TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

HC Deb 01 February 1993 vol 218 cc27-116

Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert `(except Item C on pages 11 and 12 of Cm 1934)'.

The Chairman

With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 78, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(other than Article 8)'.

No. 125, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert `(excluding Article G C, on pages 11 and 12 of Cm 1934).'.

No. 128, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(excluding Article 8e on page 12 of Cm 1934).'.

No. 165, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert `(except Article 8 on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 166, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(except Article 8a on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 167, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(except Article 8b on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 169, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(except Article 8e on page 12 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 317, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(except paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 8 on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 364, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 8c as referred to in Article G on page 12 of Command Paper number 1934'.

No. 424, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'other than obligations arising from Articles 8 or Articles 8(a to e) on pages 11 to 12 of Cm 1934, concerning Representation of the People Acts and matters related thereto.'.

No. 427, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'other than duties imposed in citizens of the United Kingdom that would otherwise arise after the coming into force of this Act in respect of Article 8, paragraph (2) in Cm. 1934, page 11, other than those incorporated in an Act of Parliament specifying those duties.'.

No. 428, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'other than Article 8b of Cm. 1934, page 11, except where arrangements existed prior to 1st January 1993.'.

No. 429, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except for the second paragraph of Article 8e on page 12 of Cm. 1934.'.

No. 44, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert 'but not Part Two thereof'.

No. 115, in page 1, line 17, at end add— '(3) The above subsections shall only come into force subsequent to the laying before Parliament by Her Majesty's Government of a Command Paper concerning "Citizenship of the Union" which shall include: (i) a description of the duties of citizens, as referred to in Article 8(l) of the Treaty on European Union; (ii) the likely implications for the United Kingdom of Article 8a (Freedom of residence); (iii) the need for any derogations in respect of Article 8b (Municipal membership and voting); (iv) the effect on the personnel, organisation and financing of H.M. Foreign Service in respect of obligations imposed by Article 8c (Common protection by diplomatic and consular authorities); and to approval of the terms of such a document by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.

Mr. Blair

This amendment raises the issue of citizenship and the new article 8 of the treaty of Rome that is provided for in the Maastricht Bill. New article 8 declares that every person holding nationality of a member state becomes a European citizen. However, it is made clear that the countries themselves will determine nationality. Under new article 8, such people are deemed citizens of the European Community. The article is partly symbolic as it establishes for the first time the formal concept of citizenship in the European Community. It confers new rights on those citizens. We want to ask the Government questions about their policy on those issues and have debates on them so that everyone may have a full understanding of article 8.

Article 8a provides for a right to move and reside freely within member states, subject to treaty conditions, which include many of the directives promulgated under the treaty of Rome that affect the ability to reside and freedom of movement. Article 8 effectively reiterates, but also slightly expands on, article 8A of the Single European Act 1986. The term "resides" is added in new article 8 in the treaty, but I should have thought that that was implied by the provisions in the Single European Act.

Under new article 8a(2), the Council may unanimously act to facilitate the rights of people as citizens after a proposal from the European Council and the specific assent of the European Parliament. Article 8b gives citizens the right to vote in local elections of the country where they are residing, subject to details that will be drawn up by the Council by the end of 1994, after a proposal by the Commission and consultation with the European Parliament. There is also an additional safeguard of derogations being permitted where warranted by the specific problems of a member state. That gives, for the first time, a right to vote in local elections where the nationals of any member state are residing in a member country.

Mr. Cash

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the word "municipal" does not necessarily mean local? In European law and in the Court of Justice, the ruling has already been given in an important Italian case that the word "municipal", as applied to the treaty, would also mean national. The word "municipal" is regarded as referring to national in the context of the European Community. Therefore, it is highly debatable whether the hon. Gentleman can say that, in this context, the word "municipal" means local.

Mr. Blair

Of course, I shall study the judgment to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I should have thought that the word "municipal" was used here precisely to distinguish such elections from national elections. I would be deeply surprised if, in that context, the word "municipal" had the opposite meaning of national.

The details of how the procedures are to be implemented will provide a further opportunity to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The details are to be the subject of proposals drawn up by the Council, on a proposal by the Commission and after consultation with the European Parliament. The procedure is time limited, and should be complete by the end of 1994. Will the Home Secretary say whether there are any procedures to be undertaken in the event of failure to reach such an agreement, which is possible?

Some nations—as I understand it, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands—already grant some form of right to vote in local elections. This country gives such a right to Commonwealth and Irish citizens. Article 8b(2) has the same procedures, but on a slightly different timetable, on the ability to vote in elections for the European Parliament. The details of such procedures are to be agreed by the end of 1993. Article 8c extends the protection by diplomatic or consular authorities of all member states to any of their citizens.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

As my hon. Friend knows, the main qualification for voting purposes in the United Kingdom is residence on a given date at a given address. Under these arrangements, what will be the qualification for residence for a European union citizen? How long will he have had to live in the United Kingdom before residence can be claimed? What information will be sought: to whom will it be sent? Will there be any right of appeal if residence is refused? What would happen to a person denied the right of residence, given that there are no deportation rights under these provisions?

Mr. Blair

That is a fairly lengthy list of questions. The issue of residence will be justiciable by a citizen of Europe in exactly the same way as it is now under our domestic law. As for the test of residence, article 8b makes it clear, in respect of this and in respect of voting for the European Parliament, that detailed arrangements are a matter to be discussed by the Council on a proposal from the Commission and from the European Parliament. Those are the circumstances in which some of these questions will be answered.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

I think that my hon. Friend is saying that the House of Commons is not to be given the information because it is not available. Does he intend to deal with article 8.2, which he has not yet mentioned but which speaks not only of enjoying rights, but of the fact that citizens … shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby". What does he imagine that those duties will be?

Mr. Blair

The duties are set out there are duties laid down in the treaty of Rome. As I understand it, article 8 is not an article of the Maastricht treaty. It is to be a new article of the treaty of Rome, so the obligations set out in it are those of the treaty of Rome. Article 48, for instance, concerns the freedom of people to work in other member states. It imposes rights and obligations. I should have thought that the idea of taking rights and obligations together was entirely sensible—

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Blair

It is an extraordinary feature of these debates that saying something that one thinks is entirely uncontroversial provokes a storm of outrage.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

Why do all the entitlements to which the hon. Gentleman has referred require citizenship?

Mr. Blair

Citizenship is established by the new treaty, but the rights that people have are rights that they already have to a certain extent under the Single European Act —the right to move around freely within the Community, for example. The purpose of citizenship is to add, in part symbolically, to the rights that people already possess. Citizenship follows entirely naturally from the fact that people are given certain rights and obligations in the Community. The notion of citizenship is sensibly derived from those principles.

Mr. Marlow

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his usual supreme courtesy. I should like to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). All these rights and obligations will exist if and when this Bill is passed. They already exist under the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, so why do we need the concept of citizenship? I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents feel this way, but many of mine certainly do not want to be European citizens, which they will be forced to be if the Bill is passed. Why does he want to impose that on people when there is no benefit to be had from it?

Mr. Blair

As I have just said, these obligations and rights exist anyway—

Mr. Spearing

No.

Mr. Blair

I think that my hon. Friend will find that they do if he looks at the treaty carefully. Citizenship merely formalises the relationship. Many people see no contradiction between being citizens of Europe, as defined by the treaty, and being citizens of their own national states.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Under any of the provisions, will it be possible for a person to renounce his citizenship of the union?

Mr. Winnick

If it is, may I apply now to opt out?

Mr. Blair

I note that my hon. Friend wishes to add to the opt-out list.

Surely the position is exactly the same as the one that currently exists for a citizen of this country. One does not renounce that here or in Europe.

Mr. Wilkinson

That relates to the question that I wish to pose. How on earth can a citizen of the union renounce his citizenship without renouncing his British birthright or British nationality that he acquired by naturalisation? Surely there is a great distinction. There is no process for renouncing European citizenship, whereas a British citizen can renounce citizenship whenever he or she wishes.

4 pm

Mr. Blair

If a British citizen renounces his citizenship, it will have an impact on his citizenship under the treaty, but I see no great problem about that. I shall speak about citizenship towards the end of my speech. I accept that there is a fundamental disagreement between those who regard the concept of citizenship in Europe as awful and those who do not. We would do well to recognise that at the beginning.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

rose—

Mr. Blair

I should like to make some more progress before allowing any more interventions.

Mr. Spearing

Perhaps my hon. Friend would allow me to intervene before he leaves his present point.

Mr. Blair

Of course.

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on this matter, may like to consider my intervention. My hon. Friend says that the provision does not change much: it just gives a new name to obligations under the treaty of Rome. However, we are not to become citizens of the treaty of Rome or even the city of Rome because article 8 states: Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye may well want to become a citizen of the European union under the treaty of that union which, of course, subsumes the treaty of Rome. Why does my hon. Friend think that at midnight on a certain day every citizen of this country will become obligated to the duties imposed by citizenship of the union, which may well be greater than the duties imposed by citizenship of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Blair

Some of us feel that the advent of citizenship in Europe is not a loss of national identity. That is the point at issue. I do not at all regard it as a loss of national identity because I think that we shall gain something from it, and that that gain will outweigh any theoretical loss.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)

The hon. Gentleman has been diligent in allowing interventions by those who do not share his and my outlook on this issue, and it is fair to allow an intervention putting the other side of the case. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is extremely well established in the United Kingdom. No one among those hon. Members from Wales and Scotland who have been most active and vociferous in the debate suggests that people from Wales or Scotland are any less Welsh or Scottish because they happen to be British subjects. They are subjects rather than citizens, and many of us think that it is worth establishing citizenship in this country and in the wider European Community as well.

Mr. Blair

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that we shall be entirely persuasive on this matter.

Article 8d gives the right to petition the European Parliament and to apply to the ombudsman. The procedures for doing that are set out in articles 138d and 138e of the treaty of Rome. The ombudsman is given the important power to investigate maladministration in the European Community. Article 8e imposes an obligation on the Commission to report progress in relation to citizenship and it allows rights to be added or strengthened by the Council unanimously on a Commission proposal after consulting the European Parliament. That change can be effected only in accordance with the constitutional requirements of member states.

Those are the rights that are set out. The article is in part symbolic and in part it confers certain rights to vote, to petition the European Parliament and to go to the ombudsman. The procedure gives certain rights and imposes certain obligations, but it also has a formal status. Many people understand that the European Community has a power over the citizens of the Community, so it is entirely sensible that, where people are both ruled and have a share in ruling, citizenship should be established for them. Indeed, we should be looking for new and better ways to involve the citizens of Europe in the decisions that will affect them.

Article 8 is at least a beginning in that process. It does not mean that we scrap our nationality or citizenship, or even that we subordinate it. It means that running alongside our rights and obligations as British citizens will be a European citizenship.

Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar)

Does my hon. Friend accept that obligations under the treaty include, for everybody over the age of 18 in this country, conscription for military service?

Mr. Blair

As far as I am aware, it does not include that obligation.

The Single European Act, which was passed some years ago, allows people to move freely around the European Community. Article 8 builds on and extends that. We have had that provision for some time without any of the deleterious effects suggested by some hon. Members.

Mr. Winnick

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy; he has taken many interventions from both sides of the Committee. Does he agree that, however much he wishes to minimise the position, the article formalises in the Bill and in the treaty a new and revolutionary development? What authority or mandate do we have from the British people to introduce a citizenship of the union? I know of no mandate or authority that would allow us to follow that route.

This may be a revolutionary idea for both Front Benches, but would not it be far more appropriate to ask the British people whether they agree with the proposal? If, by a majority, they say that they do, I shall accept that that is their will. What authority or mandate do we have to follow what is undoubtedly—although the word is not used for obvious reasons—a federal route? It is a paving step towards total federal union.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Winnick

It does not matter how much my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) shakes his head, it is a federal route. Once we follow it, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the tide. We must have a mandate from the British people before we proceed in that way.

The Chairman

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was shaking his head because he knew that the matter was not covered by the amendment.

Mr. Blair

Our mandate is derived from our ability as Members of Parliament to represent our constituents. Article 8 will allow people the right to vote in both local elections and European elections. It will also allow them to petition the European Parliament and to go to the ombudsman. I cannot for the life of me see why those rights are so inconsistent with our ability to function effectively, either as a country or as individuals within a country, that some hon. Members should construct an edifice of outrage. I think it to be an entirely sensible notion.

Sir Teddy Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair

I want to conclude to allow someone else to speak, but I will take a final intervention.

Sir Teddy Taylor

The hon. Gentleman has obviously studied the matter carefully. Is he right to say that there is a real bonus in all this? I have a residence in Southend-on-Sea and another in Glasgow, but British law states that I can vote in only one of those places. If someone who is a resident of Paris also becomes a resident of Southend-on-Sea, will he be able to vote twice? That could be a dramatic development. Is there the hidden bonus that someone who has residences in two countries can vote in both, but someone who had two residences in this country can vote only once? That would be a dramatic bonus for the democratic system.

Mr. Blair

Of course one could not vote at two places in the same election, but one can do as the hon. Gentleman says now. Article 8 does not affect those arrangements. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's statement that we shall lose something by the notion of citizenship in Europe. For a generation that has seen and liked a Europe in which barriers to co-operation are coming down, citizenship provides something of a symbol.

Sir Teddy Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will it be two votes or one?

Mr. Blair

I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question many times. Viewed through the eyes of young people in particular in this country today, the prospect of a closer Europe is good. It is not frightening; it does not alarm them. It can even excite and sometimes inspire them. I do not believe that the concept of citizenship will be in any way detrimental to our country or those who live in it. Viewed sensibly, it will be part of progress towards a better, more stable world—and the European Community has a place in that.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for moving his amendment in the way that he did. Having returned to these debates, I am glad that they make a welcome change in the distribution of labour between the two Front Benches. Normally, it falls to the Minister to explain particular provisions and to answer interventions, but I am spared that in large part, because the hon. Member for Sedgefield has already subjected himself to cross-examination on every aspect of article 8.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, as I did the other day, on giving answers that are entirely in line with my understanding of article 8. It is becoming increasingly clear to me as we debate parts of the Bill in which the hon. Gentleman and I have been involved that—as I have long suspected, for as long as we have been in the House—the hon. Gentleman's views on the European Community are indistinguishable from my own.

Mr. Blair

rose—

Mr. Clarke

The hon. Gentleman rises to find a difference. He has an unfortunate mental block on the social chapter, which I know that he wanted to see included in the obligations on us, whereas we declined to be drawn into that. The hon. Gentleman holds different views also on economic and monetary union. Labour's position is that we should have assented, whereas the Government decided to opt out of the immediate provisions of EMU and to reserve questions such as a single currency for a later date. As some of my hon. Friends have said, in current circumstances that date looks further away rather than nearer.

Mr. Blair

rose—

Mr. Clarke

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman now. For the sake of defending his own back, as I appreciate, he is trying to find some difference between his opinions and my own.

Mr. Blair

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is attempting to answer my question before I ask it. If we wholeheartedly agree on those issues, why is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared, as is every other party in Europe—socialist or conservative—to agree to the social chapter and make sure that social Europe is part of the new Europe that we want to create?

The Chairman

Order. Perhaps that discussion could take place elsewhere, because that aspect is not covered by the amendment.

Mr. Clarke

I defer to your ruling, Mr. Morris, because that topic was debated at considerable length last week.

On citizenship, I agree entirely with the views of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. Like him, I feel no sense of outrage at the idea that, together with being a national of the United Kingdom, I shall be a citizen of the European union. I understand that some people in this country feel qualms about that proposition, but I do not believe that their view is held by the majority.

When the concept of European citizenship is examined in the context of article K, the practical consequences should not raise fears in anyone's mind. In fact, important new rights will flow from it to the citizens of this country.

Mr. Marlow

Does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to respond to the debate if he manages to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris? He is putting the Government's case now, and several speeches will follow. It would be helpful if we knew that, after those speeches, he will respond; otherwise, it will be difficult for hon. Members to know whether to intervene at this stage.

4.15 pm

Mr. Clarke

I am not usually accused of being too withdrawn in debates, or of being glued to my seat. Perhaps unfortunately, I regard the matter as fairly straightforward, and I am speaking now mainly to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. As I said in our previous debate, whether I speak again rather depends on what points are raised. If points are raised that have not been dealt with so far, I may seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris. Let me, however, keep my options open by saying that I see no point in doing so if I find at that stage that I have nothing new to add, or that no new points have been raised.

Mr. Rowlands

Whatever the joys and benefits of citizenship of a European union, will it be possible for someone who does not wish to belong to that union to renounce his or her citizenship?

Mr. Clarke

For as long as a person is a British national, that person will be a European citizen, under the terms of the treaty and the Bill. As was said earlier, if someone wishes to renounce British nationality, certain consequences will follow; but there is no separate provision whereby a person can remain a United Kingdom national but renounce citizenship of the European union. As I hope to illustrate, trying to renounce citizenship would have few practical consequences for such people; indeed, they would be giving up important new rights— albeit of a limited kind—conferred by the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Cash

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on being the first Secretary of State to attend the Committee stage. I should like to hope that some of the others will appear to speak about foreign affairs and, indeed, Treasury matters. I commend my right hon. and learned Friend on the way in which he is taking all this punishment.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the word "municipal" is important, in relation to the question of citizenship? The European Court of Justice has already ruled that the word "municipal", in relation to the Community, means "national": that raises serious questions of interpretation, in regard to whether the right of a national to vote in other countries' elections will arise. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that a careful assessment is made by his legal and other advisers?

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that questions are also raised in relation to the duties imposed under title II, including questions relating to allegiance and possible conscription? Many such matters are dealt with effectively by provisions in the citizenship section of the treaty, which seem to be more like a blank cheque than anything else.

Mr. Clarke

Let me deal with my hon. Friend's points in reverse order. The treaty and the Bill impose no new duties on individuals. It is the existing duty of us all to comply with the law, including such European Community law as is directly applicable in this country, or has been introduced by Parliament following a European directive. Sometimes a United Kingdom court judgment will impose a duty on an individual to comply with what is the law of the land because of our European Community membership, but no new duties are being inclosed.

I am glad to say that the idea of a duty to serve in a European army, or to be conscripted into military service of some kind, is entirely unfounded. I understand that that issue featured extensively in the Danish referendum: one reason why many Danes were induced to vote against the treaty was the fact that campaigners had persuaded them that they were about to be conscripted into a European army. According to all my study of the treaty and all the advice that I have received, there is no such risk.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Clarke

I am still replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).

His questions lead me to the new rights granted under new paragraph K, including the extremely important right to vote and stand for election in certain elections. The right to vote and to stand for election is in municipal elections and in elections to the European Parliament in whichever member state the citizen resides.

My firm opinion, and the advice that I have received, is that "municipal" does not mean national general elections.

The choice of the word "municipal" in the relevant article was designed precisely to rule out elections to national Parliaments. If my hon. Friend is correct when he says that he has seen a judgment of the European Court which he believes leads to an interpretation of the word "municipal" as meaning national elections, I shall be happy to look at it and give it further consideration; but, as I stand here, it is my firm belief that what we are talking about are local government elections, probably with effect from 1995, and the European Parliament elections in 1994.

British citizens are thereby given the right to vote or to stand for election in those elections, if they are resident in another Community state—a right similar to the right that is given to Community nationals who are resident here.

Mr. Shepherd

Is it the Home Secretary's understanding that the Queen becomes a citizen of the union of Europe under the provisions of the Bill?

Mr. Marlow

Has she been asked?

Mr. Clarke

I shall give further consideration to that question, but I do not see why not.

Mr. Shepherd

She must do.

Mr. Clarke

The Queen is undoubtedly a British national. She, being a national of the United Kingdom, is likely to become a citizen of the European union. [Interruption.] I shall reflect upon that point, but I very much suspect that that is the position. I do not believe that we should expand upon the position of the monarch at length, but I do not see why the Queen should be any more fearful of that prospect than anybody else is likely to be.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

On the question of citizenship and the right of people to vote in elections, is the Home Secretary aware that across the continent of Europe there are 15 million people who are not citizens of any European country but citizens of countries outside Europe—political refugees, economic migrants and so on —who are denied any political rights in national elections in any country whatsoever? Does he not think that it is time that this aspect of prejudice against people who live and work in Europe was addressed?

Mr. Clarke

Every country obviously reserves the right to restrict its franchise to particular nationalities or citizens. We have always done that in this country. Voting in United Kingdom elections has always been open to citizens of the United Kingdom, citizens of the Irish Republic and certain Commonwealth citizens, but we do not give voting rights to other people who are nationals of other countries. Those who take up long-standing residence in this country and feel themselves to be deprived of the right to vote in general elections are always faced with the perfectly straightforward choice of whether to apply for British naturalisation, if they feel that they are excluded from—

Mr. Richard Shepherd

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. My understanding of the rules of the House of Commons is that, when anything touches upon the Queen's prerogative or upon the Queen's majesty, a Minister of the Crown brings a statement to the House attesting that the Queen herself has no objection to the provision. I should be grateful for your ruling, Sir.

The Chairman

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes relates to the Second Reading or Third Reading of the Bill.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Clarke

Let me make a little progress, arid then I shall give way again, I am sure.

Mr. Shepherd

Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. If that has not been signified at Second Reading, surely it has an implication for the subsequent Committee stage, when the Government go on to reduce or subordinate the Queen's position relative to the ultimate law-making authority within the Community, the European Court of Justice.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman will have studied the Order Paper and looked at page 3397, which clarifies the position.

Mr. Clarke

I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris. I do not believe that anything that I said touched upon the Queen's prerogative. I also believe that it has always been the position that the monarch of this country is subject to the law of this country, and has never sought to be otherwise.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Clarke

Let me move on. There will be plenty of other opportunities for hon. Members to intervene.

We are at least beginning to deal with the practical rights which flow from European citizenship. I said that four new rights were established by this section of the treaty. The first is the right to vote in certain elections. The second is the right to consular protection in states where the member state of which a person is a national is not represented.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, under the treaty as it stands, the ex-leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), stood for election in Italy?

Mr. Clarke

British citizens have done so. Several member states of the European Community will not have to change their law to comply with this provision. In the past, there has been a disparity in practice between the 12 member states. As a result of the agreement, the United Kingdom is proposing to give new rights to vote in, and to stand as candidates at, municipal and European elections, Personally, I see no objection to that, if someone has established his right to residence here, especially when one remembers that the same right will be extended to the leader of the British Liberal party not only in Italy but in every other member state once the provision is in place.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend would be good enough to speak at some length on what he dismissed most airily as "the Danish point" in fearing a common European army. The preamble to the treaty clearly states that it was resolved to implement a common foreign and security policy including the framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence". It is not obvious that, if citizens of the new united Europe are all able to vote for an increasingly powerful European Parliament, it would be irresponsible for them to be able to vote for war without having to bear the consequences of having to fight themselves or having their family fight? As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the cases of Casement and John Amery show the horrible dilemma of a person who has a citizenship of which he cannot dispose and which leads him to be tried for treason, in this case because of forced loyalty to a European identity which he might want nothing to do with.

Mr. Clarke

My hon. Friend ingeniously seeks to read across from other provisions of the treaty dealing with foreign and security policy—perfectly properly—which are part of the so-called second pillar of Maastricht. The second pillar of Maastricht will proceed as the third pillar on interior and justice matters, by a process of intergovernmental co-operation requiring the unanimous consent of any of the members to a change of policy.

It is also plain that defence policy will proceed on the basis of developing the Western European Union as the European arm of NATO. It has repeatedly been the Government's policy to remain committed to NATO as the main arm of our western defence policy, the Western European Union being part of the European commitment to that. There is absolutely no suggestion of our Government, or any Government, contemplating forming a European army. There is no treaty obligation on us to do so. There is absolutely no question of this country being committed to war through a process to which we have not consented.

To go beyond that to the subject that we are now discussing, and to try to extract from it a fanciful notion that, under this part of the treaty, we are paving the way for conscription may have worked with a few gullible Danes, but it should not be seriously argued in the context of this debate. [Interruption.] I hear sounds of shocked outrage at that attack on the Danish nation—

Mr. Cash

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is not it disgraceful, and insulting to a foreign nation, to refer to its members as gullible? If you were to look in "Erskine May", would you not find that that is a remark that the Home Secretary should withdraw?

4.30 pm

The Chairman

That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair. Let me make it clear to hon. Members that we are to have a full debate on foreign and security matters a few days hence.

Mr. Clarke

I should make it clear—

Mr. Cash

rose—

Mr. Budgen

rose—

Mr. Spearing

rose—

Mr. Clarke

If my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) thinks that I said that all Danes are gullible, he plainly misheard me.

Mr. Budgen

rose—

The Chairman

Order. Hon. Members must not persist in standing when it is clear that the Secretary of State does not propose to give way. They must resume their seats.

Mr. Budgen

rose—

Mr. Clarke

Let me relate the point to the provision before us—

Mr. Budgen

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke

Let me first reply again to the points that are being pressed.

In so far as there were Danes who voted against Maastricht because they believed that there would be conscription to a European army, it remains my firm opinion that those Danes were gullible. They may indeed have been few, as I said. In so far as there are hon. Members of this House who believe that the provisions pave the way for conscription to a European army, they are extremely gullible—and again, they are few, in my opinion, in number. The position under the treaty is that there is no obligation to have conscription—

Mr. Budgen

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give himself a new intellectual treat? Will he turn to page 5 of the treaty, which, I remind him, is the page on which the preamble—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which he hasn't read."]—which I am sure he has now read—occurs. Will he explain to the House what this means: the … framing of a common defence policy, which might"—

The Chairman

Order. Not this afternoon Mr. Clarke.

Mr. Spearing

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As I understand it, you ruled out of order an hon. Member who wished to quote the preamble to the treaty. Moreover, you hinted earlier that reference to article J—the intergovernmental area relating to foreign policy—was not in order in a debate that concerns the duties of citizens. I put it to you, Sir, that the two are closely connected.

Mr. Budgen

rose—

The Chairman

Order. What I ruled out of order was the request by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) to the Home Secretary to explain the preamble. Hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, who were here at the time know that we had a full debate on the implications of the preamble. Moreover, elements of the preamble are covered by a whole host of amendments, and those relating to armies, armed forces and defence matters will be covered in later groups on foreign and security policy matters. That is my ruling, and that is all.

Mr. Budgen

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I be clear about this? Is it the position that we may discuss the advantages of European citizenship but are not allowed to discuss any of the potential disadvantages or obligations? That seems to be what your ruling implies.

The Chairman

I am here to serve the Committee. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is engaging in pure argument. The Committee has before it amendment No. 12; that is what the Committee is supposed to be discussing.

Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham)

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I think that we all understand the difficulties of trying to debate the Bill and the series of amendments with which we are confronted; they cover a great deal of ground, and many of them are interdependent and linked. I imagine that your ruling is not meant to signify that you regard the series of debates as essentially a series of mutually exclusive watertight compartments. The fact that a topic has been, or is about to be, debated principally in connection with one group of amendments surely cannot preclude a reference to it for the purpose of illuminating the principal subject of another group of amendments. I understand that to be the purpose of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I hope that you will regard that, as in order, so long as it is not carried to the point when the principal subject of the debate becomes different.

The Chairman

If it was his intention to make an allusion or reference, the hon. Member was in order, but I did not understand that to be the implication of his suggestion. Otherwise, I confirm what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) says.

Mr. Rowlands

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) referred to the preamble to the treaty. I suggest that there is a direct connection between the amendment that is before the Committee and the preamble. The first part of article 8, which is the subject of the debate, says: Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. The preamble to the treaty says: Resolved to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries That is followed immediately by the words quoted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. So there is not only an allusion but a clear link between the treaty preamble and article 8.

The Chairman

I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. He will clearly see the paragraph that says: Resolved to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries. It then goes on to another paragraph. The reference that the hon. Member quoted and I have re-quoted is in order. The next is not, apart from a passing reference or allusion to it. I hope that that clarifies the position.

Mr. Budgen

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful to you for clarifying the position, and I am sure that it is the wish of the Committee that the temperature should cool a little. To ensure that I understand the will of the Committee, may I ask whether you are ruling, on reflection, that we may discuss the potential obligations of European citizenship? If so, the discussion of an evolving, and no doubt idealistic, European defence policy and even a European army are subjects that may impinge on the obligations of European citizenship.

That is the only limited point that is raised. I have known the views of my right hon. and learned Friend for 30-odd years and I appreciate that he is an idealistic supporter of the European ideal. I dare say that he would like his son to have the chance to fight and die for a European army. We are giving him an opportunity to explain all that.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

Order. I hope that, if hon. Members are rising to put points of order, they are new ones, because we have traversed the situation. References and allusions are acceptable.

Mr. Clarke

To restate my point, which is firmly based on the treaty—including the preamble and article 8—citizenship of the union involves no new duties on individuals beyond the existing duty, in so far as it is extended, to comply with European Community law, as enforced where necessary on us all as individuals by the United Kingdom courts, and there is no new duty to take part in any European army. Indeed, there is no reference to a European army from beginning to end of the treaty.

If at a later stage—I shall not deal with the point in detail now—we return to the text of the treaty, I shall ask my hon Friends to bear in mind, when referring to page numbers, the fact that they are all using the British edition, whereas I am using the European Community's—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the difference?"] The words are the same, but the page references are different.

Mr. Cash

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Enthusiastic though the Secretary of State may be with his European credentials, I urge him to recall that the treaty that was laid before this Parliament in Cm 1934. No wonder, if he has not been reading that, he does not know much about it.

Mr. Clarke

I assure my hon. Friend that the text of the two are the same.

To return to what we are discussing, there are no new duties: there are a number of new rights. I have already referred to the first two rights—voting and consular protection abroad. The third is the right to petition the European Parliament, and the fourth is the right to apply to a European ombudsman.

I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said. I cannot believe that anybody could reject the concept of being given the right to petition the European Parliament or to apply to a European ombudsman. Indeed, I suspect that a large number of our critics in the Committee at present will take advantage of both those rights with considerable frequency, once they have accepted that they have become citizens of a European union when we have ratified the treaty.

Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he has spoken about duties as they exist at present? Can he give the Committee an assurance that no fresh duties will be imposed on our citizens in future as a result of a decision either of the European Court or of the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Clarke

Any development of the European union would involve fresh treaty obligations. We have not yet ratified this treaty. The question of what future treaties might come along is a matter on which I certainly must not speculate. In effect, the duties that fall on us as a result of Britain's membership of the European Community, and any future membership of the European union, will arise from those legal obligations on us all to obey the law of the land.

As far as the law of the land will incorporate European legislation, either directly applicable or passed by the House to give effect to European directives, we all have a duty to follow it. If we do not follow the law, the United Kingdom courts, occasionally, with reference to the European Court on a point of difficulty, will in the end impose an obligation on us.

Mr. Winnick

The Home Secretary said there were no new existing duties. I do not understand that, but perhaps he will clarify the position for the Committee. The word "existing" does not appear in article 8.2. I am taking the position, if you like, before the treaty is put into force. The treaty makes it clear that there will be a common security policy.

If that is the case, why does the Home Secretary tell the Committee with such confidence that under no circumstances in future will a common security policy mean whatever may arise on the international scene, with duties and obligations imposed on British citizens which will arise from the treaty? How does the Home Secretary come to the conclusion that there will be no new existing duties? I do not understand that.

Mr. Clarke

I said that no new duties will be imposed on nationals of the United Kingdom as a result of the treaty, save the duties on us all to comply with the law as it evolves under the treaty. As for the reading of "security policy", I will not stray out of order, Mr. Morris.

The point of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is relevant to the so-called pillared approach from Maastricht, which has been fundamental in most of the debates that we have had. The second pillar of foreign and security policies and the third pillar, which we are now discussing, of justice and interior affairs are outside the competence of the European Community. They do not proceed subject to the institutions of the Community.

The Commission has no sole right to initiate foreign or security policies. It is not subject to the European Court of Justice. We are talking about provisions under which we co-operate Government to Government. So far as we enter into new policies or new obligations, it is by the unanimous consent of the member states.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Clarke

I have not finished yet.

I should make it clear that it is open to us as a sovereign country to have a common foreign policy with our Community partners if we wish to enter into such a policy. For as long as I have been in the House, many people who are fairly sceptical about the European Community have often urged the virtues of a closer foreign policy among the members of the European Community.

The idea that the foreign policy of the United Kingdom or the foreign policy which the United Kingdom has agreed to in alliance with its allies and the rest of the European union imposes personal obligations and duites is extremely limited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said a moment ago, it can be treason to work contrary to the United Kingdom's security policy.

Apart from that, however, I do not think that the matter is relevant. We should return to matters which are relevant to what we are now talking about. With great respect, it does not help the case against Maastricht when blatant red herrings are drawn across the trail, obscuring what European citizenship comprises.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

I suggest to the Minister that he may well be wrong on this issue, because the possibility of a European army, which is decried, is not a red herring at all. There has been considerable discussion or thought about the establishment of a European defence force. In 1992, the Government and the Minister's Cabinet colleagues announced to the House that the British Army would be the lead unit, the core unit, of the rapid reaction force which will be established on a European basis.

Substantial arguments have been advanced on the establishment of a European defence force. If it is an army, a navy or an air force, it is still a force. That does not detract from the Minister's argument, but he should get his facts right.

4.45 pm

Mr. Clarke

We have a history. Let us simply take the post-war part. Parts of the various defence forces in the United Kingdom have been committed to NATO or deployed in alliance with our European neighbours. There is nothing new about that. So far as there have been such commitments, the British Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy have been committed in that way. But I am being drawn out of order again.

No hon. Member can claim, while keeping a straight face, that we are entering into any obligation to merge our Army, our Air Force or our Navy with anyone else's army, air force or navy. The leap of imagination that goes beyond that—to say that people might be conscripted into any merged force—was an argument unworthy of the Danish referendum, and it should not be deployed here.

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South)

Surely there is every difference in the world between an alliance and obligations which follow from citizenship. I find it difficult to fathom this from what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying. I believe that he is against a formation of a new state of Europe, yet citizenship implies the formation of such a state. How does the Minister square those two matters?

Mr. Clarke

I am against the formation of a state of Europe. It seems that our arguments on the Bill are slightly beside that point. The most significant part of the Maastricht treaty is that the 12 member states abandoned any suggestion that they would go down the path towards a common state. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, having known each other very well over many years, in my case, any more is a change of mind on my part.

The idea of the founding fathers—to use that rather pompous phrase—who created the original treaty of Rome was that the institutions of that treaty would extend Community competence to wider fields of whatever sort. In.the end, one effectively has the institutions of a state with a common Parliament, a common court, a Council of Ministers, an embryonic Government and so on. In practice, that has not worked out in the past 20 years to the satisfaction of many people, most especially in the United Kingdom. As I sometimes say, the result is that we are all Gaullists now.

The Maastricht treaty, compared with all previous European agreements, marked a most sharp change of direction from the common institutions in the direction of extending what we now call a European union into new areas on a different basis of co-operation between sovereign Governments. Article 8, which we are now talking about, is part of establishing that co-operation by a variety of methods.

I see nothing wrong with the idea that article 8 refers to citizenship of a European union. It involves no derogation from our citizenship of the United Kingdom. Its practical consequence is to impose no new duties. It is to impose the four new rights. The people of the United Kingdom did not have two of those rights before, vis-a-vis the European institutions. I see nothing in article 8 which is contrary to the Government's policy or the interests of the United Kingdom.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Clarke

I hope to move shortly to a conclusion.[Interruption.] I will not give way simply to the hon. Member who shouts the loudest.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he has reflected on the conflict of law. For instance, I cannot imagine the circumstances, but it is still held that Parliament may revoke our membership of the European Community. Under the provisions of the Bill, we are citizens of the union. My right hon. and learned Friend seems to be more uncertain about it, but my argument is that that is a superior citizenship, because the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent of the European union. Where does my allegiance and duty lie? Is it with the laws of the United Kingdom or with those of the European union? How would one resolve a conflict should it arise?

Mr. Clarke

I have not said at any point that I regard European citizenship as superior to British citizenship. The position remains that my hon. Friend, like me, remains a subject of the United Kingdom. We are subject to the courts of the United Kingdom. The courts of the United Kingdom will enforce the duties imposed on us by the laws of the European union, to which Britain will be adhered. So there is no great difficulty.

If my hon. Friend had the right, which he appears to want, to renounce European citizenship, he would not rid himself of any duties to which he might object, because no duties are imposed on him beyond those which we already contemplate. He would renounce the four new rights which I have advocated. We are discussing an attempt to build around that.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Clarke

If hon. Members catch your eye, Mr. Morris, they may seek to enlarge the debate and read into the provisions of Article 8 things which are not there.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield and I have already sought to chase off many of the shadows. There is a great deal of talk of waving around documents, reading them and contemplating them. I recommend that my hon. Friends read article 8, in whatever edition they prefer— [Interruption.] It has become clear during these debates that I have not only read far more of the treaty, but have understood it with rather greater clarity, than most of my critics. I will listen to their points, but meanwhile I commend article 8 to the Committee, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield on tabling this probing amendment.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)

I shall be brief because there is clearly a great deal of interest in article 8 among hon. Members on both sides of the House. By speaking in support of article 8, I shall by definition speak technically against the amendment. However, judging by the tone and substance of the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I believe that he, at least, does not seek to press the amendment to a Division. What other sections of the parliamentary Labour party do will become clear later.

When we are discussing citizenship, it is important to remember what was pointed out earlier in the debate before the cacophony began which it is the speciality of the Home Secretary to whip up, especially among his hon. Friends. He did so when he served in other Departments and still does in his present Department. Before that cacophony got going, it was pointed out that it was up to the member states of the Community to define citizenship. That is an important prerequisite which comes in front of much of the argument or, if argument is not the right word, many of the points which have been swapped across the Floor of the House.

Mrs. Dunwoody

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy

I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment if she will let me complete this opening thought.

As we have seen from the balance in previous debates on this treaty-related legislation, not many of the hon. Members who have attended the debates subscribe to the notion of Europe. However, an increasing number of people—judging by the evidence of one's eyes—and especially younger people see Europe as a natural entity. Irrespective of article 8 and—with respect—what people may say at the Dispatch Box, young people already feel European. They class themselves as European and want to remain in that mould. In giving effect to that outlook for the future, article 8 does the right thing and the House will do the right thing by supporting it.

Mrs. Dunwoody

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not a lawyer—

Mr. Kennedy

I never will be.

Mrs. Dunwoody

I am glad to hear that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address the point in article 8.2 which has been carefully avoided by both the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and the Home Secretary. What does the hon. Gentleman think is meant by: Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby"? Does he believe that in plain English that seems to say that citizens will not only enjoy the right, for example, to go to the European ombudsman but must respond to the obligations imposed? Is it not likely that all those European young people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers might be slightly less anxious about being European if they suddenly discovered that their future was to be determined by a large organisation in which they had a tiny say?

Mr. Kennedy

I am glad that the hon. Lady stressed that I was not a lawyer. By definition, my answer will be a lay person's response. It is a straightforward philosophical argument. Any set of rights which citizens enjoy in a nation state or any democratic set-up carries with it responsibilities. We argue about rights and responsibilities —two sides of the same coin—on a host of issues including the economy, domestic social policy and law and order. We argue time and again about the rights of individuals and the responsibilities that those rights carry with them. Article 8 is a classic example of that.

Mr. Cash

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy

I shall first complete my answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Who knows, I may even satisfy the hon. Gentleman by fully responding to her point. I doubt it, but I shall try.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned the right to petition the European ombudsman. Let us assume that the treaty will be ratified by Britain and that at some point beyond the end of this year, a citizen of Britain petitions the ombudsman on some grievance. If the ombudsman upholds that grievance, the Government of the day or the institution involved will have to address that grievance and set it right. I am sure that any Member of Parliament would support that process if the grievance were legitimate.

Rights and responsibilities run in two directions. They are not all from the top down. The institutions which we are creating must have responsibilities in an accountable sense to the citizens of the member states and of the union as a whole. That side of the argument must be put robustly because it is correct and valid.

Mr. Cash

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy

The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has many opportunities to speak so I should like to begin by giving way to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

Mr. Gill

My question is short. In the hon. Gentleman's opinion as a layman, is the assertion that the Secretary of State made this afternoon that it is possible to create citizenship without creating a state correct? Is there any truth in that statement?

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

What about Commonwealth citizenship?

Mr. Kennedy

The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has looked rather wider than I might have done to answer that question by saying that one can talk about Commonwealth citizenship. That is an adequate answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. There can be a category or classification of citizenship which goes beyond the nation state.

Mr. Cash

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy

I give way to the hon. Gentleman because the show would not be complete without Punch.

Mr. Cash

That is very good, although I daresay that the hon. Gentleman would not particularly want to be called Judy. Does he agree that the discussion is not simply a matter of philosophy? He mentioned the idea that some obligations might arise in connection with the economy. He fails to understand that, under this title, citizenship comes within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Therefore, the duties imposed by the treaty will be adjudicated upon by the European Court of Justice. The slithery attempt, which the hon. Gentleman has tried on the House, to get past that question by saying that our arguments are nitpicking legalese will not succeed.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked the hon. Gentleman a simple and straightforward question. She asked whether he believed that duties would be imposed by the treaty. Will he answer that question?

Mr. Kennedy

The party of which I am a member can be accused of a range of things, and frequently is by both Conservative and Opposition Members, perhaps even on occasion with justice and correctness. But, in respect of matters European, we can hardly be accused of slithering. Let hon. Members recall the vote that took place here last November.

The longer this debate goes on, with arguments about very detailed legal definitions, the more we lose sight of the fact that political common sense must be applied. The political common sense of what has been negotiated and agreed, as well as the political circumstances surrounding the entire process since the original Maastricht weekend summit, suggests that some of the fears that have been raised are phantom fears, and the Home Secretary is correct in suggesting that they were introduced during the referendum in Denmark. There is no doubt that votes in Denmark were swung as a result. But these matters must be addressed in a sensible manner. I do not believe that there is some great design going beyond the art of the possible and the politically deliverable, not just at Community level but at the level of individual member states. That is the way in which we should approach the issue.

5 pm

Mr. Rogers

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has fallen into the same trap as the Home Secretary. It has been suggested that the Danish voters were misled by a rumour about the establishment of a European army. The fact is that European countries have already got together and decided that a European defence force would be a good thing. A rapid reaction force has been set up, with Britain as the lead country. That is not a bad thing. Indeed, it may well be a good thing.

Mr. Kennedy

I am not levelling that accusation; such suggestions have come from other quarters. But let us take the obvious comparison of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Note the word "Treaty". Tragically, in the name of NATO, a British service man was recently killed on active service. That person was a member of the British armed services, which are committed to NATO under the terms of that treaty. It is a treaty to which this country gave its name and to whose implementation, in terms of pursuance of the law, as seen by successive Governments, troops have been committed.

Mr. Wilkinson

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is extremely courteous.

I should like to put to him the fundamental point that NATO is an association of free and independent sovereign states and that there is no NATO citizenship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) pointed out, history contains no instance of the conferring of citizenship on an individual other than by a state or by an empire, such as the British empire, the Roman empire or the Soviet empire. There is no such thing as Commonwealth citizenship. Commonwealth nationals resident in this country have the citizenship of the nations to which they belong, and we choose freely to grant to them certain rights and privileges of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kennedy

I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. Perhaps, if he catches your eye later, Mr. Morris, we shall hear his argument developed more fully. In the meantime I am having the greatest difficulty in understanding the focus of his comments.

Let us consider the United Kingdom itself. In this regard my remarks are directed not at Labour Members who are hostile, concerned or critical in respect of this matter but at Government Members, who are members of the Conservative and Unionist party. I am a Scot. I am from a country with a distinct culture, a distinct education system, a different Church and a different legal system. Some Scots are happy, and some are not, but we are represented in the United Kingdom Parliament and contribute as a part of the kingdom.

Some Scots like the idea of dual citizenship. For example, the late Iain Macleod always entered "Scottish" in the nationality column of hotel registers. Some Scots feel Scottish in some contexts but British in others. Different instincts may prevail at different times. But that does not make either identity less valid than the other—a point that has been missed entirely in respect of European citizenship, which is regarded as an element of this union. What we have here is a question of confidence in one's personal and national identity. If, in this respect, the European level can be furthered, so much the better.

On the question of the definition of citizenship, we welcome recognition of the reality of freedom of movement and freedom of employment. Then there is the question of voting rights—something that exercises the minds of hon. Members on both sides. In this context, there has been discussion of the meaning of "municipal". I have not seen the legal ruling that has been referred to, but I am somewhat reassured by the Home Secretary's remarks about what was in mind when the treaty was being drafted.

In this regard, two further points ought to be made for the benefit of those who are critical of the right to vote in local—I shall not use the word "municipal"—or European parliamentary elections. There is no doubt that that is a significant extension of rights and of their political effects on individual member states. However, it remains open to the electorate in any constituency, whether in a local election or in a European parliamentary election, to cast their votes as they please. If people are not satisfied that a candidate from another member state is sufficiently local to represent them properly, they may vote for someone else.

In this regard, I agree with what was said about my right hon. Friend the former leader of the Liberal party, who, as a matter of principle, put the theory to the test in Italy some years ago and was rejected at the ballot box. It was his right to exercise that freedom under Italian law, as it was the right of Italian voters not to accept him as a parliamentary representative.

Mr. Cash

With regard to the word "municipal", the European Court of Justice said in 1972: the treaty entails a definitive limitation of the sovereign rights of member states against which no provisions of municipal law, whatever their nature, can be legally invoked. It is quite clear that, in that context, "municipal" means national.

Mr. Kennedy

As I have already said, I am not a lawyer, but that definition is very legalistic and forensic. I am not in a position—certainly not off the top of my head—to discuss "municipal" in this context and come up with something authoritative. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has himself sought legal opinion, and we look forward to hearing what it is. I am quite sure that he would not have raised the matter in this way without having satisfied himself. We look forward to hearing from him.

Mr. Fraser

As distinct from international law, which is law governing several countries, municipal law means domestic law and has nothing whatever to do with local authorities.

Mr. Kennedy

For the second time during my short contribution, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

I do not wish to go beyond the bounds of this group of amendments, Mr. Morris, but article 8 carries with it an extension of voting rights and opportunities. That is an important constitutional and political development and it is fundamental. It is a matter of principle and is one of the reasons why I take the view that the British public should have the opportunity to cast its verdict on the treaty, outwith the normal scope of a general election, as and when we have completed the procedures and processes of this House. That is why we should have a referendum and that is why I shall cast my vote in favour of the opportunity for such a process, as and when we get that right.

Although I differ entirely some hon. Members on their analysis of the viewpoint, I recognise that the issue is one of principle and as such goes beyond the normal confines of party politics.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)

rose—

Mr. Kennedy

This will be the last intervention that I shall allow, as I want to leave time for other hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Jessel

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the extension of voting rights in local municipal elections and elections for the European Parliament to people from the continent, as the treaty refers to both. Does he not think that that could be the thin end of the wedge for a proposal to extend voting rights to foreigners in parliamentary general elections, which could distort the result in a way that most of us would not want?

Mr. Kennedy

I stand open to correction, but I think that citizens of the Irish Republic have voting rights in United Kingdom general elections. If it is the thin end of the wedge—to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase—then it was not inserted by anything decided at Maastricht, but has been accepted in the House for decades. If hon. Members are so concerned about the breach or the establishment of that principle, why did they not try to deal with it through all the procedures open to them as Back Bench Members of Parliament, such as ten-minute Bills, Adjournment debates, private Members' motions and all the rest? Why has it suddenly become such a fear when it is suggested as a part of the Maastricht treaty? I do not accept that argument.

Mr. Michael Spicer

Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Kennedy

No, I gave a fair response to the previous intervention and I wish to finish now.

In conclusion, it is interesting that the concept of citizenship is assuming increasing salience in domestic and international politics among the centre-left or reformist politicians—whichever terminology one chooses–—as opposed to the traditionalists. It is being much debated within the Labour party. When Governor Clinton was running for President he stressed the sense of empowerment and of the citizen being able to assume more rights and as a result have more access to activities within his or her country. Definitions of citizenship have become a subject and focus of debate in the Liberal and Labour parties as well as elsewhere in this country.

The present Foreign Secretary, as Home Secretary under the former leader of the Conservative party, set out his views of "active citizenship" in the United Kingdom. Clearly, citizenship is a political idea whose time has come. That being the case, it is appropriate for it to be highlighted in article 8 of the treaty. The article is partly practical, and it points towards greater political and institutional integration. It points in a more federal direction and I welcome that. The article is also partly philosophical because it deals with citizenship and begins to redefine and consider the notion of the nation state freshly and more fully. As such, I believe that the article commands our support and we are pleased to welcome it as part of the legislation before us.

5.15 pm

Mr. Wilkinson

I suspect that this apparently insignificant but detailed debate may, with hindsight, turn out to be one of the turning points in our debate on the Bill. If people outside this place fully comprehended what the proposed treaty of European union will do to their identity, they would call into question the legitimacy of what the Government are calling upon the House to endorse.

The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who is the long spokesman for the Liberal party on such matters and a great enthusiast for Europe—as we all are—shed a ray of candour on our proceedings when he said that the issue of citizenship was so important that it merited a referendum.

I had my Damascus road conversion on the proposed treaty of European union when those "gullible Danes" —as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary so enchantingly put it—in their considered majority rejected their Government's proposal that the treaty should be ratified. The British people are not gullible. If they had the chance—as they certainly deserve—they would vote against a citizenship of the union as proposed in article 8 of the treaty.

Mr. Winnick

Is it not interesting that, in his frank speech—which I was pleased to listen to when he called for a referendum—the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty, and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) made it clear that he had limited time for the nation state?

Is it not clear that the ardent federalists in this House, not least the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—who has stated time and time again that he is in favour of a federal arrangement—are keen on the treaty because they understand that is it the paving stone to reach that state, whereas the Home Secretary and the Labour Front-Bench spokesman refuse to concede that fact? Would it not be more frank of the Government to say that outright, rather than trying to mislead the Committee and the British public, which cannot be forgiven?

Mr. Wilkinson

That may be so: I would not seek to gainsay the hon. Gentleman. It is instructive to note that the title of part II, which contains article 8, is "Citizenship of the Union". It does not even say "citizenship of the European Community". The word "community" gives the sense of a free association of sovereign states. The title suggests citizenship of a union—a political entity, a new creation. It is a highly centralised creation. It is not even a federation, with proper checks and balances between the constituent elements and the centre, to which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye referred. It is a union—a centralised united states of Europe.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle)

There is nothing in the treaty to imply that the union is taking on the essential attributes of statehood. The union has no legal personality. It has to act through those of its component parts which have a legal personality—the communities —whenever there is a question of giving rights enforceable in law. That is why the citizenship provisions are included in the Community treaty. They are there, rather than in intergovernmental provisions. The union does not have a legal personality.

Mr. Wilkinson

I did not know that I was being so provocative. I thought that I was merely stating the truth.

Mr. Gill

Is not the question, do the British people believe what the Minister has said? Does the Committee believe what the Minister has said? If it does not, the Government have got it wrong, and those of us who are opposed to the treaty have got it right.

Mr. Wilkinson

We are not permitted to know the answer, because the British people have not been allowed to exercise their judgment on that crucial issue—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster)

Yet.

Mr. Wilkinson

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We should have a referendum.

Article 8.1 of the treaty states: Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Citizenship is precious to us. It is an attribute most dear to an individual, and primarily acquired by virtue of birth. If it is not acquired by birth, citizenship is acquired by conscious and carefully considered application—in this country by a process of naturalisation.

I am sure that you, Mr. Morris, have been involved in many such cases, and may have had to affirm as a Member of Parliament that an applicant was worthy of British citizenship. Therefore, you will know that it is something that our state considers important.

It is so important that I well recall sitting along into the night during the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, when the issue of citizenship was considered at great length as we thought that it could not lightly be given away. We thought that British citizenship was being abused and that we should be careful to whom we should grant it. The signatories of the proposed treaty of European union are not careful—by fiat and edict, they think that they can bestow it on anybody, whether or not he or she wishes it, so long as the individual happens to hold citizenship of a European Community country.

Mr. Marlow

Is it not an insult to the concept of citizenship if people are obliged to have it whether or not they want it?

Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

What about the citizens charter?

Mr. Marlow

Yes: if my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) were to look at the citizens charter, he would see the value bestowed on it—a value that will be devalued by the Bill.

Mr. Wilkinson

That is true. The only other means whereby, historically, citizenship has been acquired has been by a process of conquest. That is how citizenship has traditionally been imposed on those who did not wish to assume it voluntarily.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid Kent)

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is not building an elegant tower on shaky sand. It seems that the vast majority of citizens of the union have been born within the European Community. If they have the sort of citizenship that makes them eligible for citizenship of the union, it will have been bestowed on them with the same sort of care as that shown when bestowing citizenship on British citizens.

Mr. Wilkinson

As usual, my hon. Friend attributes the best of motives to those involved. That has been the trouble throughout the passage of the legislation. We have all been bored into attributing the best of motives to those who have enjoined us to ratify the legislation, but it is not our job to be gullible. Our job is to subject the proposed legislation to the most careful scrutiny and make people outside realise exactly what is at stake, so that, even if they do not rise up with sticks and staves, they rise up in anger at what is proposed and say that their birthright is worthy of protection. Those people are willing to accept another citizenship, but only if it is their democratic desire so to do, as expressed by their majority will in a referendum.

Mr. Spearing

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that it was not easy to scrutinise the legislation because the Home Secretary used his favourite device of provoking a riot and retiring under the protection of the procedural police?

I wish to raise the issue of citizens' reponsibilities to the Crown in the armed services, of which the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) may have knowledge. If the Crown is subject to a single authority in relation to foreign security policy, and therefore its military consequences—which it is—is the citizen serving the Crown as determined by Ministers of the House, supported by Parliament? Or is it the case that, in the words of the treaty in article J.5: The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy"? Will they not serve the president of the union for the six-month period, rather than the Crown responsible to the House?

Mr. Wilkinson

The hon. Gentleman makes a nice point, and one to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sought vainly to reply. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sought to provoke a riot—I cannot imagine anybody less likely to provoke a riot. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have known each other, and I have had the privilege of being his hon. Friend on and off, since about 1970, and he is a man with whom it is difficult to take issue, as one instinctively warms to him. However, I do not instinctively warm to his arguments on the issue under discussion, and I am not gullible.

Sir Teddy Taylor

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretaryof State is a nice person, and in case he is in danger of being gullible on the issue of citizenship—like my right hon. And learned Friend the Home Secretary—I ask him to read the EC Commission's report on citizenship, published in a supplement on 21 October 1990. It stated that European citizenship as in the treaty was the setting of targets for the definition of an individual's civic, economic and social rights at a later stage. Does my hon. Friend not agree with the Commission and Parliament that that is an important issue, not an insignificant one as has been suggested?

Mr. Wilkinson

The supplement does contain that statement. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was trying to distinguish between the respective applicability to citizens of the union of those parts that are strictly within the competence of the treaty, with relevance to the European Community, and those parts that lie within intergovernmental co-operation—defence and security policy. All I shall say on the second category is that, although the preamble has no legal effect and is not justiciable—

Mr. Budgen

It is important to state that it is almost certain that the preamble is justiciable and something that the European Court of Justice is obliged to take into account. When we consider that the European Court of Justice describes itself in political terms as the agent for greater federalism, we see that my hon. Friend has made no small mistake.

Mr. Wilkinson

I am glad that my hon. Friend has clarified that issue. If he is right, the resolution in the preamble to implement a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence is germane to those citizens of the union who, through no fault of their own, find themselves with an additional citizenship conferred by article 8 of the treaty.

Mr. Budgen

My hon. Friend should also read the concluding phrase: thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and the world". Plainly, the identity of a state is enhanced by a single army. That is a way of reinforcing the European identity. Independence plainly means the independence of Europe not only from other nation states but from subordinate nation states below it.

It is no good saying that the preamble is a vague aspiration. It is part of the legislation, and it will be the basis of the discussions in 1996 when the EC settles down for a further period of what it calls steady progress towards a federal union.

5.30 pm

Mr. Wilkinson

I will not follow my hon. Friend's detailed points, except to say that, in my lay judgment, the citizens of the union will in effect have the rights and obligations normally associated with the citizens of a single state. That, at least, is how I read the treaty.

Mr. Rogers

The hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge of military and defence matters, and he and I have often debated them here over the past few years. I am sure that he will recall the establishment of the rapid reaction force, which was intended to be the precursor of an army in which every citizen of the Community and every country of the Community would take up their obligations. Time and again we have argued that it would be better if not only France and Britain but the rest of the European Community took up certain international obligations.

Conservative Members who have raised the spectre of such an army are absolutely right, and the Home Secretary is wrong. This is indeed the beginning of a development towards a European army, but I remind Conservative Members that they welcomed the statement in which the Secretary of State for Defence announced the establishment of a rapid reaction force, and that more than once they have advocated the deployment of joint forces from Europe—especially in former Yugoslavia and Bosnia.

Mr. Wilkinson

That was interesting, but I will not pursue it. I am more interested in the citizenship aspect, which is strictly relevant to this group of amendments.

A more exact parallel was shown by the judgment of the French National Assembly when, in 1954, it rejected the proposed European defence community, recognising that a unified European army was a step too far for the citizens of France—just as this treaty is a step too far for our citizens, unless they are given the opportunity, as they morally should be, to express their will in a referendum. If they are not given that chance, Her Majesty's Government will show themselves either undemocratic in this matter or exhibiting a rare lack of confidence about the outcome.

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that my hon. Friend had made a mistake in thinking that the preamble was not justiciable. May I reassure my hon. Friend that he is in good company? When we debated the Single European Act, Baroness Chalker, as she now is, speaking for the Government, was repeatedly questioned on whether the preamble had any meaning or justiciability. She said that it did not. She was wrong, just as my hon. Friend is wrong. So, although we have been reassured time after time by Ministers that all our anxieties about citizenship are as dross, we should beware.

Mr. Wilkinson

Again, I do not intend to pursue my hon. Friend's historical allusion, except to say that, in a number of instances important matters of fact and of principle have not been dealt with by Ministers, who have relied on the closure and the sheer weight of votes to close the argument. I hope that you, Mr. Lofthouse, will permit us the time that the importance of this group of amendments merits.

Mr. Budgen

My hon. Friend creates a great deal of interest by his protestations against closures and the authoritarian behaviour that has so often marred and marked discussion of this Bill. My hon. Friend gives us to understand that parliamentary democracy is not working in these circumstances. Even those of us who, in general, dislike referendums are coming round to the belief, albeit reluctantly, that one may be necessary in this case.

Mr. Wilkinson

Indeed. I was going to say, in the context of the first paragraph of article 8, that the parallels to which I referred earlier, dealing with how citizenship has traditionally been conferred, are historically correct: that is, by birth, by naturalisation, by registration in the case of Commonwealth citizens, or by conquest. There was a time when the very word "subjecthood" encapsulated the status of those who possessed British citizenship. It was the same sort of status as that to which St. Paul referred when he stood up and said, "Civis Romanus sum". It was his assurance that he would be subject to the due processes of Roman law.

With citizenship goes the right to deny oneself citizenship—to give it up. The Home Secretary suggested that the only way in which a European national could renounce his European citizenship was to renounce the nationality of his birth or the nationality that he acquired by naturalisation. That is most unsatisfactory. The treaty should provide for renunciation of citizenship.

It is very broad in scope: Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union". I should like to hear what Home Office Ministers have to say about British overseas citizens—an important category. We in this Parliament decided that those who had some connection with the United Kingdom for historical reasons—British subjects of Asian origin living in East Africa, say—should have this category of overseas British citizenship bestowed on them. That would be useful, in as much as they would have a British passport of a kind, but it would not entitle them to residence in the United Kingdom.

That is an important distinction, which the treaty does not mention. I therefore take it that, under the treaty, British overseas citizens would have exactly the same rights, responsibilities and duties as other British nationals. I presume, too, that British overseas territories citizens would have the same rights and duties. It is an extremely important point, because of the immigration and freedom of movement aspects of the proposed treaty of union.

I assume that, with European union citizenship, people with British overseas citizenship could go to France or to another European Community country and establish residence there. It would be interesting to see how the courts decided whether such people could move to the United Kingdom. The first such case would be fascinating. Many Chinese people in Macao hold Portuguese nationality. I assume that, as citizens of the union, they could, if they wanted to, come here. Perhaps 5 million Hong Kong Chinese cannot come here, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) tells me that 100,000 Chinese from Macao with Portuguese nationality and thereby European citizenship could come here. That is interesting and important.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Storford)

My hon. Friend argues that European citizenship should be capable of renunciation by those who do not wish to hold it any longer. I am puzzled by that argument, because it would mean that European citizenship was independent of the citizenship of EC nation states. That would mean that European citizenship would have its own status, independent of the independent state to which the person also belonged.

That would confer on European citizenship a status similar to the kind that I understood my hon. Friend was arguing against, the citizenship of an independent unit— the European Community. Therefore, it is illogical to demand that a citizen should be able to give up that citizenship when it must and should be entirely dependent upon his citizenship of another European Community country.

Mr. Wilkinson

My hon. Friend touches on an interesting point. A person holding British nationality and residing in this country should be able to exercise choice about whether to acquire that additional nationality. It is not for a Government, by virtue of a treaty that they happened to sign in a small town in Holland, to decide to confer on all British nationals a new citizenship, unless of course the majority of those citizens so desire in a referendum. Likewise, in all equity they should have the right to renounce citizenship that has been conferred upon them, especially if it has been conferred without their express authority, democratically given in a referendum.

Mr. Charles Kennedy

Given the hon. Gentleman's response to that intervention, may I ask whether he is saying that a United Kingdom citizen, a professional soldier in our armed forces who finds that his unit is being committed to the United Nations to perform, for example, peacekeeping duties, can say, "No, I do not agree. I am quite willing to be a British soldier, but I am not prepared to wear a blue helmet and serve on behalf of the United Nations, because I did not support the treaty which instituted that state of affairs." That is the logical corollary to the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Wilkinson

In no sense is that a logical deduction from what I said. I think that the hon. Gentleman had to be out of Committee when I referred to his speech and his false allusion to NATO. There is no comparison between NATO, a free association of independent, sovereign states, and the European union in terms of conferring obligations on citizens.

It is noteworthy that NATO is such a free association of independent states that the French, since De Gaulle's time, have decided, in their own sovereign manner, to remain independent of NATO's integrated military structure. NATO has always been a free association of independent states and quite different from the union. Certainly it never had citizenship; nor did it confer obligations on citizens of member states.

Mr. Rogers

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. NATO was established by treaty, and as a result we have obligations to it. It is true that some members, such as France, opted out of some responsibilities, in exactly the same way as the Government opted out of some of their responsibilities under Maastricht—for example, the social chapter. I wish that we could get away from the irrelevant argument about citizenship in terms of defence-related security, which we shall discuss under another group of amendments. It ill becomes a party which has subscribed to these international organisations and which has waved the flag time and time again now to start knocking it down.

5.45 pm

Mr. Wilkinson

I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman on this—far from it. It has not been my desire to bring the debate so dominantly to the issue of military obligations. We have taken up some time on that, but only because some hon. Members remain confused about what the obligations of citizens of the union may be in that regard. That is because of the unclear and unsatisfactory dichotomy between those aspects of the treaty that fall within the ambit of the Community and those that fall within the ambit of intergovernmental co-operation. I shall gladly move on—I am sure that you, Mr Lofthouse, will be pleased at that.

The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) spoke about the Scottish, Welsh and Irish examples. I was elected as a member of the Conservative and Unionist party, and nothing made me sadder than when the Conservative party broke from Unionist party in 1972 upon the dissolution of Stormont, against which I voted. The great distinction is that there has already been a democratic process in all three of those parts of the kingdom. At various times, they each had a referendum about their status in the United Kingdom. There was one in Northern Ireland, and at the time of the Bill on devolution there was one in Scotland and one in Wales.

I agree that those soundings of opinion may have been unsatisfactory. Perhaps they were not ideal, and the wording may not have been perfect, but our citizens in those parts of the kingdom at least had a chance to exercise their right to vote. What is so different and wrong today is that all the people in our country are not to have the chance to express an opinion about whether they wish to be citizens of the European union.

Mrs. Dunwoody

How many hundreds of letters has the hon. Gentleman had from his constituents demanding to become members of the union of Europe?

Mr. Wilkinson

I look forward to receiving the first. When it arrives, I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Lofthouse, so that I may read it to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office. It will he quite an historic document.

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend is making an interesting and wide-ranging speech. I am sure that he will come to that aspect of the treaty which allows our constituents to petition the European Parliament. I am sure that he is aware that, as they do so, article 138c will apply. That important article, of which I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is aware, allows 25 per cent., a mere quarter, of European parliamentarians to set up a committee of inquiry to investigate alleged—I stress "alleged"—contraventions in the implementation of Community law.

If we are not seen to be applying Community law, a petitioner from my hon. Friend's constituency could go over his head to the European Parliament and, on the basis of a mere 25 per cent., an inquiry could be set up to investigate why this country was not applying the law of citizenship in the way that European institutions might, at a later stage, decide.

Mr. Wilkinson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because his intervention helps me to make progress and to move on to article 8a.

Mr. Corbyn

Before leaving this matter, will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that there is a real problem in Europe that is not dealt with in the documents, by the Commission or by the European Parliament? Large numbers of people who are nationals of non-European member states enjoy no political rights in Europe, but that is not dealt with in the treaty. That is especially so in the case of Germany, where it is virtually impossible for a non-German to gain German nationality.

Such people are very much second-class citizens and will remain so in the European union envisaged by Maastricht. Should not that issue be dealt with, as it involves the civil rights of people throughout the world?

Mr. Wilkinson

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to such an important point. It would have been a great mistake to move on too quickly and to overlook it. He and I have a mutual family interest in this matter.

An aspect of equity is involved. In the old days, the position was anomalous, because Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic—although it left the Commonwealth in 1949—enjoyed all the rights of British nationals without having to obtain British citizenship. In those days—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would call them the bad old days— European Community citizens did not enjoy those rights. It was an extraordinary position, because Commonwealth nationals from, perhaps, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who spoke no English could vote in European parliamentary elections, while European Community nationals could not.

Even if, by some misfortune, the treaty were to be ratified—every hour that passes on the international exchanges makes it look less likely—there would still be an injustice. Citizens of the United States, of Canada and of other non-Community European countries who are resident in Britain, fulfilling all the qualifications for the franchise, would be unable to enjoy it even though they use as many local government services as, for example, European Community nationals also resident in Britain. The question is only partially and inadequately dealt with in the treaty.

Paragraph 2 of article 8a contains the real impetus behind the provisions. The driving force for making the citizenship provisions work is not the national Parliaments, not the national electorates and not the will of the people; it is the Council of Ministers. How will the Council be impelled to do what it collectively believes to be right? It will not be in response to popular will or to the wishes of constituents exercised through hon. Members in this place—it will he by a proposal from the Commission.

It is not we, Members of this sovereign imperial Parliament at Westminster, who will be consulted; it will be the Members of the European Parliament at Strasbourg. As you will know from your lengthy experience, Mr. Lofthouse, it is an extremely remote body. I doubt whether Members of the European Parliament receive more than 10 or 20 letters a week—probably only half the amount that we receive every day. They certainly have little opportunity to see their constituents and, sadly, their constituents see little of them.

Mr. Jessel

They do not know who they are.

Mr. Wilkinson

Perhaps my hon. Friend has the misfortune to be poorly represented in the European Parliament. The Member of the European Parliament who represents me is also a Member of the other place, so I see him frequently. It is a good example of the benefits of the old system, when Members of the European Parliament could also be Members of the British Parliament. There was a much better cross-fertilisation and Members of the European Parliament were more realistic. Indeed, they would have been more realistic about citizenship issues, because they would have been better in touch with the ordinary electorate. The same applies to article 8b.

I have no quarrel with article 8c. It is common decency that European Community countries should afford consular access to nationals of other Community countries that happen to have no representation in a particular third country. It is right that, between civilised nations, humanitarian assistance should be given to those in distress. That is spelt out in the treaty in belt-and-braces fashion.

Article 18 would give every citizen of the European union the right to petition the European Parliament. British citizens have known since time immemorial that they have the right to petition our Parliament—and not just to petition it, but to come here to see us, and even to badger us if need be. We are the most accessible legislators in the world.

That cannot be said of Members of the European Parliament. Apart from anything else, they are always on the move and we cannot catch up with them. One week they may be in Strasbourg, the next in Luxembourg and the next in Brussels. If we are lucky, we might catch up with them in the lounge at Frankfurt airport. That position does not inspire confidence.

Mr. Rowe

It is another example of how Maastricht has adopted another good British practice for the edification of the other 11 countries that have not, thus far, aspired to such good practice.

Mr. Wilkinson

That is right. If the European Parliament betters itself by a process of osmosis, that is all to the good. I am not belittling that. I was trying to show that, time and again in the treaty, on the most sensitive matter of citizenship, the Maastricht signatories must defer not to national Parliaments but to the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. There is hardly a word in the treaty about national Parliaments and their role.

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend is treating the Committee to a careful examination and perusal of article 8, but he passed quickly over article 8b(2), which concerns arrangements for voting in European elections. They shall be decided on a proposal from the Commission, through the Council of European Parliament. There is the possibility of a derogation, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the derogation is always time-barred and time-limited. Is my hon. Friend an enthusiast of proportional representation? If not, he may find that it will be imposed on the United Kingdom by that measure.

6 pm

Mr. Wilkinson

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. In my strong desire to make progress, I overlooked that important point—as I did in respect of article 8b, where the same applies to municipal elections: arrangements may provide for derogations where warranted by problems specific to a Member State. Again, there could be moves in the Community to harmonise elections for municipalities on, for example, a proportional representation basis—which would be anathema to most right hon. and hon. Members, who believe that the strong connection between the councillor and his ward electorate is crucial to the satisfactory functioning of our democracy.

It would also be damaging for European Parliament elections to be by proportional representation, which I am sure is the desire of the majority of Community member states. It is important for our citizens not to go down that road but for this country to obtain the derogation to which my hon. Friend alluded.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)

My hon. Friend has several times denigrated the role of the European Parliament. He was very rude about it, despite the fact that a number of MEPs are members of our party, and presumably are not subject to the kind of criticisms that my hon. Friend was offering? Does not my hon. Friend agree with the declarations on the role of national parliaments in the European Union and on the conference of the parliaments, proposed on page 127 of the treaty? They would solve many of the problems to which my hon. Friend drew attention.

Mr. Wilkington

I must resist the temptation to respond, because I am trying to stick strictly to the amendments on citizenship, and not deal with matters relating to the place to which my hon. Friend so dearly aspires.

Article 8e states: The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council, and to the Economic and Social Committee"— a body of bureaucrats, not a national parliament— on the application of the provisions of this Part. In other words, it will report on progress in the matter of European citizenship.

That is, once again, a fundamentally undemocratic procedure, which flies in the face of the natural obligation of the signatories to the treaty to recognise that sovereign national parliaments are the custodians of the most dear and sacred rights of their citizens—the rights of citizenship.

Mr. Fraser

I support the treaty's proposals for union citizenship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, although it is currently nothing more than a symbol, it is an important token of membership of a multinational, multilingual and multi-faceted community.

Two of my three children were able to work and live in the Community without work permits or restrictions on their ability to move about. Many members of the younger generation find it extremely difficult to understand the narrow nationalism portrayed by so many of the artificialities and distortions that I have heard from Conservative Members over three days.

To the younger generation, the restrictions on individual citizenship and divisions between European countries have become archaic. The symbolism provided by citizenship of a greater Community should be welcome. I represent a multilingual, multiracial and multi-coloured constituency. If people have both a United Kingdom and a United Kingdom and European union citizenship— albeit that it will give them only nominal rights in other countries initially—that will diminish the divisions that have proved dangerous in society and in the world.

It is important to have at the beginning—the word "beginning" is what matters—formal but tangible recognition of the rights of European Community citizens in the Community.

Sir Richard Body

rose—

Mr. Fraser

Having sat here for three days, I made a promise to myself not to give way to any Euro-bores—but perhaps just this once.

Sir Richard Body

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has in his constituency, as I have, a large number of Irish people. They have the opportunity to vote for him, although they are not citizens of this country. I see no reason why that principle should not be extended throughout the Community. I would welcome that. It does not mean that we must have a supranational citizenship imposed upon us, with accompanying future duties and obligations of which we do not know.

Mr. Fraser

It will probably be best if I continue with my own speech.

Although it is only a beginning, that is no reason to vote against it. Citizens ought to have enforceable and equal rights. One of the first times that I voted against my own Government was in 1968, when the concept of United Kingdom citizenship was being diminished in relation to Kenyan Asians. If we are to have European citizenship, it must be meaningful.

There are three deficiencies in the union citizenship that the treaty promulgates. The first is specific and regrettable —the omission of the right to vote in parliamentary elections. Under the treaty, people will have the right to vote in municipal elections—that is, local government elections, in case Conservative Members do not understand the meaning of the word "municipal". They will also have the right, not surprisingly, to stand for election to the European Parliament and to vote in European elections.

It would be crazy to be a citizen of the Community and not to have those rights. Those who live, work and currently reside in another member state should have the right to vote in parliamentary elections also, and that right ought to be conferred by the treaty. It is completely incomprehensible that a German, Italian or Greek can live, work and reside in my constituency for his entire lifetime but not have the chance to vote in a parliamentary election, whereas the Government can give the right to a person who has lived on the costa del crime for the past 12 years, or who left this country because he did not like it and now resides in South Africa, to get on the electoral role and to play a part in British parliamentary elections. It is extraordinary that the latter can happen, yet a fellow European citizen who has worked here and lived here, even if not for his entire life, cannot play a part in parliamentary elections.

Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan)

rose—

Mr. Fraser

No, I will not give way.

My second point relates to immigration and dependency rights. I believe that, if there is to be a right of union citizenship, the rights attaching to such citizenship should be equal, and should be harmonised. At present, a rather odd distinction exists. If an Italian, a Frenchman or a German living in this country—and exercising his economic rights in the Community—should marry, no primary purpose rule will apply to the marriage: under European law, that person's wife can remain with him. If they want to bring their children under the age of 21 to this country, they can do so. Indeed, they have the right to bring their grandparents, and any other relatives.

That right, enjoyed by other European Community citizens, is superior to the right currently held by United Kingdom citizens. Surely there is a deficiency in a citizenship that does not harmonise the rights involving dependants. I want those rights to be harmonised upwards rather than downwards—and the Government, in the intergovernmental conference, seem to be trying to harmonise them downwards.

Let me now deal with what I consider to be the principal deficiency. I believe that the Rome treaty, as amended by the Single European Act—it is, of course, to be amended further by the Maastricht treaty—is seriously deficient, in that it does not contain a declaration of principle, and does not confer a specific competence in relation to freedom from discrimination on grounds of race, colour, national origins or social status. Generally speaking, all those grounds are mentioned in the European convention on human rights and the United Nations charter on the subject. For the sake of brevity, I shall call them the "freedom from racial discrimination" grounds, although the definition in the convention is rather wider.

We are discussing the creation of a reality from article 8, which concerns the freedom to reside and to move freely. A person subject to discrimination in regard to housing, for instance, cannot reside freely in another country.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Article F says: The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.

Mr. Fraser

That, I believe, is in the preamble to the treaty. I am arguing that the provisions should be rather more specific. It is true that the preamble contains a reference to the convention; it is possible that articles 100 and 235 confer a competence, and that the social chapter does the same, although very marginally. What I want is a specific reference in the treaty, as an adjunct to citizenship rights, to the elimination of discrimination; the treaty should both make a declaration and provide the necessary machinery.

That is done elsewhere in the treaty. Article 119 is specific about women's rights in relation to equal pay. From that article developed the equal pay directive, which in part had already been translated into English domestic law but whose translation was then completed. I believe that one of the concomitants of union citizenship should be a provision similar to article 119, which would deal with racial discrimination and would enable the Commission —by way of a directive—to develop the machinery to make a declaration of principle enforceable.

If I am to remain in order, I must make a speech about citizenship. Let me make it clear, however, that, if I were out of order, I would be arguing for a general freedom from discrimination, irrespective of citizenship. I had better say that in case I am thought to be leaving out the question of migrant workers and those without European citizenship.

Mr. Corbyn

Do not the Maastricht treaty and the whole thrust of European thinking and legislation completely ignore the political rights of 15 million people who live and work on the continent of Europe, many of whom are refused nationality in their own countries? None of the legislation is addressed to them. Maastricht will make the current two-tier residence in Europe worse rather than better.

6.15 pm

Mr. Fraser

I agree. I think that the rights of migrant workers—and those of people who are simply dependants —should be exactly the same as those of citizens. I should have liked to speak about that in relation to the social chapter. One of the most regrettable features of the Government's failure to support the social chapter is the fact that the country has been robbed of the authority, and the credibility, to press the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in the context of the chapter. Although the treaty may contain competences and declarations elsewhere, opting out of the social chapter makes it much more difficult to argue that the Commission should initiate legislation in which the Government wish to play no part.

Although there is no constitutional right in this country to be free from racial discrimination—because we have no constitution, although, of course, we are party to the European convention on human rights—we have done rather well. When I first represented my constituency—being a multiracial constituency, it has been racked with riots—discrimination was blatantly exercised. I believe that it is a happier constituency, and that this is a happier country, since the introduction of the Race Relations Act. We have a good record. It is no good just stating principles; the machinery must be created, in this country and in the Community, to turn those principles into reality.

Other countries have built such principles into their constitutions. The very phrase "liberty, equality, fraternity" must imply freedom from racial discrimination. Every other member of the European Community has acceded to the European declaration on human rights, and all of them—unlike Britain—have imported it into their domestic law. We, who have not adopted the constitutional principle, have done better than the countries which have not. That gave us an authority, undermined by our rejection of the social chapter, to introduce laws relating to discrimination.

My point is that, given that we have a Race Relations Act, and given that all other Community member states accede—either directly in their constitutions, or by importing the provisions of the European convention into their domestic laws—not including such matters in more detail in the treaty represents an omission from the rights of citizens and, pace my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, from those of others.

Declarations of principle are not enough. According to the American constitution, it is self-evident that all men are horn equal. That did not help the slaves until 1864, and it did not help a lot of black people until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and 1970s. We need more than a declaration of principle: we need the machinery to implement it.

It is the Labour party's view, expressed at our European conference late last year, and the view of the European parliamentary Labour party that there should be a directive on such matters. I endorse that view, and I consider that such a directive is an important ingredient of citizenship. It is important for these reasons.

First, freedom from discrimination is, in one way or another, part of the governing principles of every member of the Community. Therefore, it is a gross omission for it not to be spelt out exactly in the treaty.

Secondly, the danger inside the Community and Europe as a whole is not discrimination on grounds of nationality. People are no longer, if they ever were, discriminated against specifically because they are French or German. It is much more likely, as happened before the war, that people are discriminated against because they are Jewish, or gipsies, or Arabs. Discrimination always was, perhaps, discrimination on the grounds of membership of a group, not on grounds of nationality. It is self-evident from what is happening in Yugoslavia that discrimination against people because of their membership of a group has to be dealt with.

Thirdly, freedom from discrimination is important as a matter of self-interest. Let no one ever imagine that to allow discrimination can be in anybody's self-interest. It is not; it is the reverse. One only has to look at the history of Northern Ireland and at what is happening now in Yugoslavia. If people were motivated only by self-interest, they would want workable laws against racial discrimination. That is why it is so important to incorporate this principle into the practice of the Community. In a cohesive Community, differences of race and social origin would be unimportant.

It is also important that the European Community should set an example to the rest of the world. One hears talk nowadays of fortress Europe, of a European Community that is distinct and different, that sets itself apart and makes itself exclusive in terms of the rest of the world. When the Community deals with racial discrimination, we shall demonstrate to the rest of the world that the Community has a wider view. At the moment, unfortunately, the Community has an image of being largely white and largely Christian. It is, however, a Community that will eventually incorporate not an Islamic state but Muslims. Turkey is a secular state, but if Turkey or Cyprus becomes a member of the Community, the Community will also incorporate a Muslim tradition. Therefore, it is important for us to demonstrate to the rest of the world what the Community has in mind.

I have listened to several days of the debate, and I have been surprised by the lack of vision and the lack of idealism. Last weekend, the world deplored, not celebrated, the rise of Hitler 60 years ago, a rise that was largely helped by the hatred of foreign nationals, Jews, gipsies, Slays and minority groups. Six years after Hitler's rise to power, there was a world war. That world war became the basis for forming a community in Europe. The prime purpose of its formation was to prevent that from ever happening again. But we need more than that. If we look at what is happening in Germany and other member states, we see that we also need to learn other lessons about the rise of Hitler to power in the 1930s.

If we are to have citizenship of the union, it must be a full and equal citizenship in which each man and woman has equal dignity. Citizenship should be broadened to the extent of having real declarations and real machinery for the elimination of discrimination throughout the Community, and they would apply not just to citizens of the Community but to everyone living within the Community.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

What worries me about the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is that if, against the will of the British people, we are forced into a union where the laws and requirements are not consistent with the wishes of the British people, it may fan those very hatreds that the hon. Gentleman, with the rest of us, is so anxious to stop.

There was much in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I agreed. The aims that he spelled out are aims with which we can all align, but they can be achieved through intergovernmental co-operation, not by forcing through a pattern of co-operation against the wishes of the people and against sensitivities of our British history and tradition.

This is the first time that I have made a speech in the debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and I hope to be brief, but that is not to say that I shall be patronising towards those who wish to intervene. I shall not call them Euro-bores because everybody here has some contribution to make. I speak as someone who, although he is on this side of the discussion, is a European, has always been a European and hopes always to be a European.

When the time came for us to try to make sure that the British people were persuaded that Britain should stay in the European Community, I took a very expensive three weeks away from my practice at the Bar in order to spend every day, as in a general election campaign, persuading people that we should stay within the European Community because of the many advantages to them if we did so. My bona fides, therefore, are clear.

I want the United Kingdom to remain part of the European Community. If we do not give our approval to Maastricht, we shall stay part of the European Community. I do not wish the United Kingdom to leave it, but I do not think that the way in which the European Community is going is necessarily the way that would meet with the agreement of the British people. I want this country to stay in Europe, but I ask: what kind of Europe do we want to stay in? I am not sure that I want the kind of Europe that Mr. Delors, with the support of a large number of people in the European Community, is marking out for us.

The Government say of the citizenship proposals in the treaty, "We are British citizens and we will always remain British citizens." I assume that the Government intend to convey the meaning that, for us, British citizenship will be first and foremost. I ask, will it be? The Government say, "European citizenship is additional to British citizenship. It simply confers extra rights on all EC national citizens. Does it? Is that all that it does? That is certainly what is suggested in the Government's booklet. As far as I can see, there is not one mention of duties which will be imposed upon us by being members of this European citizenship.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, for whom I have the highest regard, said in an earlier intervention that there is no question of us wanting a European state or of there being a European state. What, then, is the purpose of citizenship? Citinzenship is all about allegiance to the state. It does not mean anything else but allegiance to the state. I shall return to that point in a few moments because I believe that these Government statements or interpretations are very misleading. They imply to those who listen to them and who look no further under the meaning of the words that nothing very much will change from what it is now, except that we shall have the benefit of an additional citizenship—citizenship of the union.

Such manifest nonsense is spoken about it that one wonders whether the Government can be serious. Euro-citizenship confers not only extra rights but extra duties; there is no doubt about that. Article 8(2) states explicitly: Citizens … shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby. We shall have duties imposed on us as citizens of the union; but what are those duties? One will be the duty to pay taxes to the union, or state. If there is a Euro-tax regime, as there will be if we ratify Maastricht and follow the route planned for us, we shall have to abide by it. Britain will be forced to adopt that regime whether or not the British people or the British Parliament want it.

6.30 pm

If the Euro-tax regime demands that we do away with zero rating because it does not want to zero-rate children's shoes, or books, transport or food, we shall, in the interests of the whole Community, have to agree to one value added tax regime. We shall not be able to argue that we cannot implement such a regime, because we should be taken to the European Court and fined if we did not. The new Euro-state will therefore be able to impose that duty on us.

One of the fundamental duties of the citizen is to defend the state. If the state is the Euro-state, defence of the Euro-state will be an obligation placed on British citizens, whether or not they agree. If the British citizen or the British Parliament, has doubts about whether it is sensible to send an armed force to Iraq or for an armed force to go to Bosnia but the Euro-state says that that is Euro policy, we shall have to conform because our Euro-citizenship will place a duty and an obligation on us to abide by that demand.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

As my hon. and learned Friend knows, other European Community countries operate conscription. Does he think that Scots, as British citizens, can look forward to the delightful duty of being conscripted into as future European force?

Sir Ivan Lawrence

I was going to deal with the question of conscription, but now I need not do so. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which is why the preamble about a common defence policy is so important to the debate on citizenship. Few things are more important to citizenship than the obligation to defend the state.

Mr. Knapman

Greece is a member of the Community, but Turkey is not. Would my hon and learned Friend care to consider what would happen if there was trouble in Cyprus, for instance?

Sir Ivan Lawrence

My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the dark points—the relationship between Greece and Turkey and the way in which it will bear on the future of the European Community. I have an immense regard for Greece and Turkey. As hon. Members may know, when I was a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we produced a report on the future of Cyprus. There are immense problems for a union which excludes Turkey but retains Greece, and which may or may not take in Cyprus. It has many other ramifications, but I do not wish to pursue that subject. My hon. Friend has made a sensible point. Such a state of affairs might involve decisions contrary to the feelings of the British nation, but, because we shall be citizens of the state, we shall have to conform.

Duties are nowhere expressly defined in the Maastricht treaty, but we can be perfectly sure that what is and what is not a duty will be interpreted not by a British court but by the European Court of Justice. In the fulness of time, because that is in the nature of things, we shall have additional duties loaded on to our shoulders which we did not dream of when we first discussed these issues. They will be loaded on to our shoulders by interpretation of the European Court of Justice.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department must take on board on behalf of the Government, the fact that when we visited electors in our constituencies during the general election, if we had knocked on doors and said, "Excuse me, I want you to vote for me because I want more duties loaded on to my shoulders as a result not of what the British Parliament and Government have decided but of what other Parliaments and Governments in the rest of the European Community have decided", no one would have voted for us.

Mr. Marlow

Front-Bench Members have mentioned the various benefits arising from this part of the treaty, including petitioning, the appointment of an ombudsman and being able to vote. We can discuss whether or not they are benefits, but would it not be possible to have those benefits, or disbenefits, without having to be citizens of the European union and having citizenship imposed on us? My hon. and learned Friend talks about duties. Could we not have the benefits without citizenship and imposed duties? Why do we need them? Why did the Government agree to them?

Sir Ivan Lawrence

My hon. Friend makes another of his excellent points. Intergovernmental co-operation can achieve the benefits. What worries me is the forcing of our will into a Community decision of the state with an obligating citizenship. That was the issue that I began to explain in response to the hon. Member for Norwood, who has been so disgusted by my remarks that he has left the Chamber.

Mr. Jessel

A minute ago my hon. and learned Friend mentioned canvassing in the general election. Does he agree that, in the general election, the Maastricht treaty was hardly an issue at all because there was agreement between the three main political parties on it, and certainly agreement between the two Front Benches, so that it was a matter of controversy between the political parties? There was much dispute in the general election—we can all remember disputes about the health service, rates of income tax and so on—but if one looks at, say, the headlines of all the main newspapers throughout the three weeks of the campaign. Maastricht hardly featured and was not an issue on which people voted.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is precisely why a referendum is necessary. I am one of the members of the Conservative party who do not believe that, in the normal way of things, a referendum is an acceptable way to proceed. We are Members of Parliament, elected by the people to represent their views, and we cannot go through the whole catechism of issues for a referendum, but, on a matter of constitutional importance about which the people have not been given a specific opportunity to say yes or no, a referendum is required.

Mr. Shore

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the fact that the treaty was not published until May whereas the general election was held on 9 April greatly reinforces the case for a direct reference to the British people?

Sir Ivan Lawrence

Not only was the treaty not published but the explanation was not given. As I hope to point out in due course, the explanation that has been given is even now misleading and should be corrected before the British people have the right to decide in a referendum whether they want the treaty.

My second point about the misleading nature of the Government's assertions, no doubt made in the utmost good faith, is that Euro-citizenship is not just an additional label and does not simply provide additional duties; it changes the nature of our relationships. Acceptance of Euro-citizenship is not a voluntary matter. We will have to accept it; it says so in article 8. That means that we can no longer renounce our citizenship and move to France, Germany or elsewhere within our cultural area. If we want to renounce anything, we shall have to live outside the European Community, in America, the old Commonwealth or the new Commonwealth—if we can get in. Euro-citizenship changes fundamentally the relation-ship that we had with the state when we could decide voluntarily whether to stay or go.

Moreover, questions regarding the position of Her Majesty the Queen under a system of Euro-citizenship require some answers. Her Majesty has British citizenship. She will no doubt become a citizen of the union and presumably will be subject to the duties conferred on her by the treaty. Does that mean that she will be obliged to pay Euro income tax or any tax that the Euro-state requires her to pay?

Mr. Rowe

I am listening with avid attention. I am not in any sense a constitutional lawyer—I know that my hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer of great excellence—but it seems to me that, arguably, Her Majesty the Queen is not a British citizen, in the sense that she is not allowed to exercise many of the attributes of citizenship.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

It is generally accepted by international lawyers, as well as by the Home Secretary and the Government, that Her Majesty the Queen is pre-eminently the British citizen and is therefore subject to the law of the land as any citizen would be. The last member of the royal family who said that he was not a British citizen and that he was not subject to the laws and obligations of the land had a little walk further down Whitehall, which ended in the loss of an important part of his body and a number of years of civil war.

Mr. Spearing

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence

Of course.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose speech should be carefully noted because of his experience in these matters and the office that he holds. He may recall that, earlier this afternoon, the Home Secretary feigned ignorance when asked about the position of the Queen. The Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly been asked about the position of Her Majesty—or, to be more accurate, the monarch of the day—and have repeatedly failed to answer.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, unlike legislation of the Community, which would bind the duty of the monarch or legislation of this House, consequent on a legislative programme of the Community, under the intergovernmental parts of the treaty that require a single process, it would become the duty of the Crown and its prerogative—meaning government, which traditionally has not been completely within the grasp of this House—to concur with whatever the intergovernmental institutions. decreed? For the first time, the prerogative of the Crown, as well as the Crown itself, would become subject to the macro-treaties of which we speak.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right; but I will not hear criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. He is one of the busiest and most preoccupied Ministers in the Cabinet. Morning, noon and night, he has to apply his mind to the problems of the police, prisons, immigration, the fire service and a whole range of activities that are totally time-consuming. I will not accept any criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend for not having accurately considered every single matter in the treaty. I merely make the point that, to reassure those who are concerned about these matters, it is most important that Ministers should be present who have had time to consider them in greater detail and can answer questions concerning, for example, the role of the Queen.

6 45 pm

Mr. Charles Wardle

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence

I see that my hon. Friend can answer the questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary could not.

Mr. Wardle

I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will appreciate the manner in which my hon. and learned Friend catalogued his many responsibilities, which do, indeed, make him a busy man. Let me clarify the point that is of concern to the Committee. The Maastricht treaty does not in any way affect the constitutional position of the monarch. Her Majesty as an individual would of course enjoy the same rights within the EC as any other United Kingdom citizen.

Mr. Cash

On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. In view of what the Minister has just said, why is it that the Queen's consent is required on Third Reading? If what the Minister said was correct, it would surely not be necessary for Her Majesty's consent to be signified.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

That is not a point of order for me; it is a question for the Minister.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister said—that Her Majesty the Queen has the same rights as any other member of the Community. That being so, it must surely follow that she would have the right to vote in European elections and to stand for the European Parliament. She would even have the municipal right—it is clear from the treaty that that right is regarded as important—to vote and stand in local government elections. If she wished, Her Majesty could stand for election to Westminster city council. Those are rights and duties that I believe Her Majesty would gain under the Maastricht treaty. I merely make the point that the treaty alters the relationship that Her Majesty has with her citizens and with the rest of the European Community. The treaty changes the basis of citizenship as we know it.

Mrs. Dunwoody

Surely the whole point is that, although we are debating a Bill that imposes upon all the citizens of the United Kingdom a new duty—and the word "duty" ought to be underlined—Ministers are still receiving advice from the Box on fundamental matters. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to come here and joke about the gullible Danes—who, incidentally, follow the democratic process—but the fact is that the Committee is being asked to vote on a number of basic duties of citizenship without any clear idea of how far the provision goes, of what is involved or of the commitment that we are making on behalf of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Frankly. I find that both frightening and irresponsible.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

I agree with the hon. Lady. We have just seen what can happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) had one view of the Queen's position and that view was corrected by my hon. Friend the Minister.

These matters are important to the British people. It may be nostalgic and old-fashioned—the result of some feeling rather than of rationality—of us to feel so strongly monarchist and to have such regard for the royal family. Nevertheless, the provisions of the Bill affect the rights and duties of the royal family for the future, and those rights and duties must be clarified so that the British people can feel confident about the future.

My hon. Friend the Minister says that Her Majesty will have the same rights and duties as any European citizen. In that case, it is in the nature of that relationship that she must be a citizen of the Euro-state. As she is a British citizen, she will become a citizen of the Euro-state and subject to the Euro-state, whose leader—the President—will presumably have rights similar to those that Her Majesty enjoys in Britain at present.

Is it seriously suggested that the British people would have wanted Her Majesty the Queen to be a subject of Mr. Delors, remembering his thoughts about the future of Europe? By what right should we expect the Queen to be so subject? Would the British people have voted for us had we been able, with the right information and existence of the treaty, to ask them about such matters at the last general election?

Mr. Marlow

My hon. and learned Friend is approaching a delicate and important point. By the kind courtesies of the government of the European state, Her Majesty will be a citizen of that state. She will be Queen but Mr. Delors will be President. He will be President of the whole organisation—President of Europe—while she will be Queen of a mere participant in Europe. Who will take precedence at official functions? Will it be Mr. Delors, with Her Majesty playing second fiddle to him? Does my hon. and learned Friend think that our constituents will be worried about the legislation if it turns out to have that effect?

Sir Ivan Lawrence

Let us be realistic. Seldom does the Prime Minister go to a meeting of Staffordshire county council, so that the question whether he should have precedence over the chairman of the county council does not arise. Such events rarely happen now and they are unlikely to happen often in the future. The question of precedence is probably not of importance, though my hon. Friend's intervention underlines my point that the relationship of the British citizen will alter under the treaty, just as the duties imposed on British citizens under it will be greater.

Mr. Charles Wardle

My hon. and learned Friend said encouragingly that we should be realistic. We are debating the Maastricht treaty, which imposes no specific duties on individuals. The only duty is to obey provisions of EC law which impose an obligation on individuals. The rest must be speculation and, as we are considering article 8, that speculation would be subject to the double lock in article 18.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

But if the law being created by the European Community creates more duties, we are subject to them, for the very reason adduced by my hon. Friend the Minister—in other words, there will be more duties and a changed relationship.

Others will have rights to join in and interfere with British citizenship here in the United Kingdom. Citizens of other states will be able to vote in our municipal elections and Euro-elections. There are a number of marginal seats in this country, some with very small majorities. Consider one such constituency about which it is known from public opinion polls and canvassing that the result will be on a knife edge.

What will stop sufficient French farmers, for example, coming here, being here on the night that is necessary for registration as electors, perhaps by virtue of their European citizenship being able to come backwards and forwards for long enough to comply with the six-month residency in the constituency rule before voting, and thereby getting the MEP they want? Such an MEP might stand for policies which the Euro-farmer particularly wants but which the British farmer does not want.

Mr. Cash

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is no residential qualification in the treaty relating to citizenship? We should be told the latest Home Office thinking on the matter. After all, even the trespassing CND women at Greenham common managed to acquire a period of residence that was suitable for the purposes of the residential qualification. If that could be achieved, I have no doubt that all manner of people could be brought in from across the channel.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right, because the law requires some residential qualification.

Mr. Wilkinson

We have recently enacted provisions by which British expatriate nationals have the right to vote in United Kingdom elections. I presume that EC nationals who have in the past acquired residence in this country could go to Timbuctoo or anywhere on the globe and vote in British elections. It is unsatisfactory that expatriate nationals who will acquire, by virtue of the treaty, citizenship of the European union will not have their rights clearly defined in electoral law.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

My hon. Friend raises an interesting matter. We make to other groups all sorts of concessions that other countries do not make. Likewise, they make concessions to groups that we do not make. One such concession is the voting right given in certain circumstances to expatriates. Other nations in the EC may not wish to accept that type of regime and will test the issue in the European Court of Justice. We may find that a concession that the British people, through their Parliament, considered to be right is taken from us.

Another example is extremely worrying. We have made a special exception in relation to the Irish. They can come here and stand for election, vote and sit on juries. That was part of the agreement with Ireland in the post-1920 era. That concession may have served us well, and people have opinions about whether the Irish should have those rights. When we questioned the matter a year or so ago and asked why the same rights were not reciprocal with Eire, the Irish Government quickly changed the law so that anybody who wants to stand or vote in an Irish election can do so, and I believe that it is possible for anybody who wishes to do so to serve on an Irish jury.

I merely make the point that we are discussing one of those rules that the British Parliament has decided and has not revoked. Such a variation in our rules might not be acceptable to our partners in the EC, who might take the matter to the European Court. It might be ruled to be in breach of undertakings given in Maastricht and be contrary to the Euro-citizen rules laid down in the treaty. We would find ourselves obliged to change what had been a traditional attitude towards the people of Ireland.

I am not saying that that will happen. I am discussing a number of situations that could arise once we open the doors and allow them to happen, and that is what the Maastricht treaty does. Further, it does it without consulting the British people to see whether they want it to be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) pointed out.

The nationals of other countries and the citizens of the Euro-state will be able to come here and play their part in municipal—county, district and parish council—elections. They will be eligible to come here and stand and vote and thereby affect the future of British society. That represents a considerable change in the present situation and, by itself, contradicts the assurance we have been given that the treaty will improve matters and will not take anything away. Many people may not want the French to decide who our district, county or parish councillors should be.

I ask this question in all seriousness: can my hon. Friend the Minister give a guarantee that "municipal" means only district council, county council and paris council? [Interruption.] It is not a joke. It is clear, not simply from the case in 1972 but from a number of other references, that the European Community sometimes used the word municipal as the counter to community—municipal not meaning municipal elections to district councils, country councils and parish councils but meaning pertaining to the nation state. It may well be that that is not the meaning which will ever be used in this case.

The question of what "municipal" actually means—whether it will be restricted in that way—may well have to be referred to the European Court of Justice. If the word "municipal" has been used time and time again in France, Italy and the European Court to mean national, can my hon. Friend the Minister guarantee that it will never give Euro-citizens a right to vote in our general elections? It is not such a silly question.

If there is a Euro-citizenship which entitles people to have a right to vote in parish, district and county council elections, what is the argument in principle about not letting them vote in a general election? I can see a difference in degree, but I can see no difference in principle. If there is no difference in principle, who will guarantee that the European Court of Justice will say that there is no difference in principle and that "municipal" must mean municipal in the way that we mean it?

Mr. Cash

My hon. and learned Friend is addressing what he and I regard as a serious point. I am sure many other people regard it in the same way. Unfortunately, the point is that, if the treaty is ratified, the cat is out of the bag and the Court of Justice has grabbed it.

It does not matter a fig what my hon. Friend the Minister thinks. What he thinks on this subject probably is not worth a row of beans, because he is not a lawyer who is likely to appear before the European Court. I am not interested in the opinion of his Foreign Office lawyers, because they are wrong more often than they are right. We found that out with the Canada Bill. I could give the Committee a list as long as my arm of the times when they have got things fundamentally wrong.

In this particular case, the matter can arise only after ratification. If the Court of Justice takes the view which it has taken in the past, it will not matter a damn what the Foreign Office lawyers and the Minister have said, because the Court of Justice will have the right, under the European Communities Act 1972, to decide the matter.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

As is often the case, my hon. Friend underlines and concludes the point that I am making much more effectively than I could have done, and I accept what he says.

Mr. Winnick

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence

I shall move on because it is important that I should do so.

Article 8b does not define the phrase residing … in which he resides before a Euro-citizen can cast a vote in one of our elections. Euro-citizens must reside in Britain under the rules which apply at present before they can vote in our elections. Surely that means that such citizens must be in the United Kingdom on a day in October or whenever and have been here for a period of residence. However, we do not know that, because it is not set out in the treaty.

7 pm

The question of who a resident is, who will vote or who can stand for election to the county council, district council or parish council may have to be decided in the European Court of Justice. That decision will be made not by a British court but by a European court. It will be made not by somebody who has been brought up in the history and traditions of the British system but by somebody or a number of learned men who have been brought up in a system in another country which bears no relationship to the traditions of British government.

I shall give another example of power being taken from us and residing in a body in which we will have some right to participate and perhaps some strong right to influence but not the right to make a final decision in the interests of the people. Article 8d gives Euro-citizens the right to petition the European Parliament. What will happen if such a petition succeeds? Will it succeed over the decisions of the British Parliament? Is that an example of the European Parliament taking power over the Westminster Parliament?

How many people would have voted for me if I had knocked on doors at the last general election and said, "Please vote for me because I want to surrender power to the European Parliament. I do not want the Westminster Parliament to have the powers which it has at the moment. I want fewer powers. I want to give people the right to petition a European Parliament and to oblige the European Parliament to oblige a Euro-citizen in Britain to go along such a path"? We are talking about the surrender of power away from a Westminster Parliament. That is my bottom line. What moves me most about the Maastricht treaty is the surrender of power away from the Westminster Parliament. People have not been consulted, and I know perfectly well that they do not want it.

Mrs. Dunwoody

The interesting point is that we have the right to petition the European Parliament at present. Since there is no extra extension of advantage, why is the treaty written in such a way unless the unwritten intention is that the decision can be enforced? At present, after we have petitioned the European Parliament, a decision cannot necessarily be enforced. Are we to assume that in the future we shall have to conform with whatever decision is taken?

Sir Ivan Lawrence

It seems that the power to petition the European Parliament is excluded in the treaty because it will give more power than exists at present, or there would be no point in including it.

Mr. Rowe

In my general election campaign, I made it abundantly clear that I thought that the Maastricht treaty was a good thing and that the European Community should be strengthened. It may well be that my constituents share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), whose views of our officials, our lawyers and our constitution seem to be so denigrating. For that reason, it may be that my constituents substantially increased my majority.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

My hon. Friend's personal powers and charm must have persuaded a large number of people to give him the benefit of any doubt which they may have had because they could not have seen anything in writing and they would not know the explanation of the things in writing. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's majority increased or decreased.

Mr. Rowe

My majority increased.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

My hon. Friend's majority would have increased much more if he had been able to say to the electors of Mid-Kent, "I am standing up against the desire to grab the powers from the Westminster Parliament and give them to some Parliament elsewhere in Europe."

Mr. Cash

Is it possible—as it were, vicariously through my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence)—to remind the citizens of Mid-Kent that it was those massive marches to preserve their homes and so on which led my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent to charge up to No. 10 and so on? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will have an opportunity to prove his point when undoubtedly he will vote against the rail privatisation Bill tomorrow and sustain the reason why he got so much support in the 1992 general election in addition to the other support which he has already.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

Again, I can only accept the observation of my hon. Friend. I make no comment about it.

So far I have said that, contrary to the assurances that have been given, there will be changes to the rights and duties of the British people as a result of Euro-citizenship. Maastricht will provide us with more duties, change our relationships and give other people the right to interfere in the rights and activities of the British people. That is what will happen.

Mr. Winnick

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman goes on to his next point, may I ask him whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who shares our views on this subject, said that the two Conservative candidates in Southend borough received more or less the same percentage of support? One was opposed to Maastricht and one was in favour. Is not the point that the treaty was not an issue at the general election for either of the two main parties? The British people clearly did not make up their minds on that issue. Hence the need, before power is taken away from the House of Commons to a much greater degree than previously, for the British people to say yea or nay.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

With great respect, we have flogged that one. We are talking about the need for a referendum. Although the point needs to continue to be made, perhaps it does not need to continue to be made so often.

One must ask two questions: first, will Maastricht as it is drafted be better for the British people? Secondly, will it be better for the British people if the intentions which are clear in the treaty are translated? I have just dealt with the question whether the treaty would be better for the British people in the form in which we have examined it so far and insofar as it diminishes the rights and increases the duties of the citizen in Britain. The answer to that question is no.

So what are the intentions for the future of the framers of the treaty and its signatories? It seems obvious to me that the intentions are to diminish the nation state and the concept of national citizenship in favour of the Euro-state.

I come to that conclusion for the following reasons. First, if all that were wanted were reciprocal rights, there is no reason why they could not have been provided without the concept of citizenship. All that would be required would be some such statement as, "The rights accorded under the French constitution are hereby accorded to the citizens of the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Holland, Spain, Portugal," and all the others. That is all that would be needed for us to enjoy each other's rights. But that is not want we have. We have the concept of citizenship.

The concept of citizenship came about because the Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, said that it would be a good idea if we could bind the concept of a union together with European citizenship. On page 79 of its opinion of 21 November 1990 to the conference drafting the Maastricht treaty, the Commission approved the concept because it would encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration. Those are weasel words if ever there were any.

There is only one point in creating citizenship, and that is to set up an obligation to a state. So the Commission proposed that the European citizen would have a right of free residence and movement and a right to vote in local and European parliamentary elections. It said that targets for the definition of the individual's civic, economic and social rights would be set at a later stage.

Mr. Wilkinson

It is interesting that my hon. and learned Friend referred to the origin of the concept of European citizenship. He accorded the origin of the idea to Felipe Gonzalez, whom he said claimed that European citizenship would grant to the holders of that citizenship a greater sense of belonging and integration in the Community. Can my hon. and learned Friend clarify what the Gibraltarians might think of that idea and what their status is under European citizenship?

7.15 pm

Sir Ivan Lawrence

No, but I can guess. As we are going into a little history, I might add that I was present with other colleagues from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in Strasbourg when President Mitterrand made a speech to the European Parliament in which he explained that he thought that the time was nigh for European political and economic union. I noticed a gasp of dismay among my Conservative colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee at that time, most of whom will troop through the Lobby with the Government for the very political and economic union which had them so aghast when they first heard it from the mouth of President Mitterrand in Strasbourg.

The intention is that targets for the definition of the individual's civic, economic and social rights will be set at a later stage. Everything is done by a step-by-step approach. We manage to tame the abuses of union power not by means of a massive change but by the step-by-step approach. Everyone has learnt that if one wants to achieve something, one does it by the step-by-step approach. One signals one's intention with weasel words, which can mean anything, so that people cannot say that they were not warned. We are warned that by European citizenship we will encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration. In years to come people will say that they made it clear that they wanted Euro-citizenship.

Targets will be set for the definition of civic, economic and social rights at a later stage. No one can say that he was not warned that we were going even further down the path of reducing our national rights and increasing our international burden, and changing the relationship between the British citizen and the Queen or British citizens and other citizens of the Euro-state. No one will be able to say that we were not warned.

I looked at the literature which was circulated during the 1975 referendum campaign to see whether we were promised that something would not happen that subsequently happened. I wanted some ammunition. When I looked at the words, I saw that they could mean anything. They could mean yes and they could mean no. It was clear that those who used those forms of words did so in a way that would make it possible for them to behave or act in a different way later when the demand came.

Looking back at all those words, it is difficult to say that we were not warned. We were warned, but it depended on how one interpreted the words.

Mr. Michael Spicer

My hon. and learned Friend is dealing with the important question of the dynamic nature of the treaty and the fact that it points to the future. Does he agree that it is because the treaty is dynamic that the exchange between my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) was so unsatisfactory? My hon. Friend dwelt on exactly the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes when he talked about defence. He talked about policies "which might in time lead" to a common defence policy. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that point was never properly answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary? My hon. and learned Friend puts in context the questions that ought to be answered about where the whole thing will lead in the future.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

I do not mean to be offensive when I say that civil servants, in their answers, must be as inscrutable as possible so that, in five years' time, a Minister will not be hauled over the coals for saying something quite different. Time and again in this debate we have heard answers that could mean yes or no, could mean one thing or another. If one were to ask, "Will the position of the Queen he changed?", one might be told, "No. She will be as any other citizen of the European Community. The position now is as before".

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

In this debate, Front-Bench Members are not coming clean with the Committee. Hon. Members are therefore unable to come clean with the people about the way in which citizenship is being fundamentally altered, ratchetwise—especially by this treaty. Will my hon. and learned Friend direct his attention to that matter? Surely it is quite wrong to change the status and role of citizenship without informing the people of what is being done in their name, especially as it appears that Front-Bench Members on both sides do not themselves know what is in the treaty.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

The only answer I can sensibly give is yes.

On the question of setting targets at a later stage, I have to say that the Community will take over and define the key aspects of the individual's relationship with the state. That is what is intended. The Community will look at the matter again at a later stage. It is all set out in article 8e. There are to be reviews, at intervals of three years, of the rights of European citizenship. The Council of Ministers will be empowered to strengthen or add to the rights already laid down. When this legislation has been passed and the Maastricht treaty has been ratified, provision for those reviews will be in place.

Will that be done by unanimous decision or by majority decision? Even if it is to be by unanimous decision, the Minister may not by then have any means of signifying in advance what he wants to talk about and what decisions he will have to make. We have tried to make the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs the monitor of the intentions of Ministers. By contrast, a Scrutiny Committee can only consider matters after the event. I am not by any means convinced that we shall know sufficiently in advance what a Minister will do under the give and take and the compromise of the Council of Ministers.

However, it is clearly provided—no one will he able to complain afterwards—that the Council of Ministers can strengthen the rights and duties already laid down. That is what we will be agreeing to if we ratify this treaty. As the duties are not defined anywhere in the treaty, it will be for the European Court of Justice, which includes judges from several other countries—judges, I say with respect, who have no experience, knowledge, wisdom or understanding with regard to the day-to-day working of the British nation—to define our duties for us.

I do not want to labour the points that I am making, but I wish to summarise. The duties are more onerous, the relationships are changed, and there is potential for further change, yet these are matters that we are called upon to support in the context of citizenship. The "Encyclopaedia Britannica" defines citizenship as the relationship between an individual and state, defined by the law of that state, with corresponding duties and rights". It is manifest nonsense to say that these proposals do not contemplate the formulation of a state. There is no point in having citizenship if there is no state. Euro-citizenship is the relationship between an individual and a Euro-state.

Chancellor Kohl had absolutely no doubt when he said: The European union treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the process of European union which, within a few years, will lead to the creation of what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of following the last war—the united states of Europe. By "united states" he clearly meant states as in America. That European state will be superior to the existing nation states. It will have the power to decide and to enforce rights and duties. It is true that a person from the United Kingdom is now a citizen of the United Kingdom and a citizen of Burton-on-Trent, or Staffordshire, or somewhere else, but that is a confusion of the real meaning. Citizenship ought to indicate where ultimate power lies.

Can the Government put their hand on their heart and promise us that, if Maastricht is ratified, the importance of British citizenship will not be progressively downgraded, that Euro-citizenship will not become more important, or even all-important? The inability to give that undertaking will signify to the British people exactly what we are doing here.

The Government have introduced a citizens charter giving more power to the individual citizen and less power to the state. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said: It is a testimony to our belief in people's rights to be informed and to choose for themselves. Do we have any right to choose or reject Euro-citizenship? Article 8 is not subject to qualified-majority or unanimous voting, nor is it subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers. It states unequivocally:

Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. People will not be able to say no. Things will be compulsory. People will not have asked for something, and will not want it, but they will get it anyway. There will be no referendum. So much for the citizens charter. It must be very embarrassing for Ministers to speak so highly in favour of the citizens charter, to speak brilliantly round the country about the free choice of citizens in John Major's Britain.

If it is clear that we shall not remain British citizens exactly as we are now, if it is clear that article 8 confers extra duties in many aspects of public life—and not just extra rights, as has been promised—if it is clear that we shall have no right to say no, it must be clear also that these amendments ought to be supported. They should be supported not just as probing amendments but as provisions that are necessary in their own right. If they win the day, there will be some hope of the Maastricht treaty's not being ratified. If the Maastricht treaty is not ratified, there will be some hope of the British people's being able to remain British in the full sense and of the Westminster Parliament's being able to retain powers that we are in danger of losing, powers that we know perfectly well we were not sent to this place to give away.

Mr. Gould

We are accustomed in these debates to complain about opacity of the Maastricht treaty provisions. Indeed, the comments of many outside observers almost exclusively concern the difficulties of understanding the arcane procedures that we are pursuing.

There can be no complaint about confusion or opacity over this issue. The treaty, which is entitled "The Treaty on European Union" is very clear in its opening words where it says: By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called 'the Union'. As we have heard, article 8 of the treaty provides that Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. The remaining provisions of article 8 specify, or at least allude to, the rights and duties that pertain to that citizenship. The new rights are spelt out—rights to consular protection and to vote and stand in municipal and Euro-elections.

7.30 pm

Under the provisions of article 8e, the Council is given the right and power to strengthen and add to those rights as it sees fit. There can hardly be a clearer statement.

Of course, it is tempting—one knows of many hon. Members and people outside the House who are prepared to yield to the temptation—to say that the treaty is just a piece of Euro-waffle. We are accustomed to our continental partners talking in rather grand metaphysical terms. We are accustomed to telling ourselves, in our rather superior way, that we like to stick to black letter law, practicality and the pragmatic aspects of policy making. We tell ourselves that we can safely ignore all that verbiage.

Yet those opening words and the provisions of article 8 could hardly be more specific, deliberate, considered or portentous. They are meant to matter and, as so often in the past, we ignore them at our peril.

It is not even the case that the treaty is simply a restatement of something that has gone before. We are often told that what appears to be a major new step towards the creation of a European state is of no account because it was already implicit in something that we did before. However, the Home Secretary was right—at least he knew something about that matter—when he conceded that this is a new provision. It is an innovation and it sets out a new concept of centralisation. We have heard about the origins of that concept this evening.

There is no question but that the treaty of Maastricht does a new and important thing—it creates citizenship of something called "the Union". What does that mean? It is extraordinary that that apparently important provision is passed by with virtually no comment whatsoever. Until this debate I was hardly aware that anyone, other than one or two people who are interested in such matters, had ventured to comment on what might be thought to be a matter of some considerable importance.

Mr. Marlow

That is certainly true of the United Kingdom, but the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the Danes were allowed to consider the treaty. In their referendum the concept of citizenship was of massive significance and importance to them.

Mr. Gould

The hon. Gentleman is right. I was directing my remarks to Britain. One might have thought that such concepts would have been of some interest and importance here, but it is here that the debate has been most notably lacking.

There has not even been much by way of explanation. The Home Secretary, representing the Government, spoke to the Committee on the subject and was unable to answer some of the most important and central questions that arise from the provisions.

Mr. Rowlands

While I accept the general tenor of my hon. Friend's case, and that the matter has not been properly investigated, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs took a considerable amount of expert legal advice on the matter, which I hope we shall be able to discuss this evening, to establish the concept of the union. A confusing concept emerged, but nevertheless we endeavoured to do so.

Mr. Gould

I wish that the Home Secretary, among others, and even the Minister of State, who is with us, might have familiarised themselves with what the Select Committee was able to do.

Mr. Cash

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most disgraceful aspects of this entire farce is the fact that there has been no White Paper? Whereas the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was right to refer to the fact that some extremely good evidence is scattered among Select Committee reports and so forth, there has been no clear and coherent attempt to bring it all together in about 20 pages for the benefit of the British people, which is quite possible. That negligence lies behind the whole of this farce.

Mr. Gould

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that is the central point, and what I am seeking to explain in this part of my speech. Other people may well have dealt with the question, but the Government have not done so and they have offered no explanation, by way of a White Paper or statement of any sort, to suggest for a moment that they recognise the importance of what they are proposing to do through the Bill. Given that the concept of citizenship is newly fashionable, as several hon. Members including the Liberal Democratic party's spokesman, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) have said, it is surprising that the Government have not done so. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) mentioned the citizens' charter. Citizenship is said to be the basis of a raft of new rights and duties. It is the current fad, is it not?

A year or two ago the present Foreign Secretary was full of ideas about something called "active citzenship", although I confess that we have not heard much about it recently. That was to be the basis of a new contract between the citizen and Government, but we hear nothing about that from Ministers. They even seem to be embarrassed when they are asked simple questions about what the change—the creation of a new citizenship—may mean.

As other hon. Members have said, the truth of the matter is that citizenship in a vacuum is a meaningless concept. It only means something as part of a relationship —the relationship that links the individual to the political structure in which he or she lives or is governed. Citizenship links the individual to the monarch, to the Government, but most of all to the state. Citizenship without a state—in this case, without a union—is meaningless.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

One should be cautious about laziness and the slipping of language when referring to the citizens charter. That only serves the new Conservative-Labour Front Bench arrangement. It is not a citizens charter but merely a customer or consumers charter. The distinction must be made and we have to be precise because we are talking about the most intimate relationship—that of the individual and the state—and not about the relationship between a customer and a business.

Mr. Gould

I agree and I am seeking to argue that. It is precisely that relationship which is at issue.

The terminology is difficult. We have had to grapple with concepts of nationality and with being a subject. When I arrived in this country I was a New Zealand national but a British subject. I am glad to say that I have gone through the process of naturalisation, and I am proud to be a British citizen. Nationality, citizenship, subjecthood, the citizenship of the citizens charter are all slippery concepts that have been chopped and changed to such a degree that it is sometimes difficult to know what is intended when the terms are used. Even the treaty is obliged to talk of citizenship as it has to define the citizenship of the union by reference to the nationality of member states.

Let us be under no illusion: citizenship in terms of the treaty is, to all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from nationality as it applies to the nation state. How does that change affect the rights and obligations of British citizenship or nationality? It is tempting to say—we hear the argument advanced all the time, especially from the Front Bench teams—that we have nothing to worry about and the changes make no difference to British citizenship. It is suggested that we are being offered a sort of add-on extra—a bonus, a sort of Green Shield stammp that brings only benefits, no duties. The terms of article 8 give the lie to that suggestion.

It is not a provision for a shared arrangement or reciprocal swapping and exchange of rights and duties. As others have said, that could have been done without creating a citizenship of the union. The Home Secretary professed that the provision simply created new rights. He glossed over the issue of duties and said that there were no new duties, but massive new duties have been created that are now owed, not just to a British nation state, but a totally new organisation: the European union—whatever that may be.

Mr. Winnick

The Government sometimes argue that the treaty will not make that much difference. They say that, whatever their views on Maastricht, all Labour Members of Parliament are and always have been enthusiastic about the United Nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I certainly are. We also accept our obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We are not little Englanders, and have made that clear on numerous occasions, and we carry out and recognise our international obligations. Is not there a fundamental difference between all that I have mentioned and the new scheme in the treaty that completely changes the concept, both of citizenship and the authority of the House? I am not aware that the authority of the House has been diminished as a result of our involvement with the United Nations and the rule of law on the international scene or our membership of NATO.

Mr. Gould

My hon. Friend is right. It astonishes me that there is so often a failure to distinguish between the obligations under international law taken on by the Government through signing treaties and the creation of a new political entity with its own Government, structures and, we now discover, citizenship.

How will such citizenship impinge on British nationality? Is there any competition between them? What happens if they are in conflict? What I am about to suggest may seem far-fetched and hypothetical, but one of the acid tests of citizenship or nationality is that it defines the duty of allegiance. If allegiance is ignored, it gives rise to serious charges such as treason.

Let us imagine that, in a far-fetched scenario, the issue was tested in a court case. Other hon. Members may say that that is unlikely, but there are cases of treason charges. What if the defence offered in the British court were to the effect that the allegiance owed to the British state was superseded by a superior allegiance owed to a different political entity and that the action complained of was not regarded as treasonable under that superior law? What would be the outcome of such a case? Would such a defence succeed?

It is important to understand—as has been made clear on numerous occasions—that the par excellence would be decided by the European Court of Justice, which regards itself as the instrument of European union and a constant upholder of the superiority of Community law. Can there be any doubt that, given the right case, that defence would succeed and immediately establish as a matter of principle that citizenship and allegiance are, at bottom, in conflict and cannot be held together. Such a conflict would be resolved in favour of citizenship of the union.

Mr. Budgen

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in fairness to the European Court, all the statutes of the European union speak of a progressive move towards the union? It is only here in the House of Commons that Ministers pretend that we can accept one measure and that will be the end of it. I am sorry to refer to the bad old days of Lady Thatcher, but she used to be so unwise as to talk about the ratchet effect. May I remind some of her erstwhile supporters—I do not want to embarrass anyone —that she used to be cheered when she talked about the ratchet effect. As we all know, the party has grown out of that vulgar and silly way of talking about things now that it is a pragmatic party, but it may have a certain truth to it. It is the ratchet effect to which the constitution of the EEC assigns the European Court as an essential instrument.

7.45 pm

Mr. Gould

I certainly intend to come to precisely that subject later. I merely observe in passing that I wish that Lady Thatcher had sometimes been a little more aware of the ratchet when she was turning it.

I am still engaged in an exposition of the case, and have yet to comment on the desirability or otherwise of the developments. I shall now mention another aspect that has rightly attracted some attention—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to another subject and while he is still making his exposition, will he speculate for the Committee on why he believes that the Front Bench teams are not prepared to be honest with the people of this country about the fundamental changes that are being made in their name? Is not it wrong that we should bring about the changes by ratifying the Maastricht treaty without people being able to show that they sought those fundamental changes to our citizenship, which they certainly did not at the last election?

Mr. Gould

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion and shall speculate a little later on why we are confronted with so many people who seem unwilling or unable to recognise their true responsibilities in the House.

Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe)

I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman—coming, as he does, from his wing of the Labour party—has difficulty with a new concept. It is undoubtedly true that citizenship of the European Community is a new concept. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that article 8 of the treaty makes it clear that there is a difference between that citizenship—there may be a better word for it—of the European Community and nationality as allegiance to the nation state? Article 8 makes that difference extremely clear, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have detected that difference. He now states that he or the European Court could suggest that European citizenship could be seen as superior to nationality. Will he say where, in article 8, even a hint of that possibility arises?

Mr. Gould

I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman either was not listening or was unable to follow my argument. I was saying that there certainly was a difference between citizenship of the European union and the citizenship of member states—the latter would be subordinate to the former. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me I will go on to develop that point.

I return to the example of a person who uses as his defence when the issue of citizenship becomes critical the fact that he owes a superior duty and allegiance to the European union. That displaces his duty to the British state. That may or may not be right, but it was an interesting illustration of how the conflict could arise. If it did arise there is no doubt that the European Court of Justice would find in favour of the superiority of Community law. If it failed to do so it would be breaking with the body of precedent that it had itself established.

Mr. Wilkinson

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while it might seem far-fetched, there was a recent and relevant historical parallel? A number of brave nationals of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and the Ukraine owed allegiance to the nations of their birth but paid for it, in some cases with their lives, as they were not prepared to accept citizenship of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was imposed on them against their will.

Mr. Gould

I am happy to agree, and I hope to refer to a point of similar political significance in a moment.

I come to another aspect of the new relationship—one that has already attracted some attention and on which I propose to comment only briefly. I refer to the position of Her Majesty the Queen. The Home Secretary was quite unable to answer a question about whether the Bill, if it became an Act, would bind the Queen in any way. Would she, as a British national, become a citizen of the European union? The Minister of State read out what I imagine was a note prepared for him by his civil servants, but it hardly answered the question.

I suppose that it could be argued that the Queen is beyond the reach of this Bill. That would be odd, because I think that the Minister of State confirmed that she would be a beneficiary of the rights of European citizenship. It must therefore follow that she will incur the duties of European citizenship—that she owes some sort of allegiance by virtue of it. It is a remarkable thought that the Queen, the supreme citizen of our political entity, would owe allegiance to some higher, wider authority.

I profess no infallibility on these questions; I merely point to possible interpretations, and this is what the law and the treaty appear to point to. We must therefore imagine a sort of sub-monarch in a sub-state, owing allegiance to some wider state. It follows that the debate on which we appear to be embarking may be entirely beside the point. The issue of whether a diminished monarchy would be good or bad may be beyond the competence of this House and the British people. It may be resolved by the treaty of Maastricht and the introduction of the citizenship of the European union.

At the very least we should be clear that we have created a new form of citizenship which is a relationship with a superior body of law and a wider geographical entity: a super-state. That relationship must be superior to the relationship that we all enjoy with the British state.

In a curious way we can already see the practical effects of this change when we arrive at Heathrow and are required to submit our passports not as British citizens but as citizens of the European Community. In a sense that was jumping the gun, but it was a practical manifestation of the effects of the new citizenship.

Mr. Spearing

My hon. Friend's speech deserves the widest possible subsequent publication—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] Oh yes, this is the most important speech that we have heard so far.

Does my hon. Friend recall that when the original legislation was passed the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that the position of the Crown was not affected, forgetting that direct legislation circumvented both this House and the Royal Assen—so the position of the Crown was most certainly affected? Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not only to take up allegiance to the constitution of this union but that, unlike the constitutions of states such as Australia and the United States of America, the union's constitution exhibits a particular political philosophy? That means that the allegiance is not just to the constitution but to the political philosophy as well. It is to he found in the preambles to the treaties, and they impose certain loyalties that may go beyond constitutional structures.

Mr. Gould

I am about to support the point to which my hon. Friend has directed me.

I have thus far not ventured an opinion on whether the changes I am seeking to describe are good or bad. I am merely saying that they are important. I shall go on to make the point that they are rather more important than many of those who would blindly accept the treaty realise. It is comparatively easy to sneer at terms which have a 19th century ring to them—allegiance, sovereignty and so on. They are wonderfully Diceyan in character. It is not so easy to sneer, however, at ideas like democracy and self-government—yet they are at issue if we are to impose on the British people or anyone else citizenship in a wider political entity than one which they have hitherto contemplated.

This is a matter of democracy, because there is an unfortunate tendency for many people to argue that democracy is merely a matter of elections—that the democratic process is no more than a question of deciding which of competing sets of people within a given political entity ought to form the Government. That is certainly an important aspect, but democracy is also a form of Government within a defined political entity. It is self-government if it is anything. What is at issue here is the definition of that "self". If the self which is the subject of a democratic government is to be changed without the consent or authority of that self, that is a development of the greatest significance.

We can elect representatives to our hearts' content to send to the European Parliament, from which, perhaps, a European Government could be drawn, but that will not of itself resolve the problem unless it is clear that the British people have signified their assent to be governed within the new political entity. Until that moment arrives —it cannot arrive until it is tested—those who would support the Maastricht treaty may sneer for as long as they like, but what they are doing is violating concepts that we are all in the House to verify, confirm and maintain.

These issues are not to be sneered at. They involve democracy, self-government and our consent to being governed by those whom we choose to govern us.

Mr. Marlow

I invite the hon. Gentleman to go further than that. If the treaty goes through without proper ratification by the British people in the form of a referendum, and if as a result obligations and duties are imposed from Europe on them, does the hon. Gentleman think it right and proper that the British people should feel obliged to observe those obligations and duties?

Mr. Gould

That takes us into deep waters. I fervently hope that we shall never reach the point where citizens of this country have to choose, as Germans did under the Nazi regime, between their preparedness to obey the law —which is the normal condition of citizenship—and their refusal to accept a legal system imposed upon them from outside.

8 pm

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith (Chingford)

The hon. Member mentioned the European Court of Justice and its role in these matters—a subject that interests me. I tried to raise the issue a couple of weeks ago and it is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman mention it. He raises an area of conflict, and it is always such areas arising from the treaty that lead to that court. Does he agree that the natural progression is that it is not democratically elected Governments which will decide the issue but the European Court, whose boundaries and views have been clearly stated?

Mr. Gould

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I suspect that he is a lawyer, but perhaps not. I used to teach constitutional law and international law. One of the interesting questions for courts is to decide the principles on which to interpret the provisions of statutes and treaties and so on. One such approach is described as teleological, in which the purpose and the end result of the process that is set in train by the treaty or statute is understood, and the treaty or statute is interpreted to conform to the accepted objective.

The European Court of Justice is interesting—I put it no more strongly than that—because of the overt way in which it has adopted, quite deliberately and selfconsciously—this teleological approach. It interprets every legal question that is brought before it in order to further the cause of European union. I do not say whether that is good or bad: simply that we should understand that that is what confronts us. When any of these questions have to be decided by the European Court, we should not be surprised, because we are on notice, at the court's view.

Mr. Budgen

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the questions that we were all taught to ask about international law was whether it had the characteristic of being enforceable? If eventually, as is suggested in the preamble, there is a European army, it is possible—I am not being fanciful or over-excited—that it could be used to enforce federal decisions against nation states. That could bring in the classic conflict of loyalty that we saw in the battle between the north and the south in America.

Mr. Gould

I shall leave to one side the issue of whether there is to be a European army. In many ways the situation we are already in has progressed well beyond the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes. We are not discussing a relationship that is defined by the principles of international law: we are discussing a new system of national law is already enforceable. The whole system operates as a hierarchy, as a pyramid, at the top of which is the European Court of Justice which makes sure that the provisions are enforced.

Mr. Cash

rose—

Mr. Gould

I shall not give way, because I wish to make progress. No doubt the interventions are well intentioned, but I have sat here for at least three or four hours and know how wearying it is for those who wish to speak to have to listen to a long list of interventions.

In my view it is no accident that the treaty uses the term "union". The term has caused a great deal of difficulty in translation between French and English for a long time, but it is used specifically and deliberately. We tend to debate these issues in terms of whether what is proposed is federal, but that entirely misses the point. We believe that somehow a federal structure will be produced by taking powers from the nation states and giving them to a new federal government structure.

That is not what the treaty proposes nor is it in the minds of those who are driving the whole concept of a European union. They have gone well beyond any question of a federation. They envisage, as the treaty makes clear, a union. For them that has to be, and as I hope to demonstrate is already, a unitary state. To them, federation is a derogation from that unitary state to subordinate authorities in the regions. They support federalism as a process that is entirely consistent with and demanded by the concept of subsidiarity, whatever that might mean. For them the starting point is the union. A federation is then achieved by taking judiciously and carefully a few minor powers and giving them to regional authorities.

In this country, in our naivety, innocence and wonderful state of confusion and ignorance, we believe that we are confronted by a federation that will be constructed at some distant point in the future whereby a few powers are taken from the all-powerful nation states and handed over to a body in Brussels. We think that that is what is in store for us.

Mr. Charles Kennedy

As one who has already contributed to the debate, I am conscious of the hon. Gentleman's comment about interventions. I acknowledge the force of his argument that perhaps in this country we misunderstand the direction of the traffic when we speak about federalist or the federal movement. If the hon. Gentleman compared our set-up with the set-up in Germany, would he not acknowledge that many politicians in Europe who think and act and desire federalism envisage a degree of autonomy at local level in the nation states that is far greater than that which the regions of the nation states in the United Kingdom currently enjoy?

Mr. Gould

I do not have the slightest difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. I am a great exponent and supporter of regional devolution. My central point is that under these structures and concepts the starting point is the union. We must grasp that.

I should like to refer to a speech by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). He is not in the Committee and I apologise for not alerting him to the fact that I would refer to his speech. It was a good speech and I mean nothing personal when I refer to it. It was intelligent and effective. The hon. Gentleman is a new Member and his speech showed that he is very able. I quote from it simply to illustrate how easy it is to misstate the situation. I also apologise to the hon. Gentleman because I freely acknowledge that I am using him as a surrogate for equally beside-the-point remarks by hon. Members on both Front Benches.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury said: I hope that, over the next 10 to 12 years, we can move away from the federal model of Europe towards one which is more confederal, … and instead co-operate, one country with another, ceding limited and defined areas of policy, like the single market for decision on a supranational basis,".—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1207.] On that interpretation of what was happening, the hon. Gentleman urged the Committee to support the Maastricht treaty. There was nothing remarkable about what he said: it is common currency in the mouths of almost all those who support the treaty. I quote it simply to show how mistaken such people are and how easy it is to assume that the process that we are describing and witnessing is one whereby power is being moved up to some federal structure whereas what is in the minds of the creators of the European union is a centralised unitary state from which minor derogations might be made.

The Europe in the treaty is not the Europe that we were promised. It is not an open, decentralised, democratic and welcoming Europe; instead, it is a centralised Europe, a European super-state. It is exclusive because it closes its boundaries to others, it has centralised political institutions and it has all the trappings of a state. People who sneer at those who defend the British state are unaware of the fact that what is being promised is not some wonderful, evolutionary development that will be superior to the nation state, but the nation state writ large.

That is a substantial claim, which I shall try to substantiate. Let us ignore the description "European union" and acknowledge, for simple purposes, that it has a head of state; a chief executive; a defined territory with a common external boundary; its own citizenship, by virtue of the treaty—a superior relationship between each individual and that union; its own Government; its own legislature, elected on a Europe-wide basis; its own supreme court, which is not just an ordinary court, but is the guardian of its own constitution; its own central bank, committed to enforcing its own economic policy; its own foreign policy—and is in the process of acquiring its own defence policy; a single market and, to all intents and purposes, a single economy.

Let us also acknowledge that it provides a common diplomatic and consular representation; that it conducts its external and other trade relations in international negotiations as a single unit; and that it has a comprehensive governmental competence. When Mr. Delors said that competence would extend to 80 per cent. of legislation in the Community, he knew what he was talking about; he did not exaggerate.

The Americans have a saying, "If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck." I say that the European union is a state—"federal" is a misuse of the language. We are being offered a single, centralised, unitary state. Whatever view we take of that development —and again I have not at stage criticized or condemned that development, but simply described it—we are ill served by those who try to pretend—but who know or, even worse, are too ignorant to acknowledge the truth —that that is not what confronts us. I do not criticise or condemn, I seek only to identify and describe. I believe that what I am describing is of far greater significance than the Prime Minister and his Cabinet or, indeed, those on either Front Bench, have so far bothered to tell the British people.

One of the most disgraceful aspects of this very long-running saga has been the extent to which we—and I do not mean just the House of Commons, but the peoples of Britain and Europe—have been edged along, step by step, always told that the next step is of little significance and was implicit in what we had done before. When we take that step we are told, "Surely, when you took that last step you must have known that implicit in it was that the next one was to be taken as well."

There are those who have always been honest about their desire for a European super-state. I disagree with them, but I do not complain about the honesty with which they put forward that proposal. Those for whom I reserve a special scorn are the dishonest, who know what is involved but do not want us to see the shape of the whole concept. Even more do I reserve scorn for those who delude themselves, avert their gaze and will not look at the evidence or listen to the argument, but instead prefer to go along with the process. They tell themselves and others that nothing is involved in that process; it is like the United Nations or NATO, just another set of international obligations.

I say to those people, "Delude yourselves as much as you like, but if you are Members of Parliament your self-delusion is unforgivable because not only are you deluding yourselves, you are denying those whom you represent the freedom and the power to make their own decisions. You are denying them the authority that they gave to you to come to this House to make decisions."

It is not too late, I am not a great optimist on this matter, but I believe that it is yet possible for those who will listen to the argument and understand what is happening at least to take the one basic step that should never be ignored—that no irreversible change in the nature of the political entity in which we achieve self-government should be taken without first consulting the British people. That is the real issue raised by the provisions in the treaty on European union.

8.15 pm

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster)

The House has been treated to three exceptionally powerful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I am sure that my hon. Friends will not take it amiss if I say that the most impressive was the speech made by the hon. Member for Dagenham. It was a remarkable exposition of the truth about the state in which this country now finds itself, with the prospect of being taken yet another step down the road to European union.

My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and others of my hon. Friends should breathe a sigh of relief that the hon. Gentleman was not successful in his attempt to become Leader of the Opposition. Had he been, the British people might have been offered the opportunity to choose between Europe and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. As it is, as as most of those who have spoken tonight have said, no such choice existed at the last general election and, sadly, no such choice exists now. There is a unity of purpose between the two Front Benches, supported by the Liberal Democrats. They are determined to take us down a route that will be a disaster for the future of the United Kingdom.

Unlike the hon. Member for Dagenham, I do not for a moment believe that those who are leading us down that route know what they are doing. It is tragic that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and those right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken from the Front Bench during our debates clearly do not understand the consequences of the treaty or what European union means. They do not understand the consequences of citizenship of that union. It is a tragedy for all our people.

They are getting advice from many well-meaning and erudite lawyers, but that advice is wrong. The hon. Member for Dagenham, as an ex-teacher of constitutional law, is as qualified as any in the House to criticise what those lawyers advise. It would be otiose of me to add my voice to his. However, I have no doubt that he is right in what he has said—that the union proposed in the treaty is a union in fact, not a union in name.

The wording of article 8 commits nations within the Community to move towards an ever closer union. I know that mathematically it may be possible always to move towards each other but never meet—but in practical terms, that is not possible. Although I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the stage that we have reached, there is no doubt that the definition of union that he gave is the one that we are heading towards and the one that will ultimately be our fate.

My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench deny that. They say that the union has no legal personality or meaning and that, therefore, to be a citizen of it does not matter. Having heard the arguments against the proposals made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to hear their arguments—because they are flying in the face of something that common sense and our constitutional history and law tell us is fact.

The European union defined in the treaty has a legal reality, because it is justiciable by the European Court of Justice. As the court is supreme, the British Government alone can do nothing to go against the court's findings on matters concerning the rights and duties of a British citizen.

I have exchanged extensive correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and clearly he has been advised that the duties under the treaty do not exist. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said as much earlier, when he claimed that the duties added nothing to those that already exist under our domestic law. Clearly that is untrue. As was rightly pointed out earlier, the European Court is not answerable to any nation state —in fact, it is answerable to no one—in the findings that it reaches. It decided of its own volition to see itself as a tool for the creation of that which other member states would describe as a federal Europe, and which we call a united Europe or a union of Europe.

As that tool, for that purpose, the European Court would not be an independent judicial body. It would be unfit to sit as the ultimate arbiter in legal disputes between nation states or individuals within them; yet, under the treaty of Rome as amended in 1986 and again now, the European Court will enjoy that status.

The duties to which we as citizens of the European union will be subject have yet to be decided. They will not be decided by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, Whitehall, the Government's legal advisers, any system of British justice, or the terms of any British constitutional past and historic tradition. Instead, they will be decided by a European Court determined to develop the European union—and in so doing, it will supersede and crush the independence of the union's member states. It will be extremely difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister to argue otherwise, but I look forward to hearing him try to do so later.

As to voting in municipal elections, I should like a proper answer from the Minister to the question that was twice asked and twice dismissed with laughter by those who see themselves as European fans. "Municipal" has been determined by the European Court before as meaning "national". That may seem absurd to the Committee, as it does to me, but that is a fact. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Minister can guarantee that, when the European Court considers the treaty, it will not decide likewise. If it decides likewise, voting rights will be extended to national parliaments as well as, in British terms, to municipal elections.

It is wholly illogical that someone can reside in this country and vote in all municipal elections and in the elections for the European Parliament yet not be permitted to vote in the parliamentary elections for Westminster. Where on earth is the logic in that?

What advantage does article 8 offer the British people? It gives them rights exercisable in other countries—the right to vote in municipal elections in France, Greece, Italy, Germany, Ireland, or Luxembourg. Marvellous. I cannot see any use to the British people in that right. Where is the advantage to counteract the many disadvantages and dangers described this evening? Where is the advantage to the British people in agreeing to become citizens of Europe?

Mrs. Currie

Is my hon. Friend's argument influenced by the fact that there are far more British citizens living in France than there are French citizens living in Britain, and far more British citizens in Spain than there are Spanish in Britain—and that they want to retain their national citizenship but pay national and local taxes, and would like a say in the local councils that govern them?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

No, I am not in the slightest moved by my hon. Friend's argument. I believe that British people living in Spain are happy to vote in British parliamentary elections. Many do so, and all those who corresponded with me want to do so. If they live in Spain as British citizens, their allegiance should still be to Britain. Neither their allegiance nor their voting rights should be transferred.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)

There is a distinction to be drawn between a national and a local election. The reason is at the heart of the European Community's constitution, in which the Council of Ministers is the pre-eminent institution. It is therefore the expression of and subject to the views of the national Parliament—through its Ministers, effectively making decisions.

On the other hand, those of our own citizens who can, under the Single European Act, live anywhere in the Community have a right to protect their interests in terms of local voting. I see no danger or difficulty about voting in local elections—but I can understand why the Maastricht negotiators restricted voting to national citizens in national elections.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

My hon. Friend will remember that my original point was that they may not have done so, and that the interpretation of "municipal" may yet give the right to vote in national elections. As to the distinction between municipal and national voting, I can see better arguments for saying, to use British terminology, "You can vote in the parish in which you live." However, it is not a right such as counteracts the article's dangers. If that is the only advantage to British citizens, against giving away all the sovereignty and right of the House to determine and to secure their rights and liberties, it is a poor trade.

Mrs. Dunwoody

Is it not more likely that we shall find ourselves moving rapidly towards some system of proportional representation? For the past 15 years, it has been Community policy to impose a uniform system.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

I must avoid the temptation to be led down an entirely different road, but I take the hon. Lady's point and agree. If we take the Maastricht treaty route, I believe that proportional representation will come to this country.

One danger that has not been directly addressed this evening arises from the provision to use other states' consular representation in countries where we do not have our own. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) rightly pointed out, in any case in which a friendly nation did not have representation, it would be astonishing if our consuls and ambassadorial activities were not placed at its disposal, in the event that its citizens ran into trouble.

The danger is, however, that, once the system has been formalised and the resource has been pooled to some extent, it will be agreed as soon as possible to pool it entirely. The Treasury is very keen on such a move, which would lead to our having far fewer consulates, and probably far fewer embassies, than we have now. We are in grave danger of losing our truly British representation overseas, and of being represented only by the magnificent Greeks and others when our citizens run into trouble. I do not think that most British people would support that, or vote for it. Nor do I think that any of the rights in the treaty benefit British citizens—and, as for the duties, I believe that they could cause enormous pitfalls.

8.30 pm

Earlier speakers mentioned the monarchy. When anyone says that the monarchy, or the monarch in person, is put at risk by the treaty, the response is derision. When, not long ago, I suggested privately to the Prime Minister that the Queen might be brought to book under a European mandate, he said, "I'd like to see them try." The fact is, however, that, if we sign the treaty, the rights and prerogatives of our monarch will be brought into question by some European authority, perhaps even the European Court of Justice—not tomorrow, not next month, but some time in the future. I do not think that the British people want their monarchy to be put in that position, and I personally do not want our monarch to be put in that position.

Is it correct, or—as has been suggested—not correct that the Queen will have a right to vote in municipal elections, in other countries if not in this one? If so, does she really want that right, and do her people want it for her? What will be the consequence for the role of our monarchy of signing the Maastricht treaty, agreeing to a European union and citizenship of that union and possibly making the Queen a citizen by default?

None of us, wants to be made a citizen of Europe at all. I have yet to meet one person who does—apart from one or two Conservative European fanatics, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who seems to think that he is Europe. I should not say that, when my hon. Friend is not present, especially given that his son and mine are great friends at school. I do not regret saying it, however, and I shall repeat it to my hon. Friend when I next see him.

Some hon. Members are fanatically determined to take us all the way down the European road, and see a federal Europe, a united Europe or a state of Europe as a natural historical consequence; but they are few and far between. That is not the official position of our Government, or of any Minister in our Government, and it certainly is not the position favoured by the people of this country.

Mr. Gill

Surely, under the citizenship provisions, our monarch would no longer be sovereign in this nation. My hon. Friend has some experience of the armed services. To whom, in his opinion, would our service men give their oath of allegiance in such circumstances?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

Others have mentioned that subject, in the context of split loyalties and service in our armed forces, or possibly in a European armed force. Although it will not happen overnight, if we go further down the European path, the loyalty of the British subject will clearly be split between Britain and Europe. That will be true not only of members of the armed forces, but of every citizen who takes the oath.

Which is more important, citizenship of the United Kingdom or European citizenship? As the hon. Member for Dagenham pointed out, there can be only one answer: citizenship of Europe must come first, because of the supremacy of the European Court of Justice if for no other reason, but also because it is the larger unit. There will come a time when, for both those reasons, European citizenship will override citizenship of Great Britain.

I do not think that the House—or the other House, or even the monarch—has the right to do that without consulting the British people.

Let me return to the point at which I began. The Bill attempts to remove the sovereignty of the House, and our right to represent the people and defend their liberties as we have done for more than 1,000 years. There has never been a time when we have given foreigners—other nations —the right to determine the laws of this land: the right to say what is and is not a crime in our courts, and to say what can and cannot be done in every aspect of British life. In a newspaper article, the Prime Minister said that he had no intention of doing any such thing. I accept that, but he is doing it. He is doing it because he is thoroughly badly advised, and because he and the Government do not understand the danger of the road down which they are taking us.

I have to add that one of the villains of the piece is Lady Thatcher. In 1986, she forced through the Single European Act, refusing a referendum, refusing to lift the whipping system from any of the votes, refusing to tolerate any opposition to the terms of the act and refusing to acknowledge that all that took us down the road to what was then called a federal Europe. She believed, and led us to believe, that the Single European Act was no big deal, and that it did not take us further down a road which she herself professed not to favour. Because of that, I—like others—am deeply sceptical about the message that I am receiving seven years later about the next step along the road to European union.

Mr. Cash

rose—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) had reached his peroration. He is out of order, in that he is developing what has effectively become a Second Reading speech. We are dealing with a specific amendment on citizenship.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

I take your point, Mr. Morris. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) should rephrase the intervention that he is about to make, to bring it within the rules. I was becoming carried away by generalisations, but what I was saying is relevant to clause 1, which is critical to both the Maastricht treaty and the Bill.

We are discussing citizenship of this European creation, and that prompts us to ask what we have created. Of what are we making the British people citizens, without so much as a by-your-leave? Peroration or not, I think that what I am saying is very pertinent to the decision that the House must make: do we or do we not ratify the Government's attempt to create a citizenship that will ultimately override and supersede citizenship of our country? I believe that we should not do so.

Mr. Cash

My hon. Friend and I have been friends for a long time. We were at Oxford together, and we have discussed this matter on many occasions. When he refers in this context to Lady Thatcher, would he be good enough to remember that the Foreign Secretary at the time was Lord Howe? I engaged in some illuminating correspondence with him and with Lady Thatcher.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

That was an intriguing intervention, Mr. Morris. I am sure that you were greatly relieved by the last sentence. I take on board what my hon. Friend has said, and thank him.

Let me summarise what I have said. If the amendment is accepted, we will alter, dramatically and irreversibly, the way in which the country is governed, now and for all time. If the British people are to become citizens of a Europe and of a European union that develops in the way that those who have created it wish it to develop and that we, as a Government and as a people, will be powerless to prevent, we shall have given away all the rights that this House of Commons fought so hard to achieve over so many years: to represent the people of this country and defend them.

I end with a quotation from a poem by G. K. Chesterton which sets out, better than I could, the exact character of the people to whom we shall be handing over the people of our country; They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords, Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords. They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes; They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies. And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs, Their doors are shut in evening; and they know no songs. What a fate for a great people. What a definition of a European bureaucrat.

Mr. Shore

My remarks can be brief. The essence of the matter has been brought out in the last two speeches, in the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenam (Mr. Gould).

One of the great contrasts in the debate is the approach of Back Benchers on both sides of the Committee, compared with that of those who sit on the Front Benches. I do not mean that those who sit on the Front Benches have entered into a cosy conspiracy, but it is perfectly obvious from the intellectual and analytical approach to the debate that those who sit on the Front Benches do not wish to consider the real meaning of citizenship and union.

In their remarks, they have excluded these two dangerous areas from analysis and discussion. All they want to do is look at the 8a, 8b, 8c and 8d of article 8. I shall refer later to 8a. It was one of my problems when I last debated this matter when the Home Secretary was in the Chamber. I tried to press him about the real meaning of article 8a. He said that we should be coming to it later. However, he said nothing about article 8a earlier today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) pointed to four or five features of citizenship under article 8a. In particular, he pointed to the right to petition the European Parliament. He referred to the establishment of an ombudsman under article 8d. He also drew attention, under paragraph 2 of article 8b, to the right to vote and stand as a candidate. Mention was made of diplomatic representation, or consular representation where we ourselves do not have a representative.

If we were concerned only with these five particular additions, as it were, there would be no reason to have a separate section on citizenship. The right to petition the European Parliament and an ombudsman could easily be included under a later section dealing with institutions. There could be a simple declaration that there would be a right to petition and a declaration that there would be an ombudsman. There is no need for a separate section in the treaty to bring that about. Similarly, in the few cases where we do not have consular or diplomatic representation and another Community country takes it on for us, a new declaration of citizenship is not needed. All that is required is an agreement between member states to be of mutual assistance to each other.

If they were concerned simply with the minor rights that are stated in article 8, there would be no reasons for a statement and a section under the heading "Citizenship of the Union." We are all in the dark about the real meaning of citizenship and the real meaning of union.

I make that point with some emphasis because, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I tabled amendment No. 115, which I am sure that the Committee will wish to support. What we call for in that amendment—I believe that our call is more than justified by the course of the debate—is a Command Paper setting out the implications of this section of the treaty—citizenship of the union—and for it to be laid before Parliament for its approval before this section comes into effect. We should then obtain from the Government what has so far been withheld from us —a serious explanation of the meaning of citizenship of the union. It is essential for us to have such an explanation.

In a way, this has been a disgraceful debate, in that the Government have not volunteered that explanation. Every now and then, under pressure from other speakers, a Minister has intervened to pull aside the curtain just to give us a glimpse of what lies behind it. That is all we have had from the Government.

8.45 pm

Mrs. Dunwoody

Is it not equally shaming that there has not been a series of tough questions from the Opposition Front Bench demanding precisely why the Government do not intend, presumably, to push this amendment to a Division?

Mr. Shore

It is a great pity that the Opposition Front-Bench speakers have not been more critical, stringent, analytical and serious about the issues involved—that they have contented themselves, frankly, with the surface issues and the trivia of the section. They have not raised themselves to the intellectual level that this treaty requires.

All of us have a duty to do our best to understand the meaning and significance of the treaty. We have a duty to our constituents, to ourselves and to the future to do just that and not to be gulled and lulled into acquiescence and silence while great decisions and events proceed to roll over us, only to find, a few years later, that the people who denied the House of Commons the information at the time come forward and say, "Well, it was implicit. You had already agreed to what we knew was in the previous treaty, so why can't you go along with it a little bit further?" That of course will be the case in 1996 when the intergovernmental conference is written into the treaty itself—the next step forward.

Mr. Spearing

I hope that those who are sitting on both Front Benches have heard what my right hon. Friend has just said, but is not the picture even worse than that which he paints? Those on both Front Benches are not being fair to Parliament or to the people.

My right hon. Friend mentioned amendment No. 115, which requires the deposit of a Command Paper in the House of Commons setting out those duties. Is it not usual in Committee for those who sit on the Front Benches to indicate their attitude to serious Back-Bench amendments? Is it not a fact that neither Front Bench—I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is here and also the Home Secretary, because I do not like to say things behind people's backs: I always say them to their faces, if I can—made any attempt to address any of the serious amendments that have been tabled and that therefore they have not even dealt with in what is meant to be a serious debate? Do not those very facts bind, undergird and typify all the accusations that my right hon. Friend has just properly made?

Mr. Shore

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope very much that those to whom his remarks are addressed will respond to them. There should indeed have been comments from the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on what I believe to be a necessary amendment. I hope that we shall get them.

One largely ignored aspect of the paragraphs of article 8 is the right to move and reside freely. The Home Secretary will have heard me speak on this subject on an earlier occasion. I recall that he made some attempt to assist us in a previous debate. However, he did not make it clear what were the rights, limitations and conditions set out in the treaty. I am dealing now exclusively with European Community citizens who have the right to come here, not with third-world people.

In an intervention on 28 January, the Home Secretary said: On the question of freedom of movement and right of residence here, the right hon. Member is correct that under this Bill, there is freedom for any EC national to live and work here so long as they are self-supporting".—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1167.] He went on to say that there were one or two exceptions based on public health grounds. I find it very difficult to understand the meaning and implications of the phrase "self-supporting".

I know very well that such rules are made for people who come from third-world countries, but as all they have to do is to make what one Conservative hon. Member once described as "the Bangemann wave"—a bit of purple cardboard being waved as a person passes through Customs into the United Kingdom where he has the right to reside—how can such people be identified when they perhaps fall short of the necessary means of sustaining themselves in this country? If they have come here for purely frivolous reasons—for example, they merely want to spend some time here—what powers has the Home Secretary to remove those citizens of the union once they have come into this country? Some of them may be very undesirable.

The last lime that I mentioned this subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred to Mr. Le Pen, whom we might not wish to have in this country. There are many other undesirables, such as those carrying drugs or those whom we suspect of having a criminal record. How can we control their entry if this ambiguous and almost unqualified right of entry, movement and residence is allowed? I hope that we shall receive further information about what exactly is being granted to such people.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I see that the right hon. Gentleman is pausing and looking in my direction for an intervention. As I have just been criticised for not replying to some questions, I shall intervene this time. Previously, I do not think that either the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) or I were allowed to utter two sentences in succession without being interrupted by people pursuing us about the problem of conscription into a European army, which rather got in the way of dealing with the amendments.

Any EC national is free to live and work in the United Kingdom and, as long as they are self-supporting, to remain here as a student, a retired person or for any other purpose. The only exceptions are those

excluded on public policy, public security or public health grounds."—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1167.] That flows not from the Maastricht treaty but from three directives on the subject of rights of residence which came into effect on 30 June 1992 and which we are about to put formally into domestic law. Contrary to what some hon. Members asserted earlier, the power remains, if necessary, to deport an EC national on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health, or if they do not qualify for residence here under the directives that I have just cited.

Mr. Shore

That is a helpful reply, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for making plainer what has been pretty obscure so far. However, the right of free entry into this country, unrelated to employment here, simply to reside here, is a considerable right to grant to people, even subject to those conditions. I have a strong feeling that restating it in the context of citizenship of the union is to make a claim for the new European union that it is something like a state.

I know that we shall get into some difficulties about defining a state, but I have often said that the treaty of Maastricht makes it plain to anyone who wishes to observe it that its real character and objective is a union, a state. The citizens of the union are one of the first and most obvious claims for it being a state. One is a citizen of the union and therefore one has rights.

Only a few rights are established under article 8(a), but the important 8(e) states: The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Economic and Social Committee before 31 December 1993 and then every three years on the application of the provisions of this Part. This report shall take account of the development of the Union. On this basis … the Council, acting unanimously … may adopt provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights laid down in this Part, which it shall recommend to Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Clearly, it is envisaged that there will be an extension of the rights listed under article 8(a) to (d), but we do not know the nature of that extension or what the reciprocal duties are to be.

Mr. Ian Taylor

The right hon. Gentleman and I were members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs when it reviewed the working of the Single European Act. We did not always agree, but the concept of the right to move freely within the single market derived from the Single European Act. He is building a defensive argument against the concept of citizenship rights but, in many ways, his argument stems from the principles in the Single European Act which the House agreed. The entitlements of people who are now free to move around the Community are surely welcome—they are certainly welcome at the meetings at which I speak—because they give a clearer understanding of people's protections and expectations, wherever they happen to work and live in the Community.

Mr. Shore

I suspect that the new union is claiming the powers of being a state. It claims the right to give citizenship to all the 300 million people of Europe. As the Home Secretary said, one cannot renounce that citizenship. The people of the nations involved have not been asked. I am not aware of any approach being made to anyone about becoming a citizen of the European union —it is a top-down, not a bottom-up, system. However, we are all to be brought within this chapter.

The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) says that some of these rights were previously legislated for or given treaty form under earlier provisions, but, in a sense, that makes it even stranger that a separate section headed "Part Two—Citizenship of the Union" should now be included in the treaty.

It is right to re-examine the common provisions to ascertain their purposes. Part two states that the union shall set itself up—I shall not read all the provisions—but there are four essential objectives. The first is the introduction of a citizenship of the union. Another is to "assert its identity" on the international scene. I have not yet heard anyone explain what that identity is or what is the relationship between the union and the Community. Will it be the union that will sign treaties in future and act for the whole Community? We have not had an explanation of those matters from the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary. I think that we should. That adds still more relevance to amendment No. 115, which stands in my name and to which I have already drawn attention. I strongly recommend hon. Members—including those on my own Front Bench—to support that amendment.

9 pm

Mr. Rowe

When you were in the Chair earlier today, Mr. Morris, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) described you as part of the procedural police. I must say that I am grateful to you for fingering my collar at this moment.

The Maastricht treaty is a treaty, and treaties mark a particular moment in an evolutionary process. History shows just how often treaties are abrogated if they are seen to be unduly oppressive or if it is deemed to be to the short-term advantage of one of the signatories to abrogate them. The treaty of Union between England and Scotland has lasted nearly 300 years and has evolved remarkably successfully into something different from what the original signatories envisaged. As some Opposition Members constantly remind us, however, if sufficient numbers of Scots chose to rewrite that treaty, it would be possible to rewrite it.

What has been the keynote of today's debate? Speaker after speaker has created a totem—a Baba Yaga—to inspire fear about what might happen. We would be a greater deal better off if we discussed the treaty as it is rather than its possible long-term evolution into something that frightens children.

Mr. Sweeney

Does not my hon. Friend agree that we should discusss such matters because article 8 provides for the scope of rights and therefore of reciprocal duties to be extended? It is our duty to look ahead.

Mr. Rowe

I have no doubt that there are merits in looking ahead to some extent but, after each treaty that has been made so far, the European Community has evolved in a very different way from the way in which the signatories to that treaty expected it to evolve. It is always enjoyable listening to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and others creating wonderful chimeras only to shoot them down later, but it is not necessarily particularly illuminating.

On the 50th anniversary of the opening of the second front, we should consider for a moment what the concept of citizenship in the European context is all about. Ours is a position of extraordinary luxury. We are the first generation this century that has not been involved obligatorily in a major European war. Millions of people have been killed and injured or have had their homes destroyed, and the legacy of those conflicts is tearing mainland Europe apart yet again.

It is in that context that, by hook or by crook, we need to find devices to prevent that from happening again. No one with any idea of how human nature works or how political processes create institutions would suggest that what the Maastricht treaty postulates is perfect or could be perfect or is thought to be perfect even by those who signed it. It represents one credible way of diminishing the risk that our children and grandchildren may once again be faced with a holocaust of the kind that has set Europe on fire twice this century.

We have heard some persuasive but, I believe, not wholly well-founded arguments about citizenship. Two powerful ideas about citizenship have held most of Europe in their grip for centuries. The first was the idea of the civitas dei—the city of God. In political terms, all those who subscribed to the Christian Church—whether they believe in its principles or not—were citizens of the city of God. That was an attempt by philosophers and politicians to overcome the tribal and national battle lines that were constantly threatening to plunge, and often plunging, parts of Europe into war.

Similarly, the holy Roman empire was another idea which ended in complete mockery, described in the end as being not holy nor Roman nor an empire. But it had existed as an idea for about 1,000 years. The idea of it was the same—that somehow, if only there could be sufficient agreement among the great powers of Europe, they might be prevented from plunging one another into war.

For that reason, the Maastricht treaty creates a citizenship of the union. There is no shame in saying that it is, at least in part, powerful as a philosophical idea and that the rights and duties attached to that citizenship are of less importance than the philosophical concept that we in the European Community are all citizens with equal rights and importance, and that if it is made to work it will protect minorities, remembering that the dreadful failure to do that has torn Yugoslavia apart and bids fair to tear apart other countries, inside and outside the European Community.

Mr. Duncan-Smith

My hon. Friend is drawing some interesting parallels. What is so unstable about our belief in the concept of citizenship of the existing nation states in Europe that makes us feel that we must enable others to feel on a parity with us, or we with them, when all of us could exist in the single fact that we are equal and not greater than?

Mr. Rowe

My hon. Friend asks a good question which must be answered on the ground that many people, particularly the younger generation in all the countries of the European Community, have a growing understanding of the fact that the problems with which we must grapple are greater than the problems that can more easily be faced on the basis of the nation state alone. When considering matters of environmental pollution and the protection of wildlife—two matters that particularly concern the young —or the question of education and training for a market that enables people to work from one end of the EC to the other, it is believed that there is something greater than the purely national dimension.

Mr. Rowlands

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another lesson to be learned from European history, from the holy Roman empire right through to the Austrian Hapsburg empire that collapsed in 1914, is that attempting to push in an imperial fashion the differences of culture, policy, politics, ethnic divisions and everything that constitutes the nation state is as much the cause of war as nation states themselves?

Mr. Rowe

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I take issue with the implication of his question, in that I do not believe that there is such a great push. This is a question of politicians from all over the Community coming together in the knowledge that large numbers of their constituents care about a stable, peaceful, prosperous Europe working together.

Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe)

My hon. Friend should bear in mind the practical point that, under the present Community arrangements, many British citizens choose in their retirement to live in various parts of Europe. They want to use their right to vote in a local election if they are currently resident in, for example, Spain. There is absolutely no reason why the add-on of European citizenship should not be of enormous practical value to those who choose to live anywhere in the Community.

Mr. Rowe

That is absolutely right. Increasing numbers of people will be working on long-term contracts and in many other ways playing a major part in countries other than the country of their birth. One of the great features of citizenship is that it is valueless unless it secures some protection for the citizen.

One of the points about the Maastricht treaty is that the whole idea of seeking diplomatic protection from a country in the European Community in which one's own country has no diplomatic representation seems to accord directly with the concept of protecting the citizen. It is an exciting concept. What is more, when two nation states or 12 nation states come together in such a treaty to create the sort of common citizenship which we are now adumbrating, it does not by any means necessarily carry with it a loss.

Over the centuries, the Scots have gained considerable benefit from being citizens of the United Kingdom rather than simply of Scotland. Some Scots disagree with that, but there are so many of them on the Labour Front Bench that I am sure I shall command some support.

We must remember two things when we attack the concept of European citizenship simply on the basis of the nation state. The first is that the nation state is a relatively modern phenomenon. The suggestion that nation states survive and prosper only if they can enslave or, at any rate, take over large parts of the rest of the world to finance themselves is arguable. What has happened is that the great nation states of Europe have been forced to withdraw to their own frontiers. They have lost their imperial back-up and are now—in my view, sensibly—looking to see whether there is some other way of organising their citizenship and general political relationships which will supervene and prevent yet again such appalling competition.

There is no inherent reason why citizens should necessarily treat one another well. One need only watch in microcosm the way in which hon. Members treat one another from time to time to realise that being a citizen of a single entity is by no means a guarantee that people will necessarily get on especially well together. However, it substantially increases the chance of co-existence in a peaceful and stable way. That is what we are talking about in this debate.

The concept of the European citizen is one which will help us with one of the other great problems which the European Community faces. Let us not kid ourselves that at present there is a mixture of detachment and glee when we learn that there are terrorist gangs in Germany and that ETA, in the Basque country, is blowing up people. The detachment is that it does not really matter, it has nothing to do with us, it is a long way away and is it not reassuring that other countries have the same sort of problem as we have in Northern Ireland?

Hon. Members are looking at me in shock. If they are honest with themselves, they will know that, when they see something going wrong elsewhere, many people think, "At least it means that we are not as bad as we thought we were. We are not alone in the problem." Until we can overcome that, and until we genuinely care as much when things go wrong for citizens of the rest of the European Community as when they do for citizens of our own country, we shall never have the wholehearted European co-operation which is necessary to eradicate such menaces. European citizenship is a concept on which we can build to educate our children into thinking about foreigners, and in particular European foreigners, in a way different from that which we have suffered so far.

The rights which we are accorded under the European citizenship provisions are good things. It is a good thing that we can go to a European ombudsman. It is a good thing that we can turn to diplomatic representatives in countries where we have no representation of our own. It is a good thing that we can involve ourselves closely in the local affairs of the country in which we reside so that we feel able and want to take part in local politics. Those rights are of value, and I strongly support them.

9.15 pm

Mr. Michael Spicer

My hon. Friend makes a case for European citizenship on the basis that it will make us more internationalist and overcome national boundaries and national enmities, but does he agree that the main force for European citizenship and European federalism is a sense of competition and fear of the Americans and the Japanese? Should not the conclusion of my hon. Friend's argument be that, if we are to have a great international utopia, one thing that we should not have is a federal Europe which will stand out against and compete with other countries, particularly perhaps third-world countries?

Mr. Rowe

At no point in my remarks did I mention the word "federalism". One of the important features of the Maastricht treaty, the negotiating procedures that led up to it and the negotiating machinery on which it and its successors will depend is that it leaves plenty of room for change and evolution. The Maastricht treaty is not the type of treaty which the people who signed the Single European Act expected it to be. The European Community which the Maastricht treaty envisages is not likely to be exactly the type of Community which will emerge in the end. It is a staging post to a destination which we cannot precisely define. The instability in the present exchange rate mechanism is a good demonstration of how it is extremely difficult to predict exactly how man-made political structures will evolve.

There has been a lot of talk about the possibility that various unwelcome duties will be forced on European citizens. One example is conscription. The only occasions on which there was conscription in the United Kingdom were when twice this century we were forced into it to repair the damage done by treating other Europeans as alien, strange, hostile and bloody-minded. In the end we came into conflict with them. There is much greater danger that conscription and other duties will be forced on us if we fail to make the concept of European citizenship work than if we do not.

Mr. Winnick

This is undoubtedly one of the most important parts of the treaty. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to it as a staging post. In my view, it is a paving measure for a federal union—certainly a federal arrangement along very centralised lines, in some respects like the federal arrangements in the United States of America. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—during the Second Reading debate, I believe—illustrated the situation with reference to the United States, which, he said, had an arrangement suitable for Europe. That is the right hon. Gentleman's view, but it is certainly not mine.

Citizenship of the union will be automatic. There will be no opting-out provision. No one will be in a position to say, "I do not want to be a part of this union." When the question of the Queen's position was raised, the Home Secretary said that he was not sure about it. But then he confirmed what the position must be. Would not the situation be odd and invidious if the Queen were the only United Kingdom citizen who was not a citizen of the union? Obviously she, like all her subjects, will be involved. Duties will be set out, and it is clear that there will be obligations.

This is undoubtedly the most fundamental change in citizenship, yet the Government do not have any mandate whatsoever to proceed. When the Prime Minister is questioned about the matter of a mandate he refers to the last general election. He said that during the campaign it had been made clear that the Government were in favour of Maastricht. But everyone knows that that was not an issue in the general election. Can anyone—and we were all candidates—recall any clash between the two main parties about this issue? Indeed, it is difficult to recall a particular mention of it in any party political broadcast. Any reference to it was made in passing at most.

No one—whatever side of the argument he takes—says that this is not an important issue. No one—not even the hon. Member for Mid-Kent—says that it is a relatively minor matter. What we have been arguing about for some time is whether this treaty is in the interests of Britain. Everybody—whatever position he takes—agrees that this is an issue of the greatest possible constitutional significance. It cannot be said too often that such a step requires some authority or mandate from the British people.

The Chairman

Order. Indeed it cannot be said, as it is not relevant to this amendment, which is specifically about citizenship.

Mr. Winnick

I accept your ruling, Mr. Morris. I have been making the point merely that, in respect of this issue, some mandate or authority from the British people is required. That will continue to be my view, as it will continue to be the view of others.

Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mid-Kent and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), have made much of the failure of the nation state. If the hon. Member for Mid-Kent was implying that peace will be firmly established in Europe only if we proceed along the Maastricht road, I find his case difficult to accept. We had the cold war for more than 40 years, and it did not become a hot war. Fortunately, Europe was not destroyed, as the super-powers were determined, even at the height of the cold war, that it should not become a hot war. Korea was the nearest we came, in a limited way, to having a hot war. I cannot accept the argument that this is the only way of guaranteeing peace and security in Europe.

In some respects suppose that I disagree with other hon. Members who are against the Bill and who may be described—fairly or otherwise—as little Englanders. I am not a little Englander and no one has ever accused me of being one. I hope that the stand that I took on the Gulf war and other issues well before that demonstrates that it has never been my view that Britain should adopt au isolationist stance. Britain fought a war and stood virtually alone for two years because we were determined not to remain isolated and because we recognised our role in Europe.

I also accept the obligations and duties that arise from our membership of the United Nations. NATO and the rest. We should not cut ourselves off from Europe or the continent and go into a corner and stop worrying about the rest of Europe. That is not my point of view and I doubt whether it is that of any other hon. Member.

Although I was not enthusiastic about our membership of the European Community and had strongly disagreed with it and campaigned against it—I hope this is order —once the British people had decided by a majority in June 1975 that they were in favour of our continuing membership, I accepted the decision. Moreover, having been in the Community for some years it would not be in the national interest for us to leave. I therefore accept that we should remain in the Community.

The argument is not about whether we should remain in the Community, but about whether we should proceed along a road that would seriously diminish the independence of this country. Bearing in mind our membership of NATO and the United Nations and the obligations that they impose, some people have said that we should not worry over much about the treaty because it is virtually the same. It is nothing of the kind. Our membership of the United Nations dates from 1945, and I believe that NATO was started in 1949, but they in no way diminish the independence of this country. There was no question of our having any duties that would diminish the authority of this House and the independence of this country. If that had been the case there would no doubt have been bitter controversy at the time. Therefore, it is not an honest argument to say that the road that we are taking now is virtually the same as our membership of the United Nations and NATO. It is nothing of the kind.

To a large extent we are debating whether Britain shall remain an independent country in any meaningful sense. I am not saying that we are going to become a sort of satellite. I have no desire to exaggerate the argument. I do not doubt that, if the treaty becomes law, the House will continue to debate all sorts of issues. It would be odd if it were otherwise. However, on many issues of fundamental importance, including defence and foreign policy, the final authority will no longer rest in this House but outside it. If that is not a matter of supreme constitutional importance I do not know what is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) seems surprised by what I have said. I am only surprised at his reaction. I do not believe that I was elected to—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech. He has hardly mentioned the word "citizenship" and has not referred to amendment No. 12. I understand that he feels strongly about the issues, but he must address the amendment.

Mr. Winnick

I accept what you say Mr. Morris, but the citizenship of the union, as set out in the article that we are discussing, would severely diminish the independence of this country and the authority of this House and that is part of my argument.

Article 8b relates to candidates for municipal elections and European elections. It is argued that it will not apply to those outside the United Kingdom who wish to stand for election to Parliament. Why not? I do not see the logic in that. If it is argued that someone outside the United Kingdom has a right to stand here for local elections or the European Parliament—as set out in article 8b—how can it be argued that he should not also stand for Parliament?

9.30 pm

Even if, in the context of today's debate, municipal does mean local, surely once the law is passed, the obvious logic is that, if people outside the United Kingdom can stand for local elections and for a British constituency in the European Parliament, they should be able to stand for Parliament. Once we pass certain measures, it is not long before other measures are taken which further diminish and erode our independence.

It is dangerous for Parliament to be out of step with the wishes of the majority of people on a major constitutional issue. It is for that reason, among others, that I fully support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), under which the Government would be asked to set out in a Command Paper the duties and obligations of citizenship of the union. That is a reasonable amendment, and it is unfortunate that the Government are unlikely to support it.

Sir Teddy Taylor

What is the point of having a White Paper when article 8e states that, every three years, the Council can add to the rights and duties of European citizens? We are not debating a static position involving merely the right to vote. Under article 8e, the duties and responsibilities can be extended every three years. Would it not be better to have a White Paper published every three years to take account of exciting new duties and responsibilities that the EC decides that we have to undertake?

Mr. Winnick

I agree. The Government's first step should be to adopt the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, but I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that that should not be the end of it. If the treaty becomes law, the least that we should require of the Government of the day is that there should be a continuing review of the position. We should press for that.

I am sufficiently pessimistic to accept that the Bill and the treaty will become law. If that happens, the controversy will not end. Hon. Members who support the Government and the Labour Front Bench team believe that by the end of February or March the Bill will have completed its Committee stage, then go to another place and afterwards receive its Third Reading, but the controversy will not end. The issue will become and remain a festering sore in British politics. If authority and independence is taken away from Britain and the House without the consent of the majority of British people, the issue will remain one of great importance and controversy, and will undoubtedly cause many sharp clashes both inside and outside the House.

For those reasons, I believe that the Government should recognise the depth of feeling among many of us. I do not know whether we are in the majority, but to take the steps that the Government propose, as set out in article 8, without the mandate or authority of the British people is wrong, and can only cause tremendous resentment outside the House. Therefore, I hope that at least the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend and others will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Shepherd

I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 12, which is why I listened with particular care to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I expected an analysis of the text of the article, given that the Opposition propose to remove all the citizenship provisions.

What I found, however, was that the hon. Member for Sedgefield advanced with a powder puff and caressed the provisions set out in the treaty. So reassuring were his arguments for the removal of this part of it that the Home Secretary thought it unnecessary to argue in favour of the treaty thereafter. We witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of the Home Secretary expressing his admiration for a speech by an hon. Member who was trying to remove the citizenship provisions from the treaty and who did it so persuasively that my right hon. and learned Friend was able to curtail his own speech.

We have heard no analysis, either by Ministers or Opposition spokesmen, of what citizenship means or how it affects the Queen in Parliament. When asked, the Home Secretary was not sure whether the Queen would become a citizen of Europe. Very little thought has been given to that when preparing the briefings that the Home Secretary receives from the Department. We know from the fanciful little cards sent to Members of Parliament from the Home Office that royal matters concern the Home Secretary, yet no inquiry has satisfied him to enable him to answer with confidence questions about the position of the Queen under the treaty.

We all know that we are forming a union. If I were a bureaucrat, the one provision of the treaty that I would want to secure above all others would be that governing citizenship. It is the one that tells us our relationship to the state, and it is the one that I want to discuss this evening.

I was elected as a Conservative, and as such I have always believed that, at the heart of our philosophy—to this I subscribe wholeheartedly—is the maintenance of our constitution, which is a democratic, self-governing constitution. That is the fundamental line of trust linking all Conservatives. But the Government propose that we become citizens of a new political structure in which, as if by an afterthought, the Queen is apparently to become a citizen.

These are profound matters, touching on the heart of nationhood and citizenship. Ultimately, they are a question of sentiment. Despite the arguments of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) about international law, we all know that what lies behind these relationships is the question of who we are—our sentiment. I am glat to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. I am one by birth, but more importantly by sentiment. The Government trivialise that.

I suggest that from sentiment follow all manner of things. I support the laws of the state of which I am a citizen. This I do gladly and by an exercise of free choice. When I am told that I am to be made a citizen of anywhere else, I feel like Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians must have felt when they were told that they were to be made citizens—to use the language of this treaty, irrevocably and irreversibly—of the USSR.

So there is no choice in these matters, and it is impertinent of Front-Bench spokesmen to tell Parliament, which is the sovereign representative of the will of the people, that the Government propose to make us citizens of somewhere else without seeking our advice first. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked by what mandate such an important change was to be made.

This is the one proposal in the treaty above all others for which I suggest the sanction of the individuals who will be most affected—the citizens—must be sought. There has been no mandate on that.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

The hon. Gentleman's sincerity and passion are well understood in the Committee. Two matters in his speech puzzle me. He says that at the heart of his understanding of British citizenship is the concept of being, within the constitution, part of a representative governmental system. As a result of that system, we have a Government who won an election and who made clear their commitment to the treaty. That is my first puzzle about what the hon. Gentleman places at the centre of his thinking of what it is to be British—he rejects the result of the election.

Secondly, we live under a constitutional system in which the rights of citizenship are not defined. The hon. Gentleman describes them in almost metaphysical terms, and that is correct. There is a much greater definition of what citizenship might mean in the context of a framework constitution for the European union than we have had in 700 years of British history.

Mr. Shepherd

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not the maker of the speech for the Liberal Democrat spokesman, because at least his intervention contained some reflection. I was speaking about democratic self-government being the heart of our constitution. I am truly surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that an election is the end of the democratic process or the conferment of a mandate as such.

All that was achieved at the last election was what in constitution terms is referred to as a general mandate. I am arguing for a specific mandate, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have understood that. That is a constitutional concept in our history. It is referred to by authorities, and for the past 25 years this country has sought to exert it on profound constitutional issues. That happened first under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), secondly under the premiership of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and thirdly under the premiership of Mr. Callaghan.

For every major constitutional change during those periods, it was considered necessary to seek a specific mandate from those who would be affected. Therefore, that is part of our constitutional requirements. The fact that it was fudged in 1985 and the fact that the Government run away from it now is understandable. We are in the hands of ideologues who wish to force through this measure without regard to the—[Interruption.] We know the fashions as they come and go, and I well understand why we had South Sea bubbles.

I have watched the Government come to their knees on the ERM, and I watch them now as they prepare to force through a contention of citizenship for which the Home Secretary could not even wave a concept. We have not had one testing thing about what it amounts to, nor did we have any indication as to where it leads.

Each of us in his heart—because it is a metaphysical concept—must ask, what is nationality, what is citizenship, to whom do we owe allegiance, and why? I owe allegiance because I am confident that all the laws and rules of this land are ultimately under the control of the citizens. It has nothing to do with the mere sanction of an election, because if I as a Conservative am allowed to misappropriate Burke yet again, I would say that it was the process of consent and acquiesence that Governments and laws seek. Without consent, they have no foundation, and they are seen to become unjust.

When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) was advancing that argument, in essence he was saying that these matters cannot be processed without the consent of the people. Citizenship is the relationship of us to the state. How can it be that the Government cannot advance one argument in favour of the necessity to subordinate current citizenship, given by birth and allegiance, to European citizenship?

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Shepherd

I should like to continue.

The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke about the construction of the state. If the United Kingdom, as one of the high contracting parties, is a subordinate constituent of what those high contracting parties are forming—the union of Europe—the citizenship of one of those subordinate constituents must be subordinate to that of the greater proposition. That is the only point that has been established this evening.

Therefore, in all matters that affect the union, where it has competence which is not a settled and finished matter, which is extended—I would say grotesquely—in the treaty of Maastricht, there has been a profound change. That means that United Kingdom citizenship must of itself be subordinate. Therefore, my first duty to support the laws and maintain the structure will be to the union of Europe rather than to the United Kingdom.

9.45 pm

Mr. Whitney

Earlier in his remarks, my hon. Friend asked himself two questions—what is nationality, and what is citizenship? He was right to ask those questions. However, he should accept the definition of European citizenship, which, as we all agree, is a new concept and something that we must learn to develop and understand. He should also acknowledge that the treaty clearly defines nationality. I understand his propensity—

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury)

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Marlow

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is well known that it was anticipated that most hon. Members would be here at 10 o'clock for a vote. Because the Government have got their people here first, they are trying to have the Division early. Why cannot we keep the debate going until 10 o'clock, when most hon. Members will be here?

The Chairman

The timing of the Division is nothing to do with the Chair.

Sir Teddy Taylor

(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman

I will take it later.

Sir Teddy Taylor

On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman

Order. I will take it in a minute—[Interruption.]

Sir Teddy Taylor

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Some of us have been here for 28 years. Do you really think that it is adding to the dignity of democracy that, for the fifth time, we have had a major debate but no ministerial response? How on earth is it possible for you to consider a closure motion when there has been no ministerial reply to fundamental and important issues raised in the debate?

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not give reasons from the Chair.

Mr. Rowlands

(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I have a simple question. When will you refuse a closure motion from the Government?

The Chairman

I have already said that the Chair does not give reasons, but I have refused a number of closures.

Mr. Budgen

(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I would be very grateful—and, indeed, you might be very grateful—if you took the opportunity to explain what you meant when you said that the question of the time was not within the discretion of the Chair. There is a rising sense of frustration on the Conservative Benches. We feel that you should explain your position so that we may decide our action—

The Chairman

Order. It is very clear. I do not choose the time at which a closure motion is moved. That is the point.

Mr. Budgen

(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. Surely you decide when to accept an application, and the time may be relevant to your consideration.

The Chairman

I accept a closure motion when I believe that there has been a full and fair debate.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 285, Noes 267.

Division No. 136]	[9.45 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Aitken, Jonathan	Day, Stephen
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Alton, David	Devlin, Tim
Amess, David	Dickens, Geoffrey
Ancram, Michael	Dorrell, Stephen
Arbuthnot, James	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Dover, Den
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Duncan, Alan
Ashby, David	Dunn, Bob
Aspinwall, Jack	Eggar, Tim
Atkins, Robert	Elletson, Harold
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Baldry, Tony	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Bates, Michael	Evennett, David
Batiste, Spencer	Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Faber, David
Bellingham, Henry	Fabricant, Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Fishburn, Dudley
Booth, Hartley	Forman, Nigel
Boswell, Tim	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Forth, Eric
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Foster, Don (Bath)
Bowden, Andrew	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Bowis, John	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Brandreth, Gyles	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Brazier, Julian	Freeman, Roger
Bright, Graham	French, Douglas
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Gale, Roger
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Gallie, Phil
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Garnier, Edward
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Gillan, Cheryl
Burns, Simon	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Burt, Alistair	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Butler, Peter	Gorst, John
Butterfill, John	Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Carrington, Matthew	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hague, William
Chaplin, Mrs Judith	Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Churchill, Mr	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Clappison, James	Hampson, Dr Keith
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)	Hanley, Jeremy
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Hannam, Sir John
Coe, Sebastian	Hargreaves, Andrew
Colvin, Michael	Harris, David
Congdon, David	Haselhurst, Alan
Conway, Derek	Hawkins, Nick
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Hayes, Jerry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Heald, Oliver
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Couchman, James	Hendry, Charles
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Dafis, Cynog	Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Paice, James
Horam, John	Patnick, Irvine
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Patten, Rt Hon John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Pickles, Eric
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Powell, William (Corby)
Hunter, Andrew	Redwood, John
Jack, Michael	Richards, Rod
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Riddick, Graham
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Robathan, Andrew
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Key, Robert	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Kilfedder, Sir James	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
King, Rt Hon Tom	Sackville, Tom
Kirkhope, Timothy	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Kirkwood, Archy	Salmond, Alex
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Knox, David	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Shersby, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Sims, Roger
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Soames, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lennox-Boyd, Mark	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Spink, Dr Robert
Lidington, David	Spring, Richard
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Sproat, Iain
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Llwyd, Elfyn	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Luff, Peter	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Steen, Anthony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Stephen, Michael
MacKay, Andrew	Stern, Michael
Maclean, David	Stewart, Allan
Maclennan, Robert	Streeter, Gary
McLoughlin, Patrick	Sumberg, David
Madel, David	Sykes, John
Maitland, Lady Olga	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Major, Rt Hon John	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Malone, Gerald	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mans, Keith	Temple-Morris, Peter
Marland, Paul	Thomason, Roy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Mates, Michael	Thurnham, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Mellor, Rt Hon David	Tracey, Richard
Merchant, Piers	Tredinnick, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)	Trend, Michael
Milligan, Stephen	Trotter, Neville
Mills, Iain	Twinn, Dr Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Tyler, Paul
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Monro, Sir Hector	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Waller, Gary
Moss, Malcolm	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Nelson, Anthony	Waterson, Nigel
Neubert, Sir Michael	Watts, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Wells, Bowen
Nicholls, Patrick	Welsh, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Whitney, Ray
Norris, Steve	Widdecombe, Ann
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip	Wigley, Dafydd
Ottaway, Richard	Willetts, David
Page, Richard	Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy	Tellers for the Ayes:
Yeo, Tim	Mr. David Lightbown and
Young, Sir George (Acton)	Mr. Sydney Chapman.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Dobson, Frank
Adams, Mrs Irene	Donohoe, Brian H.
Ainger, Nick	Dowd, Jim
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Allen, Graham	Eagle, Ms Angela
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Eastham, Ken
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Enright, Derek
Armstrong, Hilary	Etherington, Bill
Ashton, Joe	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Austin-Walker, John	Fatchett, Derek
Barnes, Harry	Flynn, Paul
Barron, Kevin	Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Battle, John	Foulkes, George
Bayley, Hugh	Fraser, John
Beckett, Margaret	Fyfe, Maria
Bell, Stuart	Galbraith, Sam
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Gapes, Mike
Bennett, Andrew F.	Gardiner, Sir George
Benton, Joe	George, Bruce
Bermingham, Gerald	Gerrard, Neil
Berry, Dr. Roger	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Betts, Clive	Gill, Christopher
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Godsiff, Roger
Blair, Tony	Golding, Mrs Llin
Blunkett, David	Gordon, Mildred
Boateng, Paul	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Body, Sir Richard	Gould, Bryan
Boyce, Jimmy	Graham, Thomas
Boyes, Roland	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Bradley, Keith	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Grocott, Bruce
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Gunnell, John
Budgen, Nicholas	Hain, Peter
Burden, Richard	Hall, Mike
Butcher, John	Hanson, David
Byers, Stephen	Harman, Ms Harriet
Caborn, Richard	Harvey, Nick
Callaghan, Jim	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Hawksley, Warren
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Henderson, Doug
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Heppell, John
Canavan, Dennis	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Cann, Jamie	Hinchliffe, David
Carttiss, Michael	Hoey, Kate
Cash, William	Home Robertson, John
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hoon, Geoffrey
Clapham, Michael	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hoyle, Doug
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Clelland, David	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Illsley, Eric
Coffey, Ann	Ingram, Adam
Cohen, Harry	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Connarty, Michael	Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Jamieson, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Janner, Greville
Corbett, Robin	Jessel, Toby
Corston, Ms Jean	Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Cousins, Jim	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cran, James	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Cryer, Bob	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Jowell, Tessa
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Darling, Alistair	Keen, Alan
Davidson, Ian	Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Khabra, Piara S.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Knapman, Roger
Denham, John	Legg, Barry
Dewar, Donald	Leighton, Ron
Dixon, Don	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Lewis, Terry	Rogers, Allan
Litherland, Robert	Rooney, Terry
Livingstone, Ken	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Lord, Michael	Ross, William (E Londonderry)
McAllion, John	Rowlands, Ted
McCartney, Ian	Ruddock, Joan
Macdonald, Calum	Sedgemore, Brian
McFall, John	Sheerman, Barry
McKelvey, William	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mackinlay, Andrew	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
McLeish, Henry	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
McMaster, Gordon	Short, Clare
McNamara, Kevin	Simpson, Alan
McWilliam, John	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Madden, Max	Skinner, Dennis
Mandelson, Peter	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Marek, Dr John	Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Marlow, Tony	Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Martlew, Eric	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Meale, Alan	Snape, Peter
Michael, Alun	Soley, Clive
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Spearing, Nigel
Milburn, Alan	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Miller, Andrew	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)	Steinberg, Gerry
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Stevenson, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Stott, Roger
Morgan, Rhodri	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)	Straw, Jack
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Sweeney, Walter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mudie, George	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mullin, Chris	Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Murphy, Paul	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Tipping, Paddy
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)	Turner, Dennis
O'Hara, Edward	Vaz, Keith
Olner, William	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
O'Neill, Martin	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Walley, Joan
Parry, Robert	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Pawsey, James	Wareing, Robert N
Pendry, Tom	Watson, Mike
Pickthall, Colin	Wicks, Malcolm
Pike, Peter L.	Wilkinson, John
Pope, Greg	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Porter, David (Waveney)	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Wilson, Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)	Winnick, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Prescott, John	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Primarolo, Dawn	Wise, Audrey
Purchase, Ken	Worthington, Tony
Quin, Ms Joyce	Wray, Jimmy
Randall, Stuart	Wright, Dr Tony
Raynsford, Nick	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Reid, Dr John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Tellers for the Noes:
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Mr. Thomas McAvoy and
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)	Mr. John Spellar.
Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 75, Noes 280.

Division No. 137]	[10.1 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Barnes, Harry	Canavan, Dennis
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Carttiss, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Cash, William
Body, Sir Richard	Chisholm, Malcolm
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Cohen, Harry
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Connarty, Michael
Budgen, Nicholas	Corbyn, Jeremy
Butcher, John	Cran, James
Callaghan, Jim	Cryer, Bob

Davidson, Ian	Pickthall, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Gardiner, Sir George	Rowlands, Ted
Gerrard, Neil	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Gill, Christopher	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Godsiff, Roger	Simpson, Alan
Gordon, Mildred	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Skinner, Dennis
Gould, Bryan	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Spearing, Nigel
Harvey, Nick	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Hawksley, Warren	Steinberg, Gerry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Sweeney, Walter
Hunter, Andrew	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Jessel, Toby	Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Knapman, Roger	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Lewis, Terry	Wilkinson, John
Litherland, Robert	Winnick, David
Livingstone, Ken	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Lord, Michael	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Madden, Max	Wise, Audrey
Marlow, Tony
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)	Mr. Ron Leighton and
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.
Pawsey, James

NOES
Adley, Robert	Churchill, Mr
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Clappison, James
Aitken, Jonathan	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Alton, David	Coe, Sebastian
Amess, David	Colvin, Michael
Ancram, Michael	Congdon, David
Arbuthnot, James	Conway, Derek
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Ashby, David	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Aspinwall, Jack	Couchman, James
Atkins, Robert	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Dafis, Cynog
Baldry, Tony	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Day, Stephen
Bates, Michael	Devlin, Tim
Batiste, Spencer	Dickens, Geoffrey
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Dorrell, Stephen
Bellingham, Henry	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Beresford, Sir Paul	Dover, Den
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Duncan, Alan
Booth, Hartley	Dunn, Bob
Boswell, Tim	Eggar, Tim
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Elletson, Harold
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Bowden, Andrew	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Bowis, John	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)	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Fishburn, Dudley
Burns, Simon	Forman, Nigel
Burt, Alistair	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Butler, Peter	Forth, Eric
Butterfill, John	Foster, Don (Bath)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Carrington, Matthew	Freeman, Roger
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	French, Douglas
Chaplin, Mrs Judith	Gale, Roger

Gallie, Phil	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	MacKay, Andrew
Garnier, Edward	Maclean, David
Gillan, Cheryl	Maclennan, Robert
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	McLoughlin, Patrick
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Madel, David
Gorst, John	Maitland, Lady Olga
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)	Major, Rt Hon John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Malone, Gerald
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Mans, Keith
Hague, William	Marland, Paul
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Hanley, Jeremy	Mates, Michael
Hannam, Sir John	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Hargreaves, Andrew	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Harris, David	Merchant, Piers
Haselhurst, Alan	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Hawkins, Nick	Milligan, Stephen
Hayes, Jerry	Mills, Iain
Heald, Oliver	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Hendry, Charles	Monro, Sir Hector
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.	Moss, Malcolm
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Nelson, Anthony
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Neubert, Sir Michael
Horam, John	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Nicholls, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)	Norris, Steve
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Oppenheim, Phillip
Jack, Michael	Ottaway, Richard
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Page, Richard
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Paice, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Patnick, Irvine
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Patten, Rt Hon John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Pickles, Eric
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Key, Robert	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Kilfedder, Sir James	Powell, William (Corby)
King, Rt Hon Tom	Redwood, John
Kirkhope, Timothy	Richards, Rod
Kirkwood, Archy	Riddick, Graham
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Robathan, Andrew
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Knox, David	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Leigh, Edward	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Lennox-Boyd, Mark	Sackville, Tom
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Lidington, David	Salmond, Alex
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Llwyd, Elfyn	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Luff, Peter	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Shersby, Michael	Tracey, Richard
Sims, Roger	Tredinnick, David
Soames, Nicholas	Trend, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek	Trotter, Neville
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Spink, Dr Robert	Tyler, Paul
Spring, Richard	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Sproat, Iain	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)	Waller, Gary
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David	Waterson, Nigel
Steen, Anthony	Watts, John
Stephen, Michael	Wells, Bowen
Stern, Michael	Welsh, Andrew
Stewart, Allan	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Streeter, Gary	Whitney, Ray
Sumberg, David	Widdecombe, Ann
Sykes, John	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Wigley, Dafydd
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)	Willetts, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Wolfson, Mark
Temple-Morris, Peter	Wood, Timothy
Thomason, Roy	Yeo, Tim
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm	Tellers for the Noes:
Thurnham, Peter	Mr. David Lightbown and
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)	Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.