included as one of the Community treaties.

Sir Teddy Taylor

How?

Mr. Shore

It would then come within the normal procedures of the Rome treaty and be subject to the European Court, the Commission and so on even more strongly than would the treaty as it stands. For that reason, I am opposed to the amendment.

I have made the case to establish the nature of the treaty because I believe that the articles in title I, from A to F, clearly spell out the federal intent. There is not only what it says about the union. It goes on to say: This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union". It is a "new stage", and not just another amendment to European Community Acts. That new stage is union.

The treaty then spells out the essence of the new stage. The first factor that it cites is economic and monetary union, and economic and monetary union, with a single federal bank and a single currency, is one of the most unifying of factors. According to Prime Minister Andreotti, previously that right has belonged only to a sovereign state, but now it characterises the new union.

Secondly, the treaty speaks of establishing a Europe without frontiers. Although frontiers can be a nuisance, I am fairly relaxed about them. To abolish them and to say that we are all part of the same zone in terms of the movement of people, goods and everything else is to abandon one of the essential purposes and powers of a separate state. We would pass that power over to a new state, which would define who and what has the right to come into our country. That carries me far beyond my interest in the proper movement of trade and goods and of people looking for jobs, finding them and taking them. Our rights are to be shared with over 300 million Europeans.

5.45 pm

Whether we like it or not, whether we have been consulted or not, whatever our views may be, we are now all to become citizens of the European union. Who has the right to claim citizens other than a state? What is the concept of citizenship? It would have been good to have had the Solicitor-General or another Law Officer here to answer some of those questions. Is not the very nature of the state the ability to create citizens or to have citizens? Citizens have not only rights but obligations and duties. Although this may appear to be a rather empty pillow case at the moment, before many Christmases are past, it will be stuffed with goodies by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)

On the citizenship point, what is wrong with the notion that, for example, the French people who live in my constituency and pay taxes to the local authority should have the opportunity to vote in elections for that authority, or that I, who have a cottage in France and pay taxes to the commune, should be able to vote in the elections for it? What happened to the idea that there should be no taxation without representation?

Mr. Shore

I have not mentioned those matters, nor shall I. Citizenship will confer rights on other Community nationals. It is not that these are particularly important rights but that they are to be conferred not by the British Parliament but by the European union as an authority. We must remember that, in the first instance, it will be offering only what appear to be attractive features. We have not yet reached the business of duties and obligations, which will be far less attractive.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

On this point about citizenship, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman has identified a political state—the union—of which the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent, does not that demonstrate that United Kingdom citizenship becomes subordinate in those areas where that union has competence and over which the European Court therefore has jurisdiction? Therefore, is it not a reflection in support of his argument that British citizenship is a lesser thing than European citizenship?

Mr. Shore

I am not certain of the answer. That is another reason why we should have a legal presence on the Treasury Bench. I shall want to explore that point. There is a danger that that is so. We have to acknowledge the basic point that only states bestow citizenship.

Article B says that an objective of the union shall be: To assert its identity on the international scene". Again, that raises the question of whether it is a state, particularly as the assertion of identity will be through the implementation of a joint foreign policy, a joint security policy and, going a stage further, a joint defence policy. The characteristics of a state normally include control over external, foreign and, ultimately, defence policy.

Mr. Stephen Milligan (Eastleigh)

The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that the assertion of identity is a property of a state. Only a moment ago he emphasised to one of my hon. Friends how successful NATO has been, and how the assertion of its identity has done so much to help us—but NATO is not a state.

Mr. Shore

The hon. Gentleman reveals a woeful ignorance of the NATO treaty. It makes vital commitments, but NATO itself has never passed a single law. It is also a treaty from which we can withdraw at any time—and from which France substantially withdrew many years ago when General de Gaulle kicked NATO out of Versailles.

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South)

My right hon. Friend is right to say that the treaty forms a new entity and that its common provisions distribute powers between the centre and member states. Many of my right hon. Friend's points about economic and monetary union and the power that Brussels will have are also correct. However, perhaps he fails to understand that the Government need not bring before the House for approval the other aspect that he is now addressing, which is one of the separate pillars and will not form part of the ultimate Act.

The Government, acting through the intergovernmental conference, can continue to develop the entity or state without making any reference to Parliament or passing Acts of Parliament. In advancing his argument in terms of common defence, my right hon. Friend risks encouraging the Government to proceed even further down the intergovernmental conference road.

Mr. Shore

It might so encourage the Government, but if that danger exists we must confront it when dealing with the present prerogative powers. We must bring them more under the control of our own Parliament, not abandon them to European Community treaties.

Mr. Garel-Jones

Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman stressed the importance that he attaches, as do many right hon. and hon. Members, to the NATO alliance and to the contribution that it has long made to Europe's security. The treaties that established that alliance did not require any legislation before ratification by the United Kingdom. That expands on the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Shore

Although it might have been desirable to bring the NATO treaty before Parliament for ratification, it was no different from the 1,001 treaties that the United Kingdom signed over the years. The difference comes in the law-making and other major powers that the treaty will accord to the Community. That is an entirely different matter.

Mr. Garel-Jones

That is precisely my point. The Bill is before the House so that we may take on board those aspects of the Maastricht treaty that affect the United Kingdom's domestic legislation. Any action taken by agreement among member states in respect of the intergovernmental pillars to which the hon. Member for Leicester, South referred would involve—if it meant changing United Kingdom legislation—a Bill being brought before the House.

Mr. Shore

We would like both kinds of treaties brought before us.

Mr. Benn

Even if there were no move towards Community institutions controlling defence and security policy, members of the armed forces and of the Foreign Office would be citizens with duties to the union. Those duties will apply to everybody—not just to the ordinary citizen but to those in the armed forces. The union proposal asserts that there must be a common international identity and common security. It may be that Governments will claim that they have some rights in the matter, but soldiers and diplomats will have a duty to the union to carry through its policy. That aspect affects every citizen, and it should not be dealt with by the royal prerogative of ratification.

Mr. Shore

That matter is of profound importance. As my right hon. Friend explained in his usual helpful and analytical way, the concept of European citizenship relates to the individual obligations that can be imposed on our people if we accede to the treaty's different heads.

Mr. Spearing

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Shore

No—I would like to make a little progress.

The question of whether or not the union should have the international personality that title I says we must promote is already being seriously discussed in the context of whether or not, in reforming the United Nations Security Council, the Community should be given a permanent place there. That debate is being conducted all over Europe, though that is not reflected here.

If one knows that one is committed to a common foreign, security and a defence policy, how can one resist giving the Community—the superior body in the federal structure—a place on the Security Council? Ministers will have to face that argument before long, because it will be pressed very hard.

The Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs emphasised again and again how important are the pillar arrangements for home affairs, justice affairs, and foreign and defence policy. I invite the Committee to re-examine article N.2, to which reference is made in title I, which refers to another intergovernmental conference in 1996. The IGC is already pointed at, in strengthening the provisions under articles A and B. The Euro-federalists know very well that they have not come to the end of the road but have merely taken a giant step forward, and are already preparing to launch a final assault to establish an entity that has all the powers of a state.

The characteristics of a state are a single currency, federal or union bank, authority to decide external and defence policy, rights of entry in respect of citizenship, and—as the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned in one of his final points—means. The treaty states clearly and unambiguously that the union shall have the means necessary to perform the tasks that it sets itself in articles A to E.

We are all familiar with the concept of means—it is the concept of own resources, stretched still further into the wealth and income of the nation states.

Sir Russell Johnston

The right hon. Gentleman's list of definitions of the powers of a putative state did not include the right to conduct external trade, which the Community already has. Does he oppose that?

Mr. Shore

No. We must accept that in the interests of commerce and trade, given that they will be ruled by the provisions of GATT. I have always taken a fairly liberal view of trade—except in times of great emergency, when it makes sense for nations to protect their interests and not be too heavily damaged by unrestricted competition in-world trade. I am broadly in favour of free world trade —and therefore I am in favour of GATT and all that has followed from it, and of those parts of the treaty that reflect GATT.

Sir Trevor Skeet

One of the Government documents states that the European union will not have an international legal personality. If it is to have no international legal personality, no persona, the difficulty will be that we shall have to work through the Commission. What are the implications of the fact that this body is to be all-powerful but that it cannot be all-powerful internationally? Ought not one of the Law Officers to come here to answer our questions on the very matter that we are considering this afternoon?

6 pm

Mr. Shore

Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an important point. My attention, however, was drawn to one of the articles in the treaty, article J.5, under the heading Provisions on a common foreign and security policy. Paragraph 1 states that The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy. It seems that we have already gone a very long way towards abandoning control over our own foreign policy.

To pick up the point about federalism that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), apparently we need not worry about federalism because it means something entirely different in other European countries; therefore, we should be entirely relaxed about it. My immediate comment is, rubbish. We understand very well what federalism is. We also understand that Germany in particular has a highly-developed form of federal state. We are also familiar with the concept of federalism in our own national experience, particularly when we drew up the constitutions for Canada and Australia and, before that, for India. They were all federal states. This country is probably the greatest architect or creator of federal states in the world.

Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth)

And we can do it for ourselves.

Mr. Shore

Yes, we are perfectly entitled to do it for ourselves, too. It must always, however, be within the context of a nation state arranging for the great devolution of power to different levels of government. To do that within one's own nation state is in no sense to abandon sovereignty and control over one's own affairs. What we are talking about now, however, is a new kind of federalism. It means abandoning the strategic power of control over one's own country and its Government to a higher level of government—a new, supra-federalism that would take the key decisions in future. That is my answer to my hon. Friend. I hope that he is satisfied with it.

Mr. Gapes

Not at all.

Mr. Shore

Very well.

I turn to the second great excuse that is made for these arrangements. The first excuse is the pillars; the second excuse is subsidiarity. It is said that subsidiarity is a crucial part of the treaty and that it moves in the opposite direction from the direction that I say the thrust of the treaty is towards. Is that really so? I have something to say to hon. Members about this which I hope will interest them.

We are familiar with the basic concept of subsidiarity. We know that, in any serious clash, what is subsidiarity and what is not will be decided by the European Court. We know very well what the European Court will decide. We know exactly what the remit of the European Court of Justice is, but I want to turn to a second point which has not been made before.

The Government claim that they have subsidiarity back to us and that. somehow, it has changed the course of the Community—that it has made a vast difference, that they fought for it and that, at last, the Community is beginning to change its mind. I am sure that hon. Members know that that is not so.

When I looked at the Commission document, its Opinion on Political Union of 21 October 1990, which preceded the intergovernmental conference on political union and which was long before the Government were fighting desperately for subsidiarity, I found that it urged further great advances towards European union and political federalism. It says: The question of subsidiarity is closely linked to the redefinition of certain powers. The Commission considers that this common-sense principle should be written into the Treaty, as suggested by Parliament in its draft treaty on European union. It should serve as a guideline to the institutions when, under a new article 235, freed from its purely economic purpose, they have to take a unanimous decision of principle on new Community action. Compliance with the principle could be checked by retrospective control of the institution's activities to ensure that there is no abuse of power. Here is the Commission, in part of its own document, driving forward towards a new union and saying, "Why shouldn't we have a bit of subsidiarity as well? We're for it. We'll put it in the treaty."

It is not only the Commission that favours subsidiarity. To quote again from the speech that Mr. Andreotti made to the European Parliament on 20 November 1990. after referring to economic and monetary union and the single currency he went on to say that European union should be founded upon the principle of subsidiarity but should also acquire a flexible but evoluted tool"— I do not know quite what that means— in order to allow the acquisition of new competences. He saw no inhibition at all. He is a keen federalist. He was making a pro-federalist speech to the European Parliament and recommended that we should have subsidiarity. That was in October 1990, long before the Government in their desperate, marvellous struggle at Maastricht tried to claw back powers from the European Community and hand them to the nation states. It is a major fraud. I hope that the Committee understands just how much it is a fraud.

Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe)

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is out of date? He refers time and time again to issues that are at least two years old. 'What the right hon. Gentleman fails to recognise is the encouraging development of the concept of subsidiarity achieved at Maastricht and at Birmingham, a concept that will be further elaborated. Charming though he is, the right hon. Gentleman is art old-fashioned socialist and a deeply committed little-Englander whose out-of-dateness on this issue is in keeping with his antediluvian approach to the whole issue.

Mr. Shore

I do not intend to swap abuse with the hon. Gentleman, but it is hardly antediluvian to quote what was said by the Prime Minister of Italy—

Mr. Whitney

Two years ago.

Mr. Shore

—and also by the President of the Commission and Commission members long before subsidiarity became a tremendous gain for the British Government. The Prime Minister of Italy conceded then that there should be subsidiarity as part of the great advance towards federal union in western Europe. I see that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) nods in agreement. He is an openly-declared federalist. He acknowledges that what I say is true. It is only those who are ashamed of their federalism and of their unionism who seek to deny it.

Mr. Garel-Jones

May I try to help the right hon. Gentleman by quoting to him what was said by the President of the Commission post-Maastricht and post-article 3b: In the Community system, national competence is the rule and Community competence the exception. That sort of comment flows from the inclusion of article 3b in the treaty.

Mr. Shore

That is what the Minister maintains, but he and I know that members of the Commission are not lawyers but politicians. The Commission is aware of the Government's difficulty and is trying to be as helpful as possible. None of the arrogance of Mr. Delors' private office that we witnessed before the Danish treaty has been repeated, but we know very well that he was planning another major statement on the federal advance of the European union before the Danish referendum. Since the Danish referendum, the Commission has been drawing back and trying to pretend that it has had a change of heart and that things are different. Why? Because its members are politicians, and they know that they are in danger of defeat.

Mr. Garel-Jones

It is perfectly clear that whenever anyone makes a statement with which the right hon. Gentleman does not agree it is a pretence, but whenever anyone makes a statement that reinforces his prejudice, even if it was made two or three years ago, it is gospel.

Mr. Shore

I do not think that that will do. Less than two months ago, Mr. Bangemann—I believe he is a vice-president of the Community—said that subsidiarity presupposes a federal European state. Is that up to date? Yes, indeed it is, and I do not invite the Minister to comment because I have established my point.

Mr. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the institutions to which we would lose power is a European central bank, and is he concerned that the recent publication of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, "Britain in Europe", makes no reference to the fact that the bank will not be responsible to the Parliaments that make up the EC?

Mr. Shore

I know that, and I have not gone into the horrors of economic and monetary union because I shall have another opportunity to raise them under title II. I have been seeking to establish the meaning of European union, because an essential preliminary to discussing the rest of the treaty is to know its thrust and purpose.

I conclude by asking the key question: do we want a federal culture? I know that we are a depressed nation and that we have suffered a lot of setbacks in recent years, but do we believe that we have reached such a state that we are no longer able, no longer have the will and no longer have the courage to govern ourselves as a free democracy?

Mrs. Currie

I should like to make a fairly brief speech—probably the shortest in the debate so far, but that would not be difficult.

I can well understand why the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is keen to include title I in the Bill. His general approach, which has been consistent and for which I respect him, has been that he believes in a full federal Europe. I do not, which is one of the reasons why I think that he is wrong; but Ministers are right to oppose amendment No. 93.

Conservative Members should be cautious about what the amendments propose. In principle, we should be cautious about what the Opposition's amendments propose. We should be cautious and suspicious of all proposals to change the law of the land. We should never enact unnecessary or repetitious legislation. We should be wary of proposals that increase the power of European institutions, and I say that as a supporter of the treaty.

I am surprised, therefore, by the attitude of some of my hon. Friends, because the Government rightly oppose amendment No. 93 and the other half dozen being considered with it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has explained that they are not necessary, that the law that we need to change will be debated under different titles and that to accept title I would go too far, would create all sorts of legal complications and confusions, would delay the progress of the Bill and would offer in Britain opportunities for litigation that do not exist in countries that have already ratified. That attitude is perfectly clear. Therefore, some of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), are in the daft position of having tabled amendments that they do not agree with.

Mr. Cash

Absolute nonsense. Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Currie

In a minute. I listened to the hon. Gentleman for a long time.

Mr. Cash

We listen to you all the time.

Mrs. Currie

With respect, this place is the only spot in the country that has a surplus of cash at the moment. I am not giving way yet.

6.15 pm

My hon. Friends appear to have got themselves into a strange position. They tabled amendments—a pile of material—with which they do not agree and spent all yesterday evening and all day today, and presumably will spend yet more time, explaining to the nation why they do not agree with this stuff. One must ask, therefore, why table the amendments? They did not need to table them, because amendment No. 93 would have been more than sufficient for their purpose of holding a debate on the general principles of title I.

The Labour party did not make that mistake. It tabled amendment No. 108, and no Labour Back Benchers have tabled amendments. It is deeply disappointing to Conservative Members who support the treaty and the Bill that Labour Members—whose party conference supported the treaty and whose party would be introducing the Bill if it had won the election—have kept so quiet. Labour Members have been silent. The Labour party is allowing itself to be portrayed to the country, to Europe and to the Parliaments of the world as being hostile to Europe.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)

The quietness of Labour Members does not suggest that they are not committed to a Europe comprising a group of nations co-operating for the betterment of the people of Europe and outside Europe.

Mrs. Currie

I have justified my existence already: I have goaded Labour Members into getting to their feet and giving a bit of support. I hope that they will continue to do so.

My hon. Friends are entitled to wish to debate the general principles of title I, but they are not entitled to hog the Floor or to give the impression that all Conservatives agree with them, which is not true. The House of Commons has voted on the general principles of the treaty and the Bill a number of times, and the majority of hon. Members have been firmly in favour. The only occasion when there was a small majority was when Opposition Members sought to make it an issue of confidence in the Government, and on that basis some Opposition Members felt able to vote in the no Lobby.

We had a general election only a few months ago, at which all the main parties supported the treaty. The issue of Europe was not raised, and my hon. Friends must consider why all the main parties supported it. They did so because they regard it as being good for this country and for Europe that we should be part of this development and because they regard it as part of the development of the free world, of which we are lucky to be part.

I have listened to the debate. I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for not having listened to his closing comments this afternoon, but I reckoned that they would be much the same as we heard yesterday. I believe that I detected the techniques that he was using.

Those techniques seem to have fallen into two main categories. First, my hon. Friend accuses everyone in the Committee of not having read the treaty. Well, most of us have read it. The second technique is to accuse us of not understanding the treaty. Most of us do understand it. The fact of the matter is that most of us do not agree with my hon. Friend, any more than we agree with the amendment of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, which would put an excess of federalism into the treaty and change British legislation in an inappropriate way.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North)

Can my hon. Friend produce one lawyer who can give a clear definition of subsidiarity?

Mrs. Currie

I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend, but I have to tell him that there is no lawyer in the country who can ever produce a clear definition of anything. That is not what lawyers do for a living. The more obfuscation there is, the more complex legislation that we pass, and the more often that those guys can charge the rest of us big fees when they get us into court one way or another, the better they like it.

The job of the House of Commons is not to put more legislation than is necessary on the statute book. If my hon. Friend agrees with me, I invite him to take the same view that I do on the amendment, which would do just that.

Sir Russell Johnston

The hon. Lady says that she has read the treaty and understands the whole thing—that it is all pellucidly clear to her.

Mrs. Currie

I did not say that.

Sir Russell Johnston

There was the implication that everything was transparent to the hon. Lady. If that is so, could she explain to me what the Minister failed to explain? She says that if title I were introduced into the Bill it would make an extraordinary difference. Apparently it would do all sorts of things. Will she please give me one example?

Mrs. Currie

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I should never dream of suggesting that any handiwork of human beings was perfect. The treaty is not perfect either. Any one of us could cite one line, one sentence or one paragraph that we would prefer not to be there—but what is on offer is a huge treaty negotiated by many people in the interests of all of us.

I am not a lawyer, thank God, but I am advised that putting title I on the face of the Bill is unnecessary and would be confusing, because any parts of it that may be justiciable are already included in other titles. I am happy to accept the argument that putting more legislation on the statute book would be more confusing. That is axiomatic in much of what we get up to in this place.

Several hon. Members from both sides of the Committee have produced evidence—although it tends to be the same stuff. Often it comes from just one speech made by Mr. Bangemann. I have no writ running for Bangemann; he is not a member of my party. The Labour party should have no writ running for him either, because he is not a member of their party either. He is a sort of German Liberal, a member of one of the minority parties, although much of what he says does not sound very liberal to me.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

rose—

Mrs. Currie

I shall give way in a moment.

In a continent containing so many people, it would not be difficult to find all sorts of opinions being expressed. Much "evidence" of what other people mean by, and want from, union is being called in aid. One need look no further than Members of the House. There are plenty of people here who believe all that—but I do not. I do not believe in a federal Europe—and the treaty does not mean that there will be a federal Europe.

I tell the Committee, and especially my hon. Friends who oppose the Bill, that I believe that over the next few years Europe needs to develop a civil service or Commission that will take on board the best qualities of the British civil service, in that it will be totally non-political, and tend to keep quiet and to give advice rather than trying to dominate. I add one factor which I should see both in the Commission—

Mr. Budgen

rose—

Mrs. Currie

I shall give way in a moment.

Another factor which I should like to be incorporated both into our civil service and into the Commission is that for 10 years after they leave those organisations staff should be banned from accepting posts in the public or the private sector related to their work in the civil service. That would get rid of any hint of corruption.

Mr. Budgen

In view of my hon. Friend's expressed interest in the European Parliament, does she see the role of the Member of the European Parliament becoming more dynamic and active in future? I wondered whether that might have been one of the reasons that attracted her to that forum.

Mrs. Currie

My hon. Friend flatters me. If I were to replace one of the Labour MEPs, I am sure that what my hon. Friend says would be the case—and I am sure that he would agree with that.

Mr. Budgen

My hon. Friend knows that that is not the point.

Mrs. Currie

My hon. Friend is refusing to pay me a compliment. Let us move on.

Because several people are available to have their views quoted on European union, that does not mean that they are right about the way that things will go—except for one significant fact. If this country did not play a full part in the future of Europe, the people whose voices have been quoted would play a bigger part than they do now. Indeed, that is more likely if we are not involved.

I have to tell my hon. Friends who oppose the Bill that I have been appalled to hear so much small-mindedness, bigotry, fear and ignorance expressed in the speeches that have been made so far from this side of the Committee. In fact, apart from mine, so far only one speech has been made by a Conservative Member.

The world is in transition and we are in a time of considerable difficulty—[Interruption.] One has to ask what has happened—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) may think that that is funny, but I do not. One has to ask what has happened to this country's pride and self-confidence, and our awareness of what goes on in the world. We have always been members of alliances, and have always drawn our strength from them. We have never had any strength on our own. That has been true throughout our history, especially recently.

The European Community already accounts for 340 million people. It is as large as the United States of America and Japan put together, and we are lucky to be part of it. We should think so. Our fellow Europeans think so. They know it, and they want us in the front rank.

The Bill seeks to incorporate into United Kingdom law only those parts of the Maastricht treaty which require changes in United Kingdom law. That is the right approach. I congratulate the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), and assure him of my support.

Mr. Enright

This is a mean Bill, and it typifies the Government's approach to Maastricht, which was also expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Essentially, that approach says, "We have kept close to the Single European Act. We had to go a little further, because if we had not done so the wolves would have arisen on the continent and driven us out, and we should not have had the influence that we now have."

The Bill is mean not only because of the withdrawal from the social chapter and from monetary union—I favour monetary union—but because of the Government's approach. Nevertheless, there is much left in the Bill which can and should be supported.

We are looking not for a oneness, or one state, but a diversity in unity. That diversity does not preclude a union. I have no qualms of conscience in saying that we are going into a union. That is clearly expressed; there is a commitment, and that is right and proper.

The problem for hon. Members is that we are used to working with an unwritten constitution. The other day, when the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was talking about the treaty, he said, "I am a lawyer, so I know." That is the exact problem of the hon. Member for Stafford, especially when discussing amendment No. 93. At present we are discussing the spirit of Maastricht. It is extremely important. It pervades the movement forward from what was a single market—essentially, a hypermarket—and will put some humanity into the European Community. Above all, that is what Maastricht tries to do.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that we had moved from the days when France talked about a Europe des patries. That is true; France has moved on to talk about federalism. France has moved towards a federal system within its country. A short 15 years ago, France was the most centralised country on the continent. Today, it has gone a considerable way towards devolution.

I am a citizen, first, of Yorkshire; secondly, of the United Kingdom; and, thirdly, of Europe. I find no tension among those three states. However, I have difficulty with what circumscribes our sovereignty in Yorkshire. Our sovereignty in Yorkshire is circumscribed by bodies such as the Department of the Environment.

I well remember when I chaired the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council planning and transportation committee, and difficulties that I had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who was in charge of such matters at that time. We were trying to do things that central Government did not want us to do. The position has become even worse since my right hon. Friend departed office. There is a centralised power in the United Kingdom which makes it difficult for us to accept, or even understand, the concept of federalism.

6.30 pm

Mr. Marlow

The hon. Gentleman says that he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and that he rejoices in that fact. He is happy to become a citizen of Europe, and would rejoice equally in that. He is also a subject of Her Majesty the Queen. Would he be happy to be a subject of Mr. Jacques Delors?

Mr. Enright

Leaving aside the false analogy, I should be delighted to be a subject of my good friend Jacques Delors. I enjoyed many good conversations and meals with him in the French Treasury when he was putting right the French economy. However, I digress.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I am interested to hear of my hon. Friend's friendship with Jacques Delors. As a citizen of the United Kingdom, does my hon. Friend agree that he is a citizen of a highly centralised multinational state? Is he confident that the Government's interpretation of subsidiarity will lead to a dispersal of political power, as we have seen in France, Germany and Spain?

Mr. Enright

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have recently shared the same platform. I have been impressed by the relaxed way in which the Scots nation shares its sovereignty with us. The way in which that is done is tremendous. Therefore, the Scots nation should have even more devolution under subsidiarity.

Dr. Godman

May I disabuse my hon. Friend of his illusion about the Scottish Members of Parliament? The overwhelming majority of Scottish Members of Parliament want a Parliament established in Scotland. They want to establish powers of the sort that the 16 Lander in Germany enjoy. However, the establishment of such powers will not result from the Government's implementation and interpretation of article 3(b) of the treaty.

Mr. Enright

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our problem with sovereignty lies not with Brussels but with the Government. The problem lies with Conservative Members who support the Government, and that is an important matter.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

Sovereignty only means constitutional independence. It is part of the sliding of meanings. By all means, let us use another word. How does one merge constitutional independence?

Mr. Enright

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, because sovereignty has nothing to do with control over one's life. For ordinary people, control over their lives is important. That control is real, not an illusion. What control do we have over our currency now that we are away from economic and monetary union? We have moved away from the exchange rate mechanism.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Enright

I will give way when I have made my point.

Since we moved out of the exchange rate mechanism, I have found that my hon. Friends do not blame the true culprit, which is Government policy. Government policy has ruined our economy and destroyed the pound. My hon. Friends prefer to give the Government an excuse—the exchange rate mechanism. That is untrue. I am an unashamed socialist, as I am an unashamed unionist in the sense of Europe. As a socialist, I believe in managing the exchange rate.

It is extremely important to manage the exchange rate; otherwise, it is left to the speculators. The United Kingdom on its own cannot manage the pound or defend it. The rate at which we trade at present is the rate that is decided by a fickle market.

Mr. Shore

It is difficult to take seriously my hon. Friend's assertion that we have no control over our currency and less freedom than when we were in the ERM. I am sure that he is aware that our interest rates were a minimum 10 per cent. when we were forced out of the ERM. To stay in the ERM, we had to raise interest rates to 15 per cent. We would have gone beyond that figure if necessary or if possible. The interest rates of the weaker currencies in Europe are 13 to 14 per cent.

Since we left the ERM, we not only have a more competitive pound, but we have been able to reduce interest rates by 3 per cent. According to many people, such a reduction was impossible before we left the ERM, because we were totally dominated by the deutschmark. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends said that we had 20 minutes of currency freedom before we left the ERM.

Mr. Enright

I am interested to hear my right hon. Friend suggest that devaluation at whatever is the market price is good. The market price is the price at which the speculators can make a profit.

It was interesting to read in The Guardian the account of the possibility of changing the rate. The way in which the currency could have been managed—and, frankly, should have been managed—meant that we could have been a reliable trading country.

I give my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney an example of what management of the currency means to ordinary people in the control of their lives. As a result of the state of the economy, our area must collect funds for a hospital scanner. The collections were going well as a result of the desirable lowering of the exchange rate. However, we must now find another £25,000. That is important in a poor area such as ours, and it is repeated time and again.

Economic policy cannot be decided with short-term ends in view. One must look to at least a five-year cycle. I agree that a five-year cycle is difficult to maintain, but it must be thought through. However, that is an argument for another day.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a better chance of keeping pits open when imported coal is dearer and therefore domestically produced coal is more competitive than it was when we were in the ERM? Does my hon. Friend also accept that the system that rewards the speculators is an exchange rate mechanism that requires the British Government to buy back any pounds they care to sell, at whatever profit?

Mr. Enright

I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend has brought up the subject of coal, which is my next topic. He will realise that energy is one of the new headings in the Maastricht treaty. What we should be doing for 1996 is putting some meat on the skeleton of energy policy. That is how we shall keep our coal pits open. An artificial means of money exchange will not keep them open.

Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham)

May I express the hope that my hon. Friend's regrets for what happened on 16 September do not mean that he believes that it was either desirable or possible for us to have adhered to the parity of DM2.95 to the pound which was required of us by the ERM? Will he at least recognise that that terrible burden was removed from us very much by the force of circumstances?

Mr. Enright

My hon. Friend misunderstands the ERM. It did not require us to stay at that parity. When the exchange rate was fixed, it was a reasonable exchange rate, but because of the destruction of industry and of manufacturing, and because of the failure to pursue a successful economic policy, it had to go down. That could and should have been managed.

Mr. Jim Marshall

I like the way in which my hon. Friend seeks to defend the impossible—the pound's valuation under the ERM. He says that devaluation could have taken place under the system, and clearly he is right. However, am I correct in saying that the maximum devaluation permitted was 7 per cent? The present indication is that the pound has devalued by substantially more than 7 per cent.

Mr. Enright

No, that is not entirely correct. There are examples the other way. There is no problem here. It is relatively simple for ECOFIN to sit around the table and to produce sensible solutions.

Mr. Marlow

If the hon. Gentleman has read today's evening paper, he will have seen that the French franc is under pressure and that the financial tanks are on the lawns of the Elysee palace. The hon. Gentleman is a great fan of the ERM—we understand that. What advice would he give the French President about the franc?

Mr. Enright

I am grateful for the confidence that the hon. Gentleman reposes in me in that respect. It is not a question for me at all. I am sure that the French President will be able to deal with the matter in his own way.

Mr. Knapman

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Enright

No, because I want to make some progress.

I turn now to co-operation in foreign policy. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about that. There are areas that should be examined in which practical co-operation will and should take place. Specifically mentioned in the treaty, far more strongly than in any other treaty, is development co-operation. It is clear that nonsense is going on in Africa, in Asia and in South America in terms of development aid. It regularly happens that six or seven of the member states of the EC set up their own programmes while the European Community is setting up its own programmes, and that the programmes are contradictory.

Even worse is the insistence on selling certain goods. I give Guinea-Bissau as an example. British electrical generators were sold to Guinea-Bissau although the country already had German, French and Japanese generators. The British generators require a sophistication that is impossible in developing countries. The treaty is a practical way in which to come together to ensure that we do not destroy development in trying to assist it.

6.45 pm

I began by saying that the Bill was a mean Bill, because I believed that the Government's approach was mean. However, with the social chapter and the social dimension of what can be done under Maastricht, we shall be able to opt in, either when the Government see sense or when a Labour Government take over.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I am trying to clarify my hon. Friend's position. Do his comments mean that he does not support the present opt-out on economic and monetary union?

Mr. Enright

I do not support the present opt-out. I take the line that 12 out of 12 socialist parties back Maastricht. The other 11 socialist parties say to this socialist party, "Please do not annihilate Maastricht simply because of the opt-out. It will be easy for you to opt in to the social chapter."

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Conservative Government are so extreme in their opposition to workers' rights that they opt out of the social chapter is no justification for us, by defeating Maastricht, to deny those rights to the working people of the other 11 countries?

Mr. Enright

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This country needs quality jobs, not cheapjack jobs.

Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North)

Is it not totally illogical to argue that we should vote against the Bill because it does not contain the social chapter? That would not only deprive our friends on the continent of Europe of the social chapter, but would deprive us of any prospect of opting in.

Mr. Enright

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. A further point was made to me by the managing director of a multinational firm. He said, "We are operating on the continent. We must operate the social chapter there. We shall operate it here." I am convinced that, ere long, the Government will be taken to court over the matter. I shall be entirely happy to surrender our sovereignty to the courts of Europe, which will give us justice under the social charter.

Sir Teddy Taylor

I will not go over what the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said. However, I make this appeal to him. If, as a socialist, he cares about working people, he should look at what is happening in Europe today. The evening paper says: "ERM in last stand as the franc plunges". The Danish currency is plunging. Interest rates are soaring in the countries of Europe.

Who is suffering? The speculators do not suffer. The ERM was the best thing that ever came to the speculators. They have been making millions. The people who suffer are the working people of Europe who are put out of their jobs and out of their homes because of a mad policy of pretending that currencies are worth what they are not.

I appreciate that there are always people who have held views for a long time with some sincerity. Even in the Church of England, one finds people who say, "Things have always been this way and I will stick to it." I find it sickening—I mean that sincerely, because I do not usually attack people—to hear a member of the Labour party—the party that has fought for working people, for human rights and for the ordinary people of Britain—support a policy that is destroying jobs and the communities of working people because of an absurd, irrelevant and artificial process.

The Conservatives have learnt. We have learnt that the ERM is a load of rubbish. I very much doubt whether one could find anyone apart from a few residual fanatics who would say anything good about the ERM. It is nonsense. We all know that to try to pretend that the pound is worth something it is not or that the franc is worth something it is not means that one has to distort something else.

It either means that, as we once had, we create artificial prosperity as happened with the previous Chancellor, or there is artificial inflation. Think what it means to the people with homes and jobs—it is a policy of madness. While I accept that probably some people have rethought this, I am the last person in the world to support this absurd nonsense that, if they are working people, they are members of the British Labour party.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. While he is indulging in these flights of rhetoric, he needs to explain one thing: how can it be better for speculators to have a system of managed exchange rates than it is to have a system where all rates float? He needs to address that issue.

Sir Teddy Taylor

The hon. Gentleman needs to look at what really happens, not at me, and not what he reads in books. The speculators try to keep a currency at an artificial level, and are pushing and pulling. If he looks not at books nor at me but at what is happening, he will see that the speculators have a wonderful time making millions of pounds because of this absurd policy. It is not the working people: it is the speculators.

I am pleased that this party has woken up and realised that it is nonsense, but it is the socialists who are repeating this nonsense. I would say to anyone that, if they think that allowing the pound to find its market value is contrary to socialism, I just cannot see it.

Mr. Knapman

Does my hon. Friend believe that 30 per cent. inflation at this time is helpful to the people of a country or to the speculators?

Sir Teddy Taylor

My hon. Friend has got it. How does it help the working people of Ireland, where they have 20 per cent. unemployment and interst rates of 30 per cent? What about people with homes, people who have borrowed money? How does it help them to see interest rates forced up, not to help the economy but basically to preserve an artificial exchange rate? Opposition Members have used a cloud of slogans and make people laugh, but they should rethink their position. There is plenty of room for honest political disagreement. There is nothing wrong with that, but to have someone supporting an absurd policy which only harms working people seems to me ridiculous and shameful.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I have had honest political disagreements with the hon. Gentleman for a quarter of a century, but will he just keep it cool and reflect on what the Community has been able to do for his own city of Glasgow and for the Strathclyde area? They think, rightly or wrongly, that they have received great good from the Community.

Sir Teddy Taylor

Of course, and the people of Ireland like it as well as the people of Glasgow, but one has to appreciate that every pound that goes to Glasgow and to Ireland costs us £1.68p. While I appreciate that great things have been done in Glasgow, in the absurd business of taking in money and sloshing it around, someone is losing because of all the machinery. If people say that Europe has brought us a new factory or a new bridge, they should realise that they could have had twice as many bridges if we had not had this absurd nonsense of intervening.

Mrs. Gorman

Is it not true that it is not just a matter of money sloshing about? Our net contribution to the EC costs us about £50 million every week, and that will go up to £200 million a week if we go into Maastricht and get into the cohesion fund.

Sir Teddy Taylor

It does not matter to me or to my hon. Friend, because we have worked hard all our lives and have savings and money. But what about the poor people who are paying £4 a week in membership? There are also the poor people, the pensioners and the unemployed, who are paying £18 a week extra for their food. She is quite right: we should be thinking of them. We should not be thinking just about the MPs and all the rest, but about the people with small incomes. However, we must get on with the amendment.

Sir Russell Johnston

It becomes impossible to comprehend the hon. Member as a member of a party which has governed for 13 years, during which the differentiation between the rich and the poor has become greater than ever before. It is unfair of him to say this. If he is talking about the relationship in the exchange rate, he knows, as someone whose party supports business, that business wants to be able to project its prices ahead. That was one of the basic reasons for trying to achieve a controlled relationship.

Sir Teddy Taylor

This idea that one can somehow fix everything—interest rates, prices and everything else—is the basis of a communist society. What happens when one does that? I ask the hon. Gentleman in all seriousness: if he says that about sums like £18 a week for poor families in Billericay and in Southend, what can I or he or the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition do about it? That is the issue of Maastricht. There is nothing we can do. People will vote in the next election. Remember how the people voted last time, but there is nothing we can do.

The real tragedy is that people are being misled by MPs jumping up and down and saying, "I want an inquiry," and, "I want a rethink." I remember someone, some silly twit, saying the other day, "I want to stop the scandal of this pornography being sold." Hon. Members heard him, but I will not say who he was. He said that something had to be done. The fact is that the Minister who was in charge of standards until recently—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—was basically saying, "There is nothing we can do." Yet the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition arid the Liberal Democrats all say, "We want to stop this pornography being sold in Britain, but we cannot do it because of the European broadcasting directives."

Basically, one of the topics in considering this amendment—

Mr. Marlow

I am sorry to intervene, but I am trying to save time by being helpful. A Labour Member has raised the question of the ERM and the speculators, so can we save time for the future and nail this business once and for all? Because we are in the ERM, our economy is moving at a different speed from those of other economies, and it is obvious that that currency at some stage or another has got to give.

If it has to give, there is a one-way bet for the speculators, so they are going to make money. If there are floating exchange rates, so that the rates are going up and down according to the economies trading with each other, there is no one-way bet, because they will not know whether it is to go up or down, but the speculators will make money out of the ERM and not out of the other systems.

Sir Teddy Taylor

We are coming to that in considering future parts of the Bill. The only thing against what my hon. Friend says is Maastricht. Will we have to rejoin the ERM? The answer is that we do not know. At a packed meeting of Back Benchers, the Government said that we did not have to rejoin the ERM at all and some people went, clap, clap, clap.

The Foreign Secretary, said, in a little pamphlet, that we would have to rejoin the ERM to sign the Maastricht treaty. Then a barrister said that we had to rejoin the ERM to sign Maastricht. The trouble is that no one knows. We have to wait until the European Court tells us. That is the fact that people must face.

I must come to the amendment, because I have spoken for far too long. Basically, the amendment is saying that title I should go into the treaty. That is what it says: nothing more or less. if I were to ask, "Do I approve of title I?", the answer would be, "Absolutely not," because title I is damaging. It will damage Britain and democracy, and will do all kinds of bad things to our people and to their rights and freedoms.

But of course, we are not debating whether we support this. We are supporting a simple little structural Liberal Democrat amendment, which says that we would like to put this into the Bill.

I have listened for a day and a half to all the speeches, including one or two very unusual ones. What I would say to everyone is: "Please tell me: what difference is it going to make if we put this into the Bill?" I listened to the Minister, who spoke for an hour, which I thought was far too long, and I read his speech again this morning; then I read it a second time.

Having read the Minister's speech, I asked myself what difference the amendment would make. The Minister said that things may go to court if the amendment were accepted. However, the preamble already applies if a case goes to the European Court. Even though it is not in British law, it will be considered by the European Court. In that respect, the amendment makes no difference.

As every other country is incorporating the treaty into its domestic law, will we be in a speical position when cases go to the European Court? The answer to that is no. I do not criticise the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has made some interesting speeches—we are looking for his support and co-operation on other issues in future—but the hon. Member argued that we must cut down on unnecessary legislation. That was a splendid comment to come from a Labour party spokesman, and I hope that that will be Labour's policy in future.

7 pm

What legislation can be produced from a preamble? I have discussed that point with clever lawyers. I went to the Library and asked, "On the basis of the preamble, what law or regulations can be produced?" The answer was, "Nothing at all." What possible reason can there be for not incorporating the amendment in the Bill?

The reasons given for the amendment by the Liberal Democrats are obvious and simple. They claim that the amendment will simply add "I" to "Titles II, III". If the amendment is accepted, the Liberal Democrats will feel happier. They will think that British law has been changed and "isn't that nice?" That will make them feel somehow more European, and for a Liberal Democrat, that is fair enough. If they want to do that kind of thing, good luck to them.

However, are there any other reasons for the amendment? Another reason might be found in article B, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred in his splendid speech. Article B refers to the Community providing itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives. Although I am not an expert on these matters, is it not just possible that, if the amendment is incorporated in the Bill, we might have to have that dreadful thing—a money resolution?

If we had a money resolution, that would be terrible. We all know that the treaty will cost us a fortune. As a result of the cohesion fund and the common agricultural policy, every family in Britain will have to pay at least another £2 a week. We will shove lots of money into grand schemes in Portugal and Spain, and into goodness knows what. It would be much better if a European plane dropped £10 notes or 10 ecu notes at random.

Mr. Rowe

My hon. Friend has always been very anxious about the amount of money that the Community costs families. It is perhaps worth remembering that we are still recovering from the amount of money that we poured out in the last war. We poured out that money in an attempt to control dictatorships. When the European Community began, there were dictators in Spain, Portugal and Greece. There are no such dictators now. The European Community can take a great deal of the credit for having achieved that result.

Sir Teddy Taylor

I have heard that argument before. In fact, my Euro-ladies whom I meet when I go to speak in constituencies around the country use the argument to reassure themselves about the Community. We joined the Community because it was supposed to help out trade. Sadly, that has turned out to be a great disaster. We have had a deficit of £50,000 million over the past five years. That is a disappointment.

We were also told that joining the EC would somehow stop unemployment. It has not done that: unemployment is getting worse. We are now saying that we really joined Europe to promote peace. It is interesting to note that the only thing excluded from the treaty of Rome was defence. What has really preserved peace is NATO—a splendid voluntary organisation.

While I appreciate the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), and while I know that many other equally sincere Conservative ladies are trying to reassure themselves by saying that that was the real reason for the European Community, we know, sadly, that peace had nothing to do with it at all.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) reminds me of the recent occasion when the United Kingdom appealed to Belgium for help with weaponry and, in particular, ammunition to assist us against a dictator in Iraq. That country—Belgium—which happens to be a member of the European Community, refused to help us and, in the main, we had to fight that fight with our allies from north America. Perhaps we should look to north America to sustain peace and to wage wars against dictators.

Sir Teddy Taylor

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Enright

Will the hon. Member accept that, at precisely the same time, the United Kingdom was selling arms to the dictator in Iraq?

Sir Teddy Taylor

I will not be tempted down that road.

Mr. Rowe

On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I want to make it quite clear that, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said, I really should not be described as another Conservative lady.

Sir Teddy Taylor

rose—

Mr. Jim Marshall

I know that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) does not wish to mislead the House. He said that the one thing missing from the original treaty of Rome was defence. He then went on to say that that was because NATO was responsible for peace and defence. He knows a lot about those issues, and he knows that that is incorrect.

If the hon. Gentleman refreshes his memory about the modified Brussels treaty which established the Western European Union, he will recall that the WEU was originally established as an economic, social and defence organisation. When the European Community was originally formed, its economic and social aspects were transferred to the EC, and defence remained the prerogative of the WEU. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Sir Teddy Taylor

The hon. Gentleman knows far more about that than most hon. Members. On the particular point about the WEU, he is right. However, I hope that he will accept my point that the WEU was not responsible for defence policy.

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham)

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was right to point out that defence is excluded from the European Community. However, he is being less than fair. Surely the point of the European Coal and Steel Community was so to intermingle the coal and steel industries of France and Germany that those countries could never take up arms against each other again.

Sir Teddy Taylor

It is odd to mention coal in this argument. We are in favour of free trade so that goods can cross frontiers easily. However, what is happening to British coal mines today? We are closing pits which are producing coal at £40 a tonne or less, when Germany is producing coal at more than £86 a tonne and other European countries are producing coal at more than £100 a tonne. They are doing that with artificial subsidies. After the British miners have produced cheaper coal, they have been kicked in the teeth, because we are not getting the free trade in Europe that we thought we would get.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a wise point about defence. Not only did the Belgians not provide the ammunition in that defence problem, but the Irish said that, because they were what they called an independent country, they were unable to implement United Nations resolutions.

The French are delightful people, but they sent an army with severe restrictions imposed on it. The poor American commander panicked so much that he had to have the French army defend a sultan's palace because he was not quite sure what to do with it. The Germans very strangely did the right thing, and 200 of their firms provided the poison gas and extended the Scud missiles for the Iraqis.

The amendment does not make the slightest difference, unless the issue is the money resolution. The money resolution is the key. Why on earth can we not have a money resolution? We know that the Bill will cost us a fortune. Civil servants will be employed and many things will be done which will cost money. We do not have a money resolution, and we know that, by not having one, many of the things that we should be discussing in the Bill cannot be discussed. If Ministers and hon. Members knew the nightmares that other hon. Members, Labour and Conservative, have been engaged in, trying to find a form of words to enable us to have a debate on a referendum, they would realise why this is important.

I see no objection to the amendment of the Liberal Democrats. It would not make the slightest difference one way or the other. It would not mean the Government promoting more legislation, it would by no means affect court decisions, and even in Europe, where it could affect court decisions to have this, it is going to be in the treaty anyway. On the other hand, the one thing that we must not say to the Liberal Democrats is that this means that we support it.

I want to mention one particular proposal and one particular part of it—the question of citizenship. Some people have laughed at the citizenship concept, but citizenship of the European union contains symbolism of enormous power. The practical rights to be given to citizens of the European union could instead have been conferred on a reciprocal basis on the citizens of other member states. We could have had this question of being able to vote in elections, and all the rest of it. What has been introduced, however, is something very strange.

It is, of course, argued that British citizens will remain British citizens even after they become citizens of the union. No doubt this is so, in the same way as British citizens are still citizens of London, Birmingham or wherever they happen to live. But the effect of this tiny amendment to take out this part is to remove from the treaty the commitment to what some people say as the unitary, and some people say is the federalist, nature of the European union.

The notion of citizenship was introduced not by the Government but by Mr. Felipe Gonzalez, the Spanish Prime Minister, and endorsed by the Commission and others. The Commission considered that it would encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration. The Commission proposed that this should be written into the treaty—the rights of residence and of movement, and the right to take part in local and national elections stayed exactly the same.

We must bear in mind that the establishment of a European union does not mean just that people will be able to vote in elections. Some of us think it a bit daft to say that because someone is French he should be able to vote in Derbyshire.

Mrs. Currie

It is worth pointing out that we have lived happily for a very long time with the fact that Irish citizens can vote in all our elections and even become hon. Members. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain to us what is so awful about the rights which are clearly set out under the citizenship articles and which are very simple: the right to vote and stand in local and European elections, the right to diplomatic and consular protection, the right to petition the European Parliament and the creation of a new ombudsman.

Sir Teddy Taylor

I hope that my hon. Friend will genuinely think about this. There is nothing wrong at all, if we want it, in saying that people should be able to vote in elections if they have a house here. An American, an Australian, a Pakistani or a Frenchman who has a house in Britain and pays local taxes should be able to vote in elections, and I have no objection to that. We can pass a law saying that they can do this. But we are not doing that. We are saying that if a Frenchman has a house in Derbyshire he can vote but an Australian or an American or someone else cannot. What can possibly be the logic of this kind of discrimination?

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)

That is not actually true. Australians, Canadians and other members of the Commonwealth can vote if based in Great Britain.

Sir Teddy Taylor

My understanding is that a citizen of the United States is unable to.

The point that I am trying to make is that even if we wanted to sort this out we could do so quite easily by some little provision in British law. The key element of the citizenship Bill is not whether one can vote or petition an ombudsman but what is contained at the end of the section, i.e., the Council of Ministers having the power to strengthen and add to the rights laid down. There is to be a three-year review of one's citizenship duties. If we let this go through, every three years there will be a complete review of the position and the Council of Ministers will be able to add anything it likes to the duties of European citizens. Hon. Members have been told in the past that the common agricultural policy would mean fair prices for the consumer and the housewife, and we have seen what happened. Hon. Members were told that the exchange rate mechanism would guarantee growth and stability, and we have seen what happened. We have been led down the garden path time and time again. We are told that citizenship will mean only certain things, but it will mean more. Hon. Members must wake up to the fact that the introduction of European citizenship will mean the basis of a unitary state with European citizens and not the establishment of a federal Europe—that would be a step forward from what we have. I can never understand why the Government keep on saying that they will fight against a federal Europe to the bitter end; a federal Europe would be a step forward.

7.15 pm

At leasd with a federal Europe some things would belong to us and some things to them. At present nothing is guaranteed for us at all, the way things are developing.

Mrs. Gorman

Is it not a fact that already, whether or not other Europeans can vote in our country, whether or not they pay tax in our country, they can come and live here and receive the benefits of the welfare system of our country? It is possible for someone from Europe to retire to this country, never having contributed a halfpenny towards the taxes, and to draw income support and benefits which have been paid for by the British taxpayer.

Sir Teddy Taylor

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as always.

Mr. Devlin

It is completely unfair to agree with one hon. Friend who makes a contention like that and not agree with the other contention which is also true, that British citizens can go and live in Spain, Portugal, France, Greece or any other country and draw their benefits and pensions in those countries as well. A great number of my constituents are currently taking advantage of this.

Sir Teddy Taylor

I accept that my hon. Friend is a sincere person who has considered his views carefully. I hope that he will appreciate, with all these extra rights and entitlements, that if we had equal application of laws throughout a united Europe things would be much better for these people. Sadly, we do not have that equality of treatment. To illustrate what I mean, I ask him to look at agricultural policy and the way we have not equality but wide variation.

I ask my hon. Friends to look at the citizenship issue. It is not just a small question; this is the big stuff. Listen to Bob Marley. It is all there. Perhaps hon. Members do not know that Bob Marley was a great singer, a Rastafarian, and some of his songs are the most wonderful one could have. One of them tells the whole story of what Government say to us year after year: please do not worry about anything because everything is going to be all right. That is what we have been told time and time again, and every time it has blown up in our faces. I say to those hon. Members who are not worried about citizenship that it does not just mean voting in council elections. I ask them to think about the three-year review and about the fact that the Council of Ministers will be able to act without limit.

The Government may ask if we have no faith in them and in their ability to protect us, but that is not how the European Community works. The Government have to do nasty things to get agreement on other things. Hon. Members who doubt this should look at the 40-hour week directive. How many hon. Members know that we have already agreed that French bakers will be exempt but British bakers will not? Why? Not because we think it is sensible or right but because, in EC bargaining, one thing has to be given for another.

I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will think about this matter. There is no reason why they should or should not vote for the Liberal Democrats' amendment. It will make not the slightest bit of difference to anyone. It will have no impact, except that it might just make a money resolution possible.

I sincerely hope that, as they proceed through the Bill, hon. Members will think back to the Single European Act and all the pledges that were given, will think back to the treaty of Rome, and will think back to the time when the poor former Prime Minister was a great lady who said,"If you only give a wee bit more money to the CAP, we will wipe out all the mountains, we will start again, and the problems will not arise again." They are always going to arise.

The people who suffer are not people such as myself—they are not politicians. The people who suffer are the ordinary people of Britain who have suffered hugely, who have lost jobs, and who have found that the economy is part of a declining area of the world. Europe's share of world trade is going down and down, the economies of Europe are going down and down, and the ordinary people of Europe are suffering. We have to find some other way out. The other way out for me is to say no to Maastricht and then, in respect of our present Prime Minister, to say, "Let us promote a treaty on real subsidiarity which would take powers back."

I am sorry that I have taken a bit longer than I expected, Mr. Lofthouse. You have seen that I was deliberately interrupted to try to keep the debate going. However, I should like to put across a simple message. Remember the threat to people, remember the injuries, and remember Bob Marley's song. If we remember that, we will remember that there is a big battle for the people of Britain, for democracy, for freedom and for liberty.

Mr. Benn

After listening to the past two days of debate, one thing has become clear in my mind, and that is that this issue divides every party and every country and could, in certain circumstances, realign British politics. That point needs to be made because, if anyone imagines that commitment to either side of the argument is shallow, he is quite wrong. There are some who are passionately committed to the federal Europe in its most unitary sense and always have been, and there are those—I am one of them—who believe that we are Members of Parliament only because our electors sent us to Parliament and that their rights must be paramount. They are very deep matters. The House of Commons is not the place to reach that decision.

After listening to the debate, with the many complex arguments—we have heard long and important speeches—it has become clear to me that those are matters that the public alone can determine.

I cannot see any reason for speaking in the debate other than to try as best I can to explore what the treaty means, to clarify its implications and to explain to the people who sent me here, in particular, what effect the treaty will have upon their lives and upon their future. I am here only because they have lent me powers, and I have no moral authority to give them away. I have told the Opposition Chief Whip that nothing in the world would alter my conviction, because one cannot ask an hon. Member to give away what he does not own. That is my position, and I say it in a way that I am sure the Committee will understand.

I am very glad that the Liberal Democrats have moved the amendment, because, whether people vote for or against it, it will make no difference; it will be embodied in the treaty. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats' amendment has merely provided for us the opportunity to have an extremely important debate which had to be held, and for that we must be grateful.

Before we examine the question of European union, we should look at the position of the House of Commons in deciding how to deal with the Bill. Much will be made of the subject of ratification and of a money resolution, but the House of Commons has been held in check by the Crown. I am not talking about the Queen and the royal family; I am talking about the Crown as a legal institution since the 17th century. It is important to understand that none of us can be Members of Parliament without taking an oath of allegiance to the Crown. I am a republican.

Mrs. Gorman

Yes.

Mr. Benn

When I went to the Table after the April general election, I said, "As a committed republican, I solemnly declare and affirm that I will bear faithful and true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law," because that was what my electors told me to say when they elected me. At the same time, that was the Crown.

I now refer to the treaty itself. The matter is not as obscure as it might have appeared when I tried to develop the argument. How was the Foreign Secretary able to go to Maastricht and sign the treaty? It was because he had the authority of the Crown to sign the treaty. The Queen had given plenipotentiary powers to the Foreign Secretary, so the treaty was initialled—it has not yet been ratified—by the Foreign Secretary under Crown powers. We are not even allowed to discuss the Bill without the Queen's consent—the Crown's consent—because it touches on the prerogatives of the Crown.

I have introduced various Bills which touch on the prerogative, few of which have reached the statute book. I have had to write to the Home Secretary on each occasion and I have received letters from him saying that Her Majesty had graciously placed her prerogatives at the disposal of the House of Commons for the purpose of discussing this or that Bill. That is the next element of the Crown. Of course, if the Bill is passed, it will require the assent of the Crown—Royal Assent. We cannot have a referendum, we have been told, because the right to promote expenditure belongs to the Crown. That is why a money resolution cannot be tabled by a Back-Bench Member. Only the Crown, through the voice of a Secretary of State, can table a money resolution.

If the Bill becomes law, it will confer upon British Ministers greater prerogative powers in Brussels than they now have. Those laws passed by treaty-making powers of the Crown will be capable of wiping out legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament and assented to in a subordinate way by the Crown.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) gave an example of legislation that had been overridden by Common Market legislation—I think that it was the Bank of England Act 1946. I give him another example. In 1945, just after the atomic bomb was dropped, the post-war Government, with general consent, passed a resolution saying that all atomic material, including uranium, found in Britain belonged to the Government. Of course, Euratom is a federal system. When I raised the matter with Commissioner Brunner I was told, "I am sorry, but the Atomic Energy Act 1946 has now been subsumed in Euratom. Everything that we now do in Brussels is done by the Crown."

The reason why the House of Commons is frustrated is that, in terms of legislation, we are back to where we were before 1649. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh. I was on the Council of Ministers for five years—I was once the president. Every time I assented to everything, I assented by the powers of the Crown. I am not trying to provoke anybody. I am trying to explain to people outside why the House of Commons is impotent in the matter. It is already impotent because of the treaty of Rome, but it is a fact that all laws that are made in the union—that is what it is—and made with the assent of British Ministers will represent a growth of prerogative power.

Before we consider what the union might do to us in terms of our system of government, let us realise what that enterprise has done to us already in a strictly domestic context. The House of Commons has passed over to the Crown the powers of law making which it won hundreds of years ago, for which there is no parallel. In the first years in which I was a Member of Parliament, as far as I could make out, there was no capacity for the Crown to make laws except within the very narrow domestic context as with security services, or whatever.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

When I catch the Chairman's eye, I hope to continue discussion of some of these points, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the House of Commons votes down and damns this lamentable Bill, the treaty will be killed? Therefore, we can affect the use of prerogative power and the effects which the Government seek to bring about.

7.30 pm

Mr. Benn

If we defeat the Bill, we can prevent the extension of prerogative power; but some of it has already slipped through our fingers, in 1972, without it ever being made explicit what was happening.

The last point that I make about Crown powers—I hope nobody will understand me—is that when Government Whips press Back-Bench Members to support a Bill, one weapon which they use is the granting or withholding of patronage under the powers of the Crown. I do not know much about the Conservative party, but I dare say that an elderly Conservative Member, planning to retire at the next election, might find it harder to have a peerage given to him if he voted against the Maastricht treaty, because knighthoods, baronetcies and peerages may be withheld according to the discipline of the Whips.

Indeed, for younger Members the prospect of getting a Crown appointment as a Minister of the Crown may be affected if there is disloyalty on the Maastricht treaty. I am told that in the Conservative party even an invitation to a royal garden party may be dangled or withdrawn if Members are not in line.

The point I am trying to make—and I am doing little more than giving an account of how this place works—is that when we look at a story from the beginning, through the legislation, through the ratification which is done by Crown prerogative, through to the pressure of the Whips, the Commons has never completed the work which it began in 1688. Therefore, for that reason if for no other, it is not a body capable of dealing with this act of union for which the Bill provides.

Mr. Garel-Jones

When the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished holder of office under the Crown in the last, now distant, Labour Administration, had it become apparent to him at that time the way in which the Crown prerogative was being abused, and did he take steps at that time to make that known to his colleagues and try to rectify it, or has it become apparent to him, as it were, in later life?

Mr. Benn

The right hon. Gentleman invites me to make a speech twice as long as the one I intended to make. I was thrown out of Parliament by Crown prerogative. My father was made a peer, and when he died I was thrown out of the House because that prerogative had given me a peerage. The Speaker would not let me in. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to tell me that I just learnt this to make a speech tonight. That is an insult to me but also an insult to a life-long commitment to the democratic principle that I hope people accept.

Mr. Garel-Jones

I do not think anyone would put that in doubt. Indeed, the battle that the right hon. Gentleman fought in those days was admired and, I think, supported by some of my hon. Friends. The question that I was asking was about the time when he was a Minister of the Crown and was exercising Crown prerogative as a Minister of the Crown. That is the question to which I was seeking an answer. Certainly I would not seek to question the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to the democratic process. I hope he did not understand that in any way.

Mr. Benn

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant. If I responded strongly, it was because of the suggestion that I was cooking up a phoney argument to promote opposition to this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to know, when I was made a Cabinet Minister and a Privy Councillor, and saw the Privy Councillor's oath, it was so revolting that I asked not to have to take it. It pledged me to all sorts of things about foreign prelates and potentates. The right hon. Gentleman has probably seen it. When I went to the Cabinet Office and it was read to me, I said at the end that I had never agreed to it. The clerk to the Privy Council said, "You do not have to agree." I said, "What do you mean?" He said, "I have administered the oath." I never knew that a Privy Councillor's oath was an injection. I did not want it; I did not agree; I got it administered, and all it does is occasionally, not always, give me a chance to speak in the House.

This is a point of substance. In 1968 I argued for a referendum. I may sound like Harold Wilson in remembering where it was, but it was at the Welsh conference of the Labour party in Llandudno. Some Cabinet colleagues demanded that I be dismissed from the Cabinet for mentioning a referendum. In the end I persuaded my party to go for it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition voted for the referendum. The deputy Leader of the Opposition was a Whip who voted for a referendum. It all took time. We lost Roy Jenkins on the way. I do not know how to describe it, but he resigned because he did not want the public to be consulted.

I should like to come back to my line of argument, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that both on the renunciation of the peerage and on the referendum my commitment for many years has been that the people should decide who is to be their Member of Parliament and whether he should go.

Coming back to my argument, I can revert to my role as a lecturer for the Workers Educational Association. Let us look at what union would mean. There has been talk about citizenship and so on. Let me try to make it clear to those who might be watching the debate at home on television—the whole debate should be televised—that it makes a fundamental difference in the relationship between an elector and a Member of Parliament.

One reason that we do not have many riots in Britain is that people can have a say. Over many years I have said, "Do not riot; vote. You can defeat the Government. In that way you can change policy and you will achieve what you want by peaceful means." People do not realise that democracy hangs on a very slender, delicate thread. If the link is broken and people realise that, no matter for whom they vote in an election, decisions will be taken by the European union, I do not say that they will riot, but we could not argue against action taken directly by them because there was no democratic route for the solution to their problem.

Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one precious thing about the House of Commons is the way in which we as Members of Parliament can talk to our constituents when we are in our constituencies and come back the next week and get hold of Ministers to get things done? If we have a problem about, say, roads or hospitals, we can grab the Minister responsible and get something done. I represent an agricultural constituency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, because our agricultural powers have been given to Europe, I as a Member representing farmers now have great difficulty in getting anything done for the people whom I represent? It goes exactly to the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making; frustration builds up not just among Members but among constituents. In many ways I feel that I am unable to do the job that I was sent here to do.

Mr. Benn

The hon. Gentleman points to a problem that has already arisen deriving from the treaty of Rome, which I do not want to go into because we are discussing its extension. He is right. The work of Members in their constituencies is one of the most unreported aspects of an hon. Member's life. I do not know how many letters other hon. Members receive. I assume that we all get approximately the same number. If they were grossed up, we would find that hundreds of thousands of representations made to hon. Members are never reported because the media is not interested in democracy but only in politicians, which is a different speciality.

I have sat in Cabinets when papers have come from Ministers written by their civil servants. Other Ministers may say, "It may look good to the Department of Health but it would not deal with the problem that came up at my surgery last Friday." That relationship is important. It educates Members, and we represent our constituents' views.

Another point which has not been touched on is that, because of the way law making is done in the Community, even if it is by qualified majority, it is easy to make a law but there has to be the same majority or unanimity to repeal it.

For many years it has rightly been a principle of this House that no Parliament can bind its successors. In European union every decision binds its successors because one cannot change it. Even if a British Government were elected on the issue of repealing a piece of this legislation, prospective Members of Parliament would not be able to tell the electorate that they would repeal it because the mechanism to do so would not exist. European Community legislation is like a lobster pot—it is easy to get in but very difficult to get out.

I do not have to dwell at great length on the second aspect of the treaty as I have dealt with it already. The Council of Ministers is a Parliament and not a Cabinet—it makes the laws. It is the only Parliament in the world to meet in secret.

During the British presidency in 1977, I tabled a motion that the Council should meet in public. Ministers would have died rather than agree. They all went to the Council, saying that they were going to defend this or that. When they got there they did all the deals and did not want anyone to know what happened. It is as if this Parliament met in secret. From that point of view the Council is totally undemocratic—but decisions made there by British Ministers are made by royal prerogative in any case.

The third difference is that between the elected and appointed part of our constitution. Anyone who has been a Minister knows that civil servants work to a Minister. They may be difficult, but one can tell them, "I want this paper put to the Cabinet."

At the Council of Ministers no one is allowed to submit a paper. Ministers can only act on the initiative of the Commission. I have sat on every committee that I can think of—from the local party to the national executive and the shadow Cabinet—but the Council of Ministers is the only committee where, even as president for energy, I could not submit a paper to the other Members because the powers of initiation are vested in the Commission. That will be a fundamental change and it is not altered in any way by the Maastricht treaty.

At the Council, Ministers have to try to bully Commissioners who are appointed to submit a paper in the hope that their idea may come back before it.

Mr. Spearing

rose—

Mr. Benn

I do not want to take too long, as I am trying to get a lot into one speech, but I shall give way.

Mr. Spearing

Is not that argument vital? It is an illustration of why so many of us say that the European Community is intrinsically authoritarian. The authority for any initiative lies with the Commission. Furthermore, it is important for title I, as in articles A to F, and the two pillars—home and foreign affairs—it is written in the treaty that the Commission shall be fully associated with these matters and has the duty of co-ordinating the totality.

7.45 pm

Mr. Benn

My hon. Friend is opening up the question very fully. It is true that the Commission has great powers. I shall give the House two examples. Viscount Davignon, who was the Commissioner for industry, and Guido Brunner told me, when I was an elected Secretary of State, that I could not insist that North sea oil he refined in Britain, and that that oil should come under the terms of the treaty of Rome. Secondly, I tried to continue a scheme introduced by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whereby he supported Scottish industries working in North sea oil—it got a slightly lower rate of interest. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman

Will those hon. Members holding a sub-committee on the other side of the Bar please hold it outside the Chamber?

Mr. Benn

That is subsidiarity at work—one just goes on talking and no one takes any notice.

The Commissioners told me that if I continued the scheme introduced by the former party leader they would take me to court—and they did. They chose polling day in 1979, when I was on my bicycle anyway.

Do not think that the power of the Commission to initiate actions to frustrate an elected Government in Britain is not real—it is. I can imagine circumstances when a Government, elected by a huge majority—it does not matter of which party—to do something, did it and was then told by civil servants, "I'm sorry, Minister, what you are doing is illegal." What would happen if the elected Government were not able to carry forward their policy? There would be a major constitutional crisis.

Mrs. Gorman

rose—

Mr. Benn

I shall give way when I have finished the analysis.

The treaty transfers power from politicians to the courts. In Europe, courts are different from those in Britain. They are political and do not pretend to be impartial, as they do here. The continental legal tradition is that law is a new way to implement constitutions and policies. Elected British Ministers could be taken to the court on citizenship, or on any other issue, and they would find that their power had been transferred—from the electorate and Parliament—to judges. Once one got into that situation, one would not be able to get out of it.

I am not misery-mongering, but trying to look ahead at the nature of the constitution and of the political crises that could lie ahead if we made such changes.

One only has to listen to some of the speeches on the issue to realise that the Bill is advocated by people of a managerial bent. I see myself as a representative: I am here to represent the people. I hear many of those who advocate the treaty say that they view the handling of Europe as the good management of Europe. They say that we must manage the exchange rate, trade, this or that. I have no doubt that most of them would be well qualified to be Commissioners. However, managers without consent never get very far, even in industry.

Those five changes in relationship—between the electors and Members, between Members and the Government, between the legislature and the executive, between the Commons and the Commission, between the political and judicial and the representative and managerial—are all inherent in the treaty. People must not merely troop in at the end of the Third Reading; they must understand what the treaty is about. Because of the nature of the changes, I believe that the public and the electors, who put us here, must decide whether they wish them to be made.

Mrs. Gorman

The right hon. Gentleman has in part dealt with my point—which is that there is a fundamental difference in the way in which law is construed in this country. We have the common law, by practice, from the people and upward. The continental system is decided by codes and handed down from above, as the right hon. Gentleman illustrated. In our system of government we have a tradition of "by the people and for the people", whereas they have a tradition of government of the people. That is quite different from the way in which we view our citizenship.

Mr. Benn

If the hon. Lady heard what I said about the role of the Crown, she would realise that I do not share her view that we are very democratic; but that is another matter. The continental system is different and the laws cannot be changed by the mechanism with which we have become familiar for many years.

Mr. Dalyell

I do not know whether it is a term of abuse, but I am surprised to be accused of being of "managerial bent". Does that bent also apply to the overwhelming majority at the Labour party conference?

Mr. Benn

I shall come to the Labour party in a moment—I have to be delicate about it. If I had any doubt about my hon. Friend, it would be that his towering intellect may so induce him to observe the scene from the top that managerial ideas might enter into his mind, although I know that he is a good constituency Member of Parliament.

To sum up, Bagehot, in his book on the English constitution, said that the Crown was the dignified and the House of Commons the effective part of the constitution. Now the Crown is the effective and the House of Commons is the dignified. Crown powers now determine our policy, but the Commons has all the glory of television, the Speaker and all the glamour of our debates. But we are simply performing a dignified function. That is the nature of the transformation that has taken place since 1972.

Mr. Hoon

My right hon. Friend rightly criticises the fact that only the Commission currently has the right to initiate legislation in the European Community. Does that mean that he supports the provision in the Maastricht treaty that enhances the European Parliament's ability to initiate legislation? Does it follow from his criticism that he wants the European Parliament to initiate more legislation in the future?

Mr. Benn

I want the Commission abolished, because no civilised democratic country would allow any power whatever to be in the hands of unelected people who cannot be removed. I have drafted a Bill, which my hon. Friend may have seen, called the Commonwealth of Europe Bill, under which we would have a secretary-general and would harmonise the 50 countries of Europe by consent through an assembly. The assembly would agree to conventions to which member states would adhere.

The United States would never agree to be governed by commissioners. If we were to have a fully federal united states of Europe, the first casualty would be the Commission, the second would be the Council of Ministers, and the treaty of Maastricht would be burned as the British flag was burned in 1776. So please do not tell me that the treaty is a route to democracy. It is a pathway back to the feudal past.

One of our difficulties is that all the party leaders agree about the Maastricht treaty. I realise that there is a difference on the social chapter and economic and monetary union, but if party leaders were in a Cabinet of all the talents, the Bill would go through in two minutes. The Labour leader would simply add the social chapter in the event of Labour winning an election, which is why the Opposition Front Bench is almost deserted. I think that the Opposition's tactics are to have a one-line Whip so that the Bill will go through with a Government majority. Otherwise, we would have a crowded Front Bench eager to hear my speech and make their own.

I must explore the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the Labour party's position. If we are to explore how decisions are reached, I must explore with him how the Labour party's decision was reached. I am on the national executive and have been for longer than anyone in the Labour party's history. I voted against the manifesto at the March meeting because we were told that the party was in favour of the Maastricht treaty, despite the fact that it had not been signed at the time of the previous conference and had not even then been published in English. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I made no fuss, but voted against the manifesto, as the executive record shows. When I went to Chesterfield, I took the precaution of getting somebody to make a video of my speech explaining my view on Europe. I honestly do not believe that there is Labour support for the Maastricht treaty.

At the 1992 annual conference, a Bolsover delegate put forward a motion about a referendum. I argued for it at the conference and Alan Tuffin of the Union of Communication Workers argued and voted against it. I discovered later that his delegation had voted for the referendum.

If we are to discuss how Parliament works, we had better also discuss how the party works. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) may rub his hands, but the truth can never be harmful when we are discussing the future government of the country. I am lucky because I cannot be bullied by the Whips. If they offered me a peerage, they would be misjudging my ambitions. I do not need cash and will not get office. I am a free man. Had I known what fun it was to be 60 years old, I would have done it years ago. I intend to speak my mind. For me, the Bill is about whether we shall remain an imperfect democracy or become part of a Euro nationalism. Euro nationalism is being put around our necks under an authoritarian system.

Mr. Michael Carttiss (Great Yarmouth)

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman considers himself fortunate in a way that I would not normally have done: at least he had a party conference at which the members of his party had an opportunity to debate the issue and reach conclusions. That is more than what happened to my party.

Mr. Benn

I once attended a Conservative party conference in 1955 for the BBC. Enoch Powell and I went along and I had a research assistant who is sitting behind me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I have never forgotten the atmosphere, which was quite different from that of the Labour party. Nobody discussed politics after the conference had adjourned. They all put on evening dress and had dinner.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. This is all very entertaining, but the Committee has sufficient problems without dealing with party mechanics.

Mr. Benn

I was responding to a problem put to me by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) about his party. I was trying to explain that it is an old problem.

I believe passionately in Europe. I lost a brother and many friends in the last world war and I share the view that Europe must get beyond nationalism. We must explore ways of co-operating.

Europe contains 50 countries, not just 12. I want harmonisation to be at the pace of those who can go along with it, for a practical reason. It is already clear that, because of the existing Community institutions, when anything goes wrong people blame the Germans. It is the fault not of the Germans but of the treaty of Rome. There has been hostility towards the Italians. The awful wartime language spoke of the huns, the wops, and the Iti's, and, reading The Sun, one sees that we are not far from that now.

Democratic consent is delicate. Therefore, if we try to hurry beyond the capacity to absorb and accept the implications, I fear that the matter will end like Yugoslavia, which was an imposed federation, or the so-called "socialist camp" of communist countries, which was imposed. I know that it is not exactly the same. but the problems of unemployment are caused not by the Germans, but by the role of bankers in forcing down economic policy to the point where there is mass unemployment. We must keep our eye on the real issue and not allow it to degenerate into an attack on other nationalities.

Why have the British people allowed the treaty to go so far? I am no historian, but we were conquered by a Roman, Julius Caesar; we were then conquered by William the Conqueror in 1066; James I was then brought down from Scotland; William III then came over from Holland; and George I, who was a German, then ruled. Indeed, until the first world war, the royal family was called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It changed its name to Windsor and got rid of some German dukes—the Duke of Cumberland was de-duked. I went into the matter to see whether I could get the same right. We now have a Prince of Wales whose father is a Greek.

Thus, we have as a nation been trained to accept that we shall be governed by other nationalities. Because of the defect in our democracy, Britain has a culture of subservience that makes us accept that Jacques Delors should have those powers. When Jacques Delors came to Britain, the BBC asked him whether we were good Europeans, bowing and scraping to him like the Dimblebys bow and scrape to the royal family. We are a nation trained to bow and scrape, so, naturally, when we are told that the Crown prerogative will ratify the treaty, people say, "How could we be unkind to the Queen Mother?", as if she were ratifying the treaty. It will be ratified not by the Queen Mother but by the godfather in No. 10. It is a matter of national confidence.

Hon. Members have asked how we can deny the Danes or other member states the right to the social chapter by voting against it. No rights were ever given to anybody from the top. All rights have been won. If the Danes want rights, they must elect a Government that will give them those rights and we should have to do the same. We sit at home watching "Newsnight" and Peter Snow with his ruddy computer and are told that Jacques Delors has given us social justice. That is absolute rubbish. All our rights, including the right to vote, to trade unions, to the welfare state and to full employment, were struggled for by our people using our mechanism.

8 pm

The idea that somehow the third world will benefit if we enter this arrangement is an illusion. It is not true, and it encourages the idea that we are no good. I have never believed in the conspiracy theory, but I do not believe that democracy is such a powerful force that some people have wanted to try to take it back. Not long ago the suffragettes had their problems. I put a plaque in the broom cupboard in the Crypt to the memory of Emily Wilding Davidson. There are no memorials in this place to the people who fought for democracy.

The best way to get round democracy is to pass the real power to someone who is not elected and cannot be removed. This treaty is an anti-chartist, anti-suffragette campaign. We have been told for years that this nation is not good enough to govern itself, that it has to be governed from Brussels. We have been told that we cannot defend ourselves but must have NATO, and that we cannot organise our economy and must have the IMF. We are told that this is a nation of lazy workers—militant shop stewards, inefficient managers and football hooligans—a nation waiting for discipline. Of course, the discipline will come from Europe.

I apologise for making such a long speech, and I hope that no hon. Member will accuse me of trying to delay the debate. I genuinely try to argue without being offensive to anyone. These are big questions. I have spoken to Mr. Morris again about a referendum being paid for by the Community because we must find a way to give people that right. We are not entitled to decide this matter ourselves. If we do and people turn against the treaty, there will be no mechanism by which they could share the responsibility for a decision that affected their lives.

I beg all hon. Members—those who are for, as well as those who are against, the Maastricht treaty—to agree with the principle that the matter must be determined by everybody in our land. All the arguments could be taken to the people, and they are not so foolish that they could not absorb and understand them. We are talking about their lives, not ours.

Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West)

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, which I assure you is a real one. Yesterday through the courtesy of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), and with the indulgence of the Chair, there was a fairly complex exchange, almost an interrogation, on the question of whether title I bit on some parts of the treaty and prevented certain parts of it being enforceable in law in this country. I genuinely seek guidance on this point because it will determine whether title I of the treaty can be debated in the terms in which many of us wish it to be debated. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was entirely correct to say that under article L, title I is not justiciable by the European Court. That is reported in columns 183–84 of yesterday's Official Report.

There is contrary legal advice that it would be taken into account in interpreting all those parts of the treaty that are amendments to the treaty of Rome and subsequent associated treaties. Title I is binding in international law, and although it may not be justiciable in the terms that my right hon. Friend announced, that is not the same as saying that it is not binding. I have a document which should be tabled for our elucidation. It is the Van Gend En Loos judgment of the European Court of 5 February 1963. It follows—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. It is not the Chair's job to interpret the Bill or the law. Therefore, that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Butcher

Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it not a matter for the Chair that the debate should proceed on a basis of clear understanding of the constitutional implications of title I? I have a terrible fear that even in the area of foreign policy cited by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the clauses, if traced through the treaty, could bind us to foreign policy by majority voting. That should be explained to the Committee because we have been given the impression that that is not the case.

The First Deputy Chairman

That is a matter that can be raised in the debate, and if the hon. Gentleman is successful in catching my eye he will be able to put that point.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

As usual the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) delivered a fascinating and fundamental speech. He always treats us to such speeches and we are grateful. At the start of it he alluded to the amendments but did not reach them because he was carried away by other issues. Those of us who wished to refer to some of the themes presented in the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats and related amendments found, as we usually find, that the Committee descends, generally on the second day, into a general and broad Second Reading debate. Some hon. Members return to such issues as whether it is right to be a member of the Community while others, including me, say that it is a good idea.

That is both good and bad, although it involves the constant tedious repetition of points that are made in almost every European debate. I exclude late night debates under the old system of scrutiny. If people outside pay attention to our debates, they do not seem to have become alarmed over the years about the so-called surrender of national and constitutional rights that were mentioned repeatedly by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. I do not think that people as a whole share his anxieties.

I have always paid tribute to the profundity of the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts and I recently re-read the excellent biography by Sydney Higgins about the right hon. Gentleman's political life and work. According to that writer, the right hon. Gentleman hardly ever did anything wrong. The right hon. Gentleman personifies the proud struggle for the achievement of parliamentary rights in the more modern context and more traditionally in his emotional and intellectual attachment to the old historical rights that Parliament has won.

Those who are keen to see the legislation proceed rapidly feel entitled to complain about the Government's timidity and slowness in dealing with an entirely brief, routine technical Bill. It provides for certain provisions to enter United Kingdom law and the amendments to the treaties that we have already signed. That would be followed by ratification of the treaty, although that is not the subject of this debate.

The Government could have proceeded much earlier this year after Second Reading. We know, either by speculation or from direct knowledge, the rather sad reasons why that was not done. That has given the right hon. Gentleman and others who see terrors in the gradual development of the European Community through this latest treaty the excuse or reason to say that the nightmare is developing beyond the control of the British people and constitution.

Those of us who welcome the Maastricht treaty disagree profoundly and directly, as everybody knows. Our advantage is that the huge majority of hon. Members are on our side and that none of them shares the terrors, anxieties and apprehensions of a small minority of hon. Members. At present most of that small minority are Conservatives, but the thread of the speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was that the Labour party might start to unravel some of its solidarity on these matters and show that it is not quite capable of holding what appears to be the strong position of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) who delivered an excellent speech yesterday.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

My hon. Friend was solid.

Mr. Dykes

Perhaps the thread of the hon. Lady's thoughts will also turn out to be correct.

The hon. Member for Hamilton explained why the amendments were incorrect and should not be accepted, in spite of the impeccable credentials of the Liberal Democrats in European matters. That is not the same as saying that the amendments were intrinsically faulty.

Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton)

My hon. Friend may have forgotten that, although it may be only a small majority of Conservative Members who oppose the Maastricht Bill, the one thing that strengthens their case is that the majority of people outside this place support them. It is extremely arrogant for hon. Members to talk in that way when the people have not had their voice heard, nor been given an opportunity to voice their concerns. At the last general election, Maastricht was not an issue. The very fact that it was not discussed—the only issue at the last election was who should govern Britian, it was a simple election—meant the people of the country have not had a voice in this matter. They have also had no opportunity to make their voice heard through a referendum, which has been refused by the Government for the simple reason that they know that the issue would be defeated.

Mr. Dykes

All that I can do is express a profound sense of shock that my hon. Friend wishes to undermine the sacred constitutional sovereignty of the House. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield is in favour of a referendum, as are a small number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—[Interruption.] Sedentary interruptions are often more disconcerting than standing ones, but for the moment I shall carry on. If the opportunity provides itself, I shall give way later to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).

A small minority of Members of Parliament is in favour of a referendum, but I can think of nothing that more undermines the sacred constitutional sovereignty of the House of Commons—the centre and kernel of political parliamentary power as described by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.

Mrs. Winterton

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes

No. My hon. Friend's intervention was lengthy and verging on the repetitious, and I must be allowed to reply. That a referendum would undermine the sovereignty of the House is a fundamental error in my hon. Friend's argument. The other mistake which is joined to that—[Interruption.] I am now facing the Chair, Mr. Lofthouse. I am placed in a difficult position because the line between my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the Chair is direct. The other fundamental error made conjointly by those who are in favour of a referendum is that waiting for the Danes' opinion would also undermine our sacred constitutional sovereignty. I object to the idea that we must wait for the opinion of others before we decide what to do.

I wish to emphasise to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, lest he gets the wrong impression, that the pro-Europeans are in favour of the treaty because we do not feel that we are surrendering power to anybody else by signing it and by developing the Community further, and because we feel that it strengthens our sovereign power. The right hon. Gentleman explained the old theory of the House of Commons at work. His description was like one of those old books by Taylor, "The House of Commons At Work: How it Really Works". He was not explaining the real world. However, I agreed with his second reason for the slipping away of power from Members of Parliament with their sacred trusts and rights—the power of the whipping system. Unless one is part of the majority in the House, one does not have power and even if one is a member of the majority party, one does not have power in the complexity of modern politics in which power flows to governmental institutions.

I am reassured about the developments, about signing the Maastricht treaty and about approving this excellent but short and technical Bill—a process that should not take so long, although I would not deny the House of Commons its rights—because none of those dangers and perils would occur if we went ahead with them. I see the sovereign member states of the European Community working much more together but gaining in individual national strength as a result of that process. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, who years ago was an enthusiast for the European Community, has not begun to accept that explanation of the real world rather than the abstruse romantic theorising about the House of Commons as it was hoping to be several hundred years ago.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

Did my hon. Friend support the referendum on the Scotland Act? If so, what was different about that?

Mr. Dykes

There are many different complexities about those matters, and we are talking about a referendum on Europe in the context of what my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said. She claimed that it was invalid just to take the views of Members of Parliament—a surprising assertion in view of the sacred nature of Members of Parliament in the constitutional process—if all the parties apparently agreed and the general election therefore did not provide the opportunity for the matters fully to be debated. I disagree with that. All that told me was that all the political parties agreed that signing Maastricht was a good thing, as was going ahead with European development.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)

The hon. Gentleman is obviously a complete European and would vote for it if it came in a little package with a bow around it. Does he agree that the fundamental point for people in the United Kingdom is that the Maastricht treaty changes every aspect of their lives? Does he further agree that the decision on that should be taken by them and not by the House under the whipping system?

8.15 pm

Mr. Dykes

The House is the place where the decisions should be made. The hon. Gentleman and I, as true democrats, would lament the excessive power of the whipping system. The modern organisation of the state, and the need, in the intensity and complexity of modern politics, to marshal collective decision making by politicians in groups has meant the strengthening of the whipping system over the years.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Dykes

I shall not give way too much as Mr. Lofthouse will become impatient with me if I go on for too long, and I am trying to speak to the amendment.

The hon. Member for Blyth Valley and I worry about the excessive power of the whipping system. We all know that we have little say in practical terms, but no hon. Member can assert that the treaty is the only treaty that the country has signed that has brought in relatively, fairly or reasonably profound changes. We have signed many treaties involving many changes. I reject the doom-laden assertion that there is something extra specially ominous and difficult about the Maastricht treaty. It is the logical conclusion of the preparation that this and other sovereign countries have made together, ever since the Stuttgart declaration of June 1983, to go forward to the development of European union, which had already been referred to in the treaty of Rome.

Dr. Michael Clark (Rochford)

My hon. Friend has just suggested that a referendum would undermine the traditional sovereignty of the House. Does he not think that the traditional sovereignty of the House has been undermined by Members of Parliament who are not representing the country on this issue? If they were doing so, there would not be this call for a referendum. Because the House is failing the country, the country is seeking another way to express its view.

Mr. Dykes

I reject that totally. I am saddened that my hon. Friend, who is also a personal friend, seeks to undermine what is left of the powers of the House—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Exactly.

Mr. Dykes

By that, I do not mean what is left because of Europe but what is left as a result of the practical reality of modern-day politics. The same pattern is repeated in every other country—the Executive have gained more and more power and Parliaments have become not just dignified and ceremonial, in the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, but bodies in which individual Members of Parliament have lost their powers.

Some people would say that it was ever thus because only in the last century or so have Parliaments developed from being advisory chambers of nobles, with monarchs running the country. Parliament has taken many decisions on behalf of the people, decisions of much greater profundity, moment and weight than the signing of an additional treaty, which flows from the treaty of Rome, the Stuttgart declaration and the Single European Act. That Act was a much more profound document—

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dykes

I should like to develop this point, but I shall give way in a moment.

Admittedly the central legislative component of that Act was the single European market but all the others in the six key policy areas were anticipated and mentioned clearly and unequivocally in the Single European Act—and only one or two hon. Members called for a referendum.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes

I will in a moment.

Mr. Winterton

I have been trying to catch my hon. Friend's eye.

Mr. Dykes

I am aware of that but, as my hon. Friend knows, I must address the Chair as part of the rules of this excellent and distinguished Chamber.

One could say that war and peace are far more profound and should always be the subject of a referendum. It is nonsense to argue that there must be a referendum simply because all parties agree on a particular policy element. In all general elections, there are many policy areas where there is unanimity or broad agreement, and no one suggests that means there should be a referendum. I will refer to one other aspect of a referendum that has put off some Opposition Members after giving way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ian Taylor

Many of my hon. Friends believe that the treaty is a matter for Parliament and not a suitable subject for a referendum. A referendum would not deal in detail with the complex nature of the Bill, which is shown by the number of amendments that have been tabled. Is my hon. Friend aware that he is supported in chapter 21 of "Erskine May", on page 523: Amendments to a Bill proposing that the provisions of a Bill should be subject to a referendum have been ruled out of order as proposing changes in legislative procedure which would be contrary to constitutional practice. Referendums are not part of our country's constitutional practice. Ours is a parliamentary democracy, and this is the right place to debate the Bill.

Mr. Dykes

To upstage even "Erskine May", no less an authority than my noble Friend Lady Thatcher denounced the idea of a referendum in 1974 and 1975, but one was imposed on a reluctant Parliament by the then Labour Government. I voted against a referendum then, and—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. It is noticeable that when one particular point of view is expressed, it is given a reasonable hearing but that a contrary point of view is not. Every right hon. and hon. Member must be given a fair hearing.

Mr. Dykes

Equally, Mr. Lofthouse, I was anxious to give way as much as possible to interventions, which may have added to the excitement of the debate.

I also want to show that not all right hon. and hon. Members will simply take the official line—though I wholeheartedly support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Cabinet and in the Government, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in proposing that the treaty be ratified.

Mr. Winnick

How surprising.

Mr. Dykes

I suppose that is not at all surprising.

Earlier this year, I warned Government colleagues about unnecessary hesitation in respect of this legislation. It is a most modest Bill. I am not being undemocratic in saying that. It is a routine, technical Bill, and I suggest that most of the amendments should have been ruled out of order.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was speaking theoretically, Mr. Lofthouse, and did not mean to question the decision of the Chair. I wanted to emphasise that because of the Bill's purely technical nature, as it is simply the instrument for amending European legislation—

Mr. Butcher

rose—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

rose—

Mr. Dykes

I am entitled to express my personal view, which is also the view of others.

The European Movement, of which I am chairman and whose members include European enthusiasts of all parties and none—including trade unionists, businessmen, and members of the young European movement—also warned that if the Government were negative about defending the Community and the treaty, more and more second thoughts would set in, which would naturally affect the public.

It is interesting to crystallise and to explain public opinion. I do not believe that the public are intrinsically anti-European Community, but United Kingdom citizens of all backgrounds, professions, and trades have a grotesque fear, which I understand, of losing their jobs and of living and surviving in the recession. People naturally lose their enthusiasm for anything that they regard as irrelevant international exercises of one kind or another. In any event, such issues are always left to a small number of enthusiasts—

Mr. Spearing

rose—

Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East)

rose—

Mr. Dykes

I will not give way for the moment.

As the Government's hesitations and timidity—and I am sorry to use those words—gathered pace, the Bill became more and more delayed. Even five weeks ago my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in a broadcast, "Let's get this Bill through before Christmas." Even five or six weeks ago, that seemed a reasonable aspiration.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had not read it.

Mr. Dykes

He said that he had not read the treaty. The Bill was then in draft form, and extremely brief. Presumably everyone read the one-page Bill.

The Government's timidity and hesitation added to the problem of appearing to be legitimately enthusiastic about taking the treaty's policies forward.

There have been ridiculous and absurd attacks on the European Commission. Only recently have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and one or two other Ministers begun to defend it, saying that all the ridiculous stories about the Commission are either made up or so exaggerated as to be absurd.

Mr. Spearing

Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Dykes

I give way to the former Chairman of the European Legislation Select Committee.

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for going over broad ground that could have been covered at any time during the past 20 years. Has not the hon. Gentleman been doing much the same thing up to now? In his capacity as chairman of the European Movement—as the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect his opinion—will he explain why he and that movement advocate the provisions in articles A to F?

Mr. Dykes

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to suggest that I am not dealing with the elements in the amendments, because I am. I was giving the background to my reasons for considering them unrealistic. I do not know what will happen to the first cluster of Liberal Democrat amendments proposed yesterday. They may not be voted upon. They may be withdrawn—I cannot anticipate what will happen with them. That shows that the Committee is going through the motions as a result of the desperately anxious wishes of a small minority of hon. Members who want to go through all the original points again.

Mr. Livingstone

The hon. Gentleman says that the Committee is going through the motions, but a moment ago mentioned fear of unemployment. Does he recall going through the Lobby to support the first stage of monetary union—Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism—after many right hon. and hon. Members warned that it would create another 1 million unemployed within a year or two? That is the reason for fear in this country. People see themselves being locked into permanently high unemployment and permanent recession. Does the hon. Gentleman agree it was wrong of him not to listen to us two years ago?

Mr. Dykes

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken about the timing of this country's entry into the ERM. I was in favour of Britain's entering it much earlier—probably four years before, when we would have joined at a much more realistic valuation. The ERM is still working. Far too many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members imagine that the ERM means irrevocably fixed exchange rates, but it does not. It is a system of fixed but adjustable rates by agreement with all its participating members. I will give way to my patient hon. Friend.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

My hon. Friend is a long-serving Member of Parliament, having entered it in 1970, so does he not recall that it has agreed to a range of referendums since then? I refer not only to the renegotiation of the treaty of Rome—albeit under a Labour Government—but devolution in Scotland, devolution in Wales and, on at least two occasions, devolution in Northern Ireland.

In each instance, Parliament rightly asked the people who would be affected by those dramatic changes to voice their opinion. Will my hon. Friend give an honest answer as to why he believes that in the case of the Maastricht treaty, which will—as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said—dramatically change the constitution and way of life of the people of this country, the people will not be allowed to cast their vote even in an advisory referendum so that Parliament will know their thoughts?

My hon. Friend has also told the House that he believes that there have been unnecessary and vicious attacks upon the Commission. Will he comment upon the extraordinarily partisan position adopted by the President of the Commission, Mr. Jacques Delors, to the Uruguay round and the GATT treaty, which is vital to free trade throughout the world, not just to free trade within Europe?

Mr. Dykes

It is not my task in the debate to defend Jacques Delors.

Mr. Winterton

My hon. Friend has been doing just that.

8.30 pm

Mr. Dykes

No. I was referring to the Commission as a body. The idea that the Commission is far too powerful is untrue. It is an inherently weak body. It has the constitutional task of proposing legislation to be submitted to the Council of Ministers, but the Council of Ministers is the boss; it makes the decisions. The Commission often grumbles about that reality. It would like those decisions to be more pan-European, and it is entitled to its aspirations. It is becoming more and more lumbered not with its own initiatives but with suggestions flowing from the Council of Ministers, the European Council and particularly from the most dangerous development of all—the grand Saturday night dinner at the European summit where such wonderful claret is consumed that they grow expansive and say, "Let's have another report from the Commission on such-and-such a subject."

I have already referred to the referendum, and I do not propose to deal with it again.

Mr. Winterton

Why not?

Mr. Dykes

Because I have already referred to it.

Mr. Winterton

But my hon. Friend has not answered the point.

Mr. Dykes

I repeat that we made the mistake of entering the exchange rate mechanism too high and too late. The Government are unwilling now to confront what is effectively only a very small number of real hard-core rebels, some of whose arguments are dishonest and frighten the people outside this place. Those errors and omissions mean that the Bill is being debated now in Committee instead of several months ago. Although I have already made the point, it is legitimate to repeat briefly that I regret the slowness with which this issue has been dealt with.

I regret, too, the timidity of the Government. As a keen European, I make no apologies for saying that. I want to reassure those who are terrified and trembling about what foreigners are planning for us next—probably fluoride in the water without the House being able to vote upon it—by saying that I believe that the activities of the House of Commons should, in the constitutional sense, be strengthened. Therefore, I very much welcome the greater participation and involvement of national Parliaments in the plurality and dispersal of power, the consideration of new policies and decision making. That is the hallmark of the European Community.

Timidity is also shown in the document that I am holding. I make no complaint about its contents. It is helpful. It explains the background lucidly. It is similar to the traditional notes on clauses. It reiterates also some of the elements, though in more detail, of a smaller pamphlet that again was issued rather late in the day. The pamphlet could have been published earlier this year. I do not understand why the Government took so long to publish it. Their printing system is supposed to be extremely efficient.

The tone of this document is very negative, as though, once again, the Government are nervous and apprehensive about a small minority of little Englanders. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They want to live in the past.

Mr. Winterton

That is a cheap remark.

Mr. Dykes

No, it is not a cheap remark. It shows the sad reality of the political situation.

Mr. Winterton

It is arrogant.

Mr. Dykes

No, it is not arrogant, either.

Mr. Winterton

My hon. Friend is pompous.

Mr. Dykes

The tone of the document is a little too negative. Apart from that, I commend it. Its tone, however, could be much more enthusiastic.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is not in the Chamber. Perhaps he is rehearsing yet another blockbuster that will alienate even more opinion outside the House on European matters. My hon. Friend was interrupted constantly, just like me, so he did not have a chance to develop the theme, but in his closing remarks today—he obeyed the sagacious admonition of the Chair to be brief because he had had a blockbuster yesterday—he began to refer to what the Bundestag had decided. Again it was a wonderful example—I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend and I shall look tomorrow at what he said to make sure that I have got it right—of either deliberately or accidentally misleading the House. I use that phrase with reluctance. One does not like to say that about one's colleagues.

Far be it from us to wait on what other national Parliaments may do. We have our own national self-confidence. We should not worry about what those wicked foreigners think, though it is funny how we are hanging so closely on what the Danes think. Last week I was in Copenhagen. Every person to whom I spoke in the Folketing asked me, "Why are the British waiting for us? Why don't they go ahead? It's nothing to do with us." They also said, "Yes, we confidently expect a yes result this time."

Mr. Winnick

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dykes

No, not at the moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford gave the impression that the Bundestag had had massive second thoughts about Maastricht, ratification of the treaty and all the rest of it. Far from it. One should refer to the account of the debate that is already in the news media. Colleagues have told me about it while the debate proceeds. Ratification—the final stage in the Bundestag—was a triumphant endorsement of Maastricht. There was a huge majority for the Bill in the Bundestag. There were no second thoughts. All that they did in their debate was to clarify the particular relationship of the Bundesrat to the Bundestag and the relationship of the lander to the federal Government and the federal constitution. There were no second thoughts. The final ministerial speech—details of it have been faxed to me, so I do not have it word for word—was an exhortation: now that we have ratified Maastricht, we hope that it will encourage the Danes and the British to do so as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—I shall tell him that I have referred to his remarks—did not say that at all. He said that the Germans had had huge second thoughts on Europe.

Mr. Butcher

My hon. Friend has been most courteous in giving way, but he was very provocative when he said that this was a routine and technical Bill. I ask my hon. Friend to accept what the Government are telling us: that transfers of sovereignty are involved and that there is considerable dispute about whether sovereignty will be transferred in areas that so far have been described as being outside the treaty. It is not a routine and technical Bill. To pretend otherwise is to do my hon. Friend's own cause, which he has honourably espoused, a disservice. Let him be absolutely open about the move towards the transfer of further powers. Let us not pretend that the Bill is routine and technical.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. I deprecate very long interventions.

Mr. Dykes

The problem is that I have to try to face you in your Chair, Dame Janet, and my hon. Friend. I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the position. I was not being discourteous when I said that the Bill was technical and brief, which it literally is. All I am saying is that all those arguments were presumably aired during the earlier stages, including Second Reading. The conclusion must therefore be that, in the absence of any significant change, the House overwhelmingly supports the legislation, which itself refers to consequential amendments, in the legislation of the European Community, to the treaty. I say no more than that. That is why I regret that, all too often, we return in our debates to the fundamental question as to whether membership of the European Community is a good idea.

Mr. Winnick

Crucial to the debate on this group of amendments is the question of power and whether that power will be taken away from us. The hon. Gentleman keeps on saying that that is not so, but where in the treaty is there any suggestion that power, let alone more power, will remain with this Parliament? The reason why so much criticism was levelled at the treaty both before and during the two-day debate was that power will increasingly be taken away from this Parliament and given to Europe. That is why the hon. Gentleman ought to be as honest as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). Although the right hon. Gentleman is a great enthusiast for the treaty, he, unlike the hon. Gentleman, admits, defends and justifies the taking away of further powers from Parliament. Why is the hon. Gentleman not willing to admit that?

Mr. Dykes

We all have our ways of explaining these things. I do not think that it is a transfer of power from one entity, a nation state, to another, Europe. It is a development of the collective power of all the sovereign member states working together in the new concept of European union. I am grateful for the patience of the Chair—

Mr. Dalyell

rose—

Mr. Dykes

I do not intend to give way again as it would be unfair to hon. Members who are waiting to speak.

If the treaty proposed the creation of a single governmental entity or structure—a new European Government, presumably based in Brussels—to replace national Governments, that would be a different kettle of fish. That simply is not so.

Mr. Winnick

It is in the treaty.

Mr. Dykes

This is my answer. The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he must accept it.

The enhancement of intrinsic sovereign power for all member states comes from their collective, reciprocal sharing of that power, based increasingly on majority voting and the terrifying concept of democracy, which the anti-democrats in the anti-European camp do not accept or like.

The amendments are illogical. The hon. Member for Hamilton amply explained why they do not fit and are not apposite and would have the opposite effect of that intended by the hon. Members who tabled them. That is why the House needs to settle down and accept that the vast majority of Members want the treaty to go ahead without further undue delay.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

On a point of order, Dame Janet. A few minutes ago, you said that you deprecated long interventions. As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I fully accept that ruling, but will you accept that hon. Members who have been sitting for many hours are deeply concerned that when the Minister, who is one of the great architects of this misguided treaty and policy, sits down, the closure motion will be moved?

Hon. Members who have a valuable contribution to make to the debate have not had the opportunity to do so. The amendments allow Members on both sides of the Committee to debate the principle behind title I of the treaty and to articulate our fundamental opposition to what the House, under the guidance of the Government, is likely to be forced to do. Constitutional issues are being forced through, not in a free debate but on a three-line Whip. I ask you to say that you will allow the debate to go on after the Minister has sat down.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I shall deal with one point of order at a time.

As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be well aware that, in Committee, the presence of a Minister at the Dispatch Box does not mean, as it would in an ordinary debate, the end of the debate. I cannot anticipate what might happen after that.

Mr. Winnick

Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. You are aware of the importance of the debate and I know that you and your colleagues in the Chair wish to defend the integrity of the House and the Committee. You said that the fact that the Minister intends to speak again does not mean that the debate will be concluded. As many hon. Members on both sides want to speak, if a closure motion is moved, I beg you, in defending the Committee and bearing in mind how crucial the debate is, not to accept it. The decision, I understand, lies with you.

A rumour—it may be unfounded—is circulating that a closure motion will be moved shortly, certainly before 10 o'clock or just at 10 o'clock. In those circumstances, if you are in the Chair, Dame Janet, I beg you not to allow the motion to be moved, because it would make a mockery of the debate.

Several hon. Members

rose—

8.45 pm

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I shall deal with this point of order first.

I do not anticipate what may happen; I deal with what happens. I confirm that the acceptance of such a motion is entirely at my discretion.

Mr. Devlin

Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Dame Janet. Some hon. Members sat here yesterday evening—as you know, because you accepted two points of order from me. A number of the hon. Members who are rising in their places have already intervened in long speeches. This is an extensive debate, with many amendments, and many hon. Members are keen to make progress. I therefore hope, with all the hope in my heart, that you will accept a closure as soon as possible so that we can get on.

Mr. Rowlands

On a point of order, Dame Janet. I have sat here almost continuously from 3.30 pm to 10 pm yesterday and from 3.45 pm today until now. Like other hon. Members, I therefore feel able to make a plea to you.

You said that the fact the Minister intends to speak again does not mean that the debate will be concluded. Some of us wish to follow up aspects of the Minister's speech and put some points to him, to which we should like a reply. Will you consider not calling the Minister so that other hon. Members can make their speeches and put some specific points to the Minister that arose from his speech yesterday afternoon?

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

On a point of order, Dame Janet. We spent a considerable amount of time on this debate yesterday, and at 10 pm we will have devoted a whole day to it today. I would not for a minute suggest what you should do, but I merely point out that, by then, we will have had as long as we normally have on a Second Reading debate. It must surely be obvious to everyone that certain hon. Members, far from observing the 10-minute rule, have occupied—[Interruption.] I am as aware as anyone that there is no rule, but I also know, as you do, Dame Janet, that, when colleagues are anxious to let as many hon. Members speak as possible, they practise a little self-denial.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

On a point of order, Dame Janet. It is a convention of the House that speeches move from one side of the Chamber to the other. The last speaker was a Conservative Member, so it was confidently expected that a Labour Member would be called next. You called the Minister, which has given rise to a number of fears. Indeed, the Minister had a brief conversation with the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to indicate, from what I could tell, that he was going to get in immediately after the hon. Gentleman, and that he could curtail his remarks.

The debate is being keenly argued, and many hon. Members want to speak, which is another consideration that Chairmen of Committees bear in mind. I was told that the Minister was going to speak at 8.30 pm, the closure would be moved, and it had all been set up. If that happened—I am sure that you, Dame Janet, would not be a party to it—it would provoke great anger.

This is an important issue, and many hon. Members have a lot to say about it. Once we leave these amendments, we shall lose the opportunityy to talk about title I, which is important. This debate is vital to us all. I am not making any jokes about false points of order. If we do not have the opportunity to debate the treaty, I and many other hon. Members will be extremely angry about the Government conspiring to deny us the opportunity to speak. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are not involved in that agreement, or consensus—because there is no consensus tonight.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I know nothing of any private conversations or conspiracies—and if I did, they would not move me one iota.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

On a point of order, Dame Janet. When the Chairman of Ways and Means, unusually, convened a meeting on Monday, he emphasised that he recognised the great importance of title I, and the fact that, as it constructed the architecture of the Bill, it gave us probably our only opportunity to view the treaty and the Bill in perspective.

Some of us could not speak on Second Reading because of the demand of so many hon. Members to speak, and the Chairman of Ways and Means suggested that we would have the opportunity to come back. There is therefore a sense of alarm that the Minister is being called at such an early stage, when so few people have spoken. One has not had an opportunity—[Interruption.] The point is that Mr. Morris showed us that he recognised that the matters before us are terribly important. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member had spoken out of order, I am sure that the occupant of the Chair would have notified the individual concerned.

There is a real sense of anxiety that we may be frustrating the purpose of the Committee stage, and our examination of the important title I. The amendment was moved by the Liberal Democrats, and it will be to the disadvantage of other hon. Members who wish to speak on the subject if we subvert the processes of proper debate.

Mr. Spearing

On a point of order, Dame Janet. The whole House recognises that if anyone claims to move the closure the occupant of the Chair has to make a decision in the circumstances at the time, and do a balancing act. May I, through this point of order, put to you two matters which I hope that you will bear in mind if that occasion should arise at any time during the debate on the amendments?

As Mr. Morris said, and as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) reminded us, this debate is in a sense a broad conspectus on the total meaning of the treaty as contained in title I. The breadth and gravity of the matters concerned are considerable, and they affect this country's constitution.

The Minister found some difficulty talking about those matters yesterday—

Mr. Garel-Jones

indicated dissent.

Mr. Spearing

The Minister shakes his head, but I believe that there was some difficulty in the manner in which he replied to some of his hon. Friends, and to some Opposition Members. It is not appropriate for the Minister to speak again before some of us have had an opportunity to follow up those important matters—unless there will be another opportunity for us to speak, and the debate is to continue.

I therefore hope that, if you have to make such a decision, Dame Janet, you will bear in mind that important consideration, and the fact that several of my hon. Friends and I have been in the Chamber all day yesterday and most of today, yet we have not had the opportunity even to comment on what the Minister said in his opening speech yesterday.

Mr. Butcher

On a point of order, Dame Janet. The part of the Committee discussion which deals with title I is of fundamental constitutional importance. I readily concede that some over-lengthy speeches have been made in the House in the past two days, but some hon. Members who have an immense contribution to make to the debate have waited patiently to speak. There is a clash on the exact meaning and applicability of title I—and we may never have another chance to discuss it. Six or seven major questions remain in the air, and have not been resolved.

If you were asked a question about the closure, would you think it fair to close the debate after the Minister had spoken? May I put that question to you now?

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman may put the question, but I retain my discretion, and I do not answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. Ian Taylor

On a point of order, Dame Janet. Will you give guidance to the Committee? It seems to me that the debate on title I and on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has contained many of the same points as were raised in earlier debates on the Bill.

I am aware that we are in Committee, but many of the points raised in the debate have been raised at earlier stages, especially on Second Reading. That is important, because the Bill has already been discussed by the House for longer than all the stages of the Single European Act. There can be no question of there not having been a proper debate. If certain of my hon. Friends decided to make very long speeches covering all the points, naturally it will not be possible for other hon. Members to contribute if we are to make progress.

I hope that we can make progress on the Bill, Dame Janet. Many of us would like to contribute to debates on amendments on the Order Paper, which will be discussed in later groups. This debate on the opening group has already been very long.

Mr. George Robertson

On a point of order, Dame Janet. Unfortunately, you are embroiled in dealing with hypothetical situations, but may I offer you the information that it is my view, and that of my hon. Friends, that the Opposition have not had an adequate opportunity to air our variety of views on the fundamental part of the debate which 'is now taking place? Lest there be confusion in anyone's mind, let me tell the House what I told the Minister earlier this evening: if the Government Whips choose to move the closure at this stage, we shall oppose it.

Mr. Shore

The House has entirely legitimate anxieties about the Minister's intentions. Is it not possible for the Minister himself to rise on a point of order and allay those anxieties by assuring us that he has no intention of moving the closure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or anyone else."]—yes, or anyone else on the Government Front Bench.

The Second Deputy Chairman

That is, of course, not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Garel-Jones

rose—

Mr. Bill Walker

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Garel-Jones

Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I tell the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that I have no notion what the intention of the business managers may be—

Mr. Winnick

Why don't you ask them?

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli)

On a point of order, Dame Janet.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I am taking a point of order from Mr. Davies. It is a point of order, I take it?

Mr. Davies

Yes, Dame Janet. Like many of m y hon. Friends, I have sat here for almost two days. This debate is not the debate we had on Second Reading. We are discussing some difficult legal matters, including the justiciability of title I. The Minister of State made some important points, although he has not clarified many of the matters which we wish to raise. If the debate is closed after his second intervention, we will have no further opportunity to debate those matters.

9 pm

Mr. Bill Walker

On a point of order, Dame Janet. We have had a two-day debate, and some of us have sat through the whole two days. You will notice that I represent one of the Scottish constituencies. Some aspects of title I must be addressed, as they affect the unitary Parliament and the Union. It is necessary for me to raise matters with the Minister and to get some sort of answer. I fail to see how I can do that if the Minister addresses the Committee now. It will give the Government no opportunity to answer the matters that I wish to put to the Minister. That would certainly send the wrong message to Scotland and to the rest of the country.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you explain why the Minister looks as if he is about to be called to speak again when other hon. Members have not spoken once, although they have sat through the whole debate? Some of us want to hear those other Members. Why have we broken the rule that we call hon. Members alternately from both sides of the Chamber? Will two Conservative Members be called consecutively? Are you aware that our fears have been strengthened as a result of the non-assurance and the weasel words of the Minister?

The Second Deputy Chairman

The right hon. Member I was about to call is the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen

On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I express my extreme distaste for the way in which the Minister of State dealt with the Committee a moment ago? He had an opportunity to calm the Committee and to offer a reasonably conciliatory gesture. However, he tried by a clever sleight of tongue to give an ambivalent answer to you, simply to irritate the Committee.

With the exception of the Government, the Committee wishes the debate to continue. If we are to have satisfactory discussions, we must create some trust between the Minister who is dealing with the matter and the rest of the Committee. The Minister's ambivalent—I even go so far as to say impertinent—remark does nothing but create contempt.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The Committee will appreciate that I am not responsible for the answers given by a Minister or, indeed, by any other hon. Member.

Mr. Barnes

On a point of order, Dame Janet. We are in some difficulty because you have called the Minister to speak, and the points of order are an attempt to make you change your mind. I appreciate that you have already made your decision. In those circumstances, would it not be helpful if the Minister announced that he did not wish to speak at this stage, but that he would be willing to speak later? The Minister's remark was not helpful to the Committee. He can now rise on a point of order and assist us all.

Mrs. Gorman

On a point of order, Dame Janet, I appeal to your sense of fairness in the matter. Many of us on the Back Benches, who, because we are not Privy Councillors and have not held offices that would enable us to attract the attention of the Chair in such a debate, have tried in vain many times to contribute to debates on Europe. That means that we sit for hours during such debates. On Second Reading, I tried to speak on the subject—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I have great difficulty in hearing, due to the sedentary comments of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). That is not acceptable to me.

Mrs. Currie

On a point of order, Dame Janet. I apologise; I merely wished to make the point that what was said by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was not a point of order; it was a load of humbug—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I shall be the judge of what is a point of order; it is not for the hon. Lady to do so. Has the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) finished her point of order?

Mrs. Gorman

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has spent more time out of the Chamber in the past two days than I have.

The Second Deputy Chairman

That is not a point of order. I must move on to another point of order.

Mr. Lewis

On a point of order, Dame Janet. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and others have referred to the fact that we are in Committee. Is it not the case that, in Committee, extra time should be given to allow hon. Members on both sides to make their contributions?

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)

On a point of order, Dame Janet. I am sure you recognise that several hon. Members have sat through the whole two-day debate and have not been called. Although there is debate and argument about whether title I should be included in the Bill, the fact of the matter is that title I is an integral part of the treaty. Once the treaty is ratified, it will be interpreted as though title I stood part of it. Therefore, it is extremely important for the Committee to be given a full opportunity to debate the matter almost exhaustively, because it is of such fundamental constitutional importance.

Mr. Livingstone

On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you rule that it is completely out of order for hon. Members who have been called and made their speeches to try to curtail the debate? We have a noble tradition in the Labour movement that such action is completely out of order and insulting to everyone else.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I am not aware of any such rule in the House of Commons.

Rev. Ian Paisley

On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I draw your attention to the fact that the other parts of the United Kingdom have a right to be heard in the debate on this constitutional matter? I am the only Northern Ireland Member who has attended the Committee both days. I believe that I have a duty to the people who sent me here and a duty to the overwhelming majority of voters of Northern Ireland who, on three occasions, have endorsed my view of the European Economic Community. I believe that I should have an opportunity to put my view.

I have not spoken at length in this Committee. In the European Parliament, I spoke many times for many hours. In this Committee, I have always respected the Chair, and I have always done right by the Chair. I should feel very angry tonight if not one speaker from Northern Ireland was allowed to put his view.

I have heard something of the plottings, and I have overheard remarks. It was disgraceful of the Minister to act as he did tonight. This is a constitutional issue. It will not affect us for 10 minutes or for an hour: it will affect our future, our families, our children and our grandchildren, and we have a right to be heard. The Bill was drafted in such a way as to gag us. What we could have said in order we shall not now be allowed to say.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

On a point of order, Dame Janet. I appeal to you as someone who safeguards the interest of Back-Bench Members. May I remind you that the Minister said during these points of order that he had no knowledge whatever of what the business managers of the House intended? May I ask whether I and other long-serving Members are expected to believe that?

The Second Deputy Chairman

As we are all supposedly honourable Members—I trust that we are—we must accept what another hon. Member has said.

Mr. Budgen

Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I dare say that there are right hon. and hon. Members who are generous enough to believe the Minister of State when he says that he does not know what the business managers intend to do. As I speak, he has an opportunity to ask the Whips what their intentions are. If he cannot move the two feet necessary to get to the Whip, I am sure that the Whip is sufficiently athletic to move that two feet himself. The Minister might then be able to give the Committee some information. I repeat: the Minister's earlier reply was offensive to the Committee.

Mr. Cash

Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. Is it in order for the Minister to say that he has had no contact with the Whips on this question when there are those in the Committee who have some access to other information? Would it be possible for us to be able to put it to you that the Minister may have information which he is not disclosing to the Committee about what is going on this evening in relation to the proceedings?

The Second Deputy Chairman

The duties of the Chair are onerous enough, without checking every rumour or suggestion. The Chair cannot be involved in that.

Mr. Leighton

Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. May I suggest that you adjourn the Committee for two minutes to allow the Minister to find out what the Whips intend to do?

Mr. Budgen

Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. May I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has made an extremely sensible and helpful suggestion? The Committee is, in general, very fond of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, he has offended the Committee tonight. This is an opportunity for him to speak to the Chief Whip. It is sensible to suggest that the Committee might rise for a few minutes to enable my right hon. Friend the Minister to discuss the matter in a calm and civilised way.

Mr. Garel-Jones

Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and I have both done time in the Whips Office. It will not come as a surprise to him to be told that it is not infrequent in these matters that sometimes the last person the usual channels choose—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. As I understand it, the Minister seeks to answer a point of order. We do not have interventions on points of order.

Mr. Garel-Jones

It is of course the case, as my hon. Friend was saying, that I have attempted in the course of the afternoon to ascertain what are the plans for the future, and I assure hon. Members that my whole purpose in seeking to intervene when I did was to hope that other hon. Members might be able to continue to speak after I had sat down.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, The Second Deputy Chairman, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 416.

Division No. 94]	9.10 pm
AYES
Budgen, Nicholas	Paisley, Rev Ian
Cash, William	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Etherington, Bill	Sweeney, Walter

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)	Mr. Ronnie Campbell and Mr. Harry Barnes.
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cohen, Harry
Adams, Mrs Irene	Colvin, Michael
Adley, Robert	Congdon, David
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Connarty, Michael
Aitken, Jonathan	Conway, Derek
Alexander, Richard	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Alton, David	Cormack, Patrick
Amess, David	Couchman, James
Ancram, Michael	Cousins, Jim
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Cryer, Bob
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ashby, David	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Aspinwall, Jack	Dafis, Cynog
Atkins, Robert	Dalyell, Tam
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Darling, Alistair
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Davidson, Ian
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Baldry, Tony	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Day, Stephen
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Barron, Kevin	Devlin, Tim
Bates, Michael	Dicks, Terry
Batiste, Spencer	Dixon, Don
Battle, John	Donohoe, Brian H.
Bayley, Hugh	Dorrell, Stephen
Beckett, Margaret	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Beggs, Roy	Dover, Den
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Duncan, Alan
Belling ham, Henry	Duncan-Smith, Iain
Bennett, Andrew F.	Dunn, Bob
Beresford, Sir Paul	Durant, Sir Anthony
Booth, Hartley	Dykes, Hugh
Bottom ley, Peter (Eltham)	Eastham, Ken
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Elletson, Harold
Bowden, Andrew	Emery, Sir Peter
Bowis, John	Enright, Derek
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Bradley, Keith	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Brandreth, Gyles	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Brazier, Julian	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Bright, Graham	Evennett, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Faber, David
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Fabricant, Michael
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Fatchett, Derek
Burden, Richard	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Burns, Simon	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Burt, Alistair	Fishburn, Dudley
Butler, Peter	Forman, Nigel
Butterfill, John	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Caborn, Richard	Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Callaghan, Jim	Forth, Eric
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Cann, Jamie	Foster, Don (Bath)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Foulkes, George
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norrnan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Carrington, Matthew	Freeman, Roger
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	French, Douglas
Chaplin, Mrs Judith	Gale, Roger
Chapman, Sydney	Gallie, Phil
Chisholm, Malcolm	Gapes, Mike
Clapham, Michael	Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Clappison, James	Garnier, Edward
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Gillan, Cheryl
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Clelland, David	Godsiff, Roger
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Golding, Mrs Llin
Coe, Sebastian	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Coffey, Ann	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Gordon, Mildred	Leighton, Ron
Gorst, John	Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Graham, Thomas	Lewis, Terry
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)	Lidington, David
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)	Lightbown, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Livingstone, Ken
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Grocort, Bruce	Llwyd, Elfyn
Gunnell, John	Loyden, Eddie
Hague, William	Luff, Peter
Hain, Peter	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Hall, Mike	Lynne, Ms Liz
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)	McAllion, John
Hanley, Jeremy	McAvoy, Thomas
Hannam, Sir John	McCartney, Ian
Hanson, David	Macdonald, Calum
Hardy, Peter	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Hargreaves, Andrew	MacKay, Andrew
Harris, David	Mackinlay, Andrew
Harvey, Nick	Maclean, David
Haselhurst, Alan	McLeish, Henry
Hawkins, Nick	Maclennan, Robert
Hayes, Jerry	McLoughlin, Patrick
Heald, Oliver	McMaster, Gordon
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward	McNamara, Kevin
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Madden, Max
Hendry, Charles	Madel, David
Heppell, John	Mahon, Alice
Hicks, Robert	Maitland, Lady Olga
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Major, Rt Hon John
Hinchliffe, David	Malone, Gerald
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Mans, Keith
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	Marland, Paul
Home Robertson, John	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Hoon, Geoffrey	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Horam, John	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Hordern, Sir Peter	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Martlew, Eric
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Maxton, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Meale, Alan
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Merchant, Piers
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Michael, Alun
Hunter, Andrew	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Hutton, John	Milburn, Alan
Ingram, Adam	Miller, Andrew
Jack, Michael	Milligan, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Mills, Iain
Janner, Greville	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Jenkin, Bernard	Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Monro, Sir Hector
Johnston, Sir Russell	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Morley, Elliot
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Moss, Malcolm
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Mudie, George
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Mullin, Chris
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Needham, Richard
Jowell, Tessa	Nelson, Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Neubert, Sir Michael
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)	Nicholls, Patrick
Key, Robert	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Kilfoyle, Peter	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
King, Rt Hon Tom	Norris, Steve
Kirkhope, Timothy	O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Kirkwood, Archy	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	O'Hara, Edward
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Olner, William
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	O'Neill, Martin
Knox, David	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Oppenheim, Phillip
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Ottaway, Richard
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Page, Richard
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Paice, James
Legg, Barry	Parry, Robert
Leigh, Edward	Patten, Rt Hon John

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Pawsey, James	Steen, Anthony
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Steinberg, Gerry
Pendry, Tom	Stephen, Michael
Pickles, Eric	Stern, Michael
Pickthall, Colin	Stewart, Allan
Pike, Peter L.	Streeter, Gary
Pope, Greg	Sumberg, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Sykes, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Prescott, John	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Primarolo, Dawn	Thomason, Roy
Purchase, Ken	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Randall, Stuart	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Redwood, John	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Richards, Rod	Thurnham, Peter
Riddick, Graham	Tipping, Paddy
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Robathan, Andrew	Tracey, Richard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Tredinnick, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Trend, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Trimble, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Trotter, Neville
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Turner, Dennis
Rogers, Allan	Tyler, Paul
Rooker, Jeff	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Rooney, Terry	Wallace, James
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Waller, Gary
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Walley, Joan
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Ward, John
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Sackville, Tom	Wareing, Robert N
Sainsbury. Rt Hon Tim	Waterson, Nigel
Shaw, David (Dover)	Watson, Mike
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Watts, John
Sheerman, Barry	Wells, Bowen
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Welsh, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Wheeler, Sir John
Shersby, Michael	Whitney, Ray
Sims, Roger	Whittingdale, John
Skinner, Dennis	Widdecombe, Ann
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Wiggin, Jerry
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Wigley, Dafydd
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Willetts, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Wilshire, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)	Wise, Audrey
Soames, Nicholas	Wolfson, Mark
Spearing, Nigel	Wood, Timothy
Spencer, Sir Derek	Wright, Dr Tony
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)	Yeo, Tim
Spink, Dr Robert	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Spring, Richard
Sproat, Iain	Tellers for the Noes:
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)	Mr. James Arbuthnot and
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)	Mr. Tim Boswell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Budgen

On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I make a suggestion? There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding between the Committee and the Minister of State. I am pleased that he has had the opportunity to have a discussion, perhaps with the Patronage Secretary, but the Patronage Secretary has a rather different and more partisan role than that of the Leader of the House. If the Leader of the House were to explain how he reconciled the rights of Back-Bench Members with the Government's wish to get on with the business, he might explain what the Government's plans are for the rest of this evening. I dare say that he would do that in a more conciliatory way than the Minister of State would.

The Second Deputy Chairman

It is not for the Chair to ask or command any hon. Member to come to the Committee. No doubt the point will have been heard by Front-Bench Members. I call Mr. Garel-Jones.

Mr. Garel-Jones

I am grateful to you, Dame Janet, for recognising me.

Over the past two days, several hon. Members have made the point that the Committee owes a debt to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) for moving his amendment which has enabled us to discuss the broad structure of the treaty. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was quite correct to say that the amendment goes to the heart of our subsequent debates in Committee.

We have spent some time discussing amendment No. 93, which proposes to include title I in the scope of the Bill. The plain fact is, however, as I stated at the start of the debate, that, for the purposes of our domestic legislation, those parts of title I which need to come within the scope of the Bill are already included. There is every value in a serious debate on the content of title I of the treaty. As I have said, we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment. But, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made clear, there is no need in our domestic legislation to accept the amendment as proposed.

The Committee should recall—your predecessors in the Chair, Dame Janet, have reminded the Committee of this fact on several occasions—that we are not discussing ratification of the treaty.

Sir Russell Johnston

Is the essence of the Minister of State's argument against our amendment that it is not necessary and that it would not make any difference? That has not been clear to me throughout our proceedings.

Mr. Garel-Jones

No. There are several arguments against the hon. Gentleman's amendment, not least of which are those that were made by the hon. Member for Hamilton. In respect of our domestic legislation, it is completely otiose and it would create legal anomalies.

Another aspect of the hon. Gentleman's amendment is worth considering, particularly by my hon. Friends. In one sense, it begins to chip away at—to collapse—the pillared intergovernmental structure of the union. To that extent, I can see why the hon. Gentleman tabled his amendment. He and his hon. Friends support a single structured Europe. Most of my hon. Friends and I do not support the Liberal Democrats' view of Europe. To that extent, I see what the amendment is aiming at. Even if one were a federalist, as the hon. Gentleman is, there are other legal arguments as to why his amendment should not be accepted.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Garel-Jones

I should like to make more progress and then I will give way. Points have been raised during the debate which I should like to respond to; then I will give way.

Sir Russell Johnston

rose—

Mr. Garel-Jones

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose amendment we are debating.

Sir Russell Johnston

The Minister commends me to support my amendment because it is in the logic of my party's position. I understand that. He then says that it may make a mess of legal matters, but throughout the debate no one has explained that. If he manages to do so, I will take great note of it.

Mr. Garel-Jones

I shall certainly do that.

As I said, the Chair has reminded the Committee on several occasions that we are not discussing ratification of the treaty. We are engaged in detailed examination of a piece of domestic legislation required to incorporate into the framework of United Kingdom law those provisions of the treaty which need to be so incorporated. That means the provisions of titles II, III and IV and other provisions so far as they relate to those titles. That point was made effectively by the hon. Member for Hamilton in explaining to the Committee why the official Opposition would not be supporting the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

The hon. Gentleman also noted that legislation in other countries covered the whole treaty and suggested that ours should do likewise. The constitutional requirements in Britain are the ones which I have addressed. Although he would wish it not to be the case, I am glad that we do not yet have harmonisation of constitutional practice throughout Europe. He might wish that but that wish is not shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends, nor, I believe, by—

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Garel-Jones

Not yet; I want to make a little more progress and then I will give way.

The process of ratification, as distinct from the Bill, does not always require legislation to be enacted. Some important treaties over the years did not require legislation before ratification. I sought to make that point earlier. For example, the treaties establishing NATO and the Western European Union, and the recent "two plus four" treaty on the reunification of Germany, did not require legislation. In such cases the House was given the opportunity to examine the treaty which had been signed, subject to ratification, before it was ratified, in accordance with the Ponsonby procedures.

When domestic legislation is required, as is the case here, prior to ratification, the legislative process subsumes that practice but does not replace it. That has been the practice followed for nearly 70 years. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber may not agree with that procedure and he may wish to see the day when the Community can impose different procedures upon us, but such procedures are not followed in this Parliament. Provisions which are not necessary would create confusion in our domestic legislation. The legislation already includes in its scope all that it needs to include in order that we can honour our obligations under the treaty.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Garel-Jones

I want to address points made by some of my hon. Friends. Then I shall sit down so that other hon. Members may take part in the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who is not in his place but who has attended the debate assiduously, made the point that the common provisions of title I do not in themselves create new rights or obligations in Community law. I sought to make that point in response to interventions during my opening remarks. They are intended as an introduction to the main body of the treaty and, as such, refer in places to activities outlined in the detail later. For example, article E refers to the Community institutions and to how they will exercise their powers. Nothing in the common provisions is inconsistent with the substantive articles later in the treaty.

Although Community laws cannot be adopted under the common provisions, they can be taken into account by the European Court of Justice by reflecting the intentions of the drafters.

Mr. Denzil Davies

The Minister has explained that parts of the first title will appear in the other titles and so the Bill will give them effect in domestic law. He then said that if those parts of title I which do not need to be given effect in domestic law were included in the Bill, it would chip away at the intergovernmental nature of those parts. Could he explain that? If they do not have to be incorporated into domestic law, how on earth can they chip away at anything?

Mr. Garel-Jones

Because if the Committee were to support the amendment, it would make domestic law in Britain more federal and centralising, placing it ahead of the Maastricht treaty. That is why I hope that on reflection he will think that my other arguments outweigh that. That may be why he thinks that he would be wise to support his amendment, but I would be surprised if he or any of my hon. Friends were prepared to countenance putting provisions in United Kingdom domestic legislation that would make it more federalist and centralist than the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Enright

May we put it another way? Is it not the case that, if the amendment were included in our law, the intergovernmental conference would be more responsible to this body than it will be, and that it would also be more responsible to the European Parliament?

Mr. Garel-Jones

I do not think that that would be the case. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, there could be a danger that we were beginning a process whereby any action taken intergovernmentally by Ministers of the Crown that would provoke a change in the laws of the United Kingdom would prompt the introduction of a Bill to the House in the normal way. I am not sure what would be the effect were we to introduce that centralising measure into the body of the treaty, and I am not sure that it would produce the effects that the hon. Member mentions.

Another issue has been raised by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in an intervention, when he inadvertently misread the word "means" as "money". I accept that it was an inadvertence on his part, and we both laughed about it. My 'hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) also mentioned it. Article F, paragraph 3, states: The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies. My hon. Friend is exercised about that paragraph because of the word "means", and he and a number of other hon. Members argue that that means, with the funds necessary, and that a money resolution should therefore be attached to the Bill.

The union has no financial resources of its own. The commitment reflected in article F dates back to the Rome European Council and is a reference to means, in the broad sense of the word, available to the Community, through its Community and intergovernmental arms, to carry out the purposes laid down. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that the provision does not refer to financial means. I can well understand why hon. Members might have thought it did, because we have Mr. Morris, who is the "Chairman of Ways and Means."

Some of my hon. Friends have made considerable jest about the occasional use of foreign words or phrases in the treaty. The phrase "acquis communautaire" has provided the Committee with much amusement. One must consider the fact that the treaty must be drafted in nine different languages by a profession called jurist-linguists. The French version of the treaty uses the word "moyens", which means "means" in the broadest sense rather than the revenue-raising sense.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

I have not yet had an opportunity to develop an argument, which is part of the frustration of this process. I must deal with points on which, so far, I have not succeeded in catching the Chairman's eye to put forward an argument on the basis of what I understood was an amendment which should be thoroughly discussed. My right hon. Friend's rising at this stage and seeking to answer questions that have not been developed or put is an unfair and short-cut way to proceed, because he will not deal with all the points that I hoped to make.

Mr. Garel-Jones

My hon. Friend did not take advantage of catching your eye, Mr. Morris, to ask me a question, so there is little that I can say in response.

I listened with care—sometimes with interest and amusement—to the lengthy speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who has tabled a series of amendments that are grouped with amendment No. 93. I would describe all those amendments as wrecking amendments; their purpose is to wreck the Bill.

I was struck less by the content of my hon. Friend's speech than by two interventions in it. The first was by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and the second was by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay believed that the Maastricht treaty, and therefore the Bill, was a communist plot, whereas the hon. Member for Brent, East believed that it was a capitalist plot. Those two interventions seemed to sum up the comment by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said in his speech that he did not believe in the conspiracy theory. I thought that he invented it.

Mrs. Gorman

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones

No. I wish to conclude now.

A number of my hon. Friends believe that there is a conspiracy behind the treaty. There is no such conspiracy, and on that basis, when a Division is called, I invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 296, Noes 164.

Division No. 95]	[9.42 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Duncan, Alan
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Durant, Sir Anthony
Aitken, Jonathan	Dykes, Hugh
Alexander, Richard	Eggar, Tim
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Elletson, Harold
Alton, David	Emery, Sir Peter
Amess, David	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Ancram, Michael	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Arbuthnot, James	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Evennett, David
Ashby, David	Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Faber, David
Aspinwall, Jack	Fabricant, Michael
Atkins, Robert	Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Fishburn, Dudley
Baldry, Tony	Forman, Nigel
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Forth, Eric
Bates, Michael	Foster, Don (Bath)
Batiste, Spencer	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Bellingham, Henry	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Freeman, Roger
Booth, Hartley	French, Douglas
Boswell, Tim	Gale, Roger
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Gallie, Phil
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Bowden, Andrew	Garnier, Edward
Bowis, John	Gillan, Cheryl
Brandreth, Gyles	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Brazier, Julian	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bright, Graham	Gorst, John
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Grylls, Sir Michael
Burns, Simon	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Burt, Alistair	Hague, William
Butler, Peter	Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Butterfill, John	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hanley, Jeremy
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Hannam, Sir John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hargreaves, Andrew
Carrington, Matthew	Harris, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Harvey, Nick
Chaplin, Mrs Judith	Haselhurst, Alan
Chapman, Sydney	Hawkins, Nick
Churchill, Mr	Hayes, Jerry
Clappison, James	Heald, Oliver
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)	Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Coe, Sebastian	Hendry, Charles
Colvin, Michael	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Congdon, David	Hicks, Robert
Conway, Derek	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Home Robertson, John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Horam, John
Cormack, Patrick	Hordern, Sir Peter
Couchman, James	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Dafis, Cynog	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Dalyell, Tam	Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Hunter, Andrew
Day, Stephen	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Jack, Michael
Devlin, Tim	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Dicks, Terry	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Dorrell, Stephen	Johnston, Sir Russell
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dover, Den	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Robathan, Andrew
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Key, Robert	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
King, Rt Hon Tom	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Kirkhope, Timothy	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Knox, David	Sackville, Tom
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Shaw, David (Dover)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Leigh, Edward	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Lennox-Boyd, Mark	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lidington, David	Shersby, Michael
Lightbown, David	Sims, Roger
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Llwyd, Elfyn	Soames, Nicholas
Luff, Peter	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lynne, Ms Liz	Spink, Dr Robert
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Spring, Richard
MacKay, Andrew	Sproat, Iain
Maclean, David	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Maclennan, Robert	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
McLoughlin, Patrick	Steen, Anthony
Madel, David	Stephen, Michael
Maitland, Lady Olga	Stern, Michael
Major, Rt Hon John	Stewart, Allan
Malone, Gerald	Streeter, Gary
Mans, Keith	Sumberg, David
Marland, Paul	Sykes, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Mates, Michael	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Thomason, Roy
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mellor, Rt Hon David	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Merchant, Piers	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)	Thurnham, Peter
Milligan, Stephen	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Mills, Iain	Tracey, Richard
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Tredinnick, David
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)	Trend, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector	Trotter, Neville
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Twinn, Dr Ian
Moss, Malcolm	Tyler, Paul
Needham, Richard	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Nelson, Anthony	Wallace, James
Neubert, Sir Michael	Ward, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Nicholls, Patrick	Waterson, Nigel
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Watts, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Wells, Bowen
Norris, Steve	Welsh, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Wheeler, Sir John
Oppenheim, Phillip	Whitney, Ray
Ottaway, Richard	Widdecombe, Ann
Page, Richard	Wiggin, Jerry
Paice, James	Wigley, Dafydd
Patten, Rt Hon John	Willerts, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Wilshire, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Wolfson, Mark
Pickles, Eric	Wood, Timothy
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Yeo, Tim
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Randall, Stuart
Redwood, John	Tellers for the Ayes:
Richards, Rod	Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.
Riddick, Graham

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Barron, Kevin
Adams, Mrs Irene	Battle, John
Ainger, Nick	Bayley, Hugh
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Beckett, Margaret
Barnes, Harry	Beggs, Roy

Benn, Rt Hon Tony	McAllion, John
Bennett, Andrew F.	McCartney, Ian
Body, Sir Richard	Macdonald, Calum
Bradley, Keith	Mackinlay, Andrew
Budgen, Nicholas	McLeish, Henry
Burden, Richard	McNamara, Kevin
Butcher, John	Madden, Max
Callaghan, Jim	Mahon, Alice
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Martlew, Eric
Cann, Jamie	Maxton, John
Chisholm, Malcolm	Meale, Alan
Clapham, Michael	Michael, Alun
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Clelland, David	Milburn, Alan
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Miller, Andrew
Coffey, Ann	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Cohen, Harry	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Connarty, Michael	Morley, Elliot
Cousins, Jim	Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Cryer, Bob	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Mudie, George
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)	Mullin, Chris
Darling, Alistair	O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Davidson, Ian	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	O'Hara, Edward
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Olner, William
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Paisley, Rev Ian
Dixon, Don	Parry, Robert
Donohoe, Brian H.	Pendry, Tom
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Pickthall, Colin
Eastham, Ken	Pike, Peter L.
Enright, Derek	Pope, Greg
Etherington, Bill	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Fatchett, Derek	Prescott, John
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)	Primarolo, Dawn
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)	Purchase, Ken
Foulkes, George	Raynsford, Nick
Fyfe, Maria	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Gapes, Mike	Rogers, Allan
George, Bruce	Rooney, Terry
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Godsiff, Roger	Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Golding, Mrs Llin	Rowlands, Ted
Gordon, Mildred	Sheerman, Barry
Graham, Thomas	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Grocott, Bruce	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Gunnell, John	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Hain, Peter	Skinner, Dennis
Hall, Mike	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Hanson, David	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Hardy, Peter	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Heppell, John	Spearing, Nigel
Hinchliffe, David	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	Steinberg, Gerry
Hoon, Geoffrey	Stott, Roger
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Hoyle, Doug	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Tipping, Paddy
Hutton, John	Trimble, David
Ingram, Adam	Turner, Dennis
Jamieson, David	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Janner, Greville	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Warded, Gareth (Gower)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Wareing, Robert N
Jowell, Tessa	Watson, Mike
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Khabra, Piara S.	Winnick, David
Kilfoyle, Peter	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Leighton, Ron	Wise, Audrey
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Wright, Dr Tony
Lewis, Terry
Livingstone, Ken	Tellers for the Noes:
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.
Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 28, Noes 392.

Division No. 96]	[9.56 pm
AYES
Alton, David	Lynne, Ms Liz
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Maclennan, Robert
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Body, Sir Richard	Salmond, Alex
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Dafis, Cynog	Tyler, Paul
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Wallace, James
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Welsh, Andrew
Foster, Don (Bath)	Wigley, Dafydd
Johnston, Sir Russell	Wilkinson, John
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)	Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.
Llwyd, Elfyn

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene	Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Adley, Robert	Chapman, Sydney
Ainger, Nick	Chisholm, Malcolm
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Churchill, Mr
Aitken, Jonathan	Clapham, Michael
Alexander, Richard	Clappison, James
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Amess, David	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Ancram, Michael	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Arbuthnot, James	Coe, Sebastian
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Cohen, Harry
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Colvin, Michael
Ashby, David	Congdon, David
Aspinwall, Jack	Connarty, Michael
Atkins, Robert	Conway, Derek
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Baldry, Tony	Cormack, Patrick
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Couchman, James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Cousins, Jim
Barnes, Harry	Cryer, Bob
Barron, Kevin	Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Bates, Michael	Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Batiste, Spencer	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Battle, John	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Beckett, Margaret	Dalyell, Tam
Bellingham, Henry	Darling, Alistair
Beresford, Sir Paul	Davidson, Ian
Booth, Hartley	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Bowden, Andrew	Day, Stephen
Bowis, John	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Bradley, Keith	Devlin, Tim
Brandreth, Gyles	Dicks, Terry
Brazier, Julian	Dixon, Don
Bright, Graham	Donohoe, Brian H.
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Dorrell, Stephen
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Dover, Den
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Duncan, Alan
Burns, Simon	Dunn, Bob
Burt, Alistair	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Butler, Peter	Durant, Sir Anthony
Butterfill, John	Dykes, Hugh
Callaghan, Jim	Eastham, Ken
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Eggar, Tim
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Elletson, Harold
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Emery, Sir Peter
Cann, Jamie	Enright, Derek
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Etherington, Bill
Carrington, Matthew	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Evans, John (St Helens N)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Hutton, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Ingram, Adam
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Jack, Michael
Evennett, David	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Faber, David	Jamieson, David
Fabricant, Michael	Janner, Greville
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	Jenkin, Bernard
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Fishburn, Dudley	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Forman, Nigel	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Forth, Eric	Keen, Alan
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Key, Robert
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Khabra, Piara S.
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Freeman, Roger	King, Rt Hon Tom
French, Douglas	Kirkhope, Timothy
Fyfe, Maria	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Gale, Roger	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Gallie, Phil	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Gapes, Mike	Knox, David
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Garnier, Edward	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
George, Bruce	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Gillan, Cheryl	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Leigh, Edward
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Gordon, Mildred	Lewis, Terry
Gorst, John	Lidington, David
Graham, Thomas	Lightbown, David
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Livingstone, Ken
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Grocott, Bruce	Loyden, Eddie
Grylls, Sir Michael	Luff, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Gunnell, John	McAvoy, Thomas
Hague, William	McCartney, Ian
Hain, Peter	Macdonald, Calum
Hall, Mike	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)	MacKay, Andrew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Hampson, Dr Keith	Maclean, David
Hanley, Jeremy	McLoughlin, Patrick
Hannam, Sir John	McMaster, Gordon
Hanson, David	McNamara, Kevin
Hardy, Peter	Madden, Max
Hargreaves, Andrew	Madel, David
Harris, David	Maitland, Lady Olga
Haselhurst, Alan	Major, Rt Hon John
Hawkins, Nick	Malone, Gerald
Hayes, Jerry	Mans, Keith
Heald, Oliver	Marland, Paul
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Hendry, Charles	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Heppell, John	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Martlew, Eric
Hicks, Robert	Mates, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Hinchliffe, David	Maxton, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	Meale, Alan
Home Robertson, John	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Hoon, Geoffrey	Merchant, Piers
Horam, John	Michael, Alun
Hordern, Sir Peter	Milburn, Alan
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Miller, Andrew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Milligan, Stephen
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Mills, Iain
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hoyle, Doug	Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Monro, Sir Hector
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hunter, Andrew	Morley, Elliot
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Moss, Malcolm	Sackville, Tom
Mudie, George	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mullin, Chris	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Needham, Richard	Shaw, David (Dover)
Nelson, Anthony	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Neubert, Sir Michael	Sheerman, Barry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Nicholls, Patrick	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Shersby, Michael
Norris, Steve	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)	Sims, Roger
O'Brien, William (Normanton)	Skinner, Dennis
O'Hara, Edward	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Olner, William	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Oppenheim, Phillip	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Ottaway, Richard	Soames, Nicholas
Page, Richard	Spearing, Nigel
Paice, James	Spencer, Sir Derek
Parry, Robert	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Patten, Rt Hon John	Spink, Dr Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Spring, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Sproat, Iain
Pickles, Eric	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Pickthall, Colin	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Pike, Peter L.	Steen, Anthony
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Steinberg, Gerry
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Stephen, Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Stern, Michael
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Stewart, Allan
Randall, Stuart	Stott, Roger
Raynsford, Nick	Streeter, Gary
Redwood, John	Sumberg, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Sykes, John
Richards, Rod	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Riddick, Graham	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Robathan, Andrew	Thomason, Roy
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Thurnham, Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Tipping, Paddy
Rogers, Allan	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Rooney, Terry	Tracey, Richard
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Tredinnick, David
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Trend, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian	Widdecombe, Ann
Vaughan, Sir Gerard	Wiggin, Jerry
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William	Willetts, David
Waller, Gary	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Ward, John	Wilshire, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)	Winnick, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)	Wise, Audrey
Wareing, Robert N	Wolfson, Mark
Waterson, Nigel	Wright, Dr Tony
Watson, Mike	Yeo, Tim
Watts, John	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Wells, Bowen
Wheeler, Sir John	Tellers for the Noes:
Whitney, Ray	Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.
Whittingdale, John

Question accordingly negatived.

It being alter Ten o'clock THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), said that he intended to make his remarks short because he wanted to leave time for other hon. Members to speak on the amendments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order. The hon. Member may have noticed that I have now assumed my role of deputising for Madam Speaker. I am no longer the Chairman, and Madam Speaker is not party to what has taken place in Committee, so there can be no discussion now of what happened then.