MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair

HC Deb 28 January 1993 vol 217 cc1165-262

Amendment proposed [28 January]: No. 8, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(except Article 100c on page 17 of Cm. 1934)'.—(Mr. Blair.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

4.8 pm

The Chairman of Ways and Means Mr. Michael Morris)

I remind the Committee that we are also considering the following: Amendment No. 110, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'but in respect of paragraph 9 on page 11 of Cm. 1934, Her Majesty's Government as part of their formal process of ratification shall state that so far as the definition of the single market is related to an area without internal frontiers (to be enshrined in Article 7a of the amended Treaty establishing the Community) they regard absence of such frontiers only as not impeding the operation of that market and without prejudice to any action related to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.'.

Amendment No. 133, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(excluding Article 100c on page 17 of Cm. 1934).'.

Amendment No. 134, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(excluding Article 100d on page 17 of Cm. 1934).'.

Amendment No. 359, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 3(d) as referred to in Article G on page 9 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 104, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'and IV' and insert 'IV and VI'.

Amendment No. 46, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert 'but not Article 100c in Title II thereof.

Amendment No. 113, in page 1, line 17, at end add— 'The above subsections shall only come into force subsequent to the laying before Parliament by Her Majesty's Government of a Command Paper concerning the implications and operation of the provisions contained in new Article 100c of the Treaty on European Union (Control of third country visas by the European Council of Ministers and related powers of Members states) and to approval of its terms by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.

New clause 12—Application of Article 100c of the Treaty of Rome to certain provisions on co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs— No notification shall be given to the Council of the European Communities that the United Kingdom has adopted a decision of the Council under Article K.9. (Application of Article 100c of the Treaty on European Union) of the Treaty on European Union unless a draft of the notification has first been approved by Act of Parliament.".

New clause 13—Adoption of conventions in the fields of justice and of home affairs— No convention drawn up by the Council of the European Communities under Article K.3.2.(c) of the Treaty of European Union shall be adopted by the United Kingdom unless a draft of the proposed instrument of adoption has first been approved by Act of Parliament.".

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) made a justifiable complaint about the nature of the amendment paper and the difficulty of following the order of debate.

Even those of us who have sat in the House for many years are experiencing difficulty—and I confess that I am among them—but for no reason to do with the Chair or the authorities of the House. We all acknowledge that the treaty is exceptionally long and complex and that the Bill is exceptionally short.

Perhaps I may suggest a way of simplifying that aspect. Many years ago, your predecessors, Mr. Morris, hit on the idea of producing an informal, provisional list of selected amendments. I understand that previously the selection had not been announced until the first amendment in the group was reached. That innovation has proved most successful. I therefore suggest that when you, Mr. Morris, publish the successive daily list of selected amendments, the amendments and new clauses that are additions to the groups are underlined or have some signature, to make it clear that they are new. That could save many right hon. and hon. Members a lot of time, and would perhaps assist the Committee in the debates.

The Chairman

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive suggestion, which I shall certainly consider. However, before any changes are made, they would have to be put to the Chairmen's Panel because they would have implications beyond the Committee stage of the Bill that is now before us.

Right hon. and hon. Members may have other thoughts on improving our procedures—of a constructive nature, I hope. If they will let me have them at the end of the Committee stage of this Bill, I shall have a meeting of the Chairmen's Panel to consider whether our procedures can be improved.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. At the beginning of yesterday's debate, I raised with the Second Deputy Chairman the singular nature of three amendments under consideration —amendment No. 110, and new clauses 12 and 13. I asked in particular whether consideration could be given to a separate vote on them at the end of the debate. The Second Deputy Chairman replied:

The occupant of the Chair always takes note of requests for Divisions. However, the Division that the right hon. Gentleman seeks would take place not at the end of this debate, but when the appropriate point on the selection list is reached."—[Official Report, 27 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1087.] I believe that there was some misunderstanding. The Second Deputy Chairman obviously took on board my point about the new clauses, but I believe that amendment No. 110 can be voted on at the end of the debate. I wanted to point that out to you, Mr. Morris, because I believe that my previous submission was slightly misunderstood.

The Chairman

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He may not be quite correct. I do not think that amendment No. 110 can be voted on immediately following amendment No. 8, which I invite the right hon. Gentleman to resume debating.

Mr. Shore

As you indicated, Mr. Morris, I was proceeding with my speech when the 10 o'clock rule struck us last night. Up to that point, the theme of my speech had been the amazing contrast in the Bill's provisions, in respect of the open door that article 8a allows to 300 million citizens—to nationals of European states. Article 8a(1) states: Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States". That seems an enormous enhancement of the right of entry to this country of 300 million Europeans. That open-door, free movement contrasts with the tightening controls and the fortress Europe approach towards the rest of the world and third countries. I maintain that considerable discrimination would be involved in the way in which we treated different people according to whether they were European nationals or people from third countries with connections to ourselves.

4.15 pm

I pressed the Home Secretary on how on earth we were to have effective border controls and distinguish between Europeans and non-Europeans without proper inspection of passports. He said that he always made it plain that we intended to maintain some form of passport control in the United Kingdom, but I was not impressed by the evidence that he gave, because the Commission does not accept the British and the Home Secretary's position. It states that it is a right accorded under the treaty and, therefore, in the last resort it should be determined by the European Court of Justice. It has not come to that, but I put it to the Committee and to the Government that it is a very real apprehension and I should be interested to know what serious legal advice the Home Secretary has had that the British case could be sustained in the European Court of Justice against the pressure of the Commission and presumably that of other member states.

There is also the obvious practical problem of distinguishing between different European citizens. The amendment refers specifically to the necessity of maintaining some safeguards and checks because of the requirements of law and order and our legitimate worries about drug smuggling, terrorism, and so on. How can frontier control be maintained without taking a good look at the passports of those coming in? We do not need an elaborate procedure but simply the right and the insistence that we can look at people's passports.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

I do not think that the Home Secretary made clear how the distinction would be made between, for example, French citizens from Martinique, who would be full French citizens because they carry French passports marked that they come from an outer territory, and Jamaicans or Barbadians from part of the British Commonwealth who, because of the independent state of their own country, do not automatically carry a British passport. How would passport officers make that distinction? Is there some facial tic or physical sign that would mark out a Martinican from someone else?

Mr. Shore

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to one of the genuine complexities. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) pointed out yesterday that in effect it would turn on whether one had a pale skin. I am afraid that, to a great extent, that would be true. Although I am sure that it would be repulsive and repellent to the Committee to operate a passport procedure on that basis —and it is not something that people are seeking—it is an almost inevitable result of the agreements, laws and treaty arrangement that we have entered into. It is a profoundly worrying and unacceptable part of the treaty arrangement.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Apart from the impact on race relations in Britain, to which my right hon. Friend referred, is it not a fact that the facilities and privileges that will be given to citizens of member countries coming to Britain, and reciprocated for Britons going to those countries, are part and parcel of going down the federal road? However much, for obvious reasons, the word "federal" is omitted—had it not been for the objections of the British Government, the word would have been included in the treaty—we shall, by the turn of the century, have obliged people such as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) who want to achieve a federal union.

Mr. Shore

My hon. Friend makes a relevant point, given authority by the letter that the Commission sent to all member states on how to interpret the issue of freedom of movement. That letter stated: If the Community is to become a genuine internal market, and if this market is to operate under the same conditions as a national market, physical controls must be abolished. This means the abolition of all controls (formalities, procedures, checks, examinations, inspections, etc.) at internal frontiers, just as there are no border controls between regions in national markets. What is being suggested there is obvious. Already, at any rate in the eyes of the Commission, we are part of not just a single geographical area but of a union in which citizens have the right to move from, say, Germany to England and back again—if need be to reside here, look for jobs and stay—just as citizens of the United States have the right to move from New York to California and stay there, look for work and otherwise move backwards and forwards at will.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned the importance of good race relations. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was here at the time of the Single European Act and will be aware that the Government of the day said there was no way the European institutions would involve themselves in our immigration controls. We have since discovered that that was wrong. The Government are now saying that we now have a double lock on it all, though in a few years from now we may discover that, without much ado and influence from this House, our immigration procedures have been passed across the channel to Brussels.

If we are concerned about good race relations, we must have fair and firm immigration policies. If the people of Britain perceive that those policies are not working but are being operated by Brussels in such a way that this House can do nothing about it, that will be devastating for race relations. Will not that be bad news for those in favour of European union? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should not press his amendment.

Mr. Shore

It would be unacceptable to the people of Britain if national controls over immigration and asylum policy—over people from third countries seeking asylum here—were transferred to the European Community. Nor should it be taken for granted that the British people would consider it acceptable that 300 million Europeans should have rights of entry not related to job seeking and residence in this country—I doubt whether anyone has even realised that—and my amendment seeks to address the qualifications of that right of entry. In particular, it draws attention to security, drugs and so on. It is an important issue which has not been raised in the House. I appreciate that all matters of entry, migration and freedom of movement are sensitive, but it is important for the issue to be addressed seriously and in public.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

The Home Secretary may introduce administrative arrangements that satisfy his understanding of the interpretation of the treaty, but under the treaty it is open to every citizen of the union to appeal or apply directly to the European Court of Justice. So all the assurances and wit of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Home Secretary are only interpretations of how they hope that it may come about, rather than how it will be adjudged. Is not the great weakness of all these arguments that we are no longer masters of determining these arrangements ourselves?

Mr. Shore

I can give an example of what the hon. Gentleman refers to. If, for example, unwelcome Europeans came to this country for one reason or another—

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Like Le Pen?

Mr. Shore

Like Le Pen. That is a good example. The Home Secretary could not issue a deportation order. The writ of a deportation order does not obtain against citizens of European countries. That is extraordinary.

Apart from public health and one or two other stated very special exceptions, there is not the right of deportation as it exists in relation to other people who come to this country and we think that they should not have the right to stay and that it is not desirable that they should stay.

Mr. Marlow

The right to exclude people from the United Kingdom is an important point. The right hon. Member might disagree with me, but at present we can, with the prevention of terrorism Act, prevent people from the Irish Republic who are deemed to be bent on terrorism in this country from coming to the United Kingdom. If this part of the treaty goes through, are we not going to find ourselves in front of the European Court at some stage—my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will not accept it at this stage—and we shall be powerless to prevent these people coming to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Shore

That is another complexity of the situation, but I think that we shall leave it to the Home Secretary, who I presume is going to reply later, to give his answer.

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

I hoped that I had already addressed this at some length. I shall not go over again the fact that the right hon. Member is speaking about article 8a and competing interpretations of that, which goes back to the Single European Act which the House accepted many years ago.

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, but there are set exceptions, which we can debate later, for those excluded on public policy, public security or public health grounds.

I spent a long time yesterday trying to explain that neither the treaty nor the Bill transfers control over immigration policy to the European Community. Indeed, immigration matters are expressly excluded from Community competence unless the double lock in article K.9 is turned, both by the Council of Ministers unanimously and then by this House and Parliament, ratifying any agreement in the Council. If we look at what we are actually debating and these matters of law and order and safeguarding, in paragraph 5 of article 100c expressly says that it is without prejudice to the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon the Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security. The same proviso occurs in article K.2, which is also part of this treaty. Paragraph 2 of the article says:

This Title shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member states with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security. Our checks against terrorism and against crime and smuggling do not require systematic frontier controls of everybody crossing the border, but matters essential for our security and protection against international crime can be specifically defended by the agreements we have entered into.

Mr. Shore

The quotations given by the Home Secretary were relating, I think, to asylum, in the first instance, in articles 100c and K, to immigration from third countries. I should like to see a direct quotation of the same provisos relating to article 8a, dealing with European citizens who claim the right of entry.

Mr. Clarke

I do not have article 8a before me. The freedom of movement of EC nationals is guaranteed by article 8a, but we can still arrest criminals; we can still enforce the prevention of terrorism Act, as we do quite frequently against people coming from Ireland across what is an open frontier in respect of frontier controls.

Article 8a is not before us now. The right hon. Gentleman keeps asserting that he is worried by the Commission's interpretation of article 8a. My hon. Friends keep reminding us that the Government have continued to regard our obligations under article 8a as quite different, and we maintain that position.

This agreement does not transfer any sovereignty away from us towards the European Community except in article 100c which transfers the comparatively small matters of the list of countries from whose nationals we require visas and the format of that visa—what it looks like. That transfer to Community competence, which is convenient and efficient, does not begin to produce all the bogeys that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends, are trying to raise.

Mr. Shore

I assure the Home Secretary that I am not dealing with bogeys. I am dealing with matters which, regrettably, the House has not considered properly in the past. The Home Secretary finds it convenient to describe them as bogeys, but they are much more than that. We have already discussed the power of the double lock over third-country entrants to the United Kingdom being transferred in article 100c, and we have also discussed asylum policy in that regard. What we have not yet discussed is article 8a.

4.30 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

Although the legal points that the Home Secretary has made are correct, the fact that a potential terrorist or drug dealer only needed to give what is called a Bangemann wave of his passport when walking through a frontier would make it rather more difficult for the police to identify him, unless they knew in advance that he would arrive.

It should be borne in mind that the Bangemann wave question emerged from discussions between the Home Secretary and the Commission. Is it not rather misleading to suggest that the implications of the legislation will not make it much more difficult to control the importation of drug addicts, terrorists, murderers and other criminals? The Home Secretary must be well aware that the mere flicking of a passport will greatly reduce the powers of frontier officials to identify the criminals that I have mentioned.

Mr. Shore

I believe that that is true. The Home Secretary said yesterday that, provided that the passport officers had sufficient evidence of identity, all would be well. What is sufficient evidence? Would it be sufficient not actually to look at a passport? Would it be sufficient simply to wave a piece of magenta-coloured cardboard? No, it would not. A passport must be inspected properly, and that need cause no great inconvenience to anyone. I have left this country and returned to it many times; I have never failed to show my passport, and I have never felt a sense of outrage when it was examined—quite the contrary.

Mr. Spearing

The Home Secretary said that article 8a was not before us. Article 8a will be in the treaty of Rome, as amended, and it states: The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty. Does not the Home Secretary agree that we are dealing with an amending treaty? The treaty that we are discussing —the treaty on European union—amends the updated treaty of Rome. It is rather like an amending Bill, which, in amending an existing Act, gives rise to a new Act. We are discussing the new treaty that will result from the marriage of the treaty of union and the treaty of Rome. Surely the Home Secretary agrees that the consequences will have to be faced: that is the subject of the amendment.

Mr. Shore

I believe that it is wrong in principle to extend the right of freedom of movement of labour, as originally defined in the treaty of Rome, to the wide-open area of legislation in which freedom of movement ceases to be employment related or tourism, and becomes the absolute right to reside in the country of one's choice. That is a major transfer of one of the crucial aspects of sovereignty as we have known it. It is deliberate. I believe that it is wanted and required precisely because it represents a signal surrender of national sovereignty and control. It is one of the four or five powers that belong to any separate nation state.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

Will the right hon. Gentleman treat with extreme caution the Home Secretary's advice on this matter, not through ill will but because the advice that the House of Commons has been given over a number of years has not always proved to be correct? I remind the hon. Gentleman that fisheries legislation which was passed by the new Parliament following the 1987 election was, in effect, set aside under the judgment of the European Court. That legislation was not introduced with malign thoughts. The Government believed that it was compatible with their obligations under the subsequently amended treaty of Rome. They were wrong then, and they are likely to be wrong in this case. If there is a scintilla of doubt, we should not touch something that extends the remit of the European Court.

Mr. Shore

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We do not have to go back very far to find the most remarkable example of misunderstanding by the British Government of the nature of the commitment under the Single European Act. No Conservative Member, and perhaps no Opposition Member, thought that we had made a commitment in principle to a European central bank and a common currency—matters which arose out of the interpretation of the preamble. It matters enormously that we should get the words right, be very sure about interpretation and, above all, look with the utmost care at what the European Court of Justice can do in the matter of widening interpretation.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the matter of interpretation, there is a difference between the Home Secretary and the European Commissioner? The European Commissioner says one thing and the Home Secretary says another. How confident can we be that the views of the Home Secretary will always prevail? The Home Secretary said yesterday: It is the case that Commissioner Bangemann asserts the view that under article 8a we are obliged to abandon what the Community would call internal frontier controls, which means checks at our ports and airports into European movements, but that is not a position that has ever been accepted by the British Government. What the Home Secretary says is completely different from what the Commissioner says. Yesterday he went on: I have had discussions with Commissioner Bangemann on ways in which EC citizens can be distinguished from third country citizens".—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1127]. The Home Secretary has never explained how that will be done. Is it to be a case of differentiating between a white person and a black person? This is another example of differing interpretations.

Mr. Shore

I shall return to that tactical problem, which was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She asked how one was to distinguish French citizens coming from La France d'Outre-mer—Guadeloupe or Martinique—and exercising their right of entry unless one examined passports. That is the crux of the matter—passports must be examined. The amendment would provide strong support for the Government's position by writing in at least two grounds on which they could reasonably need to be satisfied about the entry of anyone into this country.

Mrs. Dunwoody

The Committee has not discussed a matter that seems to me to be absolutely fundamental. In France and many other continental countries that are apparently without barriers there is constant checking of identity cards and other papers. That can be done internally at any juncture. People can be stopped at any time. In Brussels, it is quite common for people employed in various sections of the Community to be stopped on the street and asked to present their papers. At no point has the Home Secretary made it clear that legislation of this type can be made to work only by insisting that the police have the constant right to stop people and ask them for clear identification. By implication, that means identity cards, and all that goes with them, once people are in the country. If one accepts that that is what lies behind this, one can see why Mr. Bangemann has decided that we can go ahead quite cheerfully with waving people through at ports of entry.

Mr. Shore

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. If we abandon the control of entry, there must be something to take its place. That something is very likely to be the demand for identity cards and, in addition, power for the police to stop and check individual citizens whenever they feel that there is a reason to be suspicious.

That does not make for good police-citizen relationships, and it is something which most people in Britain would find profoundly unattractive. It is a powerful additional reason for not abandoning frontier controls.

Mr. Marlow

rose—

Mr. Shore

No, I am just about to finish.

I simply come back to this point. There is no secret about it: the European Commission and most of the other European countries wish to create a state, and they know very well that, in order to create a state in western Europe, one must build up certain powers that have previously belonged to national Governments. They have moved across a whole range of matters. They now want a common foreign policy, a common defence policy and all the things that characterise a separate sovereign state.

One of the half-dozen quite crucial matters is the right of citizens of a state to go wherever that state claims to have its own boundaries. It is clear to me that the European semi-state—it is not yet a fully fledged one—is claiming the rights of citizenship and of abode throughout the whole area of the so-called European union.

Sir Teddy Taylor

As you know, Mr. Morris, I have an amendment tabled in exactly the same words as that of the Leader of the Opposition.

I just want to say a few words about what the Home Secretary said to us. He told us that we have no need to worry about the implications for national control and immigration because of article 100c, and that, if there is any problem, it is not because of what is in 100c. It is because of what was done by nasty Lady Thatcher in the Single European Act; it is her fault and no responsibility of ours, so if there is any problem it is hers.

I hope that the Home Secretary will take rather seriously what I am going to say now. If he takes that view, will he please go back and read what was said at the time of the Single European Act when certain hon. Members, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who asked questions were told that there was no need to worry about terrorism and all the rest of it becausee adequate safeguards were written into the treaty and that everything was fine and dandy. Let us look at Hansard and the words of the Home Secretary himself. There we see it written out clearly and specifically. On control of terrorism and the rest of it, he says that the new agreement that they have come to is that In the case of … other EC nationals, the purpose of the check [at the border] is simply to establish their nationality".—[Oficial Report, 17 December 1992; Vol. 216, c. 445.] There is now no requirement to look at a passport, no requirement to talk to someone and no requirement to do anything, unless it is to find out that someone is an EC national.

The Home Secretary will say that there may be advance warning. Of course it is possible that the police will say that three terrorists are coming across the border on 14 July at 3 o'clock and they will be there, waiting for them. But how on earth will a normal person, watching border controls, contain terrorism or control drug peddling without the opportunity of looking at a person's passport and asking him some questions?

4.45 pm

Mr. Marlow

I would like to return to the point that my hon. Friend made at the beginning of his speech. I was here as well, and I asked questions too. We were told at the time of the Single European Act that we would maintain control over immigration policy. There was no suggestion at that stage that we would have to put up with the "Bangemann wave". We were told that if we wanted to stop people at our frontiers and look at their passports, we could do so. We have discovered that we were wrong and that the Government have discovered that they were wrong. If the Government were wrong then, how much more likely are they to be wrong now in their interpretation of these provisions?

Sir Teddy Taylor

I am afraid that it is not just on this occasion, Mr. Morris, as you well know. Sadly, for all kinds of reasons—and I am not suggesting any conspiracy —hon. Members have been misled, deliberately and systematically, over the giving of powers to the European Community. I suggest that in this particular case of immigration control we are being misled again today on the issue of article 100c. I want to explain why.

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)

Presumably the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) would therefore argue that we should change our regulations in respect of the Republic of Ireland.

Sir Teddy Taylor

It is well known that I have always taken the view that we should change our special provisions in relation to the Republic of Ireland. That is a separate issue which was determined by the British Parliament. The hon. Member is well aware of my views, because I believe that we have a fundamental duty, for the safety of our people, to take all possible steps to control the small minority from other countries who want to engage in terrorism, killing and violence.

I hope that hon. Members will consider carefully this new concession by the Home Secretary. In fairness, he was in a difficult position. He was confronted by Mr. Bangemann who said that on 1 January all border controls in Europe must go and that anyone who got into another country should be able to come here, and it was made clear by the Commissioner in a public statement that after 1 January, unfortunately, if we stopped anyone coming across the borders within Europe we would be taken to court.

As he set out in a statement, the Home Secretary had a meeting with Mr. Bangemann. They have not agreed on anything, he says—"Nothing has been decided"—but the fact is that because of the adoption of this new situation they have put the matter off. Now it will go to court and, sadly, because of the wording of the Single European Act we will probably lose the case. It has been put off by coincidence until, no doubt, we have finished discussing the Maastricht treaty. In any case, hon. Members should be aware that we were misled at the time of the Single European Act, and this alone should make us think very carefully indeed.

Does it really matter about frontier controls? It matters desperately because all hon. Members are concerned with maintaining good race relations. I am sure that, whether hon. Members support a weak or a strong immigration policy, we at least agree that we have a duty to try to maintain good race relations. If hon. Members have any doubt about the importance of this, they should look at what happened in Germany when people there gained the impression that the influx of refugees from eastern Europe was out of control. The moment that the British public gains the impression that we will be unable to control the number of people coming into this country for any reason whatever, it will have a fundamental effect on race relations.

Although Southend is one of the nicest places in the world, I was appalled at some of the letters that I received on the admission to a nearby borough of 12 refugees from, I think, Bosnia. I met them. They were Muslims and very nice people, but the fact that they were going to appear on the council list of a neighbouring borough caused a great deal of resentment among some people in Southend and nearby. Hon. Members should be aware that the moment that the public gain the impression that we are not totally in control of entry across our borders, nasty things will happen in race relations, and the people who suffer will not be people like us; it will be the immigrants, the people with black faces. We should be concerned about our duty to them. The best thing that we can do for them is to give the clear impression to the public that we are in control and that we will not have a situation where people can go across our borders without difficulty and without being impeded in any way.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

I am interested in this concept of how one identifies, even within the categories where the Home Secretary still has authority. If a criminal is coming into this country, we would ordinarily notify customs and immigration of the name, and possibly provide a photograph, of the individual. There may not be a photograph, but one of the first areas of investigation in excluding persons is the name factor. How is the name of a person coming into this country identified without looking at a passport or other document? I am having great difficulty understanding how the Home Secretary intends to enforce the law and order and criminal provisions in this measure.

Sir Teddy Taylor

My hon. Friend is repeating the point that I made and it is a very serious one. People should think about it, especially those Euro-nuts who want to give all the powers to Europe. If people who are known criminals, terrorists, traders in blood are coming across the border, how can they be identified? There may be wonderful police intelligence, one may know that they are coming, but if one cannot look at the passports or talk to those people, how can they be identified?

This is a fundamental change in our practice. It was announced by the Home Secretary on 17 December. Who agreed to this? When did the House of Commons agree to it? The answer is that we never agreed to it, but, sadly, it became one of the essential consequences of the Single European Act. The Home Secretary may again say, "It was the nasty Lady Thatcher, it was not me", but, if he looks back—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

My hon. Friend really must not attribute to me views that I do not have. I am a supporter of the Single European Act. I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in voting for its consequences. I was then in complete agreement with Lady Thatcher. I do not know whether she has changed her mind about the Single European Act. We are discussing article 8a of the Single European Act, which is something to which we all agreed some years ago. I have explained the British Government's view of article 8a and the obligations which we have entered into. The description that I have given is indistinguishable from that which was given to the House when we signed the Single European Act and when we took the Act through the House. That remains the policy of the British Government.

It is true that I had a disagreement on the interpretation of article 8a with Commissioner Bangemann. I do not know what the view of his successor will be, but the British Government are quite clear about the obligations that they have entered into.

The debate on these amendments today is on the basis of a pillared approach precisely because we are not conceding to the European Community institutions, the European Court or the Commission any control of our immigration policy. I cannot, in an intervention, go into how we work under article 8a, but at the moment policemen do not stand alongside the immigration officers looking at every passport; customs officers do not look at every passport. Of course, we will retain our frontier controls because our immigration officers must be satisfied that those going through the European channel are European nationals. The immigration officers are accustomed to dealing every day with people like me who have forgotten their passports. They have all kinds of people coming through—

The Chairman

Order. I understood that this was an intervention. It is a very long intervention.

Sir Teddy Taylor

I am afraid that my confidence in the Home Secretary is again shaken. Whatever he may think, I did not vote for the Single European Act; I voted against it on every single clause. He said that we all agreed to it, but I did not, and I hope that he will withdraw that.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

My hon. Friend will remember that during the course of that Bill he and I raised many questions on which we were given assurances that have not been followed up in practice. That is why we take what may be described by some as a jaundiced view. What we said then was not listened to, it was dismissed, and that is exactly what is being attempted now.

Sir Teddy Taylor

My hon. Friend is quite right and I hope that the Home Secretary will at least listen to this point. If he looks back, as I hope that he will, to the debates on the Single European Act, he will see that we were treated then, as we are being treated now, with absolute contempt. They said our points were silly, nonsense, rubbish. I know that the Home Secretary has not had time to read this treaty, but I hope that he will look back at those debates, the questions that were asked and the challenges that were made. He will see that we were given a clear, specific assurance that we would still maintain total control of law and order and terrorism. Sadly, this is not the case, because of a decision, not made by the House of Commons, but announced by the Home Secretary in a parliamentary answer on 17 December. This is a fundamental change and one that worries us.

Mr. Marlow

I accept that I am being a bit greedy, but this is an important issue. The Home Secretary has just said that we will maintain our own immigration controls. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has studied this to a far greater extent than I have and can perhaps tell me if I am right in thinking, looking at article 100c, that it will be possible, after 1 January 1996, for the rest of the Community to require New Zealanders to have visas before they come to the United Kingdom, and that there will be nothing that we can do about it. I should like to know whether that is true or false.

Sir Teddy Taylor

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is a massive change. If the EC decides by a majority that it wants to require visas, there will be nothing that we can do, nothing that the House of Commons can do. If we are forced to insult a friend for all kinds of political or other reasons, the House of Commons will be powerless. Yet we are told that nothing much is happening, we are not changing anything.

I must say to the Secretary of State, as we said about the Single European Act, that we are being misled. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) may smile, but if he were to go to the homes of people affected by terrorism or drug addiction, he would know just how important it is that we maintain control of our frontiers. If we do not do so, it will be a bad thing for Britain and a bad thing for our people. It is something that matters a great deal.

Mr. Leighton

Is not the problem here that, over the years, many people have not told the truth? A lot of political leaders have moved in a crab-wise manner, disguising what they are really doing. Would it not be far better now for people who take the view of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to say that they support the treaty, are in favour of the free movement of people and the abolition of internal frontiers, and are proud of the fact, because that is what they want? In other words, should they not tell the truth about the thrust of the treaty?

Instead, we have the Home Secretary telling us not to worry what Mr. Bangemann says or what the Commission says, because it is all right and we do not really intend to abolish frontiers. Is not that the difficulty, that people have not been frank and open and honest about their intentions?

Mr. Spearing

rose—

Sir Teddy Taylor

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The Chairman

Order. It is normal for an hon. Gentleman to respond to an intervention before he gives way to yet another hon. Gentleman, but maybe he was concluding and did not want to develop his speech.

Sir Teddy Taylor

It was to save time, because I have spoken longer than I intended to.

I wish that the Home Secretary would stop laughing. This is not funny; it is a serious matter that affects people's lives. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may think it is funny, but it is not.

Of course, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is absolutely right: there is nothing that we can do when something has been decided. I do not think that this happened because the Government wanted to do these things; it was because they were manoeuvred into them and are now trying to say that it is not as bad as people think.

Mr. Spearing

I want to revert to what the Home Secretary has said. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, while not everybody has to show documents, it is the power to require them to do so that is disappearing? In respect of the Single European Act, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or any hon. Gentleman, remind the House of the Second Reading speech of the then right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, Sir Geoffrey Howe, when introducing the Bill? Is it not a fact that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs was preparing a report on that matter, but that when the Second Reading debate took place they were on a visit to North Vietnam and could not contribute to it?

Sir Teddy Taylor

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, but I must press on. I do not want to make a habit of making long speeches in these debates. I just want to make some specific points and seek opinions on them.

The Home Secretary said that nothing much will go under K.9; we can stop it by a veto, and that will be that. That is an over-simplification because, once the original decision has been made on the kinds of things that will be done, there can be majority votes thereafter. But the worry is that, if there is a situation in which the members of the Community agree unanimously—that is, with the inclusion of Britain—on a new rule or policy, and the people of Britain decide on reflection that they do not like it, and the Government or Parliament say that they do not like it, nothing will be able to be done about it. That is the one thing that we should be absolutely clear about. Whilst we may accept that there is unanimity under article K.9 and that the Government will be in a position to say no, the fact is that if the agreed policy turns out to have unfortunate consequences, or if Parliament and the people of Britain decide that they do not like it, there is nothing we can do unless a further decision is taken at the Council.

The third and final aspect of decision-making—

5 pm

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I am trying to be helpful and I will avoid laughing at my hon. Friend but, clearly, he has not had time to read article K.9 on which he is lecturing at such length. Article K.9 makes it quite clear that nothing can be brought into Community competence, beyond what is covered by article 100c, unless there is a unanimous vote of the Council, including the British representative. Incidentally, it also includes the vote of the Danish representative who, under the present Government, is even more emphatic than we are that Denmark does not wish to extend competence in this respect. My hon. Friend wandered, saying that if there was a majority vote something would happen, but there is not a word of that in article K.9.

Even if the British and Danish Governments were to change their minds and join in a unanimous vote to extend competence, article K.9 gives the House an absolute right to refuse to ratify it. It is what is called a double lock. That destroys the foundation of my hon. Friend's speech which is that what we are debating today brings immigration issues into Community competence. He is plain wrong. He is an extremely intelligent and sensible man with great expertise on Europe, but he has either not read or not understood a word of the article.

Sir Teddy Taylor

Each of us saying, "You are talking rubbish" does not help. Article K.9 states: The Council, acting unanimously on the initiative of the Commission or a Member State, may decide to apply Article 100c of the Treaty establishing the European Community to action in areas referred to in Article K.1(1) to (6), and at the same time determine the relevant voting conditions relating to it. That may or may not mean something, I do not know, but it clearly refers to determining the relevant voting conditions relating to it. We could disregard those words, say that they are rubbish and irrelevant and say, "Teddy Taylor hasn't read the treaty", although the Home Secretary said that he himself had not read it. However, the plain fact is that if all member states unanimously agreed to, say, policy A and policy A turned out to be a disaster, something which the Government, Parliament and the people of Britain find appalling, we cannot repeal that policy ourselves. We are handing over decision-making to a new European state. Although the Home Secretary may say, "Not at all, you are being misleading", it is so.

If we pass a law on asylum or immigration and decide, on reflection, that it is not working out and that nasty things are happening, we can at present pass an amending law. We should appreciate the fact that, even with unanimity even if we disregard the words that I read out and even if we say that we can stop it, if we hand over powers and then find that it does not work out and has nasty consequences for immigrants and for us, there is nothing we can do about it.

Mr. Marlow

If we agree with other European countries that we are going to hand decision-making to Europe and there is ratification in all 12 countries, it becomes European policy. Is my hon. Friend not saying that once it has become European policy, we can never take it back? If my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary disagrees, will my hon. Friend give way to him and let him make his point?

Sir Teddy Taylor

Of course I will. We should know what we are doing. If under article K.9, we hand over the right to decide, we do not have the power unilaterally to change any subsequent decision.

A third important point to bear in mind is that the forum for and type of decision-making in the European Community is different from that of the House. There are 12 member states and, inevitably, gaining acceptance for one policy might mean needing support in a different area of policy, perhaps on financial control or food. That will mean that issues are not decided on their merits.

If anyone doubts that, let him ask himself why Britain and France recognised Croatia, which has unfortunately created terrible problems in Yugoslavia. We knew that to do so was contrary to our policy; we knew that it was wrong and silly and that the Croats were not in control of their country. We also knew that, by so doing, we created fear and panic among the Serbs. However, the Germans wanted our support for unrelated matters, and they got it. The point is that the pattern of decision-making is different.

In all sincerity, I ask the Home Secretary to accept that something serious is happening. I hope that he will accept that if we pass powers to another body which then makes decisions which we find damaging, we can do nothing.

Let us stick to article 100c. In his interesting speech, the Home Secretary said, "Don't worry about article 100c, there's nothing much in it". He said that we were merely to have a harmonised visa certificate, one or two changes. If that means only that every European state is to have the same visa form, what is the advance in that? How does it help anyone in the world if 12 countries have the same forms printed in the same language? Presumably it will cost something to produce them, but where is the benefit? This is the Home Secretary's proposal, so I should like him to tell us the advantage of having the same form with the same words over the present words. I can see none.

As the Minister said, sometimes I do not read things carefully enough. I see that the splendid Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is here—he reads things carefully and sometimes reads treaties. What is the advantage of having a common visa form? There must be a reason for it.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

If my hon. Friend were to have detailed discussions with senior officials of Interpol and Europol, he would learn that they would be very much in favour of a common procedure which would help to increase security and safety and to reduce criminality in all member states, including Britain.

Sir Teddy Taylor

It would be different if we were to have proper control of visas but that is not what the Home Secretary said. He said that we were to have a common format. How does that help security, the police or Interpol? How does it help to all use the same words instead of the French and British having their own little visa forms? I see no great advantage. If I have missed something, or if the Foreign Office knows something that I do not, I hope that it will tell us.

We are being asked to approve that measure today.It will cost something; I do not know how much and the Government always underestimate. Surely there is supposed to be some benefit in changing the forms. The Home Secretary should tell us what it is. We need money for many things, and the Government are up to their ears in debt. I am told that borrowing is now an amazing £1 billion a week, so we should be watching expenditure. If the Home Secretary wants us to agree to the proposal, will he please tell us the advantages?

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South)

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), I think that I am right in saying—it can be checked later—that Interpol has specifically stated that Europol is a waste of time.

Sir Teddy Taylor

I do not want to get on to the issue of Europol because it would be outside the terms of the debate. The Home Secretary said that he knew all the answers, so I wish that he would intervene. He has said that the introduction of a common visa form was one of only two changes; will he tell us the advantage?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

If my hon. Friend had found the time to read the selection paper, he would know that it was in order to discuss Europol. It was debated earlier when he was unfortunately unable to be with us.

There are advantages for efficiency, although not great advantages, in having a visa document which looks the same issued by the 12 states. It is a small matter of convenience and efficiency. I said earlier that it was not a great matter, and it is not one about which most people would get as steamed up as my hon. Friend. He has finally got himself in order and spoken about something of relevance to the treaty of Maastricht. Does he feel so passionately about this instrument of our national sovereignty that the form for British visas should look different from that used by the other 11? Is that what makes his heart beat faster?

The Chairman

The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) has been perfectly in order all the afternoon.

Sir Teddy Taylor

The Home Secretary is trying to answer my questions with his usual insults. First, he says that I voted for the Single European Act, which I did not; then he says that I was not here, whereas I have attended regularly. Why did the Home Secretary not answer my question? I hope he will think about that. I said, "You are forcing us to use a common form. What is the advantage? What benefit will there be?" Apart from flinging insults, which seems to be his normal style when dealing with serious and important issues, the Home Secretary has not given one reason. I hope that the House—

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)

rose—

Sir Teddy Taylor

Perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will give us a reason.

Mr. Randall

One good reason is that in order to detect crime one needs information, and to obtain that we need computer data bases. One of the key requirements for that is to have information in a common format, so as to put it into the computer systems. That can be used to target crime of all kinds.

Sir Teddy Taylor

The hon. Gentleman may be misleading himself. Everything can be put into computers whether the same forms are used or not. If someone is interviewed and asked, "Do you want a visa?", the same information can be included anyway. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. He thinks that we shall have a common format for applications. No, there is no suggestion that we shall have the same application form, or that everyone will answer the same questions—so the information will not fit into the computer at all. The French may ask different questions.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

There is a reason, and it runs right through the whole scope of the treaties—to give visible expression to the Euro-state. We have seen that with passports—that was supposed to be a trivial matter, too—and now we see it in the form of a common visa certificate. We are seeing the standardisation, harmonisation and aggrandisation of the concept of the Euro-state.

Sir Teddy Taylor

My hon. Friend watches such developments, and he has hit the nail on the head. We find that almost everything being done now, in Maastricht and elsewhere, has the purpose of establishing the concept of a European state.

Something even more significant is involved here. Article 100c goes even further than the Home Secretary said. Time and again I have asked—

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

The Home Secretary has just told us that the matter of the visas is not a big thing. However, his predecessor said the exact opposite. The previous Home Secretary said in the House: In the event, as the House will know, only two immigration matters will be taken into Community competence; first, a substantive one". And what is that substantive matter? It is the very matter that the present Home Secretary now dismisses as nothing: —the common visa list—which is the agreement on the countries whose nationals would require visas for entry to the Community: and secondly, the more technical question of the format of a common visa."—[Official Report, 2 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 26.] The previous Home Secretary considered those substantive matters, but now when the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) tries to argue about them they are dismissed.

Sir Teddy Taylor

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. I want the Committee to remember that I have asked the Home Secretary and the supporters of the Bill what possible benefit of any sort will come from what appears to be a significant change—the use of the same form with the same words—and we have had no answer at all.

5.15 pm

Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

I do not know whether this would be considered a benefit, but if there is a standard form of words, giving a standard form of rights to the visa holder, the matter will be construed and interpreted by the European Court of Justice. Once that happens, our present power under British law to restrict the people coming into this country would no longer exist as a power that we can exercise through the British courts as the final arbiter of rights. Instead, the European Court of Justice would arbitrate. That is a wonderful example of the way in which we are letting power slip away from the nation state to the European Court of Justice, which has repeatedly said that it is the creature of the union. That is what I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East really fears.

Sir Teddy Taylor

My hon. and learned Friend is so right. I hope that hon. Members will listen to every word that he says. We are doing something stupid, bureaucratic, nonsensical and unnecessary—unnecessary, that is, unless, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, the single form is required because it will carry single benefits and single entitlements and rights. My hon. and learned Friend hit the nail on the head. I am sure that he is right. But if he is not, no other reason has been put forward.

The Home Secretary says that we should not worry about article 100c because there is nothing much in it. Yet we shall pass over to the EC—by majority voting, after 1996—the right to decide which people need visas. That is supposed to be of no significance. They will be sitting around the table—let them decide by majority voting. Well, I believe that it matters quite a bit.

Until now this country has decided which countries we wish to be subject to visa requirements. We have taken into account all kinds of considerations. With the Caribbean, for example, the considerations have included our long-standing friendship, and the Commonwealth connection. One of the other countries affected will be the United States of America. At present we do not need visas to go there, and a lot of us think that that fact is important—some may think that it is not—for establishing the continuing bonds between Britain and the United States. The plain fact is that after 1996 that will all be scrapped. The Home Secretary may say that I am talking rubbish or nonsense, or being silly, but I beseech him to look at the list.

I happen to have a copy of the list of proposals published by the Schengen countries. No doubt the Home Secretary will say that that will be different from the EC list, but the Schengen countries are substantial, and following their discussions they published a list. We also have the Government's list. If we look under the letter B we discover that the proposals involve visas for countries such as Bahrain, Belize and Barbados, which are not on the list of countries for which we now require visas. Those are just three countries, but they are rather important ones.

Hon. Members should be aware that after 1996 it will not be the Government who determine the places where visas are required. If a majority of EC countries say that they want or do not want visas for certain places, there will be nothing that the House of Commons can do about it, even if 630 Members say, "This is shocking. We do not want a visa for that country", or "We do want a visa for that country." Our wishes will be irrelevant and powerless.

Maastricht is clearly the end of the road, but the prospect of the powers of the House fading away would not matter so much if they were going somewhere over which the people had some control. That would not matter two hoots.

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend is making a great issue of the idea that once we have surrendered powers to a European institution we cannot get them back. If it were unanimously decided that we should transfer the items under article K.1(1) to (9) to Community control, and then we ratified the transfer in the House of Commons after a debate, or a late-night vote, would it not be open to the House at a later stage to take those powers back by holding another debate, and another vote?

Sir Teddy Taylor

I cannot reply to that question in detail, because much wider issues would be involved—the same issues that are involved when people ask, "Can Parliament pass a law to withdraw from the EC?" To answer that question would be to stray from the debate. But I can tell my hon. Friend that the only case law on the subject involves Greenland, which was linked to the EC, as we all recall. The only way in which Greenland could get out of the EC, after an election, was not to pass a law in the Greenland Parliament, but to ask all the member states to pass a law allowing Greenland to leave. I do not want to go into that big issue now, but my hon. Friend should be aware that there is a great difference of view on whether Britain would have that right. I think that we would not. I do not think that it would be possible for Britain to withdraw from the EC or any of the obligations unless every other state passed a law to allow us to do so. That is the view that I have always taken, and if there is any doubt about it, Greenland provides the example. The other countries had to pass a law, and Greenland had to give up many of its fishing grounds, which it greatly regretted.

Apparently, the first aspect does not matter at all, because the Home Secretary could not give us a reason for it. However, the second aspect is rather more important, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that. If, for reasons of friendship or co-operation, for the sake of improved relations, or because of an emergency, we wanted to operate a regime between us and another country whereby visas would not be needed, we should no longer have that power. It would have gone. If we do not like what the Europeans do by majority vote, too bad.

What about the people of Britain? If we introduced visas for the United States, some of them might be angry. They might send letters to their Members of Parliament; they might demand a debate in the House of Commons. They might even take the matter into account in an election—but what is the point? Their views do not matter, and they will have no influence on these events at all.

This is an important democratic issue. Hon. Members will recall that higher interest rates were forced on us by the exchange rate mechanism, despite mass unemployment in this country—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is developing his argument extremely widely now.

Sir Teddy Taylor

I shall come to my final point then, Mr. Morris.

The Home Secretary says that there is nothing much to these matters. He is sure that the lists will be drawn up by sensible people in a way that we will like. The fact is that that may not happen. I plead with him to remember what happened with article 8a. We know that the Commission takes a view of that article wholly different from the Government's. The Home Secretary said in a statement issued in September 1992: Nothing has been decided and there is much more work to be done. We agreed that our officials should continue to work on the details. Article 8a means the abolition of frontiers, just as I said that it would at the time of the Single European Act. It is not just a matter of people being able to visit Britain after having obtained a visa for Italy. Everyone will have the right to reside or visit. We should remember the number of refugees in Germany—they will all be able to come here, without restriction. That has not happened yet because it has not yet gone to the court. The Home Secretary has had discussions with Mr. Bangemann, and although he is no longer in his post, someone else is, and it is hoped that something will be done. We have all heard about the waving of passports, known as the Bangemann wave. If we lose the case at the court, all our discussions about controls will fade into insignificance. People wanting to come to this country will need no visas if they come from any other European country.

We know that the Italian controls are practically non-existent and that Greek controls—apart from at Athens, where they are tight—are limited.

Although the Commission has threatened us with proceedings in court, it has apparently now agreed not to go ahead pending discussions. Still, I believe that individuals could take us to court. If they do, it will be catastrophic. Perhaps then the people of Britain will realise that our controls have gone. The Home Secretary is well aware that that could happen, but he will say that he hopes it will not.

All this arises out of article 8a, even though we were told at the time that there was no need to worry about it —that we would still have complete control over immigration. I ask the Home Secretary to acknowledge that this House has been misled time and again. Anyone who says that article 100c will not inevitably lead to visitors—unless they are identified beforehand as terrorists —being able to enter this country from every other European country is kidding himself. The Minister has told us not to worry—that the article does not entail that at all. The Minister will say that someone visiting France on a visa will not be able to get into Britain automatically. What should I tell people who want to visit Britain after 1996? Should they go to the French embassy and ask for a visa? Should they also go to the British embassy and ask for one? The implications of the common visa and of the wording of the treaty as it touches on common external frontiers are clear. The Government say that they reserve the right to refuse people entry if they are criminals or terrorists. If the Minister thinks that article 100c does not matter, I ask him to look back at 8a.

I know that the Home Secretary has been through the nightmare of discussions with Bangemann and others. All this is very frightening, after all. What is proposed is dangerous, silly, damaging to our democracy and potentially damaging to the good race relations that we have in this country. The measure is unclear and imprecisely worded—and it carries with it the same sort of dangers that we said would arrive in the wake of article 8a and the Single European Act.

Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East)

I am delighted that the Opposition have tabled an amendment to delete article 100c. We need to stop beating about the bush. Article 100c exists to keep black people out of Europe—and to keep Arabs and Russians out of Europe. The intent behind it is racist, and it will create an operational structure that is racist, building on trends that already exist. That is why I am proud to go into the Lobby to vote against this racist measure, and to join my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in so doing.

Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles)

How does my hon. Friend square what he has just said with the argument of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that article 100c would allow an influx of people to the United Kingdom? Who is right and who is wrong about the significance of 100c?

Mr. Livingstone

It would certainly allow anyone in Europe to come here—that is the fear that seizes some Conservative Members. Large numbers of Germans, for instance, might want to come here. Why Germans would want to come and enjoy our lower standard of living is beyond me. It is of course inconceivable that anyone on benefits in Germany would want to come here to increase his standard of living. This is not really about what happens inside Europe: it is about creating a barrier around Europe. It is a move towards fortress Europe, and the people who will suffer are those outside it.

I am always amazed by the naivety of so many Labour federasts, who keep pointing to all those dreadful Tories who pass all this awful racist legislation but who believe that, as soon as Maastricht is in place, everything will be wonderful and all the wicked legislation will be overturned. There are historic trends towards racism in Europe, and this House has pandered to them under Tory and Labour Governments—and Maastricht panders to them further.

Mr. Bill Walker

If the fortress Europe that the hon. Gentleman envisages become reality, is it not possible that people from South Africa who may want to come here if life gets extremely difficult there—I have written letters today about the grandchildren of Scots who want to return here—may be kept out?

Mr. Livingstone

Defending white racists from South Africa who deserted this country for a better standard of living from the efforts of black people and who think that they should be welcomed back here with open arms will not be top of my list of priorities for the rest of this decade. They made their bed; now they must lie in it.

Mr. Walker

The Scottish missionaries will be delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. Livingstone

I must tell—

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the 8 million or 9 million British citizens living in Commonwealth countries would experience little difficulty returning to any member state, including the United Kingdom? He is absolutely right to say that this provision is about creating a fortress Europe to ensure that as few black and Asian people as possible are allowed in. Is it not also deeply offensive that the 8 million non-EC nationals, predominantly black and Asian, will face grave difficulties in exercising their rights to free movement within the EC under this measure?

Mr. Livingstone

That is a worrying point. Black British people who travel to Europe are often already subject to appalling harassment by the French police as soon as they get off the boat. In the delegation that went to lobby on these matters at Maastricht, white British people were allowed straight through without being harassed, but even in Maastricht itself black Labour party members demonstrating against the treaty were subjected to considerable harassment. One of the problems as we move inevitably towards European union is that, although I am critical of the inadequacy of Britain's race laws, they are infinitely superior to anything on the stocks in Europe. Black Britons will find themselves disadvantaged and discriminated against in Europe on a scale that they thought they had got over in Britain.

Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham)

What is even more outrageous is that, in discussing Maastricht and all its industrial political and economic ramifications, the British Government have not even thought about the effect of the treaty and the Single European Act on black British citizens. Is that not a dereliction of duty?

5.30 pm

Mr. Livingstone

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The interests of black Britons have been left completely off the agenda in all these discussions and negotiations.

Mr. Macdonald

I do not understand my hon. Friend's argument. Surely black British citizens face great difficulty when they visit the continent because they have to deal with all sorts of passport controls. The whole point of the legislation is to remove those controls and make it illegal for them to be harassed when they try to enter other countries.

Mr. Livingstone

I was speaking not only about black British people being harassed at passport control but about the people who accompanied my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) who led the activities in Maastricht. Those people were harassed on the streets by the police zeroing in on them. Most of the other European countries have not given their immigrants equal rights. They have not given them the vote or protection.

One of my closest colleagues went to lecture to West German Social Democrats shortly before unification. The lecture and the debate was about what parties of the left should be doing for women. My colleague asked those who were, I suppose, the most progressive members of that party, the sort of people with whom we find ourselves in agreement, what programmes they had instituted for Turkish women who were living there, some of them for 20 to 30 years. The reply was, "We don't do anything: they will be going home one day." That is how much further many of our European partners have to go to catch up with even the limited anti-racist measures in this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made a brilliant speech. I do not think that he could see the approval, the absolutely elated look, on the faces of Home Office civil servants in the Box behind the Chair. They were nodding enthusiastically as my hon. Friend gave the most clear exposition of Government policy that we could have heard. The Home Secretary was nodding. He was clearly delighted, because, as he has told us, he has not read the treaty and could not have done anything like as good a job as my hon. Friend.

One almost had the feeling of watching an American gangster movie in which Mr. Big sits and beams with delight as his bright young protege announces some new way of ripping off society and making them rich. It was like coalition government, and a perfect defence of the Government's position.

Mr. Blair

My hon. Friend is ribbing me for agreeing with the Home Secretary. How does he feel about being in agreement with the noble Baroness Thatcher and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)?

Mr. Livingstone

My hon. Friend would find it interesting to go to the Library and look at the volumes of Hansard containing the debate on the Bill dealing with Kenya Asians in 1968. That was one of the most disgraceful periods in Parliament's history: overnight, after a wave of hysteria and racism in Britain, we stripped black British citizens of their right to come to this country. The legislation was overwhelmingly carried. Who was in the Lobby against it? There was a handful of left wingers and some honest right-wing Tories who thought that it was a disgrace.

Sir Teddy Taylor

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the intervention by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was sickening and irrelevant to the important issue? Although he and I fundamentally disagree on almost every political issue, at least we both believe in the preservation of democracy. That is what is important.

Mr. Livingstone

Another consensus on the Front Benches is to make the whole debate so obscure that the British people do not know what is happening. That is why they are united on not letting the British people choose.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield spoke glowingly about the way that the Danish Government had consulted their people. He took so many interventions from my hon. Friends that he could not fit mine in. I wanted to ask why he spoke so glowingly of the Government of Denmark trusting its people when our Front Bench lines up behind the Government in an agreement not to trust the British people. If the treaty is so wonderful, why can the British people not decide on the issues?

Mr. Marlow

The hon. Gentleman may have one view on immigration policy—that is his privilege—and I may have a totally different view; I presume that is my privilege. We might vehemently disagree with each other, but the one thing on which we totally agree is that immigration policy should be decided in this Parliament.

Mr. Livingstone

I do not want to break this bipartisanship, but at the end of the day I am not terribly concerned about where it is decided. My concern is to defeat racist immigration policy. Therefore, I would have voted against all the immigration measures of the past 30 years, and I shall vote against this measure, because it will make it even more difficult for black people to get into this country. If I thought for a minute that the Maastricht treaty was progressive, I would vote for it, but I did not enter politics to vote to give bankers the right to run Europe.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would clearly explain the coalition between himself and some of his hon. Friends and what he called the honest right wing of the Conservative party. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said that he is against article 100c because it takes away our right to exclude people from this country and would open the door to unlimited immigration. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) says that he is against 100c because it is designed to exclude black people who would otherwise come here.

If either of them looked at 100c, they would see that it does not bear at all on the right to decide who comes to this country or on immigration control. Could they agree that one of them must be wrong? What is the reason for the objection to 100c that this hard-left, hard-right coalition somehow agree to see between the lines?

Mr. Livingstone

Not only does the Home Secretary not read the Maastricht treaty: he does not listen to his colleagues. They object because they believe in the nation state and in the right of the British people to determine these matters. I oppose it because I am opposed to racism wherever it raises its head. Those are the issues that will put us in the same Lobby.

When someone is in the Lobby only he knows why he is voting that way. I do not have the slightest qualm about that. I have found myself in the Lobby with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on one or two occasions, but I imagine that neither he nor I would wish to tell our constituents too much about that. We were there because we believed that something was wrong. The reasons were irrelevant, because at the end of the day what matters is how one votes. I am voting against 100c because it is racist, and that is it.

While listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, I was struck by the number of times that I have been involved in debating about high principle and policies and been carried away by it all. I came out thinking that I had achieved something, but six months later I asked myself, "What has happened to it? How was it translated into reality?"—because that is a different matter. I have sat on committees that took decisions which we thought were great, but a year later nothing had filtered its way down through the dross.

Our debates in Committee have to be considered in the context of what is happening outside, who administers the policy and who makes the day-to-day decisions. How will the immigration officer interpret what we say against the long background of tradition on how we approach these matters?

I am not happy with the origins of the measure. Many of my more naive colleagues pop up and down at party meetings and speak about awful happenings at Trevi, saying that this legislation will drag them all out into the open. It will not. Nothing in the treaty will bring Trevi decisions into the open so that they can be debated in Parliament, and to imagine that that will happen is an illusion. The treaty will legitimise what is discussed in private in Trevi. In effect, the situation is worse, because the structure includes the Schengen group, which has its own tightly defined agenda. Its members also attend Trevi meetings and dominate them.

People in the Labour party have been complaining for years that a party within a party can have disproportionate effects. That is why Militant was expelled. Half a dozen people can agree in private and dominate a bigger meeting because they work together. That is happening in Trevi. The reality is that, if there was anything of which the Government could be proud, they would publish it.

What happens at Trevi? Representatives from each of the Twelve sit around and decide how to keep people out of Europe. They work out which country has the most restrictive policy to keep Arabs, for example, out of Europe, and they all adopt it as the norm. They work out which has the most restrictive policy to keep people from the Caribbean out of Europe, and they all adopt it as the norm. That is why the meetings are not public. It is the most disgusting exercise of hidden racism that we have witnessed in recent years. I am not surprised that the Trevi group is not prepared publicly to state what is happening, or to open its meetings to the press and the public.

What is Trevi there to do? We need only to look at the list of policy areas that it considers—it is an insult. It discusses terrorism, arms, rabies, AIDS and immigrants. What does that list say about those who participate in Trevi and how they perceive immigrants to Europe? Immigrants are dealt with in a group whose remit is to tackle AIDS, terrorism and rabies. That does not fill me with enthusiasm about what Trevi discusses. I am happy to give way to the Home Secretary if he will say that he is prepared either to publish the details of those meetings or to argue at the next meeting that Trevi's meetings should be held in public.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I am incredulous about the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary list. Trevi does not consider immigration—it is a group of Security Ministers. A separate ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers discusses immigration matters, but not in the terms described by the hon. Gentleman. His conspiracy theory misleads him. I do not know what he was reading a moment ago, but it was certainly not a description of the Trevi group, which does not have immigration within its terms of reference.

Mr. Livingstone

I am not at all surprised that those Ministers meet as a sub-group of Trevi. If the Home Secretary is so happy with its meetings, let them be in public. They are vital to the interests of the British people.

Let no one on the Labour Benches think that voting for Maastricht will open up that little nest; it will just institutionalise Trevi's secretiveness. What is decided at Trevi will be steamrollered through, and the House will have little opportunity—

Mr. Blair

Perhaps my hon. Friend would confirm that what happens in Trevi is happening now. It already exists. If it is wrong, it is wrong now, irrespective of Maastricht.

All that article 100c does is to lay down a procedure for agreeing those countries from which visas are required for their nationals and also a common format for the visa. Can my hon. Friend explain why co-operation on those matters is so appalling and must lead to racism? For the life of me, I cannot see that.

Mr. Livingstone

I am glad that my hon. Friend reminds me of that point, which is the very point that I raised yesterday, when I eventually managed to intervene in his speech. Having had so many interventions from his Labour colleagues last night, my hon. Friend staggered out of the Chamber saying, "If I had known it was going to be like that, I would have worn my shinpads."

Mrs. Dunwoody

Would my hon. Friend point out that the Schengen list includes Belize? Those of us who are concerned about the right of Commonwealth citizens to come here can only assume that, if that list is extended throughout the Community, the effect on them will be clear, damaging and unacceptable.

Mr. Livingstone

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

What worries me most about article 100c is a phrase that I mentioned yesterday in my intervention: a threat of a sudden inflow". That clearly shows how the drafters of Maastricht see the people of the third world—a threat. That underlies the whole logic of the article. I fail to understand how anyone who professes to have any degree of socialism or even any commitment to social justice could vote for a treaty that includes such a phrase. It is blatantly racist. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield is grimacing, but that is what I believe. Anyone who is not prepared to vote against the treaty is acceding to racism and even supporting it.

Even if everything else in the treaty was wonderful, would still vote against it because of that phrase in article 100c. Those of us who represent communities with large numbers of immigrants know how things work today, and we know that the treaty will make that worse. We are already operating an immigration policy—which, to our shame, has been accepted and perpetuated by past Labour Governments. There has been 30 years of pandering to racism and introducing more and more restrictions to prevent people from coming to this country.

After housing, the second largest number of complaints I get from my constituents is about immigration policy. Those of us who represent areas with mixed communities know that, if one of our constituents married a white person from Australia, New Zealand or America, that partner would be in this country within weeks, if not days. If that constituent married someone from India or the Caribbean, it could be three years, four years or never before that partner was admitted to this country.

5.45 pm

That is the context in which we must consider the treaty. It does not start with a blank sheet of paper; it is laid on top of what already exists. It is a clear sign that the nations of Europe view people outside as a threat. We could not find any organisation among the black or brown people of Britain that does not see the proposal as a fortress Europe to exclude those from outside, to keep the wealth of Europe away from the third world and to keep the people of Europe pure from a threat of a sudden inflow", as the treaty puts it.

I should be happy to give way to any hon. Member who could interpret that phrase in any other way. It is an attitude that we have seen before, including in the House.

Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North)

The European Community comprises only 12 nations. Outside the Community, there are many other nations in central and eastern Europe—including, of course, the former Soviet Union. I suspect that the reference to "a threat" in the treaty is concerned mainly not with countries outside Europe, but with the other countries of Europe where there may be severe problems, such as civil war. I think that that is what article 100c is all about.

Mr. Livingstone

I am not interested in defending only the people of the third world; I am also interested in defending the citizens of Russia. If a civil war breaks out in Russia or the Ukraine, should we send people back to die?

Mr. Radice

I was trying to correct my hon. Friend, who was directing his remarks purely towards the third world. I am trying to bring him a little more in touch with the reality of Europe at the moment.

Mr. Livingstone

When we talk to French politicians, it is obvious that their obsession is with the peoples of north Africa and the number of Arabs coming to Europe. I imagine that, in Germany, the obsession is with the east. In Britain, some politicians are obsessed with people from India, Pakistan, Africa and the Caribbean. Obsessions differ as we move around different parts of Europe, but at the end of the day the attitude is the same—keep them out.

Mr. Winnick

I know that my hon. Friend is not especially concerned about the nation state, but does he accept that the virtue of being, so far, an independent country is that we can decide our policies on immigration, whether negative—as, unfortunately, most of them are —or otherwise? If the treaty becomes law, we will talk about the issue, but the final decision will be made elsewhere.

Does my hon. Friend accept that those Labour Members who believe in the nation state are far from being racist? Like my hon. Friend, they are anti-racist. Some of them, including me, voted against the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, which took away the rights of so many people who should have been allowed to come here. There were 61 of us, most of them Labour Members.

Mr. Livingstone

My hon. Friend is right. In this Chamber, we can fight against racist immigration policies, but under the Maastricht treaty, such policies will be decided bureaucratically. Ministers will come back to the House saying that they did their best but were outvoted, that they would have used their veto but we might have had money taken away from us as a result.

Mr. Bernie Grant

I agree with my hon. Friend's interpretation. The threats talked about by Le Pen, Jacques Chirac and others are posed by people of a different colour and culture. Is that not borne out by the fact that it is the clear intention to expand the EC to take on board countries such as Russia, Czechoslovakia and Poland, so that the people of those countries will not be seen as a threat? Therefore, the only threat that would be perceived would be from people of colour, not from people in eastern and central Europe.

Mr. Livingstone

A clear strategy is emerging, whereby the Nordic countries, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, perhaps Slovakia, will quickly be brought in. Many eastern European nations will be brought in, largely to provide cheap labour. As they come in, I suspect that restrictions on people from the third world will become stronger day by day.

Mr. Marlow

Is it not a matter of fascination and note that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), the Wykehamist old boy, intervened and, being more European than Mr. Delors himself, justified article 100c on the basis that it could be used by Europeans such as himself to keep Europeans out of Europe?

Mr. Livingstone

I find myself broadly in agreement with that. It is sad that, after years of defeat, years of being in opposition, and years of being ignored, Jacques Delors popped up at the Trades Union Congress, and the trade union movement was so delighted that someone in government somewhere would talk to them that they suddenly thought that Europe was the road to socialism —overlooking the fact that socialism is achieved by struggle. It is not handed down by European bureaucrats, any more than it is handed down by British bureaucrats. The whole Labour movement has gone mad and wild. They have disappeared so far up Mr. Delors' fundament that only the soles of their feet are visible.

Mr. Macdonald

On the implication of the sudden inflow of nationals, which my hon. Friend says clearly applies to persons from the Caribbean, India or Pakistan, he will see that article 100c, paragraph 2, concerns the need to introduce a visa requirement for countries which previously did not have such a requirement. The list of countries requiring visas produced by the Schengen countries includes the Caribbean countries, India and Pakistan, and so on, and likewise with the United Kingdom list of countries whose nationals require a visa to enter this country.

Therefore, paragraph 2 cannot apply to those countries, because their nationals already require a visa to enter Britain or the EC. It must be directed at countries whose nationals do not presently require a visa—for example, Poland—where there might be some civil disruption which necessitated EC countries producing a visa requirement to cope with that emergency.

Mr. Livingstone

My hon. Friend is right. The present system is appalling, and this will make it worse. We have seen what has happened under visa restrictions. During the past few years, the Government have introduced visa restrictions for Sri Lankans, with the result that the flow of refugees from Sri Lanka has dried up. They could not get here. How could they? How can one obtain a visa while fleeing death? A person about to be bumped off cannot stand outside the British High Commission waiting for it to open in the hope of obtaining a visa to get out of the country. People escaping countries do so without visas or with false passports.

Then the Government introduced visa requirements for Ugandans, despite that holocaust, and that flow of refugees dried up. Then they did it for the Kurds and that flow dried up. Then they did it for the Yugoslavians, with the exception of people from Slovenia and Croatia, and that flow of people dried up. Visas are used to keep people out. They are used to prevent genuine refugees from coming here.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a deep strain of authoritarianism runs through the treaty? Just as the laws could be manipulated to work in the direction that he has described, so it would be perfectly possible, under the authoritarianism that underpins the system, for them to be manipulated to work in the other direction.

Once such powers have been handed over, and, as some people may have noted, the European Court, after certain procedures under article K.6 had been followed, could take up the running of all this, not only might the system deprive our own Parliament and people of making decisions, but the decisions could be taken with increasing authority at the centre, by the unelected bureaucrats in the EC.

Mr. Livingstone

I agree. However, the problem is that one does not get much joy now from this Government when trying to obtain visas. We are already in an appalling situation. My worry is that it will get much worse. It is difficult enough to persuade this Government to allow someone into the country without having to trundle off and raise such issues in Brussels, where everyone will be passing the buck, blaming the Council of Ministers, and saying that a decision was not their fault and that they would have liked it to go the other way. That is the problem.

If the Maastricht treaty created a democratic Europe, that would unite people across Europe. Instead, it is a treaty that creates bureaucracy and rule by bankers. I fail to see how anyone on the left of the political spectrum —after, in the case of some of my colleagues, 20, 30 or 40 years of struggle for social justice—could say, "Here we are—Nirvana. The bloody German bankers are going to

What nonsense. That would be to turn our back on everything that we had fought to achieve as a party. Not only is that the situation, but have people looked at the voting system for the central bank? It is not one vote per country, but one vote—

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is entertaining, but it would help the debate if he returned to the amendment.

Mr. Livingstone

Decisions in the Council of Ministers about who should and should not obtain visas might one day be made under the same voting system as that for the central bank, so that the vote will be weighted by gross national product and population, with one nation having 25 per cent. of the votes. I hope that that will not happen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield made the most impressive presentation of Government policy that I have heard for a long time. He drew our attention to what has happened to asylum seekers during the past 20 years. He told us that, in 1972, 13,000 asylum seekers applied to come to Europe, and virtually all were granted admission. Last year, 600,000 applied, but only 20 per cent. were granted admission. I should have loved him even more if he had developed that argument to explain why.

Much of the argument on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill and now on the Maastricht treaty and article 100c is based on the concept of the economic migrant who is abusing the situation. Many people who have been in politics for a long time will remember having struggled to get out of the country some trade unionist from El Salvador who was under threat of assassination, or some opposition leader who was being threatened by some brutal dictatorship somewhere.

That is the concept of asylum that we have in the back of our minds. The United Nations definition of an asylum seeker is someone who is in fear of persecution. As the world has changed, those seeking asylum in Britain have come from areas of armed conflict. They did not come because our social security system is the envy of the world —that is about 30 years out of date. If that were their motive, they would go to Germany, which pays decent rates.

Applicants to enter Britain come from areas convulsed by violent struggle—Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and Ethiopia. Often, they come from countries to which we have supplied arms, or with which we have some historic colonial link. They are not economic migrants, but people running in fear of their lives.

Let us consider the closest European conflict. The United Nations definition does not, we are told, apply to such people and to the 600,000 that I mentioned. Surely someone is in fear of persecution if that person is a Muslim woman being kept in a camp in Bosnia and raped daily by Serbian guards as part of a systematic campaign of terror and intimidation. I would say that such a person is a refugee, whether or not she fits neatly into the United Nations definition. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield had gone on to argue that the United Nations definition was much too narrow.

Mr. Blair

If my hon. Friend will refer to column 1097 of yesterday's Official Report, he will see that I made precisely the same point. I said that many people not directly classified as refugees by the United Nations, because they are not subject to individual persecution under the United Nations convention, are none the less in desperate danger because of ethnic conflict or civil war. I made precisely the point that my hon. Friend accuses me of not making.

6 pm

Mr. Livingstone

I am delighted to hear that, and I shall be pleased to give way again so that my hon. Friend can explain how article 100c will assist such people to obtain asylum. Does he genuinely believe that the European bureaucrats will be more humane? Does he believe that the Council of Ministers, meeting in secret, will open its arms in a way that national Governments are not doing now?

Mr. Blair

Article 100c has nothing to do with asylum. That is dealt with by article K—and one does not even get to article K unless there is unanimous agreement. My hon. Friend may carry on making his point about article 100c, but it does not deal with the issue that he is raising.

Mr. Livingstone

We have seen that, whenever the Community reaches a crunch point, with half a dozen issues outstanding, there is a trade-off. The defence made so far in the debate is that unanimity is required, and that Britain will be able to operate its veto. What will happen in a crisis, when Britain's budget rebate may be at stake? Several other countries around the table could say, "If you are not prepared to drop the unanimity rule, we will vote not to renew your budget rebate."

That is exactly the kind of horse trading that we have seen in the Council of Ministers and at European summits. Our veto is not guaranteed for all time. A point will be reached at which a British Government will be prepared to surrender their veto, and that will be the end of it.

Mr. Marlow

Article K.3(2) states that the Council may On the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission, in the areas referred to in Article K.1(1) to (6)"— which includes asylum policy— (a) adopt joint positions and … (b) adopt joint action in so far as the objectives of the Union can be attained". There is unanimity, but asylum policies can be decided by article K.3(2). It is somewhat surprising that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is not aware of that.

Mr. Livingstone

Nothing is surprising. As was said yesterday in a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), the way that amendments have been submitted, collated, and selected, and the general confusion surrounding all that, makes for extreme difficulties. It comes down to opinion.

I wish that people's optimistic hopes about what the treaty would achieve were right. If so, I would vote for it. However, that is not the world that I know from my experience in local government and after six years in the House. One cannot work on the assumption that one can place the best interpretation on things, or that everyone will act with the best of motives. Usually, exactly the reverse is true: once people put their grubby little hands on a bit of power, they use it in their own interests.

Mr. Cash

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, under not only Court of Justice arrangements but those of another place, proceedings, debates, statements by Ministers, and interpretations placed by Ministers on such measures are likely to be taken into account as travaux préparatoire? Is it not possible that, if some of the statements made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which are matters of interpretation, are proved to be wrong, the Committee may find that it was misled—perhaps in all honesty—because it did not understand what it was doing? As a result, we may find that we are caught in the very traps that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) mentioned.

Mr. Livingstone

The one example used in all law courses about the problems of interpreting laws relates to a matter that is nothing like as complicated as the treaty. In 1968, the House passed the legislation on London Transport, which included a clause saying that the Greater London council should have the power to subsidise fares for whatever purpose. The then Member of Parliament for Finchley explained that that meant that there could be subsidised fare reductions, but when the Law Lords came to examine that legislation, they decided that it meant something completely different. If that is what the Law Lords can do with one simple sentence, I dread to think what they, or the European Court, could do with a treaty of such complexity.

When one compares the Maastricht treaty in all its complexity and deviousness—though perhaps one should not use that word—with the simplicity of the American constitution, one sees what a nightmare is being created for lawyers and judges.

I am drawing to a conclusion. I intended to make only a brief speech, but I received so much support from members of my Front Bench that I kept giving way.

I spoke earlier of the flow of refugees that had dried up as visa restrictions were imposed. As a consequence, of all those who sought asylum in this country every year, only about 30 arrived with visas. That is why the Government introduced carrier liability. One sees Mr. Big sitting on the Government Front Bench, saying, "This is all going to be wonderful," yet what was done by those who preceded him as Home Secretary the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and Lord Waddington? Theirs is a record of restriction and control.

The Government now rely on foreign airlines to act as a policing arm for Britain, to keep refugees out. British immigration officers are sent to other countries to stand by airline desks and persuade airline operators that certain persons should not be allowed to enter Britain. That is the most appalling abuse. British immigration officers are sent to train airline officials in other countries how to decide whom to keep out of Britain. We talk about defending the powers of the House and of the British people, but in practice we are devolving those powers because there is a desire to keep people of colour out of Europe.

Also depressing is the fact that the new Europe will decide which countries are safe. It will be interesting to hear from the Foreign Secretary the thoughts of the Foreign Office on that aspect. The Maastricht treaty will be used to draw up a list of safe and unsafe countries before we decide who we will accept as refugees.

What will happen in the case of Turkey? Will it be decided that Turkey is a safe country because it is part of NATO and an ally—or will those responsible be honest and offend Turkey by saying that it is a very unsafe country if one is a Kurd and has been subject to abuse, bombing, intimidation, and the suppression of one's culture? What nonsense. I suspect that the Foreign Office is not happy about that, and that it sees a nightmare of strange relationships as European Ministers sit down together and decide categories of safe and unsafe nations.

The truth is that at the end of the day this is part of a long degeneration and that is why it has been seized upon so eagerly by both Front Benches.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will have adversely affected his Front Bench team's opportunities of being selected in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reshuffle, but I recognise that the Con-Lab Front Bench in this matter has thrown out of the window any regard for the power of the vote, the historic origins of the Labour party, the ability to change laws and hold to account Ministers, Executives and Cabinets for the policies that are the laws of this land.

That is the essence which the whole nonsense of Maastricht contradicts, that is why the House fights and that is why there is an identity on doing down the Bill, when both Front Benches are indistinguishable and are now jockeying to be included in a reshuffle.

Mr. Livingstone

Sadly, I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Labour leadership does not find the Bill objectionable, largely because it has done so much to suppress democracy in the past 10 years. I would not worry about the power of the vote; in the Labour party, we are moving towards one leader, one vote.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I cannot find anywhere in the amendment reference to the Conservative or Labour parties. If we could get back to discussing the amendment, we would make some progress with the Bill.

Mr. Livingstone

I am sorry, Mr. Lofthouse, but I was led astray by an older man.

I see the measure as a further degeneration from a point of principle. Just over 30 years ago, the House debated immigration policy for the first time, when the Macmillan Government proposed restrictions to keep black people out of Britain. Now that the Cabinet papers have been released, we can see that there was a fear of racism and the fear that there would be a backlash. Rather than standing up to that and educating people, the Macmillan Government gave in.

I remember those debates—they were the first of which I was aware. I was 16 at the time, and I saw one figure of principle, Hugh Gaitskell, who opposed that law because it was racist. He believed it was racist, and he said so; he knew that he was alienating voters, but he fought for what he believed was right.

The treaty and the clauses are the result of 30 years of degeneration from that point of principle; 30 years of running in the face of racism rather than standing and challenging it; 30 years of pandering to racism by jacking up entry restrictions. Every time the Labour party has made a concession, racists in society have said that it is still too lax, and restrictions must be still tighter. We have reached a point where that means the most appalling injustice for many citizens of Britain.

If one marries a white person in America, Australia or Canada, that person will be allowed into Britain within days, but one can marry someone from India or Africa and never get them into Britain. Even after two or three children have been born into that marriage, an immigration officer can still say that he thinks it was a marriage of convenience. That is a disaster, and it has done a great deal to undermine morality in British politics.

I am not attacking only the Tory party, although it is marginally worse. I remember that it was a Labour Government who stripped British citizens in Kenya of their right to come to Britain. I sat through five years of Labour government between 1974–79 waiting for them to repeal the Immigration Act 1971 that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) had introduced and that we condemned in opposition but left on the statute book.

I remember reading in the accounts of that time, the biographies and diaries, the response to that wave of racism when Patrick Gordon Walker was defeated in the 1964 election. Were we principled? No. When Sir Frank Soskice, the then Home Secretary, presented a paper about immigration policy to the Labour Cabinet at the end of 1964, he said to the Cabinet: "Let us be absolutely serious about what we are talking about here. If we don't act to stop immigration, within a generation all our people will be coffee-coloured".

The debate on immigration has been a despicable record that besmirches the House. We have given in to reaction again and again and Maastricht is part of that. Finally, as I said earlier, even if everything else in the treaty were wonderful, I would vote against it because of this one clause.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding)

I know, Mr. Lofthouse, that you are keeping a careful check on the length of speeches in debates on the treaty, so I shall attempt to be brief. I wish to make four or five points fairly rapidly.

The outstanding thing about the debate this afternoon has been the fact that no one has stated or acknowledged that the free movement of persons is in itself an enormously desirable objective. Surely the free movement of persons is a great advance in civilisation. It is a desirable and humane objective to which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House should aspire.

6.15 pm

Although I fear that it is not practicable to contemplate the establishment of free movement of human beings all over the planet, at least a regime of free movement of persons throughout western Europe would be a significant advance of civilisation.

There is a great danger that we shall fail to see the wood for the trees and become so bogged down by the detail —constitutional, bureaucratic, administrative or otherwise—that we shall fail to see the great principles enshrined in the treaty and the Bill, which ratifies it. Surely the achievement of the ideal of free movement of persons, which is already enshrined in the Single European Act, is a positive step forward.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay)

I take my hon. Friend's point about the free movement of people, but what will happen if they do not keep moving and all want to settle down and they gravitate to those countries where the benefits are most attractive? Those countries will have to cope financially. That is a practical effect of the free movement of people. What does my hon. Friend think that we can do about that?

Mr. Davies

I know that my hon. Friend shares with me a commitment to free market principles, so surely in the future it is right that people should be able to move. Market principles and constraints will operate so that if everyone wants to install himself in, say, London or Paris, rents will rise and wages will fall because the supply of labour will be greater than demand and people will move away again. Therefore, the natural economic mechanism will work towards equilibrium, even if we never finally achieve it. My hon. Friend should be satisfied by that response as I know she shares my faith in the economic mechanism.

The second thing that struck me about the debate was the suggestion that was almost explicit in the speech by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and was implicit in a number of interventions by Conservative Members, that somehow the establishment of the principle of the free movement of persons in the European Community would compromise the national sovereignty of member states. I thought that that was an extraordinary suggestion.

After all, before 1914 we had free movement of persons in western Europe. One could go to Victoria station and buy a ticket to Paris, Rome, Vienna or Berlin and travel to those places without any bureaucratic let or hindrance and without showing any passport or visa. One can make many comments about the world of pre-1914 Europe, but one thing from which it surely did not suffer was a lack of national sovereignty because we ended up with an appalling fractricidal conflict which was, I suppose, the ultimate proof of national sovereignty.

We need not feel that there is any conflict between the principle of national sovereignty and the free movement of persons. Surely the re-establishment of the free movement that was enjoyed in the civilised world before 1914 is a considerable advance. Thank goodness we can now look forward to it after the unhappy interval of most of the 20th century.

It is also more than a little naive of hon. Members, most of them Conservative, to believe that frontier controls are an effective way of barring the entry of illegal immigrants or criminals, including terrorists. So many millions of people cross internal frontiers in the Community every day that it would be impossible for immigration officers at those frontiers to examine microscopically every passport presented to them and ask the many questions necessary to make the controls effective. The only answer is to have better internal controls, and I hope we shall have them. We must vet social security registers and have more checks on employers suspected of employing illegal immigrant labour.

If we are to make a reality of the free movement of people in the Community—a desirable objective which every humane person supports—we must also strengthen controls on the external frontiers of the Community. I am not satisfied that we should leave it to, say, a Greek immigration officer on the Thracian frontier with Turkey to decide who shall and shall not come into the Community and thereby acquire the right to install himself or herself in Lincolnshire. A successful regime of free movement must be based on the same high standard of control of immigration applying at all external frontiers.

Sir Teddy Taylor

How?

Mr. Davies

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, albeit sedentary, because it gives me the opportunity to come to my final point, which is that we need a mixed-man force of immigration officers who will be responsible for common external frontiers. They should be recruited from all the Community countries and be in the employ of the Community. That will ensure that the same criteria for admission are applied to the same standard and with the same effectiveness throughout the Community.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

This is the first time I have spoken on the Bill and on the treaty on European union, so at the outset I express my appreciation to the British Management Data Foundation Ltd., which was responsible for producing consolidated text without which I would have been in the same difficulty as the Home Secretary, who confessed his problems in coping with the legislation. Like him, I cannot claim to have read and fully digested the entire text, but without the document we would have been floundering.

There has been much discussion about the extent to which decisions on immigration policy would be subject to unanimity or qualified majority and the extent to which the competency of the Community could be extended to cover other matters. Assurances have been given by the Home Secretary and others about there being a double lock on those matters, so that we need not be concerned about whether there are adequate safeguards for national sovereignty and the authority of the British Parliament.

I intervened yesterday to point out that part of the difficulty stemmed from the fact that we did not have in the United Kingdom constitution an adequate procedure for dealing with those issues. We do not have an adequate ratification procedure. What in substance we are doing in these proceedings is ratifying the treaty on European union. We are doing that not by considering the treaty but by debating a short measure of two clauses. To smuggle in the substantive provisions of the treaty on European union, we must go through the elaborate procedure of tabling hundreds of amendments, some of which, according to our procedure, are selected and others are not.

In that context, I agreed with a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the difficulty in following the procedure. Life would be easier and our proceedings would be more coherent if we adopted the sort of procedure followed by other member states by which the treaty is embodied in legislation. Legislators can then discuss the provisions of the treaty in a coherent way.

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Gentleman is dealing with an important point. Titles I, V, VI and VII of the treaty would be dealt with by the prerogative and would not necessarily be susceptible to a Bill. Does he agree that if the Government really believed in Parliament and had put down titles II, III, IV and perhaps part of title VI as schedules to the measure, we could have tabled amendments to those schedules, which would have been the text of the treaty, presenting us with a fair, open and democratic way of conducting these affairs?

Mr. Trimble

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and it would be opportune if, at an appropriate point in the near future, the House considered ways to ensure that we have more effective control not only over treaties but over the issues flowing from them. The hon. Gentleman made an important point in referring to the use of the royal prerogative.

Many Community provisions are operated through the European Council. Governments are represented on that body—they may act by unanimity or qualified majority —and we are assured that, because of the presence of Her Majesty's Government, the national interests of the United Kingdom are protected. But we in Parliament will not have an opportunity to deal with many issues because they can be brought into force with the use of the royal prerogative or existing statutory powers. Only when fresh legislation is required can we have any effective control over what is proposed.

Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe)

Given that we are now on our ninth day and are looking forward to several months of Committee stage, remembering that we started it all many months ago—in other words, we shall spend more time debating the Bill than any other legislature in the Community—may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say, given that he is not satisfied with the degree of attention that it is receiving in the British Parliament, how long would satisfy his needs?

Mr. Trimble

It is a question not of time but of the way in which we are dealing with it. As I said at the outset, we are not proceeding in a coherent manner. We are compelled by our procedures and by the way in which the Bill was drafted to proceed in a crab-like manner, a subject to which I shall return, if the rules of order permit me to deal with the issue.

I was glad yesterday to hear the Home Secretary express surprise that certain documents relating to the convention on frontiers had not been lodged in the Library. He promised to make them available and I am glad that he has done that. If we are to deal effectively with matters arising under the treaty—immigration, security, policing, justice and so on—we must examine the way in which information comes to us, in particular ensuring that it is readily accessible.

6.30 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

There are many aspects of immigration and refugee policy which are, in effect, decided elsewhere by the British Government through the Trevi group and other ad hoc meetings and which become Government policy because of the way in which immigration law is now drafted, which gives almost complete power to the Home Secretary. The hon. Member is pointing to a very pertinent example of a long-term and serious problem with immigration law which will be worse if the Bill goes through.

Mr. Trimble

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not sure that I fully agree with it. However, I certainly agree about the unsatisfactory way in which the Trevi group has operated and I take his point about our Government's policy being decided in those discussions and, consequently, not fully debated here. Perhaps, as a result of those proceedings, we shall move into a slightly better phase and reform our procedures. The fact that the treaty on European union is putting ad hoc arrangements with Trevi on a more formal footing and providing a better basis for them to proceed may give this House, if it changes and adapts its procedures, the opportunity to have some involvement in matters that have hitherto been dealt with through Trevi and other ad hoc groups. So there might be some occasion for improvement, if we so decide, if we address ourselves, as I think we must, to the issue of dealing with policy matters, and if the treaty goes ahead. It is essential for the House to get to grips with the issue.

That was a comment on our discussions yesterday. Our problems would be eased if we had a proper application procedure.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

The hon. Member is making an extremely thoughtful contribution to the debate on this series of amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) talked about the number of hours that the House will debate the Committee stage of the Bill. Is not one problem that the Government cannot afford to allow one amendment to succeed? All the discussions on the Bill, however valuable, can achieve nothing because the Government of this country have agreed to something before it has come to Parliament. Should it not have been the case—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman must surely know that that is a procedural point and nothing to do with the amendment. Mr. David Trimble—

Mr. Winterton

If the hon. Member will allow me to intervene again, I will seek to bring my intervention within order, Mr. Lofthouse. We are dealing with justice, law and order, security and asylum. These are all matters which create tremendous interest in this House and about which most Members feel very strongly. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who led or who was certainly involved with the Greater London council for many years, made a very emotional and impassioned speech. We cannot improve this Bill without the Bill being destroyed. That is the point I am trying to make, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

The First Deputy Chairman

I hope that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will not reply to the procedural point but will stick to the amendment.

Mr. Trimble

I eschew the temptation to reply to that very valuable and interesting intervention. The hon. Member has a fair idea of my views on the matter, but I was reflecting on the difficulties arising because we do not have a procedure for ratification.

Dealing with the relationship between articles 100c and K.9, which was discussed at some length yesterday, another point that occurs to me is that with this procedure, as with so many things in connection with the European Community, we are dealing with a ratchet effect. The Home Secretary said that we do not have to worry, because there will have to be a unanimous decision before various matters move from unanimity to qualified majority. That is all right up to a point, but there only has to be one decision and it is over the dam and never comes back. We only have to have a Minister or a different Government who decide to adopt a different policy and it goes over the dam and moves from unanimity to qualified majority, and it never comes back. That is part of the problem.

I remember many occasions on which the former right hon. Member for Finchley, Baroness Thatcher, used to complain about the attitude within the British body politic about socialism and the ratchet effect. She was determined to unwind that, and succeeded. Unfortunately, it will take a considerable effort to unwind the ratchet effect that is operating here.

Hon. Members have pointed out that much of what we are dealing with here is related to free movement of people and passport and border control provisions. They flowed from the basic concept of the free movement of persons which was written into the original treaty of Rome and was one of its central provisions. If free movement is to be implemented, it produces a common travel area within the entire Community. It is extending to the entire Community the common travel area that exists within the British Isles. Perhaps that is not a very good point or a helpful or encouraging analogy, but basically that is what it is doing.

When people were expressing concern about whether extension of the common travel area would have implications for the powers under the prevention of terrorism Act or exclusion orders to deal with terrorism, the Home Secretary offered reassurance. I should like him to look more closely at that reassurance. He was referring us to paragraph 3 of article 48 of the treaties, which says: It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:". At first sight, that seems to preserve measures such as the prevention of terrorism Act because they come under public security, but paragraph 3 of article 48 is under the heading "Workers" and paragraph 1 of the article is about freedom of movement for workers which shall be secured, and so on. Article 8a, which is about citizenship, will be discussed later. It says: Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory …". There may be a difference of meaning between citizen and worker and I should like the Minister who is to reply to consider that. Am I right in suggesting that the power to have limitation on public security grounds operates only with regard to movement of workers and not with regard to the movement of people who are not workers? I hope that I am not right in that supposition, and I hope that it is possible to have restrictions on public security grounds generally, because they are extremely necessary and desirable.

If we move into this new era of freedom of movement and a common travel area within the Community, it also follows, as has already been said, that controls designed to prevent crime and terrorism will have to switch from borders to operate internally. If we are to enable those to operate effectively internally, it is no good requiring every citizen to carry a passport at all times, to enable them to establish their identity. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who was opposing the suggestion, said that an inevitable corollary of adoption of the travel area will be a requirement for identity cards and a power for the police to be able to stop people and require them to establish their identity. I agree with her that if we go down this road we shall go to that conclusion. She did not like that conclusion, but I have no problem with it. I think that it would be desirable and necessary, in order to have some effective control on drugs and terrorism, but it is only a small point.

The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) said that other steps would have to be taken to ensure that checks were made within member states. He pointed out, for instance, that checks would be necessary to ensure that people were not employing immigrant workers. That is an excellent idea; I hope that, at the same time, the authorities will check that employees are not "doing the double".

This group of amendments is headed "Justice and Home: Frontiers, Visas, Asylum". I want to concentrate not on the detail of article 1000c, as most hon. Members have, but on article K.1, and, in particular, paragraphs 7 and 9. I trust that I am right in thinking that I shall remain in order in so doing: I tried to track down all the amendments listed under that heading, but that proved very difficult.

Article K, and indeed title VI as a whole, set out provisions for Co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs. The concept of co-operation is fine in theory, and, were they to be implemented effectively, the provisions in paragraph 7 of article K.1, which refers to judicial co-operation in criminal matters". and in paragraph 9 of that article, which refers to police co-operation for the purposes of preventing and combating terrorism", would be excellent. I do not want my comments to be misinterpreted: I do not want it to be thought that I consider co-operation anything other than necessary and desirable. The effectiveness of co-operation, however—I refer to intergovernmental co-operation, under article K —depends crucially on the integrity of the Governments of member states, and on their willingness to co-operate.

I cannot discuss police co-operation in the handling of terrorism without mentioning the serious terrorist problem that exists within the Community. Co-operation is supposed to deal with that, but we must ask whether the necessary integrity exists. Progress will depend on a recognition by member states that they have a common interest, and should pull together. It ought to be incompatible with the existence of a European Community for one member state to have a territorial claim against another; it should be even more incompatible with the existence of such a Community for one member state with a territorial claim against another to pursue that claim actively.

Claims that are merely historical survivals, as it were, may not cause much of a problem. Within the British Isles, however, a member state has a territorial claim against another, and is actively pursuing that claim in terms of diplomacy and discussion. During the recent inter-party talks on Northern Ireland, we discovered that the Irish Government, far from eschewing their territorial claim, were using the talks to advance it. That is one of the reasons for the foundering of those talks.

Hon. Members who watched the BBC2 programme "Timewatch" last night will have noted that, in the recent past, the Irish Government even contemplated advancing their territorial claim by means of armed aggression: indeed, they put in train the necessary steps for a form of proxy warfare whereby they would support and assist a terrorist organisation. Moreover, they contemplated the further step of actual invasion. The programme referred to a planned invasion of the spring of 1970, but did not deal with the planned invasion of August 1969. I know that the programme makers gathered material relating to that invasion; I am surprised that no mention was made of it.

I observe some puzzlement on the Conservative Benches. I should be delighted to be able to go into the matter in detail, but I shall not do so, Mr. Lofthouse: we are now dealing with the general principles of the treaty. My basic point is that co-operation on matters relating to security and terrorism depends on the existence of the trust and integrity that are so sadly absent now.

When I mentioned the matter in business questions this afternoon, the Leader of the House said that we should focus on the present co-operation. My colleagues and I believe that the present co-operation is a sham: we could demonstrate that time and again by referring to the tremendous incidence of cross-border-related terrorism, and to the conspicuous inability of the Irish army and police to prevent such crimes—or, except very rarely, even to detain those involved.

6.45 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

For the benefit of the many hon. Members who have been in the House for some years, and have often debated matters relating to security in Northern Ireland, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he believes that the treaty's ratification—and the enactment of the Bill—could be disadvantageous to the improvement of security for the people of Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom?

I feel that that is the crux of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. Perhaps, by implication, he has said it; but he has not spelt it out clearly. I hope that he will do so, because I believe that terrorism may flourish even more if the Bill is enacted, and that the people of Northern I reland will be placed at a severe disadvantage.

Mr. Trimble

In so far as controls on movement within the Community are diminished, there is a real prospect of that. It will be easier for terrorists to move from one part of the Community to another. That has already happened in regard to Provisional IRA terrorist operations on the continental land mass: for instance, a terrorist cell that appeared to be based in Holland proved to be active in Belgium and western Germany, and to be moving easily between frontiers. Interestingly, they were the frontiers of the countries involved in the Schengen agreement—the countries that have gone furthest in achieving the necessary co-operation in dealing with cross-border matters. They allow a degree of what might be called hot pursuit; in some areas, joint patrols operate. Yet the terrorists were clearly exploiting the borders.

Greater freedom of movement will mean greater danger, and will lead to a need for further safeguards. I mentioned those earlier when I spoke of the need for identity cards. If we do not consider such matters, the position will worsen. Moreover, we may appear to endorse the Government's current belief that co-operation exists. Under article K, a new procedure will be established, a committee of officials will be appointed to consider the issues involved, and it may become easier for Ministers to lull themselves—or deceive themselves—into thinking that co-operation exists where, in practice, it does not. That is already happening, to an extent, in relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. Her Majesty's Government think that there is co-operation; but that co-operation is strictly limited and not entirely sincere. The enactment of the legislation will provide further opportunities to deceive an Administration who have already proved remarkably gullible.

As well as dealing with police co-operation on terrorism, article K refers to judicial co-operation. That, too, would be highly desirable if it were effective. I hope that the Minister will give us a progress report on what is happening in the Community.

The European convention on the suppression of terrorism, which was adopted many years ago, provides for extradition in certain circumstances. I understand that discussions about new extradition arrangments are taking place in Europe. I should be interested to know what is happening on that front. What are the current plans and proposals with regard to judicial co-operation relating to criminal matters? The European convention on the suppression of terrorism has not been a success. There are far too many loopholes in article 1, and unfortunately the provisions in article 2, which apply it to almost any offence, have not been implemented.

There is a paradox in regard to extradition to which I should like to refer briefly. If we are to have European union, with free movement, we ought to adopt measures such as those that were adopted in the middle of the 19th century in the British empire. In that case, the assumption was that Her Majesty's courts in any jurisdiction, being the courts of Her Majesty, were worthy of utter and implicit faith. In the middle of the 19th century there was introduced the procedure referred to as backing of warrants. A warrant in respect of a fugitive from one jurisdiction was automatically backed in another jurisdiction. There was no inquiry into the grounds on which the warrant had been issued; the courts were all Her Majesty's courts. Whether the incident involved a colony or the home country, the warrant was effective. That is how matters should be in a union.

One might expect that the courts in one jurisdiction within a European union would treat as valid all the actions of the courts in another jurisdiction in that union. That would represent movement in the direction of the backing of warrants.

In fact, in respect of extradition matters, we are moving in the opposite direction. Into our backing of warrants, the Government—at the behest of the Irish Government, I think—are introducing more pure extradition procedures by way of a speciality rule. It may be—who knows?—that they will move to a prima facie rule. In the area of judicial co-operation, it is curious that, in respect of these matters, we are moving in the direction opposite to that in which we should be moving.

I finish by making a simple point: while co-operation is useful, we should not be blinded to the fact that we shall have to do the job ourselves. There ought to be co-operation in respect of security, terrorism and judicial matters, but we ought not to lull ourselves into the belief that co-operation in itself will do the job.

The Government are not prepared to accept the European Commission's view with regard to immigration provisions. They insist on retaining some measure of control within the United Kingdom, even if only by way of requiring people to produce passports briefly. Implicit in that approach is that the Government do not intend to rely on the decisions of officials in Germany or Greece or Italy or Spain and that they want to reserve the right to make decisions on their own. It is right that they should do so, and the same approach should be adopted to co-operation in respect of terrorism and justice. By all means, let us have co-operation, but let us not believe that that in itself is sufficient. It will still be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to take care of their citizens' basic right to live free from terrorism and to enjoy a fully effective judicial system.

Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury)

Before hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I felt that the Committee was in danger of forgetting the very real value to British people, and indeed to the people of other countries in the European Community, of much closer co-operation in dealing with crime of all sorts. The hon. Gentleman has done us a favour by reminding us of that fact.

At a time when terrorists and drug traffickers do not respect national frontiers, when technology enables money to be transferred from country to country and from continent to continent at the flick of a switch on a computer terminal, it is clearly sensible to try to strengthen methods and institutions of international co-operation against crime.

The question that has divided hon. Members is the extent to which the provisions of the treaty are likely to be effective. Perhaps more significant—a great deal of time has been spent on this point—is whether the constitutional framework provided in the Maastricht treaty and in this Bill contains adequate safeguards for British national interests, adequate controls for the Parliament and Government of this country in respect of crucial matters of policy.

I am not completely uncritical of various aspects of the Maastricht treaty. It is a compromise, and it contains some provisions that I would rather not see there. However, I am genuinely suprised at the strength and passion of the criticism that some of my hon. Friends have levelled at those aspects—in particular, article K. Article K and the more general provisions intended to strengthen cooperation against crime and to control immigration are of positive value to the people of the United Kingdom.

I should like to deal first with a criticism that was expressed most strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) but was echoed by several other hon. Friends—that the United Kingdom risks being invaded by hordes of foreigners and that, under this treaty, we shall surrender our right to lay down immigration rules. Certainly there is a problem about immigration control, but it arises from the Single European Act and from the differing interpretations of it by the Government of the United Kingdom and the European Commission, rather than from the treaty. I echo what several of my hon. Friends have said about the importance to this country of the preservation of good race relations and strong and effective control of immigration. However, even if the Maastricht treaty were rejected by the British Parliament, that dispute—that potential challenge to our control over immigration—would remain. It does not matter whether the treaty is accepted or rejected so far as that dilemma, that potential for argument and dispute, is concerned. It derives from the Single European Act, and it will remain.

Mr. Marlow

We all want firm and effective immigration policies. With regard to Article K.1(6) to (9), we are all in favour of co-operation with other European countries. However, the treaty would enshrine in legislation the means whereby competence in respect of these policies could be transferred from this country and from this House to European institutions. We want co-operation, but we are concerned about the loss of control and the inability ever to retrieve it.

Mr. Lidington

My hon. Friend echoes the substance of an intervention that he made earlier. The problem of the irreversibility of a decision to cede a particular aspect of policy to Community competence is not unique to the Maastricht treaty. It is something that is inherent in membership of the European Community itself.

If my hon. Friend and those who take his part on this point wish to say that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European Community, that is a logical, coherent position to take. But if they believe that the advantage lies with the United Kingdom remaining a member of the EC, they must accept that measures ceded to Community decision-taking can only then be reversed either by agreement or by the very drastic step of seeking to bring into question our very membership.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Will my hon. Friend not accept that some of us who have been here almost from the beginning of the European saga—I refer particularly to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—see this Maastricht treaty as another turn or two on the ratchet, thus deepening the concern which we on both sides of the House already feel about the irreversibility of what is happening? Is it not therefore right that this concern should be spelled out and that those of us who believe that Europe should be developing in a different direction should have our say in the House?

Mr. Lidington

It is quite right that my hon. Friend and others who share his views should have their say, and they have been given ample opportunity to contribute in their particular and distinctive manner on the several days that the Committee has sat.

I go along with my hon. Friend to this extent. I too believe that we should seriously question the direction in which, it sometimes seems, the European Community is inexorably developing. I sympathise with those hon. Members who have looked back at the Single European Act and who feel that, whereas they signed up for a deal and were told that there were limits to Community competence, the goalposts have now been changed and we have gone back on what had apparently been firmly agreed.

I give strong support to article K and to the other intergovernmental pillars which form part of this treaty, because, for the first time in treaty form, they offer an alternative model of European co-operation, one which I think is more in the interests of the people of this country than the classic federalist model which is honestly and openly espoused by, for example, Mr. Delors, Mr. Kohl and even one or two hon. Members on the Government Benches.

7 pm

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend said that, because I and some other hon. Members were concerned about transferring competence over these issues to European Community institutions, we were therefore against Community institutions having any competence whatever and we wanted to leave the Community. That is not so.

There are areas in which it is right for Community institutions to have the proper competence, but why does my hon. Friend think it necessary that potential competence with, in some respects, minimal parliamentary scope for intervention, on these sensitive issues should be passed by the House through this treaty to European institutions?

Mr. Lidington

As other hon. Members have said, the safeguards which are provided within article K are quite adequate to preserve the rights of the British Parliament and the British people to determine these matters. I want us now to use the intergovernmental framework which this treaty establishes, get it working and show our partners in the European Community that there is an alternative path which works with the grain of national sentiment and national tradition, and which we can set up in opposition to the federal path which others would prefer us to follow.

Then, when we reach the discussions scheduled for 1996 or thereabouts, we shall have a working model of intergovernmental co-operation which we can point to as a success, rather than being driven only into saying no to proposals which others put before us.

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Gentleman refers to what I paraphrase as a satisfactory mechanism of parliamentary consent. Is he referring to the "respective constitutional requirements" of article K.9? If so, what does he think those requirements should be? Does he agree with new clause 12, which spells them out as an Act of Parliament? If not, why not?

Mr. Lidington

That is certainly the clause to which I was alluding. I believe that the respective constitutional requirements should be Acts of Parliament where a change in British domestic law is required, as we are doing with the treaty and as we have done in respect of other international conventions, freely negotiated by British Governments, in judicial and police co-operation—where we have negotiated conventions on extradition and on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, and they have been translated into British domestic law through Acts of Parliament, going through all their stages in both Houses.

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, under which we escape this idea of being bound on the travelator to some predetermined destination, and instead can co-operate, one country with another, ceding limited and defined areas of policy, like the single market, for decision on a supranational basis, but around that having a whole gamut of different areas and systems of co-operation to suit the particular needs of various groups of countries which are yet all members of one European union.

Intergovernmental institutions for co-operation against crime and against illegal immigration will form an important part of that Europe of variable geometry which I wish to move towards. I hope that we can ratify this treaty quickly and get on with the task of building intergovernmental co-operation because that, more than anything else, will put the United Kingdom in the strongest possible position when we approach the next round of EC negotiations.

Mr. Madden

This is the first time that I have sought to speak in the debates of the Committee. Last night, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), in a most eloquent and thoughtful speech, asked a number of questions, to which so far he has received no answer. I hope that the Home Secretary will seek the leave of the Committee to intervene again so that he can give full replies to the questions asked by my right hon. Friend.

For instance, will it be possible for EC nationals coming to the United Kingdom under the free movement arrangements to establish a business without any evidence of funds? Will it be possible for them to apply for local authority housing? My right hon. Friend asked a number of other questions and, before the Government seek to move the closure of the debate, I hope that we will receive answers to them. I shall be asking the Home Secretary a number of other questions, to which I hope we shall receive answers tonight.

Underlying this debate is the concern of many of us about the inbuilt unfairness, racial discrimination and other difficulties which non-EC nationals will experience in seeking to exercise their right to free movement, and the difficulties, racial discrimination and problems that non-EC nationals wishing to come to the European Community, including the United Kingdom, will experience.

Under the free movement arrangements, members of the family of an EC national are able to come to this country, including the person's spouse, their children under 21, their other children and grandchildren if still dependent, and their dependent parents, grandparents and great grandparents.

Many of us deal daily with the difficulties of many of our constituents in seeking to obtain permission for their spouses and dependent children to come to this country. Those difficulties are extremely protracted, and it often takes years to secure permission for spouses and dependent children to come to the United Kingdom. Our constituents in that position are very envious indeed of the extensive rights that are being given to EC nationals as far as dependent relatives are concerned.

I want also to point to the difficulties which the Government have in recent months put in the way of dependants of former detainees in the former Yugoslav states wishing to come to this country. Yesterday, I received a reply from the Under-Secretary to a parliamentary question, which reads as follows: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has, however, decided that close dependants of the 1,000 former detainees will be allowed to join them for the duration of their stay. Generally, close dependants are regarded as the spouse and children under 18. However, in respect of the former detainees, we are also prepared to consider applications for visas from fully dependent and unmarried daughters over 18 and under 21, from elderly or sick parents, and from other relatives living in the most exceptional compelling compassionate circumstances. The available information on other dependants of asylum applicants is that since the introduction of the visa requirements for nationals of certain parts of former Yugoslavia on 6 November 1992 about 20 people from the former Yugoslavia have been granted entry clearance to join relatives in the asylum-related cases. I repeat, just 20.

In addition, under the arrangements I announced to the House on 30 November 1992, 130 close dependants of the former detainees have so far been granted clearance to come to the United Kingdom. Sixty five applications by more distant relatives have been refused. Sixty-five have been refused, and I understand that they include elderly grandparents. It is shameful that the Government, with the situation in Bosnia, about which we all know and which has been referred to during the course of the debate in the Committee, should be allowing only such a small number of very close dependants to come here. I believe that this is a matter which the Home Secretary should reconsider urgently.

Mr. Corbyn

I am very glad that my hon. Friend is drawing attention to this situation. Will he confirm that the number of asylum seekers coming from the former Yugoslavia to this country is the lowest going to any European country, and that the imposition of the visa requirement has made it virtually impossible for any to come, other than those listed by the Home Secretary in his statement at that time?

Mr. Madden

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I should be very grateful if the Home Secretary would intervene at some stage to tell us how many former detainees from the former Yugoslavia, particularly Bosnia, have to date been received in the United Kingdom. Why is he refusing to allow sons of former detainees to come here? It seems to me to be blatant discrimination to refuse to allow male children to come to this country. Is it a mistake, or is it the considered policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Marlow

The hon. Gentleman knows that he and I share very little territory with regard to immigration. However, he can make the speech that he is making now, he can hope that there will be a change of Government and that he will be able to make such speeches, and he can hope that there may be the kind of immigration policy that he would wish. He may wish very much to change our asylum and immigration rules, and he may be able to do that.

The hon. Gentleman will remember that we recognised Bosnia and Croatia; we did not want to, but it was done by unanimity because of pressures within the Community. Through the same sort of pressures, we could unanimously decide to transfer asylum and immigration policy to European institutions. It would come back here for a vote late at night to be ratified, and that would be it. Before there is a Labour Government, the Conservative Government could have done all that, transferred all those powers. I put it to him that this is of massive significance, and something that he should tell all his hon. Friends.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. This is a very long intervention.

7.15 pm

Mr. Madden

Nevertheless, I agree with the substance of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I remember that visas for Bosnia were introduced only days after the Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. Not a word was said by the Home Secretary during the course of that debate about the fact that three days later he was going to introduce visas for Bosnia. That was a shameful contempt of the House of Commons and of all hon. Members.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

In response to the points which the hon. Gentleman made, on top of the 40,000 residents of the former Yugoslavia who had come here before I introduced visas, we have undertaken to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to take 1,000 former detainees, plus their dependants—about 4,000 in all. The first groups have arrived, and the second group is arriving imminently, dependent upon transport being able to get them out of Croatia, where they are making their way. We are certainly undertaking to admit close relatives of those persons.

So that the hon. Gentleman is not misled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), if we pass this Bill and ratify this treaty, the powers of the House and the Government to determine those matters will not be affected by one iota. Under the Maastricht treaty, matters of asylum are not brought within Community competence. So the hon. Gentleman can happily keep on making these points, but I hope that he will concede that so far we have made a more generous response than any other state in Europe to the request from the UNHCR to take former detainees from the former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Madden

I am grateful to the Home Secretary, but can he say how many have so far been received and how many are included in the second group to which he has just referred? Is the exclusion of sons of former detainees, who I would think are the closest relatives in most people's terms, a considered and deliberate decision of the Government, or is it simply a mistake in the written reply that I have received?

Mr. Clarke

We have so far received about 150 former detainees in this country, which is the total that the UNHCR and the International Red Cross have referred to us. We are expecting them to take up our offer in full, and, as I say, we are waiting for the second group. We are admitting their close relatives, which usually means spouses and children below the age of 18. We are looking at applications for the admission of relatives and deciding each case on its merits.

Having taken in refugees and their immediate relatives, we cannot accede to what the hon. Gentleman seems to want, and agree that elderly parents, brothers and adult children should all automatically be able to come as well. If we did, our offer of 4,000 people, or thereabouts, on top of the 40,000 would obviously be rapidly magnified.

Mr. Madden

I assume from that that the Home Secretary is affirming that the decision to refuse male children up to the age of 18 is a deliberate and considered decision of the Government.

Mr. Clarke

We are normally admitting children under 18. If the hon. Gentleman knows of a case in which he believes we have refused a child the right to rejoin the parents, I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be happy to look at it. Normally, we are admitting spouses and children under the age of 18. We are looking at all these applications on their merits. We cannot undertake to take in what I might call a wider family of people who have some relationship to those we have admitted but who are in fact wholly independent adults living somewhere in former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Madden

The answer to the written question to which I referred will certainly need to be clarified in the light of the Home Secretary's reply. Nevertheless, it would be considered compassionate and understanding if "close relatives" were taken to mean spouses, children of both sexes up to 18, parents and grandparents. I should have thought that that would be a more sensible approach for the Government to adopt.

Mr. Clarke

I said that we consider cases on their merits. We are prepared to contemplate dependants of one kind or another. The hon. Gentleman's approach to immigration policy is sometimes quite extraordinary. If under the offer that we have made we admit a Bosnian Muslim who has been a detainee in a Serbian camp, we would obviously expect to admit his wife and children, but why should a grandparent who presumably lives in some other part of former Yugoslavia—for example, in Slovenia where there is not and has not been a war—also automatically qualify to come here as a refugee?

The hon. Gentleman cannot make sweeping assertions to the effect that the grandfather of every refugee we admit should also be admitted. As he always uses such amazing language to express his strictures on our immigration policy, it is not as outrageous as he suggests that we ask where the grandfather has been living and why he wants to come here.

Mr. Madden

I assume that many of the Bosnian detainees who have been admitted but whose close relatives are being refused admission will look in wonderment at the provisions to which I previously referred and under which very large numbers of relatives of EC nationals can come here with the greatest of ease, without the need for visas or checks. It creates a feeling of resentment, discrimination and unfairness.

Mr. Marlow

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would not want to mislead the Committee or the hon. Gentleman. He said that immigration and asylum issues are not affected by the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend article K.3 (2) which states that, on the initiative of the Commission, the Council can take joint action with regard to article K.1 (1) to (6), which includes asylum policy and immigration? I am afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend was wrong.

Mr. Madden

The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has made that point before. I hope that it may be sinking in with the Home Secretary.

Mr. Corbyn

I congratulate my hon. Friend on persuading the Home Secretary to get to his feet to answer questions on asylum and immigration—something that very few of us have been able to do. In confirming that the Council of Ministers would have the right to extend its jurisdiction to immigration and asylum policy, will he reflect that, whether decisions are taken unanimously or through majority voting, they are often taken on linked motives? For example, Croatia was recognised only under enormous pressure from the German Government.

In my hon. Friend's opinion, was it or was it not connected to the survival of the exchange rate of the pound and the deutschmark and to many other considerations? Does he not think that there are grave dangers in that process?

Mr. Madden

Not for the first time, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has made that point—as I have— throughout the Committee stage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. I am sorry if I irritate the Home Secretary from time to time with the way in which I seek to defend the interests of my constituents, but it is a cross that I am afraid he will have to continue to bear.

The determination of citizenship, which is the basis of today's debate, is a matter to be decided by each member state. Of course, it is clear that, for the United Kingdom, European Community nationals are British citizens, British subjects under the British Nationality Act 1981 who have a right of abode, and British dependent territory citizens who have that status by virtue of a connection with Gibraltar.

Various statements have been made in these debates about Hong Kong citizens and those of other former dependent territories. A contrast has been noted between the way in which France treats, for instance, the citizens of Guadeloupe and Martinique and Portugal treats the citizens of Macau. It is entirely a matter for the French and Portuguese to decide that the citizens of those territories are assumed to be EC nationals of those member states.

Only this week, I was in conversation with a number of representatives from Hong Kong who came to talk to hon. Members. They said that they would like to be treated by the United Kingdom in the way that the French are treating the citizens of Macau.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)

The Portuguese.

Mr. Madden

Sorry—in the way that the Portuguese are treating the citizens of Macau. Such a view leads to justice and equality. The representatives also said that, last year, 60,000 Hong Kong citizens emigrated from—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I know that the debate is fairly wide, but the hon. Gentleman is trespassing into a group of amendments that we have not yet considered. I ask him to deal more closely with the subject now under consideration.

Mr. Madden

Indeed I shall, by saying that I hope that the Government will deal with the continuing problems in Hong Kong and take a more relaxed attitude to citizens than they have done hitherto.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

I do not wish to question your ruling, Dame Janet, but may I say that, after 1997, the future of the people of Hong Kong will be especially relevant in terms of asylum. Large numbers of former dependent citizens of the United Kingdom, when they become a part of China although with special status, might claim asylum and seek to come to the United Kingdom. As he is talking about Hong Kong, will the hon. Gentleman refer specifically to asylum?

Mr. Madden

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. Of course, it is not inconceivable that, after 1997, a majority of states could require the imposition of visas. Bearing in mind the brave attempts of Mr. Patten to increase democracy in Hong Kong, the Government might say that they did not wish to, but were being forced to accept the imposition of visas on the citizens of Hong Kong by a majority of EC member states.

That is a graphic illustration of the difficulties that we could encounter in the foreseeable future, and it shows the ease with which the Government might be able to distance themselves from an extremely embarrassing situation by blaming the provisions of the Bill and a majority vote of EC states. They could say that they had to acquiesce to the imposition of visas on the citizens of Hong Kong.

In a written reply last December, the Home Secretary said:

I shall be considering what further changes might be made in the course of 1993 to United Kingdom immigration control arrangements, vis-a-vis other member states of the European Community, in the furtherance of our policy of reducing checks on EC nationals to the minimum level compatible with the retention of effective immigration control of third-country nationals together with adequate safeguards against the entry of terrorists and other serious criminals." —[Official Report, 17 December 1992; Vol 216, c. 446.] That was in the context of the draft convention on the crossing of external frontiers. When the Home Secretary was interviewed by The Guardian, he seemed aghast and astonished, and did not know whether hon. Members had even seen that document, let alone considered it. After an embarrassing hoo-hah, the document has at last been placed in the Library, as we heard earlier in the debate.

7.30 pm

The summary of the document is most interesting: Article 6: establishes the system for the application for controls at airports. Article 7: sets out the conditions of entry to member states in respect of short stays. Article 8: enables non-EC nationals who are lawfully resident in the European Community, to make a short visit or transit another member state without having to obtain a visa. Article 9: Confirms that admission for stays in excess of three months is subject to national legislation. Articles 10–13: provide for the establishment of a computerised common list of inadmissable and non-EC nationals and lay down principles for the treatment of non-EC nationals who do not meet the criteria for entry … Articles 15 and 16: provide for the removal of illegal entrants and overstayers. Article 17: confirms the member states' commitment to establish a harmonised visa policy. Articles 18–25: provide for member states to mutually recognise each others' short stay visas and, in the longer term, for the introduction of—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. There is too much noise. The hon. Gentleman is giving a long recitation; we hope to hear a speech rather than a summary of a complete document.

Mr. Madden

I am referring to the draft convention, Dame Janet, which deals directly with the subject matter of the debate. There seems to be some doubt and uncertainty about the extent of the provisions that we are debating, and I am informing the House about the extent of the draft convention. I shall soon finish.

Articles 18–25: provide for member states to mutually recognise each other's short stay visas and, in the longer term, for the introduction of a uniform visa valid for travel throughout the European Community. I shall not complete the account of the rest of the articles, but I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would tell us when he believes that the convention will he agreed. I am grateful to the Library for producing research paper 93/7, page 12 of which says:

Primary legislation would probably be needed to enable the UK to comply with certain of its provisions. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill 1992–1993 provides that passengers in transit need visas, and additional powers may be needed to enable air transfer passengers not seeking entry to the UK to be examined and granted leave. It would be necessary to adjust the legislation or rules as follows: … to allow for short stays of three months as defined in the Convention. At present, the rules allow a maximum stay of 6 months". Will the Home Secretary break the habit of a lifetime and tell the Committee clearly whether he intends to reduce the period for which visitors to the United Kingdom are allowed to remain here from six months to three months this year? That is a matter of considerable concern, because the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill has abolished the right of appeal for people refused a visit to the United Kingdom. If the maximum period of stay were reduced from six months to three months, that would compound the sense of anger, injury and resentment already caused.

If the Home Secretary would intervene and tell the Committee clearly one way or the other, that would be much appreciated by thousands of my constituents who are anxious not only about the Government's past actions on immigration policy in general and on visitors in particular, but about their future actions.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

The hon. Gentleman is not talking about a piece of Community legislation within Community competence. He has not talked about anything to do with the Bill or the Maastricht treaty for some time. However, I congratulate him on at least looking at the document. He said that I was aghast to discover that it was not in the Library. I was rather surprised, and I put it there. It has not been there for months, and in congratulating me, the hon. Gentleman has become the first hon. Member to ask me anything about it.

We have not ratified the convention, and at the moment we cannot do so, because of a dispute between Spain and ourselves over Spain's wish to maintain its border with Gibraltar. When it is ratified, some changes will be needed to domestic legislation and rules to bring it into effect. That will be within the competence of the House, and I shall then be able to discuss matters relevant to that debate, which are not relevant now. I should be happy to answer detailed questions on a more suitable occasion.

Mr. Madden

I am equally delighted to have tabled a question for the next Home Office question time. I hope that the computer will be on my side and my question will be listed, which will enable the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give a direct reply to my direct question. I stress the great importance which many of my constituents attach to it.

My second point concerns the need to introduce visa exemptions for short-stay visitors who have visas or residence permits issued by other member states. Abolishing the visa exemption stamp and re-entry stamp was one of the silliest things that the Government have done in the past 12 months. It has caused considerable difficulty to many of my constituents. Again, the Government were rushed into that decision primarily on the grounds of cost rather than because of any other consideration.

The section also says that there will be a joint computerised list of inadmissible persons—those in prison for at least 12 months in a member state, or guilty of repeated immigration offences, for example. We are told that work is already under way.

Several hon. Members have asked today what the point of the visas is. What is the purpose behind the plan for common visas? Clearly it is designed to build up an enormous computer database.

Mr. Clarke

The hon. Gentleman is trying to return to what he was saying a moment ago. If we are not careful, he will soon be making a speech about the Dublin convention on asylum seekers. We have ratified that, through the ad hoc committee of Immigration Ministers. The convention that the hon. Gentleman is talking about is now before that ad hoc committee, and it has been agreed in principle but not ratified. Currently, I am afraid, it is not likely to be ratified in the near future.

Such discussions take place now. Like my predecessors, I regularly go to Europe and discuss such matters at meetings of the ad hoc committee of Immigration Ministers. That is my responsibility in government, and it also falls solely within the responsibility of this Parliament. I am accountable to Parliament for these matters, and no one has ever bothered to challenge them in the past.

The Bill simply puts arrangements which are already in place on a more formal footing. If Maastricht is ratified, the hon. Gentleman will get more information about these discussions than he has been able to obtain in the past. There will be no surrender of our sovereignty or control. Although this is an interesting debate, and I accept that I am accountable for what I have agreed to in the Dublin convention, it has absolutely nothing to do with Maastricht. The hon. Gentleman's right to raise these matters on behalf of his constituents is not even faintly affected by this debate.

Mr. Madden

The Home Secretary deftly seeks to encourage us to regard all these matters as separate boxes, but those of us who deal with them daily know that they are linked. There has been a coalition between Front-Bench spokesmen across the Chamber in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was moved to say late last night that not only is there a coalition between them but they also all happen to be lawyers. They seem to be trying to kid us that these matters have no implications for other areas. In that they are terribly wrong. All of them are related, all of them are linked.

The main objective, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said, is to keep out of fortress Europe as many black and Asian people as possible and to create as much difficulty as possible for black and Asian non-EC nationals living in the European Community who seek to exercise their rights to free movement within it.

Mr. Corbyn

My hon. Friend has an excellent point about these links. It may be convenient for the Home Secretary to say that the House will not be prevented from debating these issues: that may well be true. A county council is not usually fettered in what it can debate. The problem is that it does not always have powers to do anything. If Maastricht goes through, we will be unable to have an asylum and immigration policy different from that laid down by the European Community, because of the reserve powers that the Community holds to take asylum and immigration into its jurisdiction.

Mr. Madden

My hon. Friend is right.

7.45 pm

Mr. Cash

I have a great deal of sympathy in principle with the hon. Gentleman's notion—that under the treaty these matters will effectively be dealt with as if the Community were a single state. Implicit in that is the idea that no Community national would ever be persecuted in circumstances arising under article 1 of the Geneva convention. Given the unfortunate and depressing assessment of what is happening in Germany at present —the persecution of people who have gone to that country and the revival of fascism there—would the hon. Gentleman be satisfied if the same sort of principles were applied under the treaty as appear not to be applied to those being persecuted in Germany?

Mr. Madden

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman voted for the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, which was an essential building block—

Mr. Cash

I am talking about the EEC.

Mr. Madden

That Bill laid down a number of important principles, which are a blueprint for fortress Europe. They will all be adopted by every other EC member state. Her Majesty's Government are in the vanguard.

When we challenged the Under-Secretary in Committee about what would happen when someone was returned, having sought asylum in this country, to a so-called safe third country, he said that he did not know—it was not his business. That shows the compassion of the Government.

The Bill also requires those seeking asylum to be fingerprinted. We could not even get the Government to set an age limit below which a child should not be fingerprinted. They even refused to exempt lone children seeking asylum here. As far as I know, only one Conservative Member voted against one of the most offensive clauses, although others abstained.

Conservative Members' education about these matters is not quite as good as it could be, but I trust that, when the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill returns from another place, where I hope that their Lordships will defeat clause 10, Conservative Members will not bring pressure to bear to overturn their Lordships' decision.

Mr. Marlow

I think that, once again, my right hon. and learned Friend may inadvertently be misleading the House. I draw attention again to article K.3(2). My right hon. and learned Friend said that we have a double lock on immigration and asylum issues, and that they are still under the control of the House, but under article K.3(2) it is possible that, late at night at a Council meeting in Europe, it will be unanimously decided to take joint action on an initiative of the Commission, or to agree to joint proposals.

Once we take joint action, a joint policy emerges, and once there is a joint policy at the European level, we can never take back control of it. My right hon. and learned Friend might have to come to the House to explain his decision, but by then the matter would be over and done with.

Mr. Madden

The Home Secretary has been listening intently; I hope that he is preparing to intervene to answer the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and other hon. Members, including myself.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I cannot remember how many times I have answered these questions in the past six or seven hours. We held an exhaustive discussion on article K.3(2) yesterday. Decisions under it must be taken unanimously. That means that the British and Danish Governments would have to agree to them, and it is quite plain that no foreseeable Danish or British Government would so so.

They also require the approval of the House, because, even under article K.3(2), conventions must be carried forward in accordance with constitutional arrangements in each member state. The double lock is most unlikely to be unlocked in the foreseeable future. That is why I say that, in this part of the treaty, nothing is being brought into the Community's competence except the list of countries from which we require visas, and the format of the visas.

Mr. Madden

When an EC national and his host of dependants comes to this country under these provisions, it will be necessary for that EC national to apply for residence after six months. What information will be required then? Who will make the decision? Will there be a right of appeal if the right of residence is refused?

These are important matters, directly bearing on the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who asked what information will be required when an EC national, with his large army of dependants—they are unacceptable if they come from Bosnia—applies. I see the Home Secretary laughing, but these are serious issues. Let us not forget that 300 million EC nationals could come here if they wished to.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East that it is unlikely that 300 million EC nationals will seek to come to Britain. However, that might happen and even The Sun might one day be persuaded to issue some warnings about it. I urge the Home Secretary to think about that.

Mr. Spearing

On a point of order, Dame Janet. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has asked the Home Secretary some questions, and earlier in the debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked the Home Secretary whether he intended to reply to the debate. The Home Secretary did not make that clear.

At about this time yesterday, the Home Secretary was the fourth speaker in the debate, and since then many questions have been put to him. The many hon. Members who are seriously debating these matters, let alone people outside who are concerned for parliamentary democracy, will not regard the debate as complete until there is a proper and considered reply from a responsible Minister to speeches made yesterday and today. Such a reply would be forthcoming in a Standing Committee.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The Chair cannot force any hon. Member to his feet. No doubt the Home Secretary will have heard the comments of hon. Members.

Mr. Marlow

Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. You have said that you cannot force any hon. Member to his feet. You will be aware that there is an overwhelming desire in the Committee to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is courteous and who would wish to reply before the end of the debate.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. Never in my time in Parliament have I been surrounded by such a desperate demand to be heard at the end of a seven-hour debate during which I have intervened probably more frequently than any hon. Member. I assure the Committee that, if I hear a single point to which I have not already replied three times, I might be persuaded to my feet, but not otherwise.

Mr. Madden

rose—

Mr. Shore

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Madden

Yes.

Mr. Shore

The Home Secretary protests too much. He has made that comment several times, but it does not mean that he has answered the questions that were put to him. The question to which he refuses to turn his mind relates not to the matters in article K and article 100c but to the basic matter in article 8a:

Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect. Will the Home Secretary address those conditions and other matters in the treaty so that we may know what right has been given to 300 million Europeans and so that we can judge how such rights compare with rights that may be extended to people from third countries, those who are not Community nationals?

Mr. Clarke

rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.

Mr. Madden

I will give way to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Clarke

The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke about article 8a of the Single European Act. At least three times in the debate I have restated the Government's policy on that article and its interpretation, which is identical to the interpretation that we placed on it when the Single European Act received the approval of Parliament many years ago.

Mr. Madden

The Committee will form its own judgment on that response.

I shall conclude by referring to the difficulties faced by many British citizens when visiting other EC states and outline a case with reference to France. Late last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) raised the issue of the legal position of a French citizen who was refused the right to enter the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary looked a bit perplexed, and on brief reflection denied that a French citizen refused a right of entry to the United Kingdom had any remedy in the European Court of Justice.

One of my constituents, a British citizen recently refused entry to France, is seeking compensation from the French Government. If he is not given satisfaction, he intends, on legal advice, to take the case to the European Court. The incident occurred in early December, and my constituent, who was travelling on a British visitor's passport and also had in his possession his British citizen certificate, was refused entry at Calais by a French immigration officer who could not speak English, who did not endeavour to get assistance from a colleague who did, and who did not bother to make any inquiries of officials in Dover or anywhere else. My constituent was back on the ferry within 14 minutes of seeking entry to France.

Mr. Macdonald

Does my hon. Friend agree that he is making a powerful case for the treaty and for opening the borders in a way that will enable his constituent to travel freely to France or to any other Community country? if my hon. Friend's constituent is denied entry, he can go to the European Court of Justice and base his case on the treaty's provisions.

Mr. Madden

I hope that I am making a powerful case to underline what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and other hon. Members—that, far too often, immigration officials in the United Kingdom, other Community countries and elsewhere take arbitrary and unjust decisions based on the appearance of the person concerned.

My constituent is a British citizen of Pakistan origin. The French immigration official saw from his papers that he was born in Jhelum in Pakistan, and to him it was inconceivable that someone born in Pakistan could be a British citizen entitled to exercise his right of free movement. I hope that my constituent will receive assistance from the Government.

Mr. Marlow

On a point of order, Dame Janet. For the first time in the debate, there is a large number—relatively speaking—of Liberal Democrat Members in the Committee. They have obviously been told by the Government that the Government intend to move the closure fairly soon. They have not told me. Have they told you, Dame Janet?

The Second Deputy Chairman

Who may be here and who may not is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. Is it not relevant for the occupant of the Chair to know who is in the Committee, so that hon. Members who wish to speak are not unfortunately overlooked?

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman well knows the context in which I made my comments.

Mr. Madden

On 4 January the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), perhaps the most relaxed and laid-back member of the Government, told me:

A copy of your letter has been faxed to the Consular Section of the British Embassy in Paris. They will take the matter up directly with the French Immigration Service. As you say this matter is distressing. It is very rare for immigration officers to take exception to British nationals travelling on British Visitors Passports. I will write to you again when we receive a reply from the French authorities. No reply has yet been received. Although my constituent is a British citizen, he was travelling on a British visitor's passport because of the horrendous difficulty in obtaining a British passport. As the Home Secretary knows, long delays led to those who were entitled to British passports seeking visitors' passports at post offices. I hope that the Home Secretary will ensure that those entitled to British citizenship and to British passports will be able to get them reasonably quickly. I also hope that he will ensure that non-EC nationals settled in the United Kingdom will be able to travel to other EC member states for a period of three months without the need to apply for a visa.

8 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech carefully; he has made some excellent points. Does he agree that the arrangement between the United Kingdom and the USA to dispense with the necessity for visas is beneficial and useful? As the USA is a major trading partner and many Americans live here, the arrangement is valuable. However, it might be scrapped if the sort of scenario outlined by the hon. Gentleman came about, which would be to the disadvantage of a major trading partner and a major friend of this country.

Mr. Madden

I agree that it is important to maintain the three-month tourist period on visits to America. I appeal to the Home Secretary to scrap clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill—

Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford)

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 230.

Division No. 128]	[8.01 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Chapman, Sydney
Alexander, Richard	Churchill, Mr
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Clappison, James
Alton, David	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Amess, David	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Ancram, Michael	Coe, Sebastian
Arbuthnot, James	Colvin, Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Congdon, David
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Conway, Derek
Ashby, David	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Aspinwall, Jack	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Cormack, Patrick
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Couchman, James
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Baldry, Tony	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Dafis, Cynog
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Dalyell, Tam
Bates, Michael	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Batiste, Spencer	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Day, Stephen
Bellingham, Henry	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Beresford, Sir Paul	Devlin, Tim
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Dickens, Geoffrey
Booth, Hartley	Dicks, Terry
Boswell, Tim	Dorrell, Stephen
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Dover, Den
Bowden, Andrew	Duncan, Alan
Bowis, John	Dunn, Bob
Brandreth, Gyles	Durant, Sir Anthony
Brazier, Julian	Dykes, Hugh
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Eggar, Tim
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Elletson, Harold
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Burns, Simon	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Burt, Alistair	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Butler, Peter	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Butterfill, John	Evennett, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Faber, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Fabricant, Michael
Carrington, Matthew	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Fishburn, Dudley	Maclean, David
Forman, Nigel	Maclennan, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Forth, Eric	Madel, David
Foster, Don (Bath)	Maitland, Lady Olga
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Malone, Gerald
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)	Mans, Keith
Freeman, Roger	Marland, Paul
French, Douglas	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gale, Roger	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Garnier, Edward	Mates, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Gorst, John	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)	Merchant, Piers
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Milligan, Stephen
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	Mills, Iain
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hague, William	Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Monro, Sir Hector
Hampson, Dr Keith	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hannam, Sir John	Moss, Malcolm
Hargreaves, Andrew	Needham, Richard
Harris, David	Nelson, Anthony
Haselhurst, Alan	Neubert, Sir Michael
Hawkins, Nick	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hayes, Jerry	Nicholls, Patrick
Heald, Oliver	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hendry, Charles	Norris, Steve
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Hicks, Robert	Oppenheim, Phillip
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.	Ottaway, Richard
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Page, Richard
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)	Pickles, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Powell, William (Corby)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Rathbone, Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Redwood, John
Hunter, Andrew	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Richards, Rod
Jack, Michael	Riddick, Graham
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Johnston, Sir Russell	Robathan, Andrew
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	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
Kirkwood, Archy	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Knox, David	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Shersby, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Sims, Roger
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Leigh, Edward	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark	Soames, Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Speed, Sir Keith
Lidington, David	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lightbown, David	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Spink, Dr Robert
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Spring, Richard
Llwyd, Elfyn	Sproat, Iain
Luff, Peter	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Lynne, Ms Liz	Steen, Anthony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Stephen, Michael

Stern, Michael	Wallace, James
Streeter, Gary	Waller, Gary
Sumberg, David	Ward, John
Sykes, John	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Waterson, Nigel
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)	Watts, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Wells, Bowen
Temple-Morris, Peter	Welsh, Andrew
Thomason, Roy	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)	Whitney, Ray
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Widdecombe, Ann
Thornton, Sir Malcolm	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Thurnham, Peter	Wigley, Dafydd
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)	Willetts, David
Tracey, Richard	Wolfson, Mark
Tredinnick, David	Wood, Timothy
Trend, Michael	Yeo, Tim
Trotter, Neville	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Twinn, Dr Ian
Tyler, Paul	Tellers for the Ayes:
Vaughan, Sir Gerard	Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and
Viggers, Peter	Mr. Andrew McKay.
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

NOES
Ainger, Nick	Darling, Alistair
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Allen, Graham	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Armstrong, Hilary	Denham, John
Ashton, Joe	Dewar, Donald
Austin-Walker, John	Dixon, Don
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Dobson, Frank
Barnes, Harry	Dowd, Jim
Barron, Kevin	Duncan-Smith, Iain
Battle, John	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Bayley, Hugh	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Beckett, Margaret	Eagle, Ms Angela
Bell, Stuart	Eastham, Ken
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Enright, Derek
Bennett, Andrew F.	Etherington, Bill
Benton, Joe	Fatchett, Derek
Bermingham, Gerald	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Berry, Dr. Roger	Flynn, Paul
Betts, Clive	Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Blair, Tony	Foulkes, George
Boyce, Jimmy	Fraser, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Fyfe, Maria
Bradley, Keith	Galbraith, Sam
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Gapes, Mike
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	George, Bruce
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Gerrard, Neil
Budgen, Nicholas	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Burden, Richard	Gill, Christopher
Byers, Stephen	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Caborn, Richard	Godsiff, Roger
Callaghan, Jim	Golding, Mrs Llin
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Gordon, Mildred
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Canavan, Dennis	Gould, Bryan
Cann, Jamie	Graham, Thomas
Cash, William	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Chisholm, Malcolm	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clelland, David	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Grocott, Bruce
Coffey, Ann	Gunnell, John
Cohen, Harry	Hain, Peter
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Hall, Mike
Corbett, Robin	Hanson, David
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hardy, Peter
Corston, Ms Jean	Harvey, Nick
Cousins, Jim	Hawksley, Warren
Cox, Tom	Henderson, Doug
Cryer, Bob	Heppell, John
Cummings, John	Home Robertson, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hoyle, Doug	Pendry, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Pickthall, Colin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Pike, Peter L.
Hutton, John	Pope, Greg
Ingram, Adam	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jamieson, David	Prescott, John
Janner, Greville	Primarolo, Dawn
Jessel, Toby	Purchase, Ken
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Jowell, Tessa	Randall, Stuart
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Raynsford, Nick
Keen, Alan	Reid, Dr John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)	Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Khabra, Piara S.	Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Kilfoyle, Peter	Rooney, Terry
Knapman, Roger	Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Rowlands, Ted
Legg, Barry	Ruddock, Joan
Leighton, Ron	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Litherland, Robert	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Livingstone, Ken	Short, Clare
Lord, Michael	Simpson, Alan
Loyden, Eddie	Skeet, Sir Trevor
McAllion, John	Skinner, Dennis
McAvoy, Thomas	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
McCartney, Ian	Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Macdonald, Calum	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mackinlay, Andrew	Soley, Clive
McLeish, Henry	Spearing, Nigel
McMaster, Gordon	Spellar, John
Madden, Max	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Maginnis, Ken	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Mahon, Alice	Stevenson, George
Mandelson, Peter	Stott, Roger
Marek, Dr John	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Marlow, Tony	Straw, Jack
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Sweeney, Walter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Maxton, John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Meacher, Michael	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Michael, Alun	Tipping, Paddy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Trimble, David
Miller, Andrew	Walley, Joan
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Wareing, Robert N
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Watson, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri	Wicks, Malcolm
Morley, Elliot	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Winnick, David
Mudie, George	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mullin, Chris	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Murphy, Paul	Wise, Audrey
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Worthington, Tony
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)	Wright, Dr Tony
O'Brien, William (Normanton)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
O'Hara, Edward
Olner, William	Tellers for the Noes:
O'Neill, Martin	Mr. Jack Thompson and
Pawsey, James	Mr. Alan Meale.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 70, Noes 281.

Division No. 129]	[8.14 pm
AYES
Austin-Walker, John	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Barnes, Harry	Canavan, Dennis
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Cann, Jamie
Bennett, Andrew F.	Cash, William
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Chisholm, Malcolm
Boyce, Jimmy	Cohen, Harry
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Corston, Ms Jean
Budgen, Nicholas	Cryer, Bob
Burden, Richard	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Marlow, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)	Paisley, Rev Ian
Gerrard, Neil	Pawsey, James
Gill, Christopher	Pickthall, Colin
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Gordon, Mildred	Purchase, Ken
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Gould, Bryan	Rowlands, Ted
Graham, Thomas	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hawksley, Warren	Simpson, Alan
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Skinner, Dennis
Hunter, Andrew	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Spearing, Nigel
Jessel, Toby	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Knapman, Roger	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Trimble, David
Leighton, Ron	Winnick, David
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Litherland, Robert	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Livingstone, Ken	Wise, Audrey
Lord, Michael
Loyden, Eddie	Tellers for the Ayes:
McAllion, John	Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and
Mahon, Alice	Mr. Max Madden.

NOES
Adley, Robert	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Coe, Sebastian
Alexander, Richard	Colvin, Michael
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Congdon, David
Alton, David	Conway, Derek
Amess, David	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Ancram, Michael	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Arbuthnot, James	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Cormack, Patrick
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Couchman, James
Ashby, David	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Aspinwall, Jack	Dafis, Cynog
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Day, Stephen
Baldry, Tony	Devlin, Tim
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Dickens, Geoffrey
Bates, Michael	Dicks, Terry
Batiste, Spencer	Dorrell, Stephen
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bellingham, Henry	Dover, Den
Beresford, Sir Paul	Duncan, Alan
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Dunn, Bob
Booth, Hartley	Durant, Sir Anthony
Boswell, Tim	Dykes, Hugh
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Eggar, Tim
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Elletson, Harold
Bowden, Andrew	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Bowis, John	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Brandreth, Gyles	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Brazier, Julian	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Evennett, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Faber, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Fabricant, Michael
Burns, Simon	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Burt, Alistair	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Butler, Peter	Fishburn, Dudley
Butterfill, John	Forman, Nigel
Campbell, Menzies (Fife HE)	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Forth, Eric
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Foster, Don (Bath)
Carrington, Matthew	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Freeman, Roger
Chaplin, Mrs Judith	French, Douglas
Chapman, Sydney	Gale, Roger
Churchill, Mr	Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Clappison, James	Garnier, Edward
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)	Gillan, Cheryl

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Milligan, Stephen
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Mills, Iain
Gorst, John	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)	Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Monro, Sir Hector
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hague, William	Moss, Malcolm
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Needham, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith	Nelson, Anthony
Hannam, Sir John	Neubert, Sir Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Harris, David	Nicholls, Patrick
Haselhurst, Alan	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hawkins, Nick	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hayes, Jerry	Norris, Steve
Heald, Oliver	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hendry, Charles	Ottaway, Richard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Page, Richard
Hicks, Robert	Paice, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.	Patnick, Irvine
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Patten, Rt Hon John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Horam, John	Pickles, Eric
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Powell, William (Corby)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Rathbone, Tim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Redwood, John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Richards, Rod
Jack, Michael	Riddick, Graham
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Johnston, Sir Russell	Robathan, Andrew
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	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
Kirkwood, Archy	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
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, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Leigh, Edward	Soames, Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark	Speed, Sir Keith
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lidington, David	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lightbown, David	Spink, Dr Robert
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Spring, Richard
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Sproat, Iain
Llwyd, Elfyn	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Luff, Peter	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Steen, Anthony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Stephen, Michael
MacKay, Andrew	Stern, Michael
Maclean, David	Streeter, Gary
Maclennan, Robert	Sumberg, David
McLoughlin, Patrick	Sykes, John
Madel, David	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Maitland, Lady Olga	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Malone, Gerald	Temple-Morris, Peter
Mans, Keith	Thomason, Roy
Marland, Paul	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Thurnham, Peter
Mates, Michael	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Tracey, Richard
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Tredinnick, David
Mellor, Rt Hon David	Trend, Michael
Merchant, Piers	Trotter, Neville
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)	Twinn, Dr Ian

Tyler, Paul	Widdecombe, Ann
Vaughan, Sir Gerard	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Viggers, Peter	Wigley, Dafydd
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William	Willetts, David
Wallace, James	Wolfson, Mark
Waller, Gary	Wood, Timothy
Ward, John	Yeo, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Waterson, Nigel
Watts, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Wells, Bowen	Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John	Mr. Robert G. Hughes.
Whitney, Ray

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(except Article 99 on page 16 of Cm 1934)'.

The Second Deputy Chairman

With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 45, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert 'but not Article 99 in Title II thereof. No. 422, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(except Article 99 on page 16 of Cm. 1934, so far as it may relate to the ending of derogations permitting zero-rating of VAT in the United Kingdom.).'. No. 423, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(except Article 99 on page 16 of Cm. 1934. so far as it may relate to further harmonisation in respect of excise or other internal taxes.).'.

Mr. Smith

Amendment No. 9, which would delete article 99 from the Bill, is not one that we shall pursue to a Division.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is a probing amendment, intended to allow the Committee an opportunity to debate important issues relating to the harmonisation of indirect taxation.

Mr. Michael Spicer

Normally in Committee—certainly in the 20 years that I have been a Member of Parliament —right hon. and hon. Members try to refine a Bill. The whole purpose of the Committee stage is to go through a Bill in detail, change it as one goes along, improve it, and so on. We have another 17 Labour amendments to consider. What is the purpose of them when a member of the Opposition Front Bench pops up and says, "We've tabled this amendment but we're not going to vote for it. We are going to speak and vote against it." The whole thing is becoming a charade. What is going on?

Mr. Smith

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we will certainly be pressing a number of amendments to a Division—such as amendment No. 27, concerning the social chapter, and others that reflect Labour party policy.

Mr. Cash

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that several titles in the treaty are not included in the Bill? He compounds the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), that this is becoming an absurdity on the part of the Opposition. Not only are they not prepared to put their votes where their windbaggery is, but they are including a whole range of matters that are not in the Bill.

Mr. Smith

The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is the last person to speak about windbaggery—and we will take no lectures from him on absurdity either.

Article 99 states: The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonization of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonization is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market within the time limit laid down in Article 7a. It is important to emphasise the words to the extent that such harmonization is necessary to ensure". Labour has not supported and does not support the contention that it is necessary to make indirect tax rates the same to ensure that the single market operates effectively.

In particular, we have vigorously opposed any moves to end the opportunity for Britain to levy a zero rate of value added tax. We equally oppose the move that the Government are reportedly contemplating, to impose VAT on newspapers, books and publications in the forthcoming Budget. Any such move would place a wholly undesirable burden on consumers and would inflict gratuitous damage on important national industries at this time of deep recession. What is more, such a change could not be justified as necessary for the functioning of the single market.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I did not wish to interrupt him, but I wanted to intervene on a specific point. I am pleased to hear what he said because there will be absolute unanimity among Opposition parties, except perhaps one, in agreeing with him. Can I take it therefore that the Opposition Front Bench will wholeheartedly support amendment No. 422 which has been selected as part of this group and which states that the Bill will not apply to anything which ends derogation of zero rating in VAT in the United Kingdom? From what he has said, I understand that my hon. Friend will be voting for that amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) which will be put to a vote. Perhaps he could give the House that assurance.

8.30 pm

Mr. Smith

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for what I was saying about the importance of defending Britain's right to sustain zero rating. As I read amendment No. 422, it would not approve article 99 as it specifies:

so far as it may relate to the ending of derogations permitting zero-rating of VAT in the United Kingdom". As I have said, I do not accept that it would or should be taken to end zero rating derogation and therefore it would not be necessary to support that amendment to sustain the position that I have been advocating. However, I certainly agree with the spirit in which the amendment was tabled.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is Committee style, and I am quite sure that he agrees with this form of discussion.

Article 99 in its new form would surely give the Community that very power. Unlike the existing article 99, which is entrenched in the treaty of Rome, there is no escape clause, as the Home Secretary was vigorously advocating in the last debate saying that article 8a was not relevant because it already exists. This is a new article 99 and if the amendment is carried, as I hope it will be, the Bill will provide that no regulation or directive from the European Community can increase or apply VAT to anything which is at the moment derogated. I would have thought that that would have appealed enormously to my hon. Friend. Surely it is the legal and precise reading of such an amendment because we would have a new article 99 after the treaty of European union.

Mr. Smith

As I said, I do not accept that article 99 should be interpreted in that way.

I intended to press the Paymaster General on the very point that my hon. Friend raised about what powers specifically are granted under the treaty and what follows from the treaty in relation to Britain's ability to levy a zero rate of VAT. As I was saying, it would be especially damaging for such a change to be contemplated. Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the pledges that the Prime Minister made during the general election campaign.

It would also be inconsistent with what the Paymaster General said when he assured the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in a letter on 6 January 1993 that there was no intention to extend VAT to newspapers, books and publications.

Mr. Michael Spicer

If the hon. Gentleman believes that, and in my view it is wholly admirable, for various reasons which I hope to explain, why is he equivocal about pressing amendment No. 422 which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has brought to his attention?

Mr. Smith

I have made it clear that I do not interpret article 99 as involving that danger. Moreover, I would not advocate supporting an amendment that would wreck the treaty.

In any event, it is somewhat ironic that we are debating this part of the Bill today, four weeks after the advent of the single market and the 31 December 1992 deadline set out in article 7a to which article 99 refers. The single market is of course already with us and this evening's debate provides us with an early opportunity to press the Government on their judgment of how well or badly the new arrangements are working out in practice and, in particular, on how things stand in regard to the operation of the new VAT regime.

The Minister will have seen many of the reports in the press highlighting the difficulties which are all the more serious because they impede consumers and businesses from making the most of the opportunities which the single market offers.

The Daily Telegraph of Monday 18 January reported a number of serious problems. It said that: Accountants … phone lines have been jammed by companies who cannot ship goods around Europe because of tax difficulties say the situation is chaos with no prospect for improvement for months yet. Christine Sanderson of Price Waterhouse was quoted as saying: Many people do not understand what the changes are and so they are not properly prepared. But the most disappointing aspect has been that various countries are not prepared. We had believed that government would get their act together. The article continues: Trouble spots have emerged in Spain, Portugal, Italy and, perhaps more surprisingly, in Belgium and the Netherlands where lorries have been kept waiting at customs points while officials checked documents which in theory should no longer be required. The article goes on to itemise other difficulties: Huge backlogs in handing out VAT numbers on the continent. VAT registration is absolutely essential to the working of the new system. Although Britain is well prepared in that respect, those other member states which have used other tax codes have now had to dish out many new tax codes specifically for the purpose of VAT. The article continues: Price Waterhouse estimate that there are 'millions' of VAT numbers to be issued, a process which could take years. Companies selling to buyers who have not yet received a VAT number could find themselves liable for the payments which may not be recoverable.".

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley)

When I paid one of my very rare visits to Brussels last November, we were given lectures by officials of the Commission and when we asked about the transition period beginning 1 January in regard to VAT in particular, they all confessed that it will be a sheer muddle because although the Governments had exhorted each other to obey the rules and to have everything in place on 1 January, there was no hope of that happening for some months.

May I also back-track to support the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who I call my hon. Friend for these purposes, in regard to his point about derogation. As leader of an Opposition party, I have always taken the view that whenever we are in doubt we should oppose the Government of the day, whatever colour it may be, to safeguard those who send us here. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, in the light of what will be unsatisfactory assurances from the Government, will reconsider their decision not to vote on the amendment.

Mr. Smith

I agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said. Clearly, it is incumbent on Governments to get their act together for the introduction of the new VAT regime. Can the Minister say what information the Government now have on the adequacy of those preparations and how far are other countries properly geared up to issuing VAT numbers and to the full and fair administration of the new system?

I now return to the other difficulties itemised in the article. They include confusion over goods currently in Customs warehouses awaiting export. The article stated: In Holland and Belgium, tax authorities have told companies they will not release goods that entered warehouses before January 1 unless VAT is paid first. This form of back tax is not legal, according to British tax opinion. It would be helpful to have the Government view about that. The article went on to refer to what it described as the EEC's infamous simplification directive, which was intended to make it easier for companies exporting to buyers in one EC country via a middleman in a third member state … That has already broken down in Spain. The Spanish have said they will not implement the directive until September, so British companies selling indirectly to Spain will have to register there temporarily. It concluded by drawing attention to what it described as the biggest problem yet to come. That was the need for companies, by 10 February, to file details of their January exports and imports with national tax authorities. It pointed out that the relevant form asks 19 different questions, including the weight of the goods shipped, their value and a code number. Although ignoring those is a criminal offence, the article said: one medium-sized exporter … reckons it will have to double its export clerical staff to deal with the new requirement, which in the past was handled entirely by government officials. May we have the Government's estimation, on the basis of information available to them, of the extent of those difficulties and what is being done about them?

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)

My hon. Friend is making a vital point. Whereas ordinary imports and exports can be dealt with—it will take time, but such matters will eventually be sorted out—the authorities have not got anywhere near sorting out the intercountry, third party trade, where a trading body buys from one country and sells to another, conducting a valuable wholesaling function. Proper provision has not been made for that. It may be months before those concerned even begin to work out satisfactory solutions. It is a serious matter for a trading country such as Britain.

Mr. Smith

I share my right hon. Friend's concern about that serious issue. I fear that the problems will result in what was intended to be a better system getting off to a damaging start. As he says, it could act as a great disadvantage to a country such as ours. A great proportion of our production goes for export, exceeded, sadly, by the faster rising level of imports. Are the problems to which I referred confirmed by the information that the Minister is receiving? If so, what action is being taken by the British Government and other member states to resolve them?

Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), will the Minister state the British Government's position on, and interpretation of, the Community's legal position on the future of the legally binding minimum VAT rate of 15 per cent., which the Chancellor conceded in July last year was part of the package which then enabled Britain to retain its zero rates, at least to the end of 1996, when the agreement comes up for review? An article in the Financial Times on 28 July last year said: There is still some confusion about whether member states have committed themselves to having a legally binding minimum VAT rate for ever. Mr. Lamont indicated that the directive would lapse if ministers failed to reach unanimous agreement on a renewed legally binding minimum before 1996. The Community would then be subject only to last year's non-binding accord. It reports others as disagreeing, pointing out that Mr. Jorge Braga de Macedo of Portugal, who was the Chancellor's predecessor as president of the Council of Finance Ministers, believed that the legally binding minimum would be automatically renewed if they failed to agree. That would deprive dissenters, possibly including Britain, of any effective veto. That issue is of great concern to hon. Members and I hope that the Minister will give a clear answer, including the benefit of the legal advice that the Government are receiving on the issue.

8.45 pm

Mr. Cash

In view of the case that the hon. Gentleman is putting on behalf of the Labour party, may I ask him to say whether he is in favour of what appears to be an argument for the harmonisation of VAT and if he appreciates the corollary to that, which is in the Onno Ruding report, published in the summer and clearly Commission policy, for the harmonisation of business taxes? Is that Labour party policy? Considering the date 1 January 1996 and all that will be going on at about that time, he might clarify whether Labour is also in favour of a single currency.

Mr. Smith

There will be other occasions to deal with matters such as those. I am anxious to remain in order and to relate my arguments to the amendments now before the Committee. I have already made it clear that the Labour party does not believe it necessary to levy the same rate of indirect tax for the single market to operate properly.

I have put a number of questions to the Minister. Given the importance of developments that will be occurring in future years on the subjects I have raised, perhaps the Minister will give the latest Government thinking on the arguments for a move to an origin-based system rather than the destination-based system of VAT that is now operating. The change has been advocated by the Commission and others. What is the Minister's response, for example, to the arguments advanced by the Simpler Trade Procedures Board, known as Sitpro, that an origin-based system would be an improvement because it would replicate the domestic system, dispense with the requirement for a European sales listing, eliminate the need for evidence that goods have left the country and avoid the complex problems of triangulation—or strangulation, as some in the trade are already calling it?

May we also be assured that if the Government were looking to an origin-based regime, as the Commission is likely to press member states to consider, our zero rates could be retained? It is important for us to know what stance the Government are taking on Community discussion of those important policy issues.

Have there been any developments since the draft 7th VAT directive was considered by the Standing Committee on 2 December? At that time we debated, in particular, the question of the rate of VAT on imported works of art. Hon. Members in all parts of the House expressed concern about the future of London's international art market, which is worth well over £1 billion a year, if the proposals set out in that draft directive and imported works of art were to come into effect.

The directive would impose VAT of at least 5 per cent. on art entering the EC, and that could have grave consequences for British and European culture, discouraging the repatriation of art which has already gone abroad and provoking an outflow of the national heritage. We have seen from the Irish experience what such attacks can do to the art market. We continue to urge the Minister to accept the recommendations of the National Heritage Select Committee and adopt a vigorous stand against those potentially damaging proposals. Will he set out the Government's position on that issue?

The Minister and I have exchanged correspondence about the bloodstock industry. The advent of the single market and the lower rates of VAT applied in other member states have presented a dire threat to that industry because of the obvious attractions for buyers and sellers to trade in markets where the lower rate of VAT is charged.

So serious is that situation that Tattersalls, in response to its clients' preferences, have moved their yearling sales to Fairyhouse in Ireland for next September and in a news release announcing this sad fact it said:

This decision has been brought about by the United Kingdom Government steadfastly refusing to give the industry the competitive low rate available under EC law. Separately, they are considering the possibility of extending VAT registration to racehorse owners I will come back to that in a minute. I am aware that there are ongoing discussions between representatives of the industry and of the Government on this and of the fact that some schemes attempting to ameliorate the situation have been put forward, namely, proposals on distance selling, on dispatch and acquisition and the flat rate farming scheme which we shall be debating again next week.

However, there have been problems about this between the Government and the industry. In that same news release, Tattersalls said: in the last few days this was dated 24 November— an unexpected change has emerged from discussions with Customs and Excise. Previously we had been assured by Her Majesty's Government that all horses coming to Newmarket from Ireland and France and being sold by United Kingdom Flat Rate Farmers would be sold free of all United Kingdom VAT, —as stated in its previous press release of 21 September.

Customs have now changed their previous interpretation so that all Yearlings, previously purchased with Irish or French VAT charged in either of these two countries, would have to be sold by Flat Rate Farmers with VAT in Newmarket or VAT would have to be charged on entry into the United Kingdom. So I ask the Paymaster General, as those most closely involved in this remain very concerned about the situation and the implications for the industry, what the Government will do about this. It is an industry in which Britain is a world leader and many jobs depend on it. It is imperative that it is not damaged further. I ask the Paymaster General to assure the House that the Government will give urgent and sympathetic reconsideration to those matters. I think he should look again at the proposal to allow racehorse owners and traders to register, as they can do in nine of the 12 member states. That is one of the key steps which have been suggested by people in the industry as being of most assistance in resolving the crisis.

Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield)

Does the hon. Member accept the statement by Tattersalls which he read out that there is a competitively low rate of VAT available in this case? Is he suggesting that VAT should be lowered in the way they are suggesting?

Mr. Smith

I did not make that suggestion, but I ask the Government sympathetically and urgently to reconsider the whole situation. It is not the only suggestion put forward to remedy the situation. I understand from Tattersalls that allowing breeders and owners to register for VAT would equally well meet the concern and prevent a valuable industry from being threatened and destroyed in the way that this industry otherwise looks likely to be destroyed.

Another specific area on which I would like the Paymaster General to elaborate is the ending of restrictions on the importing of goods for personal consumption and the consequent changes in Customs procedures. He gave me an estimate in a written parliamentary reply that the prospective revenue loss due to this is likely to be £250 million a year. Does that estimate still hold good in the light of the experience they have had so far of the new regime? Has he also been able to evaluate the likely extent of smuggling and other dealing in contraband as a result of the changes and what measures have the Government put in place to combat them? Is he satisfied that the Excise have the officers that they need properly to combat smuggling? Everyone in the House will be particularly concerned about the position with drugs and weapons. It is imperative that the staff are in place to do that job. There have been cuts in staff and redeployment and the larger estimates made at one time of the numbers of officers which were likely to be needed to be appointed have not been met and there is concern among the employees of Customs and Excise about how far they are being given the resources to do the job.

It is important that the Government respond to that anxiety which is shared by most of the public. Has the Minister been able to evaluate the likely extent of smuggling as a result of the changes, what measures the Government have put in place to combat that risk and whether they are contemplating further measures?

The fourth area in which the House needs some assurances is the new Community VAT regime. There will be no intra-Community trades statistics for the first six months of operation of the new system of VAT payments and trade statistics. I can well understand, given the Government's abysmal record on trade, why it might suit them never to have trade statistics again but, given the obligation to publish them and their importance, I hope the Paymaster General can assure me that the system will at least be running adequately to provide statistics after the six months hiatus. Will the figures which are then provided be properly comparable with those previously gathered on the old basis?

I can see the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir. T. Taylor) shaking his head but, given the way that other important Government statistics, for example on unemployment, have been manipulated, it would not surprise me at all if we found as a consequence of this that valid statistical comparisons were made more difficult rather than being facilitated. I hope the Paymaster General will say that those fears are not properly grounded. Can he tell us whether the figures for the first half of the year will be made available and on what basis will the estimates be made?

Mr. Tim Smith

How were the trade statistics collected under the old regime and how will they be collected under the new one?

Mr. Andrew Smith

They are going to be collected under the new regime—

The Chairman

Order. I do not think we want a dissertation on trade statistics under this amendment. I would have pulled up the hon. Member if the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) had not asked his question so quickly.

Mr. Andrew Smith

I am sorry that I am precluded from giving the hon. Member for Beaconsfield a lecture on the collection and dissemination of trade statistics, but it is relevant to our debate that we are given assurances that the operation of the new system under the fiscal harmonisation provisions of article 99 will provide statistics that are valid and comparable for analytical purposes as they ought to be.

Will the Government publish any estimates of the underlying position during the six months that will elapse before the new statistics are available? Certainly, City analysts and commentators will publish estimates, perhaps based on financial flows.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)

The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of questions, and I would be the first to acknowledge that they constitute a valid basis for a debate in which we could engage at some point; but I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that is limited to the specific confines of the Committee stage of this Bill.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only change involved in article 99 of the Single European Act is the introduction of further consultation with the European Economic and Social Committee? In supporting the Act, did not the House effectively agree to the objective of harmonising taxation? The implementation of that objective is extremely interesting; but the commitment was made under the Single European Act, which had the support of the House—including the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).

9 pm

Mr. Smith

That is certainly an interesting point, which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt debate with his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The VAT system, as operated in the Community, has developed since the passage of the Single European Act, but I think it entirely appropriate for hon. Members to have a full opportunity to question the implications of article 99—even hon. Members who voted for a very similar measure in the past. Implications tend to become apparent as systems develop, and as people analyse the legal ramifications. It is right for questions to be asked, and I only hope that the Paymaster General can answer them.

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)

Year after year, Ministers have said that harmonisation is not necessary to the operation of the single market. Have they now changed their minds?

Mr. Smith

I shall add that question to the others that I have already asked the Paymaster General. I have already made Labour's position clear.

Mr. Sheldon

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, who is doing very well.

I had some responsibility for the sixth directive: I was in the chair at the time. When we agreed the provision on harmonisation, no time limit was in operation. In the case of article 99, there is a time limit. That makes a world of difference: it is easy to talk about harmonisation in the distant future, but time limits force us to confront the realities rather more urgently.

Mr. Smith

That is a good point—especially in view of the fact that the time limit in question was passed before we embarked on this debate.

Opposition Members are anxious for the operation of indirect taxation in relation to the single market to be fair to consumers, to foster trade and to stimulate business. We should aim for a fair, administratively efficient system, which, while not imposing unnecessary standardisation for the sake of it, ensures that the single market creates a reasonably level playing field. It is clear that the present arrangements leave a great deal to be desired, and the Government owe the Committee clear answers to the questions that I have raised.

Let me also ask the Paymaster General to give an assurance that we seek, and that the country wants—an assurance that the Government will not extend or raise VAT in the forthcoming Budget.

Sir John Cope

Let me begin with what could be described as a health warning. Although the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)—egged on to some extent by interventions—trailed his coat quite a bit, and ranged widely in his discussion of the amendments, I hope that I shall not be expected to say anything about what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might propose in his forthcoming Budget. I see that certain former Treasury Ministers on the Opposition Benches agree with my position. Nothing that I say should be taken as any hint at decisions which, in any event, have not yet been made. I shall be delighted—subject to your view of what is in order, Mr. Morris—to listen to any suggestions on this matter. However, I shall observe the tradition that applies to Treasury Ministers.

The Chairman

Order. I hope that hon. Members do not intend to make contributions or suggestions concerning the Budget. That would be out of order.

Sir John Cope

I think that that is a very proper ruling, Mr. Morris.

I have some sympathy with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, East. My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Oxford, East did not seem interested in addressing the amendments. Certainly he did not support them. Perhaps other hon. Members will address them.

Mr. Michael Spicer

There are many other things that I want to say. I hope that the early intervention of my right hon. Friend does not indicate that he will not speak later. If I catch your eye, Mr. Morris—

The Chairman

Order. Hon. Members make this point repeatedly. There is a clear convention that, in Committee, a Member moves an amendment, and a Minister responds. Whether the Minister intervenes later depends entirely on the course of the debate. It is not helpful for hon. Members to express the hope that the Minister will respond. It is a matter for the Minister to decide.

Mr. Spearing

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am very grateful for your guidance, but I am sure that you will have noticed that there are two amendments in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Members. These have not so far been addressed in the debate, although there was a short exchange about their merits during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). The Minister may make some observations about them, but until they are advocated it would be difficult to do more than that. In Standing Committees it is unusual for a Minister not to reply, particularly where there is a group of amendments. I hope, Mr. Morris, that you will bear that in mind. Can the overall debate be properly concluded unless there has been such specific debate?

The Chairman

Hon. Members seem to have forgotten —it may be some years since one or two of them have served on Standing Committees—that the normal procedure is that a Member moves an amendment and, especially if it is a substantive one, a Minister responds. Then hon. Members may seek to catch the Chairman's eye. Indeed, I have been noting the names of hon. Members who have risen, and I hope to be able to call them. It is normal for any new elements that are raised to be dealt with by the Minister if he feels that that is the proper course. This should not have to be put on the record time after time as amendments are dealt with. That simply takes up the time of the Committee fairly uselessly.

Mr. Michael Spicer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. While I accept your ruling entirely, may I ask you, in deciding whether to accept a closure motion, to bear in mind the convention in Standing Committees—on many of which I have served in various capacities, recently and in more distant times—that the Chair gives the Government an opportunity to respond? I realise that we shall not get a definitive ruling in respect of every Government reply, but may I ask whether, in your decision on a closure motion, you take into account the possibility that the Government will reply to debate that has taken place after the Minister's initial response?

The Chairman

I take all matters into consideration. It is particularly important to ensure that an amendment has been moved properly and is properly dealt with. That is the key determinant.

Sir John Cope

I had better turn immediately to the amendments. The first two on the list, Nos. 9 and 45, seek to remove the alterations to article 99 which are proposed in the treaty and to leave it as it is at present. If they were to be put into effect, the only result would be to delete the proposed new requirement that when indirect tax proposals were put forward the economic and social committee should be consulted.

Nothing was said from the Opposition Front Bench and I am not clear, therefore, what Opposition Members have against consulting the economic and social committee and what led them to move an amendment which would remove that consultation.

Mr. Andrew Smith

I made it very clear that this was a probing amendment in order for us to have this debate and to allow me to put important concerns to the Minister. It is a perfectly normal convention and I am surprised that he does not understand that.

Sir John Cope

As long as the hon. Gentleman appreciates the limited nature of the amendment that he has moved. We do, however, consult widely on proposed tax changes in this country. Treasury Ministers are frequently asked in Finance Bills to consult more rather than less, so to be asked to consult less is a slightly novel experience.

Amendments Nos. 422 and 423 are also puzzling in their intentions, if one reads them carefully and tries to apply them. Amendment No. 422 implies that deleting article 99—something which is not proposed by the treaty, the Bill or any of the amendments, so no one is supporting it—might somehow lead to an end to the derogations that permit the United Kingdom to have its various zero rates. But it is the sixth directive and its children which embody the agreement to the continuation of our zero rates. If, which no hon. Member on either side of the House is suggesting, we deleted article 99 and did not replace it, it might be said that there would then be no vires for the sixth directive, and that would include both the agreement for us to continue our zero rates and, for that matter, the part of the agreement under which otherwise we could not have the zero rates.

Amendment No. 422, therefore, would not in any way safeguard our zero rates, and the hon. Member for Oxford, East was quite correct, if I understood him aright, in what he said about the effect of his hon. Friend's amendments.

Amendment No. 423 uses a different approach. It proposes that we should not have the authority to make any further agreements for excise or other internal taxes. That would be a mistake. After all, there may well be moves for further or other simplification of value added tax, for example, or other changes proposed for the protection of the United Kingdom revenue which might become necessary, and we might think it desirable to propose such changes to our colleagues in the Community for Community law or to the House, or to both. It is likely that in the future hon. Members on both sides will wish us to press for items of simplification and other changes which might be made but which would be prevented if amendment No. 423 were carried. It would freeze the indirect tax system from the moment that the treaty came into force.

I could not recommend such a course to the Committee and it may be that no hon. Member will, on reflection, want to pass any of these four amendments on their own merits.

9.15 pm

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to the Financial Secretary. He is absolutely right about the intention of amendment No. 423, and if I catch the Chairman's eye I may be able to take up the point that he has just made. It was difficult to draft amendment No. 422, but the intention is other than as he interpreted it. The intention is that article 99 remain, but, in so far as future use of it may, as stated in the amendment, end current derogations, it should not have that effect. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, under the sixth directive it would be possible after 1996 —admittedly, it may be a matter of unanimity—for those existing derogations to disappear. We are suggesting in the amendment that that power be not available under article 99. I hope that the intention is clear, even if the drafting is defective.

Sir John Cope

The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to make the intention clear. He is right in saying, of course, that it would require unanimity. That is something which we have stuck to rigidly; indeed, we have not had to hold out for it, as all the member states are satisfied that unanimity is the right way to settle these tax matters, although sometimes it is quite a laborious process to arrive at proposals that are satisfactory to all. The difficulty of arriving at unanimity has been evident in connection with the various directives regarding VAT, some of which were passed later than we would have wished, in the interest of making good preparations.

I was asked to comment on the progress that was being made on this in other member states. The hon. Member for Oxford, East drew particularly on one press cutting in asking his questions. I am glad to be able to say that, if he refers to some other press reports, which are substantially confirmed by the information which the United Kingdom Customs is receiving, he will see that there have been relatively few problems at the borders. According to the Financial Times of 22 January, for example,

the Internal Market has got off to a good start. As far as we can see, the frontier Customs staff in all the other member states have, in the main, turned out to be well prepared. There have been some exceptions. Some late decisions were taken, on about 29 December, in Spain and Portugal about certain agricultural and transitional Customs duty arrangements, which led to some early confusion, and there were also some commercial movements of excise goods about which there were misunderstandings in several member states regarding requirements for special accompanying documents, leading to delays in some circumstances.

There have also been some very encouraging reports about terrific improvements in delivery times, for example, for British exporters as a result of the elimination of routine Customs controls at the frontiers. One company reported a reduction of 17 hours in the journey to Spain as a result of the absence of Customs formalities at the United Kingdom end or at the various countries in between and the Spanish border itself. That highlights one of the important advantages of the single market for United Kingdom business.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned particularly in this context difficulties in issuing VAT registration numbers and asked what progress had been made. My advice is that only Germany has still to complete issuing VAT registration numbers. It may surprise hon. Members that Germany might be a laggard in a bureaucratic matter of this kind, but apparently it has had to change its system to take account of the new arrangements. I am sure that Germany will complete the process by the end of this month. The feedback from various consultative bodies, such as the VAT Practitioners Group, or the London part of it, and the Joint Customs Consultative Committee is that things are going well. There are a few teething problems, but they are being sorted out by working groups in Brussels.

At this week's meeting, Spain agreed to complete the necessary simplification provisions as a matter of urgency and is no longer requiring middle men in the triangular transactions to register for value added tax, one of the points to which the hon. Member for Oxford, East referred. All in all, it means a major reduction in the bureaucractic burdens on business. An independent consultant drew up an important report for us, which stated that the reduction in bureaucracy from the new system would be worth £135 million a year to British business.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer me off the top of his head. Among the teething problems to which he referred was that of plant disease. Has it been resolved? Early last year there were difficulties caused by the movement of potential or actual plant disease across frontiers. Has anything been done about it? It is clearly a very difficult matter.

Sir John Cope

The hon. Gentleman rightly supposes that I cannot answer off the top of my head. I shall consult my colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are especially expert and I shall write to him.

The speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, East ranged much more widely than the amendment. He spoke in general about the harmonisation of taxation and said, among other things, that the Labour party was not wedded to unity on taxation rates across the Community. Nor are the Government.

It is perhaps necessary to make a musical analogy when discussing this issue. People sometimes confuse harmony with unison. When musical instruments or singers play or sing in unison they use the same notes. Harmony involves different notes that blend with each other to create a pleasing overall sound. It is the notion of different notes leading to harmony that we seek in the tax system, rather than the unison or unity which is sometimes mistakenly mentioned in these discussions. Tax harmonisation does not mean that every member state has to have exactly the same tax system or rate. The differing systems should be able to work together, and that is what we have been thinking all along.

The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the next possible stage, the move to the origin system. The next step will be proposals from the Commission. I can see that there are some advantages in the origin system—the hon. Gentleman quoted the Simplified Trade Procedures Board in that context—but it is much too early to express a view, as the Commission has not produced its proposals. In fact, I believe that they are only in their early stages, if they exist at all. The Commission is not due to produce any proposals until the end of 1994, so there is no question of our discussing them. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

In talking about the future, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the 15 per cent. minimum rate of VAT. I can assure him that in the absence of further agreement between the member states, the agreement lapses at the end of four years.

Sir Teddy Taylor

Hear, hear.

Sir John Cope

I am glad that that has my hon. Friend's support.

The hon. Member for Oxford. East drew attention to several specific matters. Works of art are still being considered. We have not altered our position. The hon. Gentleman and the Committee know that the exemption of imports would be the best way to preserve the United Kingdom art market in a healthy state. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are keeping in close touch with the art trade as the discussions proceed.

As for racehorses—

Mr. Dykes

Before my right hon. Friend starts talking about racehorses, I apologise for not having been here earlier when he started speaking—

Sir Teddy Taylor

You are never here.

Mr. Dykes

I have been here most of the afternoon—but I shall ignore that sedentary interruption from my hysterical hon. Friend.

Will the Minister reassure the Committee that the Government will keep open the idea of reducing the time for which duty-free facilities are to remain within the single market? Such facilities are an illogical contradiction in the single market, yet the transitional period has another seven years to run. Will the Minister reconsider the arrangement, just for the internal market in the member states?

Sir John Cope

The present agreement is for duty-free arrangements to continue for a bit. Recently most attention has been paid to the amount of duty paid, but I shall return to the subject of cross-border shopping in a moment.

I was about to mention racehorses, which are not, I admit, immediately relevant to the amendments—or, indeed, anything to do with them. The hon. Member for Oxford, East was correct to say that the horse racing authorities have told us of their proposals, which I hope will enable more owners to register for VAT under the present rules. Customs and Excise are preparing a technical paper on those matters, and I am keeping in close touch with all the relevant interests.

I promised to return to cross-border shopping and other such matters. The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked me if I could revise the estimate of £250 million given in the Red Book for the previous Budget as the likely loss of revenue resulting from cross-border shopping. It is difficult to make an accurate estimate, and we have no reason to revise the original estimate at the moment. We do not have sufficient information about the amount of cross-border shopping and its effects on revenue to carry out such a revision.

Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden)

I am sorry to be so slow in responding to my right hon. Friend's comments about VAT on horses, but I have just come into the Chamber, and I ask him to forgive me. Will my right hon. Friend give me some idea of the time scale of the review in which his officials are considering the technical aspects, especially the comparison between VAT levied in our country and in others? Will that take place soon, please?

Sir John Cope

Yes, I hope to be able to come back to my hon. Friend soon. We are in discussion, and it is not for us alone to decide how quickly the matter can be resolved. The Customs and Excise are one side in the discussion.

Cross-border shopping does not take place all one way. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) seems to have left the Chamber for the moment, but he will know that in Northern Ireland the land border provides a lot of scope, especially for shoppers from the Irish Republic, with its separate tax rates, to say nothing of the present exchange rates.

There have been various reports recently, notably the BBC "Food and Drink Programme" the night before last, which pointed out, I am told, that many of the more expensive wines are cheaper here than in France. So even with wine, cross-border shopping does not take place in only one direction. Apart from the legitimate transfer across borders for personal consumption of goods on which duty has been paid in other Community countries, there is also smuggling. As the hon. Member for Oxford, East said, goods on which overseas tax has been paid are brought across borders for resale in this country.

We have set up some flexible anti-smuggling teams and appointed some Customs officers who are devoted to the task of chasing up breaches of the law in this respect. I am glad to say that they have already had some success. Nearly every day they have managed to charge someone with this offence. I can give the Committee an absolute assurance that anyone who we have reason to suppose has brought goods across for sale will be hounded, and prosecuted when that is appropriate, to ensure that those who smuggle goods across and resell them feel the full strength of the law. They must be left in no doubt that this activity is illegal.

9.30 pm

The Customs have been enjoying a certain amount of co-operation from legitimate traders who realise the dangers. I welcome that; I encourage legitimate traders and members of the public who have information about offences of this kind to contact Customs and give them every assistance in this important aspect of their work.

I have covered most of the items mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford, East, although a great many of them were well outside the terms of the amendments—which in any case should not commend themselves to anyone in the Committee.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I was rather struck by the Paymaster General's musical analogy—of harmony rather than unison. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who was struck by it too, would agree that we regret the decline in our nonconformist chapels of the practice of singing in four-part harmony and its replacement by the practice of singing in unison, which reduces the force and quality of the singing. When I thought about it, however, the analogy seemed slightly far fetched. Different factors are at stake in taxation.

My enthusiasm for the analogy was much greater than my enthusiasm for amendment No. 9. My lack of enthusiasm for that amendment was even more profound than that of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who damned it with very faint praise. It would remove from the legislation what we already understand to be the law and practice in our relations with the Community in tax harmonisation matters, and it would not impose on us new and unjustified requirements of harmonisation.

I say that as one who shares the scepticism expressed around the Chamber tonight about undue tax harmonisation. The crucial phrases that will appear in the Act and which appeared in the treaty of Rome and our Single European Act commitments relate to harmonisation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and functioning of the internal market". That, and that alone, is justification for harmonisation. There is a powerful case for harmonising taxes if differing tax rates can be used to favour the goods of the home country as against those of the country in the Community seeking to export to that country. That is what it is for and, in the case of excise duties, it can be significant.

This is a difficult area to resolve—there are health and social policies at stake—but it is significant if a product made in the home country is taxed much more favourably than a potential substitute product imported from another country. All the arguments about wine, beer and cider come down to this in the end: how to avoid one country favouring its products at the expense of the products of other countries in a supposedly single market.

That consideration, however, does not bear on the sale of similar goods in any one country. If lawn mowers are taxed at the same rate at the point of sale, it does not make much difference if they are charged at another rate in another country—except to the extent that that promotes cross-border shopping. Up to a point, cross-border shopping is not all that deplorable. At least to some extent it encourages people to move around the Community and has brought many of our citizens to the realisation that, far from these islands being the sole civilised parts of the world, there are many good things going on in other parts of Europe. People have become more enthusiastic about going there and enjoying them.

At some point, cross-border shopping becomes such a threat to the trade and industry of some countries that they are led, for normal market reasons, to seek to harmonise tax rates. That is the natural way in which tax harmonisation will be achieved, and it will occur if individual member countries think that it is not in their interests to maintain the disparity. To that extent, our ability simply to please ourselves about our tax rates is reduced by the amount of trade. However, we want trade and a single market will enable people to pursue it.

Mr. Michael Spicer

If the normal market arrangements would result in some form of normalisation, why do we need to have a law about it?

Mr. Beith

To a large extent, normal market operations will bring about the necessary degree of harmonisation. There are instances—I have quoted some from excise duties and there are also some in the VAT field—of countries preserving a differential to protect a home-produced product against competition from a similar, imported product. It would usually have to be because the products are slightly different but still capable of being substituted one for the other and serving the same purpose —perhaps of inducing a state of alcoholic cheerfulness or whatever. The denial of equal treatment for the imported product is normally what is at stake.

There have been profound differences of view between this country and the Commission about what is necessary for the achievement of the single market. The differences were widest when Lord Cockfield was at the Commission. When Madam Scrivener took over, a significantly more amenable attitude was apparent. The noble Lord Lawson of Blaby described the replacement of Lord Cockfield by Madam Scrivener as the replacement of an English dogmatist by a French pragmatist. That was the case. I found Lord Cockfield's attitude on this issue extremely dogmatic and, although it was elegantly expresssed, it was a quite unnecessary promotion of harmonisation. It is a pity that such a good servant of the European cause felt that he had to go so far over the top on this issue. I welcomed the subsequent changes of policy because they represented a much more realistic approach to tax harmonisation.

Dr. Marek

The right hon. Gentleman says that Lord Cockfield went over the top. Does he agree that Madam Scrivener understood what was necessary and that the necessary law for harmonisation relates to the bottom limit? Plainly, one needs a minimum standard rate of VAT to stop the bidding down of one country by another so as to favour its own goods.

Mr. Beith

I reiterate that if all similar products sold in a country are taxed at the same level there is no compelling need for harmonisation whether from the top or from the bottom. I can buy a newspaper or a book in this country free of VAT. I can choose either The Times or Le Figaro and my purchase is not influenced by different tax rates. There is no need for the Government to slap VAT on books or newspapers for there to be a free market in those goods. It is only when the lack of harmonisation distorts the marketplace in favour of the product of one country over another or if the amount of cross-border shopping is great that a problem arises. In the first case, because the Government are normally trying to favour their own producers, it may be necessary for the Community to take action to secure harmonisation. In the case of cross-border shopping, it is much more likely that normal market considerations will lead the country concerned to say, "We are putting ourselves at a disadvantage and will have to modify our tax regime even if we might not otherwise have chosen to do so."

Those are the natural ways to proceed, and the article that we are discussing in no way impedes that process. I see no reason to change it, not least because it is already our law on the basis of our previous treaty commitments. It is quite unnecessary to amend the treaty in this way.

Mr. Michael Spicer

Three arguments have been adduced for voting against amendment No. 9. The first is that made by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)—that there is no need to vote on the amendment because it was tabled merely as a means to provide a good debate. That point was sharpened by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in a speech yesterday, when he said that the Committee was all about having little debates, not about trying to amend or change the shape of the Bill.

That is the Labour party's position, which is very much supported by the Government, because it suits them just to have little debates that proceed along regular lines and move the Committee stage on—but not too fast. The Government are committed to not having Third Reading before the Danish referendum.

The Chairman

Order. The pace at which the Bill proceeds is entirely a matter for the Chair; it is nothing to do with the Government or the Opposition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that. He has not been here for all the debates. He has been here for a fair number, but certainly not all. The amendments are fairly specific. Although we can debate indirect taxation, we certainly cannot debate when Third Reading may or may not take place, or any other general issue about Maastricht.

Mr. Spicer

I accept that, Mr. Morris. I only made that point as it was part of the reason given for voting against the amendment. The Opposition made the point that they did not want a vote on the amendment—they just wanted a debate. I was making a passing remark that that view was supported by the Government, because it is in their interests to keep the debate moving a little, but not to vote on amendments.

The second reason for voting against the amendment is that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who has been here for many of the debates. He said that it had all happened, everything had been done and article 99 was already in the treaty. A few commas may have been changed, but I accept that it is basically the same article that was in the main treaty. My hon. Friend felt that, because it was already in the treaty, there was no point in voting against the amendment. Confirmation of that view, if any were needed, is the agreement reached by Ministers on 27 July to harmonise VAT.

The Opposition have posed some interesting questions, and people are beginning to take note of some of the effects of this aspect of the treaty. The Opposition's questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister, as far as they went, were good. The general point was made that one learns by one's mistakes. However, it is not a good or conclusive argument to say that, just because something exists, we should not at least consider whether it needs amending.

One thing that a treaty amending the mainstream treaty of Rome does is to give us the opportunity to amend the mainstream treaty if we do not like its provisions. There are at least one or two good reasons for seriously considering whether there should be an article in the treaty that provides for the harmonisation of indirect taxation, for whatever reason.

The market reason is not an especially good one. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) answered his own point. If there is an internal market and there are distortions in, for example, indirect taxation, there is at least an arguable case for saying that they will right themselves. Otherwise people will find themselves at an unfair advantage or a disadvantage and will set their own taxes in some kind of harmony—to use the phrase that has emerged during this debate.

Sir Teddy Taylor

Does my hon. Friend accept that the present harmony of the natural harmonisation would mean the loss of £3,000 million on excise duties, which would have to be made up somewhere else, either through VAT or income tax? That is not a happy thing. A harmonisation of tax on alcohol and cigarettes on some base level would mean that the poor old Chancellor would lose £3,000 million, which he would have to find from somewhere else, and that somewhere else may be quite nasty. Therefore, it is not all sweetness, harmony and light, as the Liberal Democrats were trying to tell us.

9.45 pm

Mr. Spicer

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If he says that the figure is £3,000 million, it is. His figures are always impeccable. They are never questioned or doubted by spokesmen on either Front Bench. If there is any advantage in having a debate as opposed to voting on an amendment, it is that my hon. Friend and others bring out such facts which have not previously been appreciated by the Committee.

In considering whether article 99 is good or bad, one should consider whether it is good or bad for a nation state and a Parliament, sovereign still, responsible to its people, to give away a large chunk of its right to determine the balance of indirect to direct taxation. There will be great debate—

The Chairman

Order. I imagine that there will be great debate on that matter when we come to economic policy, but not under this amendment.

Mr. Spicer

I do not want to question your judgment, Mr. Morris, but we are talking about the harmonisation of indirect taxation. If laws are established to impose harmonisation on a Government, it is reasonable to argue that that forces upon that Government a choice in the balance between indirect and direct taxation. That is the point that I am making.

The Chairman

I understand the point, but it is out of order on this amendment. It may be in order when we come on to economic policy. If the hon. Member wishes to catch my eye on that occasion, I shall do my best to call him, but the matter is out of order on this amendment.

Mr. Spicer

I find that a strange ruling, if I may say so.

The Chairman

Order. I am sorry that the hon. Member finds it a strange ruling, but it is a ruling. I hope that the hon. Member will kindly observe it.

Mr. Spicer

I have probably made my point anyway, so I can move on.

Perhaps I could try this one on you, Mr. Morris. Part of the argument in favour of harmonisation—it was made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, so I hope that you will allow me humbly to join in the debate —concerns the even playing field. I hope that that is in order, because that is the point that I want to address for a moment. The argument about an even playing field at least needs to be considered.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

It is an awful cliché.

Mr. Spicer

My hon. Friend is right. All clichés need a little discussion from time to time.

If the even playing field argument is taken to its logical conclusion, we must invent sun for the whole of Europe and all grow olives. Where do we stop?

Anyone who is genuinely looking at Europe's trading future must take into account the concept of comparative advantage. That is what trade is all about. Different countries have sun and water—and different countries have different Government policies.

Mr. Dykes

In his previous argument, my hon. Friend remarked that he was concerned about the possible loss of sovereignty as a result of these processes. Why is it not a loss of intrinsic sovereignty for nations to agree similar tariffs between each other in international agreements, but a terrible loss of sovereignty for nations to agree harmonised or approximated indirect taxes?

Mr. Spicer

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, in his usual helpful way, and I will address it in a moment.

As to even playing fields, a part of comparative advantage is the advantage that some countries have in the way that they are governed and the economic policies that flow from that. One snag in being an Italian citizen is that one does not pay direct taxes.

Mr. Dykes

Rubbish.

Mr. Spicer

My hon. Friend says that that is rubbish, but he must accept that Italy's black economy is larger and more thriving than that of many other countries. As people do not pay direct taxes in Italy, it has indirect taxes. If one is a direct taxpayer, that is an advantage—but it is a disadvantage if one is an indirect taxpayer.

Why should the British, who are rather good at paying their direct taxes, suffer just because the Italians do not pay their taxes? Why must everything be evened out across an even playing field? Adam Smith's concept of trade was all about comparative advantage. It seems that we are talking about a trading bloc, and comparative advantage is important in that. If the argument is based entirely on even playing fields, as it so often is, it is in many respects specious.

Mr. Tim Smith

Is not my hon. Friend's argument against a level playing field an argument against the whole single market programme?

Mr. Spicer

Not at all. The original thrust, which I supported when I voted in favour of the Common Market, was against direct trade barriers. It was never part of any argument to which I subscribed that one could invent some kind of Utopia, some might call it—I would call it a nightmare—having a single identity that was precisely the same in all its aspects.

Mr. Cormack

Did my hon. Friend vote also for the Single European Act?

Mr. Spicer

I did, and I am directly addressing that point. I conceded that article 99 is associated with the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act. I was making the point that one learns from one's mistakes. In this specific context, some of the implications of article 99 are very disturbing.

Sir Teddy Taylor

Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask my European enthusiast hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to explain how on earth one can secure peaceful harmony on, for example, wine duty when in Britain it is 94p a bottle; in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany and Greece it is nothing; and in France it is 2p a bottle? How can harmony be peacefully applied in that case? It would mean slashing the dependence of the British Government on that duty and increasing taxes on items that people use and need.

Mr. Spicer

In answering that question, Mr. Morris, I must ask for your guidance as to whether or not you would rule that I am responsible for the remarks, feelings and thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I do not think I am, but the Chair may rule differently.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) makes an important and exacting point. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is robust in his views. He is a great personal friend of mine, and one of the people who is honest about his intentions; he is a genuine federalist. Although I cannot really debate the matter with my hon. Friend because of his beliefs, there are others who believe that the Maastricht treaty is innocuous and is not leading in the direction that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East wants.

Mr. Marlow

A few minutes ago, my hon. Friend said that the levels of indirect taxation in Italy and the black economy there meant that we should have higher indirect taxation. It is possible with the development of Conservative philosophy that we shall decide to put all our taxes on expenditure and none on income, although we are not suggesting that at the moment.

The Chairman

Order. I have already ruled that the debate is not about direct taxation. Sadly, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was not in his place and probably did not hear me, but that is out of order.

Mr. Spicer

I agree with you, Mr. Morris. My hon. Friend and I will have this discussion afterwards. I wanted to talk about it, but you wisely ruled it out of order.

Mr. Marlow

rose—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just come in. He has not listened to any of the speeches that have been made, and he is now leading the hon. Gentleman astray. Mr. Spicer.

Mr. Randall

rose—

Mr. Spicer

First, I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall).

Mr. Randall

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He normally speaks with clarity, but I must confess that I am utterly confused. Does he believe in harmonisation so that the single market can work, or, if not, what is his message to British industry if he does not believe in ensuring that there is a level playing field which relies entirely on some harmonisation in the single market?

Mr. Spicer

My message to British industry is that it should make use of the fact that we are now outside the ERM. We are allowed to have low interest rates, investment and productivity. British industry should go for it in a market which will have variety and, because we are stronger because we are outside the ERM, we can compete effectively against countries that are shackled by all the talk of harmonisation, social policy and high VAT.

Mr. Whitney

rose—

Mr. Spicer

I shall give way once more; then I must get on.

Mr. Whitney

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I feel that he has not responded to the serious concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) about the difference between taxes on wine in France and here. Where in the Maastricht treaty, the Bill or the amendments are provisions requiring a British Government to lose the tax revenue which so concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East? Where is the provision which would have that catastrophic effect?

Mr. Spicer

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will no doubt pursue that point. However, I think he accepts that harmonisation would lead to some loss of revenue.

The problem about article 99 and the concept of harmonisation and the interventionist policies that would necessarily go with it is that it has to be seen in the wider context of moves towards central taxation as a matter of principle.

Because I have developed the point in previous debates, will simply reiterate that, with a single currency, because of the need to compensate for the problems that arise between different countries with different wage levels but with similar price structures as a result of that single currency, there must ultimately be single taxation and a single expenditure authority.

Mr. Quentin Davies

Does my hon. Friend recall any time, during the 50 years or more that we shared a single currency with the Republic of Ireland, when we had what he described as a single expenditure authority?

Mr. Spicer

I do not deny that there have been examples of different countries coming together with single currencies. My argument is—

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

Motion made, and Question put,

That at this day's sitting, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 238.

Division No. 130]	[10 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Alexander, Richard	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Amess, David	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Ancram, Michael	Evennett, David
Arbuthnot, James	Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Faber, David
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Fabricant, Michael
Ashby, David	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Aspinwall, Jack	Fishburn, Dudley
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Forman, Nigel
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Forth, Eric
Baldry, Tony	Foster, Don (Bath)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Bates, Michael	Freeman, Roger
Batiste, Spencer	French, Douglas
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Gale, Roger
Bellingham, Henry	Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Beresford, Sir Paul	Garnier, Edward
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Gillan, Cheryl
Booth, Hartley	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Boswell, Tim	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Gorst, John
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Bowden, Andrew	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bowis, John	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Brandreth, Gyles	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Brazier, Julian	Hague, William
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Hargreaves, Andrew
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Harris, David
Burns, Simon	Haselhurst, Alan
Burt, Alistair	Hawkins, Nick
Butler, Peter	Hayes, Jerry
Butterfill, John	Heald, Oliver
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Hendry, Charles
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Carrington, Matthew	Hicks, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Chaplin, Mrs Judith	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Chapman, Sydney	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Churchill, Mr	Horam, John
Clappison, James	Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Coe, Sebastian	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Colvin, Michael	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Congdon, David	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Conway, Derek	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Hunter, Andrew
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Jack, Michael
Cormack, Patrick	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Couchman, James	Johnston, Sir Russell
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Day, Stephen	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Key, Robert
Devlin, Tim	Kilfedder, Sir James
Dicks, Terry	King, Rt Hon Tom
Dorrell, Stephen	Kirkhope, Timothy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Kirkwood, Archy
Dover, Den	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Duncan, Alan	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Dunn, Bob	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Durant, Sir Anthony	Knox, David
Dykes, Hugh	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Eggar, Tim	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Elletson, Harold	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Leigh, Edward	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Lidington, David	Shaw, David (Dover)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Luff, Peter	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Shersby, Michael
Lynne, Ms Liz	Sims, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
MacKay, Andrew	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Maclean, David	Soames, Nicholas
McLoughlin, Patrick	Speed, Sir Keith
Madel, David	Spencer, Sir Derek
Maitland, Lady Olga	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Malone, Gerald	Spink, Dr Robert
Mans, Keith	Spring, Richard
Marland, Paul	Sproat, Iain
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Steen, Anthony
Mates, Michael	Stephen, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stern, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Streeter, Gary
Mellor, Rt Hon David	Sumberg, David
Merchant, Piers	Sykes, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Milligan, Stephen	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Mills, Iain	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)	Thomason, Roy
Monro, Sir Hector	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Moss, Malcolm	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Needham, Richard	Thurnham, Peter
Nelson, Anthony	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Neubert, Sir Michael	Tracey, Richard
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Tredinnick, David
Nicholls, Patrick	Trend, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Trotter, Neville
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Norris, Steve	Tyler, Paul
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Oppenheim, Phillip	Viggers, Peter
Ottaway, Richard	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Page, Richard	Wallace, James
Paice, James	Waller, Gary
Patten, Rt Hon John	Ward, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Pickles, Eric	Waterson, Nigel
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Watts, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Wells, Bowen
Powell, William (Corby)	Welsh, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Redwood, John	Whitney, Ray
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Widdecombe, Ann
Richards, Rod	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Riddick, Graham	Wigley, Dafydd
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm	Willetts, David
Robathan, Andrew	Wolfson, Mark
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Wood, Timothy
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Yeo, Tim
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Mr. David Lightbown and
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Mr. Irvine Patnick.
Sackville, Tom

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Barron, Kevin
Ainger, Nick	Battle, John
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Bayley, Hugh
Allen, Graham	Beckett, Margaret
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Bell, Stuart
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Armstrong, Hilary	Bennett, Andrew F.
Ashton, Joe	Benton, Joe
Austin-Walker, John	Bermingham, Gerald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Berry, Dr. Roger
Barnes, Harry	Betts, Clive

Biffen, Rt Hon John	Harman, Ms Harriet
Blair, Tony	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Blunkett, David	Henderson, Doug
Boateng, Paul	Heppell, John
Boyce, Jimmy	Hoey, Kate
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Home Robertson, John
Bradley, Keith	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Hoyle, Doug
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Burden, Richard	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Byers, Stephen	Hutton, John
Caborn, Richard	Illsley, Eric
Callaghan, Jim	Ingram, Adam
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Cann, Jamie	Jamieson, David
Cash, William	Janner, Greville
Chisholm, Malcolm	Jessel, Toby
Clapham, Michael	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cohen, Harry	Jowell, Tessa
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Corbett, Robin	Keen, Alan
Corbyn, Jeremy	Khabra, Piara S.
Corston, Ms Jean	Knapman, Roger
Cousins, Jim	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Cox, Tom	Legg, Barry
Cryer, Bob	Leighton, Ron
Cummings, John	Litherland, Robert
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Livingstone, Ken
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)	Lord, Michael
Dalyell, Tam	Loyden, Eddie
Darling, Alistair	McAllion, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	McAvoy, Thomas
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	McCartney, Ian
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Macdonald, Calum
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Denham, John	McLeish, Henry
Dewar, Donald	McMaster, Gordon
Dixon, Don	McNamara, Kevin
Dobson, Frank	Madden, Max
Dowd, Jim	Maginnis, Ken
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Mahon, Alice
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Mandelson, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Marek, Dr John
Eagle, Ms Angela	Marlow, Tony
Eastham, Ken	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Enright, Derek	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Etherington, Bill	Maxton, John
Fatchett, Derek	Meacher, Michael
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Michael, Alun
Fisher, Mark	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Flynn, Paul	Miller, Andrew
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)	Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Foulkes, George	Morgan, Rhodri
Fraser, John	Morley, Elliot
Fyfe, Maria	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Galbraith, Sam	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Gapes, Mike	Mowlam, Marjorie
George, Bruce	Mudie, George
Gerrard, Neil	Mullin, Chris
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Murphy, Paul
Gill, Christopher	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Godman, Dr Norman A.	O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Godsiff, Roger	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Golding, Mrs Llin	O'Hara, Edward
Gordon, Mildred	Olner, William
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Graham, Thomas	Paisley, Rev Ian
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Pawsey, James
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Pendry, Tom
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Pickthall, Colin
Grocott, Bruce	Pike, Peter L.
Gunnell, John	Pope, Greg
Hain, Peter	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hall, Mike	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Hanson, David	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Hardy, Peter	Prescott, John

Primarolo, Dawn	Stevenson, George
Purchase, Ken	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Quin, Ms Joyce	Straw, Jack
Radice, Giles	Sweeney, Walter
Randall, Stuart	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Raynsford, Nick	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Reid, Dr John	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara	Trimble, David
Rooney, Terry	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Ross, William (E Londonderry)	Walley, Joan
Rowlands, Ted	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Ruddock, Joan	Wareing, Robert N
Sedgemore, Brian	Watson, Mike
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Wicks, Malcolm
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Wilkinson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Short, Clare	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Simpson, Alan	Wilson, Brian
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Winnick, David
Skinner, Dennis	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)	Wise, Audrey
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)	Worthington, Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Wright, Dr Tony
Soley, Clive	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Spearing, Nigel
Spellar, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)	Mr. Alan Meale.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Spicer

Before the interruption I was engaged in a brief—and I mean brief—intervention.

The Chairman

Order. I must ask hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly, and I hope that those staying will listen to the debate.

Mr. Spicer

As you, Mr. Morris, have ruled, this is a very tightly drawn debate on VAT harmonisation. I want to have article 99 removed. So, according to its amendment, does the Labour party. But it has now decided otherwise.

Sir John Cope

The amendment does not seek the removal of article 99; its purpose is simply to avoid the alteration to article 99 that the treaty makes, and that concerns only the economic and social committee.

Mr. Spicer

My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right, and if what he has indicated were achieved, it would be helpful from my point of view. I concede that this is part of the existing treaty. The problem is that it is the thin edge of the wedge. The problem concerns the context of the Maastricht treaty. Someone said earlier in the debate that this was all in the Single European Act. Article 99 is not a bad example of the kind of text that might help us if we were to look at it in isolation. The words of the existing treaty are in some cases identical to those of the proposed treaty. But the words have to be looked at in context if the differences in their significance as between treaties are to become apparent.

In this case the context is the concept of a single currency. That is the core of the Maastricht treaty. We have been told that the pillars are there, that we are taking an important step forward in claiming back national sovereignty. But looking at things on an intergovernmental basis is not a great new backward step, as is obvious if one considers the context of the treaty and its new objectives. This was pointed out very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith). The new objectives of the Maastricht treaty must be related in the way that the European Court of Justice will undoubtedly relate them. Under Roman law—alien law —which is what we are going to have, it is the context of words, rather than the pure text, that has to be considered.

This is a learning process, but, in the past, British negotiators made the mistake of looking simply at the text of the main treaty and not considering the context. That was a very serious mistake. In some respects, the new law will supersede our domestic law. The context and objectives will be taken fully into account in a way that does not apply in British law. This is one of the fundamental problems that we face as we approach the treaty. The entire treaty, its context and objectives have to be taken into account. In this case we must consider the question of harmonisation in the context of a single currency, which, in my view, will lead to a single taxation system.

Mrs. Gorman

Before my hon. Friend leaves the discussion on VAT, I hope that he will apply his mind to its effect on small businesses. After all, one of the supposed desires of the Common Market is that small business shall flourish, yet VAT, being the most hated tax that the small business man has ever had the misfortune to have to collect for Government, has had a profoundly adverse effect on that objective. Would my hon. Friend like to apply a few of his thoughts to the effect of VAT on business and on the spirit of enterprise?

Mr. Spicer

I am extremely interested in that intervention by my hon. Friend, and I think that the whole Committee will be interested in it. If we compare our system of VAT with indirect taxation systems in other countries outside Europe, we see that my hon. Friend's point is a very important one. I have heard it argued that this is the real deterrent to capitalism, to innovation and to new business. But although it is a fundamental point that my hon. Friend has raised, and although it is important for it to be laid before the Committee, it is not the point that I was speaking about.

Mr. Marlow

The amendment does not talk about VAT; it talks about turnover tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has said what a pestilence VAT is. We used to have purchase tax. Is it the understanding of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) that, should we wish to at a later stage, within this amendment we could go back to purchase tax? Or are we stuck with VAT?

Mr. Spicer

One of the thrusts of my argument is that Governments should be able to decide these things. I would disagree with most of the things that are said by Opposition Members about taxation. I am sure that they would be in favour of greater direct taxation, whereas, on the whole, most Conservative Members would favour greater indirect taxation in some form, although the points made against VAT are good ones. What I suspect is common to hon. Members on both sides who are worried about the treaty is that we believe that the House and our Government should determine these priorities. That is what lies at the root of my concern about the treaty when it is seen in its full context—and this particular article about harmonisation must be seen in a wider context.

We are moving towards a centralised form of federal taxation. If the single currency is to mean anything, it must mean a single price system, accompanied, because the economies will not have converged—we will certainly not find the Greek economy converging with the German economy in time for any of these things to happen—by unequal wages. There will be, because it is structured into this treaty—this article is part of the process of centralisation—an automatic move towards a central taxation and expenditure system. It is my fundamental concern about the treaty. The instruments associated with it are undemocratic. The central instrument associated with it is to be the central bank—

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite aware, because the Chairman drew it to the Committee's attention earlier, that this is an amendment about indirect taxation, and the hon. Gentleman tends to stray from it. I hope that he will get back to the amendment.

Mr. Spicer

I understand that, Mr. Lofthouse, but the instrument associated with this particular amendment is the central bank, and it is ironic, on the day after—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The central bank can be debated in other amendments later on, when no doubt the hon. Member will have an opportunity to catch the Chairman's eye or mine.

Mr. Spicer

I understand that, Mr. Lofthouse, and I will not stray on this, but I beg you to accept the point that I am trying to make, which is that these textual points must be seen, are rightly seen and will be seen by the European Court in their wider context. One cannot debate these individual textual matters other than in their proper context. That is precisely the way in which the court will judge these matters. So it is very difficult and restrictive, and against the spirit of the new age and the new law that we are to have in this country.

Mr. Ian Taylor

May I help my hon. Friend back to his central point, which is to address this particular amendment? The reality is that VAT is still to be levied by the national Governments. Harmonisation is a single-market factor, which can be discussed in that context. He is talking about the resources of the Community. This question was dealt with effectively at the Edinburgh summit and the new budget arrangements now last through almost to the end of this century. That rebuts the point about centralised taxation; it is off the point of this amendment, which is entirely to do with what we have already confirmed in the House in the Single European Act, with the exception that now we are also to discuss with the economic and social council.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept that what we are discussing is indirect taxation, and will stick to it. If not, I shall have to rule him out of order.

Mr. Spicer

I understand and I am very grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher. For a very short time he was out of the Chamber when I addressed a point that he raised earlier in this context. His argument—which he has just repeated—it is that we should reject this amendment because it is already in the treaty. I am glad to be able to tell him that I do not accept that point. Just because it is in the existing treaty, that is no reason for not taking the advice of Opposition Members and others who have made the point during the debate that one should learn by experience and by one's mistakes. Part of the argument for accepting this amendment is precisely that we have been able to learn by our mistakes. You would call me to order for repetition, Mr. Lofthouse, if I went over the arguments with which I supported that point, but my hon. Friend will be able to look at the record tomorrow and see how I developed my argument.

Mr. Skinner

Would it be fair to argue that if, for instance, we managed to rid ourselves of the yoke of the Maastricht treaty and some of the other things connected to the Common Market, this Parliament or another one would be able to levy taxation as it thought fit? There have been references to purchase tax. I would argue that it would be better to have a range of purchase tax rates than to have VAT. That is why I voted against VAT. That is why every Labour Member in the House at that time voted against it. So, in this new regime, assuming that we smash the Maastricht treaty, which is what we are here to do today—it may be that the Chair and others are not in that game, but we are—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The Chair is in no game, only to chair this debate quite impartially. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.

Mr. Skinner

All I want to emphasise is that I want to be able to hear statements from any part of the Committee in favour of getting back to purchase tax. If we did get back to purchase tax, it would mean that the Bank of England, as opposed to a central bank, would have a say in the matter. That means that, if we do not get back to purchase tax and controlling matters in the House, it follows that we cannot talk about VAT unless we talk about the central bank, which is the idea within the Maastricht treaty. That is the point that I am making.

Mr. Spicer

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made his point very clearly and it is one with which I agree. One of the reasons why the media will be turned on to what he has just said and why everybody will be writing about it tomorrow morning is that what he says in the Chamber matters still. The fact that he believes in purchase tax matters. Through the Executive, our Parliament still largely determines what form of taxation we have. The hon. Member for Bolsover is right to say that article 99 is a part of the process of losing control of our taxation system. Control of that system is a central aspect of a nation's sovereignty. I shall not stray too far, because I see that you are looking restless, Mr. Lofthouse, but in years gone by and on both sides of the Atlantic, taxation was considered to be the principal element of sovereignty to be fought for.

10.30 pm

Mr. Cash

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spicer

Before I give way, may I say, Mr. Lofthouse, that I am trying to bring my remarks to a close.

Mr. Cash

My hon. Friend has extensive experience of the United States. Does he agree that the experience of harmonisation of VAT across Europe would not correspond to the position in the United States where there is a different sales tax in each state? Even according to the objectives of the federalists in all parties, the proposed harmonisation will not work. I and my colleagues seek to ensure that we have our own system.

Mr. Spicer

All that I can say in response is that, at least at the moment, we are able to determine these matters. Some people want a purchase tax—indeed, I am coming to the view that there are great inadequacies in the VAT system, and the idea that it be harmonised for ever is disturbing for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). There is no question but that the proposals contain highly bureaucratic elements which will greatly disadvantage the smaller companies.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

I want to come straight to the specifics of indirect taxation and VAT. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that in Europe there is already tremendous pressure for the harmonisation of VAT and for us to abolish our zero rate by including items that are currently zero-rated among those covered by this country's standard rate. As an example, the inclusion of domestic heating oil would mean a huge additional impost on thousands of families in this country. It would inevitably increase wage demands and inflation. There is a great difference between various countries—the need for heating oil in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal is very much less than in north European countries. Such an impost, because of the culture of this country, would be intolerable. For that reason, harmonisation of indirect taxes would be a massive disadvantage to our people.

Mr. Spicer

That was a useful intervention. It enables me to say that on 27 July when we secured a great victory and managed to safeguard zero rating, we also conceded the principle of harmonisation at ministerial level. That is one of the problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is correct to say that there are exemptions that it would be extremely difficult—

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. At 10 pm we voted on whether to carry on, and we voted in favour. One of the reasons that the vote was carried was that the Liberal Democrats voted in favour but they have now gone missing. It is a scandal that people vote to continue beyond 10 pm but do not have the guts to stay—no wonder they are called Captain Mainwaring's army.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. That is not a matter for the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman well knows it.

Mr. Marlow

Further to that point of order, Mr.Lofthouse.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I cannot take further comments on a point of order that never was. I call Mr. Michael Spicer.

Mr. Spicer

rose—

Mr. Marlow

rose—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. There was no point of order.

Mr. Marlow

On a different point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.

The First Deputy Chairman

A different point of order?

Mr. Marlow

An absolutely, completely and utterly different point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I assume that the Government always keep you in the picture. Obviously there is now a coalition between the Government and the Liberal Democrat party—a Con-Lib coalition. I assume that you have been informed of that—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marlow

My point is simple but important, Mr. Lofthouse. Until recently hon. Members were not aware that a Conservative-Liberal coalition was running this country. In your important position—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. That is not a point of order for me, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. Mr. Spicer.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.

The First Deputy Chairman

Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Cryer

No, it is an entirely different one. This is a point of order for you, Mr. Lofthouse, because you have the power to suspend the sitting. May I request that you do so, so that, in view of the Liberal Democrats' recent vote, we can send for some of them to join the Committee?

The First Deputy Chairman

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may request that I suspend the sitting, but the answer is no. I call Mr. Michael Spicer.

Mr. Spicer

rose—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. It is difficult to hear what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. If the Committee would settle down a little we might be able to hear him.

Mr. Spicer

The Liberal Democrats have probably disappeared out of shame. The one word that cannot be used to describe the harmonisation measure is "liberal". It is illiberal, so that puts the Liberal Democrats in a difficult position.

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend will know, because he has studied such matters in great detail, that one of the major changes involving amendment No. 9 and article 99 is that, although—as usual—such matters are based on a proposal from the Commission, in this case not only was the European Parliament consulted, but so was the economic and social committee. In Labour-speak that is the social partners; in Conservative-speak it is the corporate state. Can my hon. Friend tell the House how important or damaging that involvement could be?

Mr. Spicer

It could be extremely damaging. My hon. Friend makes by implication the point that I should have made earlier.

In drawing my remarks to a conclusion, I shall address one of the arguments against my proposal. If the measure is seen within the broad context of the whole treaty, especially those parts of it that lead towards a single currency and, thus, in my view, towards a single taxation system, one of the arguments would be that we have opted out of the arrangments that might push us towards a central taxation system.

At least one of my hon. Friends has accused me of having rather sharp views on the British opt-out. I have said that I do not really believe in it, because I cannot see how in practice one can set up all those institutions, get all that harmonisation going, and then opt out of it. I hope that I did not give the Committee the wrong impression. I cannot foresee any circumstances in which I would argue against maintaining the opt-out—but the force and weight of all the measures would be compounded one upon another. We are talking about a cumulative process, about adding extra centralisation. I know that my hon. Friends argue against that, but I suspect that we should be ruled out of order if we did so now. Yet the argument whether we are compounding the process of centralisation is crucial. I should dearly like you to allow us to argue it through a little now, Mr. Lofthouse, because the argument is certainly relevant to the subject of harmonisation.

I believe that all this is a process of centralisation. That process is apparently inexorable. If we take the terrible decision to ratify this treaty and then come later to debate an opt-out from it, we will face an enormous weight of argument along the lines that we face now—article 99 was all arranged in the past; it cannot be changed now. People will say, "Where were you, Spicer?", to which I will reply, "I was here, debating the matter." Nevertheless the force of future arguments will be that that the institutions have already been set up and the dispute is over.

This is why we need to debate these matters now. We should at least be able to argue them through. That is why I agree with the amendment. We need to revise the treaty so as to accommodate the lessons that we have learnt from passing previous legislation—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

My hon. Friend is developing an argument that should be deployed before a much wider audience than the one we have here tonight. The motivating force behind the European Community is the desire to widen the direct tax base. We have already come under pressure from Europe to do that. Heating oil is currently exempted and zero-rated. Food is another case in point. Most of it is zero-rated in this country. If we succumbed, as I believe that we inevitably would if the treaty were ratified, to putting VAT on food, the public revolt over the community charge would seem like a Sunday afternoon tea party by comparison. It would affect all our culture, customs and traditions, and it would disadvantage our economy. Any Government who were found guilty of imposing it would be kicked out of office at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Spicer

My hon. Friend says, first, that it would be wrong to widen the European indirect tax base. Secondly, he says that it would be wrong to impose VAT on food. Whether or not I agree with him is not really the point. What matters is that my hon. Friend can contribute to debates on such policies as they affect our country. It is the removal of our powers to make decisions on taxation that we are really debating tonight. We are moving in the direction of a federal form of taxation—a hugely important matter of principle which goes well beyond issues of rates of taxation generally.

Mr. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent)

We have had a long debate on the merits of direct and indirect taxes and on whether purchase tax is preferable to value added tax. I oppose both purchase tax and value added tax. I hesitate to ask a Conservative Member of this House how a socialist can support value added tax.

Mr. Spicer

The hon. Gentleman speaks in a noble tradition. On the whole, the Labour party believes in greater direct taxation. That is why it loses most elections—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of tedious repetition. If he continues in this vein I shall have to consider asking him to resume his seat.

Mr. Spicer

I certainly want to conclude and shall shortly do so. The hon. Gentleman's belief in direct taxation is a matter for him. As I say, he may lose elections because of that belief, but that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman's conscience and his party. It is his prerogative to hold that view and make his own decision and I say, "Good for him." Soon, when everything moves to another place, his views will not matter any more because this place will have ceased to have power.

10.45 pm

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I do not want to prevent any hon. Member speaking, but the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who has just finished his speech, spoke for about an hour on 13 January and for about an hour today. I do not question that, but I have spent two days trying to speak in a debate.I do not want to speak in today's debate and, therefore, have no personal interest in my point of order. In the interests of fairness, if in future I am competing with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, will I carry a clean licence whereas the hon. Gentleman will have some penalty points.

The First Deputy Chairman

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair takes all such matters into account.

Mr. Dykes

On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Please do not think for a moment that I am questioning the Chair's judgment, far from it, but, inevitably, the incidence and fanaticism of the anti-Europeans in Committee—

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. It will be difficult for me to rule on a point of order that I cannot hear.

Mr. Dykes

It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I shall rephrase my description and say that the incidence and presence of the anti-Maastricht debaters in the Committee makes it inevitable that they will have much more time to speak than pro-Maastricht hon. Members. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting close to criticism of the Chair. [Interruption.] Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, any criticism of the Chair should be directed in the usual way. It is not good parliamentary practice to attempt to criticise the Chair under another guise. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to do that, but that is the way his point of order is coming across.

Mr. Dykes

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Lofthouse. I deliberately said that I was not doing that, because I said that the inevitable result—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that he was not doing that while continuing to do it.

Mr. Dykes

May I plead for a better balance between the pro and anti-Maastricht speakers?

The First Deputy Chairman

At the end of the day, the Chair will decide as fairly as possible. The debate is on a difficult subject and I shall continue to do my best and be as fair as possible.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I should like some clarification. Am I right in understanding that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) withdrew his unparliamentary allegations against those of us who are critical of the Maastricht treaty?

The First Deputy Chairman

I am sure that he did.

Mr. Marlow

On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Perhaps it would help the Committee and reassure the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) if you told the hon. Gentleman, who has been here longer than I have, that there is plenty of time in Committee and there will be opportunities for him to speak.

The First Deputy Chairman

That is right.