MEANING OF "THE TREATIES" AND "THE COMMUNITY TREATIES"

HC Deb 19 January 1998 vol 304 cc691-736

Amendment proposed [15 January]: No. 26, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to insert the words 'other than in Article 2, paragraph 7'.—[Mr. Cash].

3.33 pm

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow)

When the debate was interrupted on Thursday, I was talking about the air of unreality that often infects the debates and how out of touch they are with the views of ordinary people on the real issues concerning Europe.

It has struck me that, in this and previous debates in Committee, the tide of anti-Europeanism that we hear from the Conservative Benches has carried on as though the events of 1 May 1997 had not taken place. I do not say that simply to make a party political point. Only twice since the second world war have major political parties in this country campaigned on a platform hostile to the European Union—Labour in 1983 and the Conservative party in 1997—and on both occasions that resulted in an overwhelming defeat for the party advocating that view. The time is long overdue for Conservative Members to reflect on that.

I am sure that we shall hear in this and forthcoming debates in Committee—as we heard in previous debates—interesting arguments about sovereignty. Those, broadly, amounted to an argument that it is okay to have qualified majority voting and therefore, by implication, greater integration on commercial matters and a single market, but on nothing else. I do not think that that distinction is based on logic and sound principle. Once one has accepted that there is a case for qualified majority voting on some issues, it is simply a matter of judgment where to draw the line. I believe that the Government have drawn the line correctly within the treaty of Amsterdam.

One area where we obviously need to make progress is discrimination and the need to pursue equal opportunities. Any reasonable person would conclude that the need for anti-discrimination legislation was one area where concerted action was needed. I say that not only from the perspective of social concern but in relation to economic and industrial concerns, because in this day and age, when the keys to economic and industrial success are employee skills and the maximisation of employees' potential, it is crucial that we involve every potential employee in that process. To exclude some people simply on the grounds of their sex, their race, their disability or their sexuality is not just a social evil but a cause for economic and industrial concern.

It is largely proven that we need to tackle those issues, not just across Europe, as has been argued, but specifically in Britain. In Britain today, young black people are twice as likely to be unemployed as young white people, and more than one in three black 16 to 24-year-olds are out of work. Racial attacks in Britain have doubled since 1988. Low pay in Britain disproportionately affects women: 30,000 women earn less than £1.50 an hour.

There is a major need in Britain, but that need is at least as strong throughout Europe. The fact that, in France, the National Front, which advocates profoundly racist policies, achieves as much as 15 per cent. of the vote in the French national elections, emphasises the need for concerted action on these matters.

Clause 1 should be judged in that context. Article 6a of the treaty of Amsterdam provides the legal base for Community measures—which must then be adopted unanimously—to combat discrimination. I do not believe that the clause will lead to major change in Britain; in many senses, we are already in the vanguard with the legislation that we have passed and proposed. However, in this area we have an opportunity to use our experience and expertise to bring about positive changes in Europe, without needing to dismantle our existing laws.

In a sense, that is what leading in Europe should be about. Where we have the experience and the background, we should bring those to bear. Of course, in doing so, we should judge each proposal on its merits. It is worth emphasising that article 6a is an enabling provision for future action, not a free-standing and unrestricted principle.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

Will the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of what he considers "appropriate action" means? We have found that, in the past, the courts have interpreted clauses in a strange way.

Mr. Rammell

I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I want to address the issues before I do so. It has been argued—undoubtedly it will be argued by the hon. Gentleman—that the proposals go too far. Those concerns are not well founded.

First, any proposal must be decided by unanimity. Clearly, if a proposal is excessive, it can be vetoed. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) rightly says, the article stipulates that any action must be appropriate to the objective—so no sledgehammers will be used to crack nuts. If a nation state deems a proposal disproportionate to the objective, it can veto it or take legal action to show—the same principle applies already in this country and throughout Europe—that the measure is indeed disproportionate.

It is worth noting, too, that the new subsidiarity protocol makes it clear that action at the European Union level is justified only when it cannot be achieved by a member state acting alone.

There are also exemptions allowing national characteristics to be taken into account, even if a proposal has been agreed unanimously. We have experience of that already: the 1976 equal treatment directive left member states the freedom not to require equal treatment for the sexes in some circumstances. That allowed the United Kingdom to maintain the exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, so that Church ministers and employees could remain exempt. That will be the way forward with this article.

Above all, I maintain that active discrimination is a curse on the lives of millions of our fellow citizens, and if the article can serve to focus attention on the need for action, it is wholly to be welcomed. I hope that the Committee will welcome it today.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)

No one should be in any doubt about the attitude of the Conservative party to discrimination. We are resolutely opposed to it. We took action in government, legislative and otherwise, to fight it. We stand ready in opposition to support any sensible and effective measures that the Government may take to combat it.

Among the legislative measures that we took were the Public Order Act 1986, which contains a number of provisions to deal with incitement to racial hatred, under which the maximum penalty for such incitement is two years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine; and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which made the publication of racially inflammatory material an arrestable offence, and created the new offence of intentional harassment.

We are proud of our record on race relations; they are not perfect in this country, but they are the envy of much of the rest of the world.

We believe that legislative provisions to deal with discrimination on racial and other grounds should be carefully tailored to reflect the differing nature that those problems assume in different countries. Great care has been taken with our domestic legislation to make sure that it reflects our circumstances. That is the right approach. The difficulty—as pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—which arises out of the catch-all provisions of article 13 is that it does not meet those requirements. That difficulty is aggravated by the potential for the European Court of Justice to go beyond specific legislation and act on the basis of treaty language such as that with which we are concerned here.

Can the Minister confirm that the ECJ could indeed intervene in that way? The Minister will be aware that widespread concern has been expressed about the far-reaching implications of the article. Let me give him some examples of discrimination that could be caught—on the face of it, would be caught—by the provision.

Should the magistracy be open to adults under the age of 27? Should doctors be able to refuse fertility treatments to women in their late 40s? Should Sikh pupils in schools be forbidden to carry metal knives around their necks? Should the institution of marriage be restricted to heterosexual couples? Should Church schools be allowed to require the head teacher to be a practising Christian? Should they be able to insist that teachers of sex education personally adhere to the Church teaching of chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it? What is the Government's view of the application of the article to those examples?

Those examples all relate to the public sector, but there are others that relate to the private sector. All religious groups in the United Kingdom can refuse to admit individuals to membership on the basis of their religious beliefs. Mosques are allowed to employ only practising Muslims. The Roman Catholic Church is allowed to ordain only men in the priesthood. Churches can dismiss a minister who commits adultery. What is the Government's view of the application of the article to those examples? I am indebted to Christian Action, Research and Education for providing them.

I hope that the Minister will take those questions seriously. They have caused widespread apprehension and concern. I doubt whether the Minister can allay that apprehension and concern. If he cannot, why did the Government sign up to the article?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson)

rose—

Mr. Howard

I have almost finished. The Minister will have his opportunity to reply when he winds up the debate.

Those are genuine concerns. We have deep reservations about these matters, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

3.45 pm

Mr. Henderson

We have had a good debate, which was broken by the 10 pm finish on Thursday. A range of views from different parts of the House has been expressed well. It may be simplest for me to state the Government's position, and if any hon. Member on either side wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to deal with detail. There are many unknowns, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) knows.

I shall state the principle first. Article 6a is a new measure which provides a legal base for Community measures to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. It does not mean that the European Union will, over time, develop a panoply of measures on every one of those issues to cover every circumstance.

Many safeguards are built in. The first is that this is an enabling measure. In itself, it does not change any Act of Parliament or any measure covered by an Act of Parliament in any EU state. As was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in his introduction to the debate, measures that are taken in the future based on the provisions of this measure must be adopted by unanimity. That means that there will have to be a huge common ground of support on such difficult and delicate social issues before the Union will be able to adopt measures based on this authority. That is a strong safeguard, which ensures that only where there is common support will the Union enact measures that will have a real impact on the lives of citizens throughout the EU.

Examples were cited by hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on Thursday evening, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) in his contributions on Thursday and today. If we in the UK believe that racial discrimination should be outlawed, and that there should be freedom of movement for British citizens throughout the European Union, is it not reasonable to believe that the EU should be able to take action to guarantee non-discrimination for our citizens when they freely move to Europe? Is that not the core of the issue? That is the context in which I believe the authority of the measure will be used to provide a basis for action in the future.

Sir Teddy Taylor

Will the Minister give a specific assurance that the new Labour Government will in no circumstances agree to any future treaty that would transfer the power from unanimity to majority vote? Does he appreciate that I ask the question because I have sat here for many years and seen measures that were previously subject to unanimity being made subject to majority vote?

Mr. Henderson

The Government signed the treaty in relation to article 6 clause because the important safeguard of unanimity is built into it. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot commit future Governments to any particular course of action—no one can. However, we believed that that was a strong part of the article that had to be achieved in order to make it acceptable. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of moving on that issue during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Howard

If the key question is the need for members of racial minorities who are appropriately protected in this country to travel freely throughout the European Union without suffering discrimination, the answer is for other countries to introduce their own national domestic legislation in that regard. According to the hon. Gentleman's interpretation, if those countries are not prepared to do that, the unanimity requirement—which is correctly part of the provision—prevents their being obliged by any action under the treaty to take such steps.

The Minister cannot have it both ways. Does he not appreciate that the answer that he has just given to my hon. Friend destroys completely the rationale that he has provided for the article being in the treaty?

Mr. Henderson

I do not accept that view—although it is a very nice argument—because it does not deal with the real issues. I shall discuss the subsidiarity provisions in a moment.

If we believe that key issues within the European Union are commenting on social conditions—or even moral values in some cases—and outlawing actions such as racial discrimination, and if all member states agree that those issues must be addressed, it may be appropriate to introduce a common standard. However, that does not prevent any member state from deciding, because of its particular circumstances, to do something complementary or additional to the basic provisions that are built into European law.

The subsidiarity article is important because it protects a nation state's distinctiveness. When a nation state believes that it has a particular problem with social conditions that does not affect other European states, it does not have to try to impose an all-embracing, Europewide measure in that regard. Therefore, I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.

The article states specifically that there must be a subsidiarity test on those issues. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not allow my intervention earlier, so I shall give now the assurance that I intended to give then. The Government do not intend to change any provisions that are currently incorporated in British law regarding the issues to which he referred. For example, Muslim churches will be allowed to employ Muslim staff if that is felt to be appropriate in the circumstances and it is currently upheld in British law. We do not intend to change such provisions.

I have received many letters from the religious community about those matters. The Government will continue to uphold those articles that are currently covered by the words "where appropriate" and the question of what is suitable according to British anti-discrimination law. Any measure that we enter into at a European level will continue to uphold that principle.

Sir Teddy Taylor

I am sorry for interrupting the Minister again. I am not trying to cause trouble; he is a very courteous person. Does he appreciate that his arguments regarding the benefits and the principles of subsidiarity are undermined in paragraph (2) on page 85 of the treaty? It says that subsidiarity is reduced by the fact that it will be overcome so that the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies". I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity and I appreciate that there are many pages of documents, but his assurances regarding subsidiarity are broadly undermined by that statement.

Mr. Henderson

Anything that had to be agreed in this context would be agreed unanimously. Paragraph (4) says: the reasons for concluding that a Community objective can be better achieved by the Community must be substantiated by qualitative or, wherever possible, quantitative indicators. The assurances that the hon. Gentleman is looking for have already been negotiated by the Government and are to be found in the draft treaty. I do not think that there is a cause for concern. However, the issue is important.

I want to be able to give assurances to our Churches that they can continue to operate under the provisions of British law, which exist to protect the community against racism. They are there also to ensure that there is no religious discrimination. Those protections can be assured and I want to give guarantees that will keep not only the hon. Gentleman pleased—I know that that would be extremely difficult—but my constituents and many others. Many of my constituents have questioned me on these matters, and I hope that I have been able to reassure them.

Mr. William Cash (Stone)

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has just said, the Minister cannot have it both ways. As I said when I moved the amendment, if we are to have unanimity, it is clear that either the Government are behind the provisions in the treaty, or they do not intend to agree to proposals that will come from the other member states.

The hon. Gentleman must know whether, in principle, he is prepared to accept that position. Despite the attempts of the parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), to intervene, only to be clapped off by the Minister because he wanted to listen to what I had to say, will the Minister accept that he cannot have it both ways? If there is no intention, as he seems to be saying, to give way to what other member states would intend, will he accept that he would find it extremely difficult to justify their intrusion into the treaty?

Mr. Henderson

When I listened to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I thought that I was hearing a great deal of self-incrimination. I thought that, rather than listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) wished to whisper in my ear, I should hear the rest of the intervention.

The hon. Gentleman should understand that not everyone starts from his premise. We do not all start from the premise that the other 14 European states are about to impose something on the United Kingdom, which might be acceptable for them but will be hopelessly inappropriate for the society in which we live in Britain. That is not our starting point.

Our starting point is that we are a contributor to discussion or dialogue within the European Union. There will be ideas coming forward from all member states, including the United Kingdom. We think that we have much to offer our partners in the Community in this context. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe acknowledged, Britain is ahead of the game. Our laws are probably better than those in other EU states, as is the impact of our law. I echo the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point that our position in law does not mean that there is anything like perfection in the United Kingdom, but progress has been made. Where other member states are able to examine British law and say that, in the effort to build a common base against the background of a common view—that does not exclude member states from doing something complementary to that base—the United Kingdom is pointing in the right direction, it would be desirable to follow that course.

The unanimity provision is designed to ensure that any legislation that bears on this delicate, difficult and sensitive area has a broad base of support. That is why I believe that the article is an important part of the treaty. I do not accept—

Mr. Howard

The Minister's argument is based on the assumption that nothing can happen under the article unless specific legislative provisions are agreed. However, he will know that, as I put to him earlier, many eminent lawyers believe that the European Court of Justice could, in effect, give direct application to the article, and that a complaint could be brought before the ECJ on the basis of the article and the general principles laid down in it. The European Court of Justice has intervened in not dissimilar circumstances in the past. Can the Minister give a specific and categorical assurance that the court will not be able to intervene on the basis of article 2 unless and until there are specific legislative provisions under it?

Mr. Henderson

The role of the European Court of Justice does not change under the provision. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the court will continue to have a role in first-pillar matters, such as social and employment policy. If it felt that a provision was against the general principles of the treaty, of course it could have a say. However, if such a difficulty arose in respect of a third-pillar issue, the court could not intervene unless the nation concerned made provision for it to do so. I have had this discussion with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on many occasions, so I shall now move on.

4 pm

Mr. Howard

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Henderson

No, I must move on. I have dealt with the issue thoroughly in previous discussions. I said again during the debate on clause 1 that the court can intervene in first-pillar matters, but not in third-pillar matters unless the Government makes provision for it to do so, and the Government have no intention of changing matters in that regard.

The article is an important part of the treaty, and I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Howard

I have paid tribute to the Minister during our discussions because in previous debates he made genuine attempts to answer all the points that were raised. However, this afternoon his answer has been woefully inadequate. To rest on distinctions between the third pillar and the first pillar might have been appropriate before the treaty of Amsterdam, but one of the consequences of the treaty is, to a very large extent, to dissolve those differences.

The whole point of the previous Government's position on the issue was that we wanted co-operation on racial and other discrimination issues, and we were perfectly happy to reach agreement on those issues under the third pillar. However, the introduction of the article into the treaty gives the European Court of Justice jurisdiction.

The Minister will know perfectly well that, in its general attitude to which he referred a few moments ago, the European Court of Justice is fully entitled to take into account, in deciding whether it is appropriate for it to intervene, provisions such as those that are now contained in the treaty on European Union as a consequence of the article.

Therefore, there is no point in the Minister pretending that the insertion of the article in the treaty makes no difference. It is wrong for him to suggest that it does not change the position of the European Court of Justice. It is a treaty article which could be taken into account by the European Court of Justice in reaching decisions on complaints brought before it. That is why I repeat my question to the Minister, to which I have so far received no answer that is remotely adequate. Is he satisfied that the European Court of Justice cannot take action on these matters without any specific legislative action being agreed by the member states? That is the question. Will the Minister now answer it?

Mr. Doug Henderson

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Howard

That depends on the Minister's answer.

Mr. Henderson

I rise in the belief that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving way to me. The implication of his remarks may be that the Opposition believe that there is no role for the European Court of Justice. That is not our view. The Government accept the need for the Court of Justice to intervene in the first pillar, as it did when the previous Government were in power.

It would be open to the Court of Justice to say that a view had not been taken on the treaty commitment to anti-discrimination in the preparation of a particular directive and that it should therefore be set aside until consideration was given. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that that is different from the European Community bringing forward anti-discrimination legislation based on the authority of the clause, which could be done only by unanimity?

Mr. Howard

On the basis that I was previously giving way to the Minister—

The Chairman

Order. It may be helpful if I clarify that we are in Committee, when it is open to any hon. Member to speak more than once.

Mr. Howard

I am grateful, Sir Alan.

Of course there is a difference between the two situations that the Minister has identified. He seems to have answered my question in the affirmative. The Court of Justice could intervene, in reliance on this article in the treaty, without any specific legislative action being agreed.

The key lies in the Minister's opening observation when he rose to reply to the debate a few minutes ago. In a perhaps characteristic moment of frankness, he said that there were many unknowns on the issue. That is undoubtedly true, and it is the danger. Sensitivities are of the utmost importance on this matter. That is why our legislation has been so carefully crafted to reflect our national circumstances. Problems undoubtedly exist in the rest of the European Union. The best way for them to be dealt with is for other member states to take action that reflects their national circumstances. If we were dependent on specific legislative action being taken under the article, we would be in the position that has been described, because of the unanimity requirement. It would defeat the rest of the Minister's argument for having the article in the treaty, but at least that would be our position.

The dangers arise from the possibility of the Court of Justice being able to intervene without specific legislative action, because, as the Minister has said, there are many unknowns. That is why the Government should not have agreed to the article. They should have insisted that agreements on such issues, which I am not against in principle, should have been made under the third pillar. The treaty should not contain an article giving the court jurisdiction on that.

Sir Teddy Taylor

I hope that the Minister will think carefully about the desirability of going back to Brussels to see whether something can be done about this little article. The assurances that he has given do not add up to much.

First, the hon. Gentleman told us not to worry about it because there was the protection of unanimity. That would be fine if it were a real protection, but the Minister should bear in mind the fact that, in all the years that I and others here have been in the House, we have seen matters that were subject to unanimity fading to majority vote because Governments, in admittedly difficulty negotiating circumstances, have agreed to the change. Hon. Members should be aware that there is a widespread desire in the European Union to make everything subject to majority vote—that is not much of a protection.

The Minister also said that we have the protection of subsidiarity. I hope that hon. Members will think about that. When subsidiarity was first put into a treaty, we thought that it was an amazing step forward. I have been trying in various ways to find out how it was a step forward. I have not found any sign that the European Union has intervened less in member states' interests. In fact, it seems to have got worse.

I genuinely hope that colleagues will look at page 85 of the treaty and see for themselves. Whereas subsidiarity used to be regarded as significant, although I do not think that it was, we find on page 85 that all the principal supports of subsidiarity are fading away. To that extent, there seems to be no protection at all.

The third assurance was not to worry because nothing will happen concerning the European Court of Justice. The Minister has kindly and fairly accepted that, of course, something will happen concerning the court. I hope that, before we agree to such matters, hon. Members will think back to the famous case of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. It was approved by the House of Commons, we were told by the Commission that it was okay and we were told by friends in the Council of Ministers that it was okay. Everyone was happy—then, all of a sudden, some years later, the Act was wholly overturned by the Court of Justice. Therefore, approving such powers is very dangerous.

I hope that hon. Members will think about the wording, which refers to "appropriate action". Some people will ask, "Why should we worry if they are all nice people and men of good will?" Unfortunately, we have found through time that "appropriate action" and such phrases can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It has been tragic watching previous Governments—both Conservative and Labour—discover to their horror that things to which they agreed and thought were okay turned out not to be okay at all.

I hope that hon. Members will bear very much in mind the fact that we have heard assurance after assurance in the past. I ask those who are considering the assurances today to think of those given over Maastricht and subsidiarity.

I am a member of a horrible little Committee called the Treasury Committee, along with my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who is in his place. We work very hard. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have heard, as I did, the assurances given during debates on the Maastricht treaty about our opt-out of the single currency. I am sure that he has read carefully as I did the Bank of England's comments on the matter. They make it clear that the assurances are basically a load of codswallop. We will be subject to the rules and legislation of the EU and the ecu whether we agree to join the single currency or not.

I do not question the Minister's sincerity. He is one of the nicest and kindliest Ministers who has dealt with this subject. I have had to deal with many bad-tempered and difficult Ministers over many years since the treaty of Rome was signed. I just hope that, because he is nice, he is not taken in more than others were. On this occasion, I think that he has been wholly taken in. Clause 1 is dangerous. It would have been far better to deal with the matter through national legislation. As I have said over the past 23 years, to the boredom of the House, we are being misled. We are making a great mistake, and I do not think that we should do so.

Mr. Cash

The Minister said that he thought that it would not be inappropriate to have common standards on such matters across Europe. By the same token, he said in reply to me that there was unanimity in the provisions, and it therefore could not be assumed that we would agree to arrangements that would produce the common standards to which I have just referred. The Minister knows perfectly well that the provision is a slippery slope, and there is absolutely no justification for having agreed to it.

I said in my opening remarks that I thought that perhaps the Minister had not noticed what the provision involved. He has not given me any reassurance on that point. He has cobbled together some arguments during the debate, but I have an idea that he was not involved directly in the matter. I suspect that it was thought that article 6a was just another article with something to do with discrimination; that nobody is against discrimination so it would be extremely difficult for us to take exception to it; and that it was therefore allowed to go through on the nod. I suspect that, as the argument has developed in Committee, the Minister has concluded that some rather serious problems are inherent in the provision. It should not have been allowed to go through on the nod.

I am glad to note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has taken a robust view of the provisions. He has risen three times in response to the Minister and the more he has done so, the more my right hon. and learned Friend has objected to the provisions. The Government's response, as he says, has been woefully inadequate. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the provisions involve the extension of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and he has made it clear that the provisions should not have been agreed to.

The Minister has given us no satisfaction. The provisions may have been dealt with by unanimity, but they are bringing us into the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, and they are creating a new legal framework within which the provisions will be construed.

4.15 pm

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) indicated that horse trading takes place over and over again in terms of provisions put in place by unanimity. Given the number of headings under which article 6a could be applied, there is no justification for believing that horse trading will not happen again.

It is not just a question of religion, disability or racism; or a question of one or another of those. Hundreds of directives, regulations and communications can be brought in under the provisions; there will not be one specific directive dealing with combating religious discrimination. All those regulations are potentially subject to the Court of Justice if they are brought in and the Government decide to agree to a particular measure. [Interruption.] If the parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), cannot shut up for five minutes and allow the Minister to listen to the argument, it is a poor show for the House. The hon. Gentleman is not a Minister, and he should sit back in his seat and learn to take instructions rather than try to lecture the Minister.

The provisions are to be brought forward by the European Commission after consultation with the European Parliament. The consultation with the European Parliament is an objectionable provision, but the key problem is that the European Commission will take the initiative. If that happens in relation to any of the provisions, it is as certain as certain can be that the Commission will go for the kind of things I mentioned in my opening remarks—uniformity, homogeneity and provisions intended to create the kind of Europe the Commission wants, which will be intrusive and evasive. Subsidiarity will have no impact on that.

Back in the Maastricht days, I argued that subsidiarity was a con trick. The whole operation is intended to transfer upwards, but to give the impression that there will be a devolution of provisions downwards. It is nothing of the kind. All the most important matters are to be dealt with by the upper levels. That is precisely why, within the legal framework, these provisions confer on the Court of Justice jurisdiction which takes the matters to a higher level automatically. There is nothing to prevent that. It is a total disgrace and a condemnation of the Government that they are not prepared to acknowledge that they have sold the pass on these provisions.

I suspect that there are hon. Members—not many, I regret to say—who genuinely believe that the Amsterdam treaty is not worth a row of beans. It was sold on the basis that there are people who want European homogeneity, uniformity, integration or whatever one might call it—political union—to be as extensive as possible. Even given the diminutive number of Labour Members present, I cannot believe that their constituents have not even the slightest interest in provisions of this sort, which will remove hon. Members' rights to take such decisions on their behalf.

We are dealing with questions of religion, racism, disability and age—a whole raft of provisions. There is no conceivable reason why the Minister and the Government should have allowed those decisions to be taken away from the people who voted them in at the ballot box on 1 May. It does not matter which party is in power. The reality is that the provisions will remain the same. Every Labour Member will face the same problem, even though so few of them are present.

When the provisions are translated into law and the horse trading takes place, subsidiarity collapses and we are confronted with the result—be it in two or three years—the Minister will produce a directive. If I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation when another raft of provisions goes through on any of those headings, I will call for a debate on the Floor of the House because they will they have gone through irrespective of the fact that the Minister said that they are a matter of unanimity. I can see some Labour members of that Select Committee present and I hope that they will remember what I am saying. I will expect the Select Committee to demand a debate on the Floor of the House. I bet anything that the Leader of the House will say no to such a debate and propose that the matter be considered in a Standing Committee, which the Government can control.

Mr. Greg Pope (Hyndburn)

What has this got to do with the amendment?

Mr. Cash

On a point of order, Sir Alan. Is it right for the Whip to make ridiculous comments from a sedentary position?

The Chairman

The hon. Member must not tempt me. I am responsible for order in the Committee and I will take the decisions about that.

Mr. Cash

I am not tempting you, Sir Alan, but merely pointing out to you, as an ex-member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, that you should note that the points I am making are matters of great concern to the House. As you well know, it is all about scrutiny. The Amsterdam treaty contains provisions that relate to national Parliaments, and their role and scrutiny are part of this debate.

I am deeply disturbed by the Minister's reaction to clause 1. He engaged in nothing less than weasel words. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, there has been no attempt to answer the serious questions that lie at the heart of the matter.

The Minister said that at present there was no intention to deal with the sort of problems that might come up because they did not require any treatment. The Human Rights Bill is before the House of Lords. I see the Minister looking down and I suspect that he knows what I am about to say. That Bill will effectively transfer a raft of jurisdictions to the European Court, under the Amsterdam treaty.

I am worried about the Minister's use of the words "at present". I see that he is shaking his head. That shows that he has not thought through the implications of what I am saying. It obviously has not occurred to him that there are provisions in the Human Rights Bill that cross over the provisions of article 6a. It seems likely to me that the Bill's transfer of jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice will amplify that court's jurisdiction in a way that will create serious difficulties in relation to article 6a.

I condemn the Government for acceding to the treaty and allowing article 6a to go through. I am entirely sure that, in time, my arguments and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and other Conservative Members will be justified and proved right.

The treaty and the article are so invasive of our identity and culture and of the manner in which we, as a tolerant nation, have legislated over the years that I am convinced that, when the time comes, the Government and the Minister will be found to have been in serious default. It is such a serious matter, concerning such fundamental questions, that they will stand condemned. I have no intention of withdrawing the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert 'and Protocol 7 paragraph (2)'.

The Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 22—Subsidiarity: Annual Report— '.—The Secretary of State shall, within a year of entry into force, and annually thereafter, publish and lay before the House a report on the application in the European Union and the United Kingdom of the principles of subsidiarity laid down in the seventh protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam.'. New clause 36—Subsidiarity principle: legal advice— 'Within one month of this Act coming to force, the Government shall report to each House of Parliament that it has received specific legal advice from the Attorney General that Protocol 7 to the Treaty of Amsterdam does not prevent existing Community regulations from being repealed in so far as they relate to the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Streeter

All Conservative Members welcome the principle of subsidiarity. The amendment is designed to highlight the wording of the new protocol on subsidiarity contained in the Amsterdam treaty; far from strengthening that important principle, we believe that it will weaken it.

Subsidiarity is very much a Conservative idea, advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), as Prime Minister, during the Maastricht negotiations and before. It is fair to say that, once again, people throughout Europe are benefiting from an idea that stems from the Conservative party in the United Kingdom.

Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire)

I do not want to be churlish about this—nor do I want to be clever—but I must ask my hon. Friend what regulation has been changed, or what direct action has ever been taken, as a result of subsidiarity.

Mr. Streeter

I was about to make the point that many Conservative Members would wish subsidiarity to go further and become more effective; indeed, when we heard press reports that the Government had brought back a new protocol on subsidiarity, we hoped that they had achieved an improvement, but we read to our disappointment that that was not the case.

If it is right—some of us have reservations—that, as some Labour Members have said, the high tide of European integration has been reached and is receding, perhaps the principle of subsidiarity has played a small part in bringing that about. It is an important principle. I recognise that it has been far from perfect, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. It represents an honest attempt to assert the primacy of the nation state.

In my opinion, such a concept connects favourably with what most people in Europe want. There are politicians throughout Europe who want an increasingly integrated Europe, but I believe that they are out of step with the heartbeat of most of the people of Europe.

Subsidiarity is important, and the relevant wording in the Maastricht treaty is effective. Article 3b states: the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community. We must now consider protocol 7 in the Amsterdam treaty, especially paragraph 2, which states: The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and the objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article F(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which 'the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies'. 4.30 pm

That paragraph shows that the principle of subsidiarity has been expressly subordinated to those very principles, pillars and institutions that created the suffocating, supranational activity in the first place. Far from being improved by protocol 7, the principle of subsidiarity has been neutered and emasculated. Subsidiarity will be not more effective, as everybody in this Committee would wish, but less.

Under the Maastricht treaty, the European Union hired a watchdog and gave it full licence to roam throughout the Community to restrict the extent to which the European Union sought to do those things that could be better done at national level. People had reservations about the effectiveness of that watchdog, but that was the spirit behind Maastricht. Under Amsterdam, that watchdog has been muzzled, and is chained and locked in its kennels. The Minister may not agree, in which case I invite him to make that clear in his response. However, I believe that he has brought back from Amsterdam a watchdog that cannot bark.

Protocol 7 is now long and complex. Instead of a simple principle that everybody understood—although it was ineffectively implemented—we now have a long and complex protocol, full of contradictory statements. That will be food and drink to the European Court of Justice, which will be able to interpret the protocol according to its vision of, and attitude towards, European Union development.

Does anyone in this Committee believe that such interpretation will enhance and support the principle of subsidiarity? Rather, it will seek to give free reign to dominance by the institutions of the European Union. The protocol is long and full of warm words, typical of a new Labour attitude to problem solving. It contains weasel words and is touchy-feely, but unfortunately it does not stand up in the light of day. It will be fertile ground for the European Court of Justice to weave its magic.

Some progress has been made under subsidiarity, and we support some of the programmes that have been brought forward in an attempt to simplify legislation. They were a step in the right direction, and we look forward to further steps. Our main concern about the treaty of Amsterdam is that the principle of subsidiarity will not be further developed and enhanced by protocol 7, but will be confused and taken backwards.

If, as I suspect, the Minister disagrees with me, I hope that he will not in his reply simply give us his usual knockabout. I hope that he will respond to the legal points that arise from the debate, and that he will be able to reassure the Opposition that the principle of subsidiarity is not merely left in the same place by article 7 but is improved and enhanced. I hope that he will be able to clarify the apparently contradictory nature of some paragraphs of article 7, and that he will reassure us that we do not need to press the amendment to a Division.

Sir Michael Spicer

As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said, subsidiarity was brought forward at the time of the treaty of Maastricht as some sort of quid pro quo for the enormous transfers of power under the treaty, and the tremendous dynamic, and potential, for further transfers of power that lay embedded in its core, particularly in respect of the single currency and the institutional arrangements for that. Even those who did not vote against Maastricht, and members of the Government of the day, were worried about this.

The quid pro quo during the passage of Maastricht legislation was always, "But we have got subsidiarity." That was always the Government's core argument. I remember well that, throughout those debates, Tristan Garel-Jones, who I think is now a Lord, would say that we did not understand the arguments, that subsidiarity was what we had got out of the process. That was considered the enormous bonus that came out of the treaty of Maastricht. Two problems arise, to which we must return in this debate.

First, as I tried to suggest in my earlier intervention, nothing has been achieved through subsidiarity. I think that the Government, and particularly the former Prime Minister, intended that some sort of reversal of power should be involved in the concept of subsidiarity. There was even talk of 25 per cent. of regulations being reconsidered under the heading of subsidiarity. None of that happened. There has not been one reversal. The reason is the acquis communautaire. The process of occupied fields, of the continuum of accretion of powers by the centre, is written into law through the treaty of Rome as amended over time.

The second issue to which many of us referred during the passage of the Maastricht treaty was the fundamental question about subsidiarity: who determines what is to be subsidiary and what is to be centralised? That is always the crucial question in considering subsidiarity. Because of the acquis communautaire, it was clear to many of us that it would have to be determined at the centre. Power could not be devolved sui generis by people simply claiming power at the periphery.

The very concept of subsidiarity inevitably meant greater centralisation—the very opposite of what it purported to be. A central authority had to determine what was to be parcelled out and what was to be retained at the centre.

It was always thus, but at least under the treaty of Maastricht, the decision as to which authority at the centre was to determine what bits were to be parcelled out or to be retained was left a little indeterminate. At least there was an element of obscurity about that, which was something. In the treaty of Amsterdam, however, the matter is spelled out clearly.

The amendments rightly try to remove the terms of the protocol, which suggest: The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and institutional balance: it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law". That protocol spells out clearly that, henceforth, it shall be the job of the European Court, under the terms of the acquis communautaire, and where it needs to do so, to develop law accordingly. The word "development" appears from an early stage, so we are not just talking about the application of existing laws, but the development of law. That has always been the case, but now it is spelled out under an intergovernmental conference treaty, and thus the European Court will move into sectors unoccupied by law in order to develop it. It will do so in this case with respect to the whole concept of subsidiarity.

At last the matter has been spelled out clearly in black and white. Not only will matters be determined by the centre, which is the complete opposite of the devolution of powers, but they will be determined by treaty in the protocol, if the amendment is not passed, so that the body that shall determine such matters will be the court. The court shall do so even where the treaty does not specify that, because the court will have the power to develop law as laid down by the agreements of Governments if the treaty is ratified.

In the past, in government, I have had disputes with my Front-Bench colleagues about subsidiarity, but today they are absolutely right. They have picked on exactly the provision that needs to be removed from the protocol. The consistent objectives of the previous Conservative Government and the current Labour one have been to devolve power. If they are true to themselves, the Government must remove that centralising element that will be incorporated in the treaty, if it is passed and ratified, and turned into law.

My Front-Bench colleagues were absolutely right to table the three amendments that are related specifically to the acquis communautaire and the court's powers. I hope that the amendments will be pressed to a vote, because then at least we will have established that the Conservative party still believes in devolution.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

New clause 22 stands in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).

The group of amendments under discussion strike at the heart of so much that we need to discuss within the workings of the European Union, and so much that has been obfuscated or avoided for many years. The concept of subsidiarity is one about which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee feel strongly. It is one that has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance for far too many years in Europe.

Although the treaty of Maastricht included the word "subsidiarity" in text for the first time, I must agree with those who argue that it made little or no provision for making that concept a reality in the European Union. It has done nothing to make it an effective check on the centralising tendency within the EU.

The concept of subsidiarity is not, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) has said, simply an assertion of the primacy of national Parliaments. If it were, I have my doubts as to the extent to which my party would support it. Our definition of subsidiarity is quite different—it means giving power to the lowest available level, the nearest to the people. It therefore extends from the EU seamlessly through national Governments to regional and local levels. The key to understanding subsidiarity is to appreciate that each of those levels is important. Each has a part to play in a properly regulated democracy.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

Presumably the hon. Gentleman is making a case for amendment No. 9, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), and which argues that the principle of subsidiarity should also apply under acquis communitaire. Here is a wonderful opportunity to reverse the ratchet of ever-increasing Community competence—an opportunity that has been lost by the Government in their negotiations.

4.45 pm

Mr. Heath

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I shall deal with the concept of acquis communautaire in a moment.

My colleagues and I believe that a codification was long overdue, and that it was essential to include one in a form of protocol which gave some teeth to the loosely construed concept of subsidiarity, and made it effective. I disagree with the hon. Member for South-West Devon, the Conservative spokesman, about the European Court of Justice, to which Conservatives seem to have some sort of allergy. I do not believe that it is necessarily an inappropriate means of making the concept justiciable.

Inevitably, there must be an adjudicator, and that adjudicator cannot be an appellant. Therefore, there must be means to weigh the arguments for and against a particular level of decision making being applied at a specific level.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman has said that Conservative Members suffer from an allergy to the European Court of Justice. Does he believe that that court is an impartial judicial authority, or does he believe that, in whole or in part, it is signed up to the process of European integration? That fact would necessarily influence its decisions.

Mr. Heath

Any judicial system is only as good as the framework of law within which it works. That is precisely the argument that I am trying to enlarge upon now. It is important that we have a wide revision of the terms of subsidiarity, and that we extend that process as far as possible to the present arrangements governing acquis communautaire. It would be nonsense to start that process by considering matters from now on, and failing to consider retrospective ones.

There is a strong case for applying the principles in the protocol to everything that takes place within the EU. I should like to see that principle extended below the level of the nation state to regional and local government. The Government's welcome decision at long last to accede to the European charter on local self-government is important, but I have yet to see any action deriving from that which gives greater responsibility for decision making to local government level in this country. Perhaps it is early days.

Sir Michael Spicer

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath

I find it difficult to make a speech when I am constantly interrupted, but I will give way once again.

Sir Michael Spicer

The hon. Gentleman has made a comment of profound significance in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and I want to make sure that it represents the Liberal party's position, because it is important. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal party now believes in the reversal and retrenchment of powers and the abolition of the acquis communautaire? That is of enormous, profound significance, and I was certainly unaware that that was the Liberal party's position.

Mr. Heath

What we have consistently said and what we shall continue to say is that power should be exercised at the lowest available level. We have also consistently said that that is not necessarily the case at the moment, and there are many examples of the European Union acting at Community level on matters that could properly be decided at national or local level. Similarly, there are many examples of the UK national Government taking it upon themselves to make decisions that are better made at local level. One of the basic principles espoused by the Liberal Democrats is to devolve power to the lowest available level.

The test of whether the new protocol on subsidiarity is not the number of cases that are taken to the European Court of Justice, but the extent to which the Commission is made to think again before taking action by the discipline of having to present cogent arguments for having taken a decision at European level which, according to the new protocol, have to be both qualitative and, where possible, quantitative. I hope that that discipline will bite, but I remain to be convinced that it will.

It may be that we shall have to return to this matter at the next intergovernmental conference, because no effective action has resulted from it. At least the incorporation of the protocol gives justiciable grounds to hope that proper consideration will be given to these matters, and that there will be a change from what has become an established norm. If that is the case, it is wholly welcome, which is why I cannot accept the Conservative amendment—it throws out the baby with the bath water.

It is important that we get the protocol incorporated into the treaty and into law. From then on, however, I want regular assessments in the House and elsewhere of how the principles of subsidiarity have been applied to matters that are of importance to Britain, both between the EU and Britain and within Britain. Our amendment seeks to make that a clear discipline on the Government, so that we will have debates on the Floor of the House that will enable us to take up cases where we believe the principle has not been acceded to by the European Union and challenge such action.

I look forward to a body of law or a codification that will make clear what are the spheres of influence of the different levels of government, and to a time when we can be absolutely certain that matters that are properly considered nearer to the individual citizen will not be sucked up in the vortex of higher-level decision making.

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale)

We cannot allow the speech by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to pass without comment, because it was a remarkable speech. In the early part, we appeared to have been taken up to the mountain and shown the promised land. The Liberal Democrats now seemed to be in favour of the repatriation of powers; of the concept that the exchange of powers between nation states and the European Union should not be solely one way, but that there should be the possibility of powers being returned after having been surrendered; and therefore of the acquis communautaire being regarded as not sacrosanct, but amendable.

However, in the second half of the speech, and in the hon. Gentleman's responses to interventions from my hon. Friends, it became clear that—yet again and as usual—the Liberal Democrats were willing the ends but not the means, and that they would be unable to support the amendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

I support the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). I believe that the origins of the concept of subsidiarity in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) were entirely honourable and honest. They reflected a wish on his part, in its turn reflecting the wishes of the British people, that there should be an assertion in the European treaties of the natural primacy of the nation state as the democratic unit with which people are most comfortable and of which they are most supportive.

At the time, that was not a naive view for my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister to take, given the context of turbulence in the markets and the politics of many European countries in 1992. That view was expressed by many other people, not least by the European Commission and by the French Government in the run-up to and during the Maastricht referendum of 1992.

Sadly, it appears the comments made by the time by those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were perhaps a little more cynical and worldly wise in their assessment of the situation, have largely been proved true, as the assurances that were given by the British Government, by many other Governments and by the European Commission have not been readily translated into action since then.

As we look to the protocol present in the Amsterdam treaty that we are debating today, we need to bear in mind that the concept of subsidiarity carries with it some difficulties. There is the word itself: when, in the commercial context, we hear of one company being a wholly-owned subsidiary of another, we accept that it is nothing less than a puppet of a higher authority, and not independent in any sense. We know that the concept of subsidiarity has its origins in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but one of that Church's central doctrines is that the person at its head is infallible.

Mr. Cash

As a Catholic, I believe strongly in the tenet: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. I do not accept that, in any circumstances, we should allow the concept of subsidiarity based on theological considerations to interfere in the political process.

Mr. Collins

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I think is supporting what I am saying.

The other problem with subsidiarity is that, in some senses, it puts things the wrong way round—it assumes that power naturally stems from the top and therefore has to be devolved by some route to the bottom; whereas most of us who are natural democrats believe that power rests with the people and should be transferred upwards only with the consent of the people, for specific purposes and for a limited period, and not ceded in perpetuity.

Mr. Bercow

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's eloquent flow, but, as he was developing his argument, I noticed the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) chuntering from a sedentary position words to the effect that subsidiarity implied decision making at the lowest level. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if that were the case and if the European Union regarded it as being the case, by now a regulation would have been repealed under the subsidiarity principle? The fact that none has been repealed suggests that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is somewhat confused.

Mr. Collins

If the system had worked as it was designed to work, far more than one regulation would have been repealed by now, although I agree with my hon. Friend about the symbolic importance of the fact that not one has been repealed.

In the UK context, the debate often centres on the evils of a federal system, so it is ironic that an undoubtedly federal constitution—that of the United States of America—contains a provision that is far stronger than anything in the EU treaties—that powers which are not specifically provided for the union reside with the individual states. The USA therefore has a federal union that, in many respects and on many legal bases, reserves much more power to the member states than the increasingly centralised EU constitution we are debating today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon said, whatever the arguments may have been about the practicalities or otherwise of what was set out by member states in 1992, it is clear that the provisions of the treaty of Amsterdam will make matters far worse, not better. They will mean that the text will be justiciable by the European Court of Justice, which court, rightly or wrongly, has an explicit integrationist agenda.

My hon. Friend put his finger on another difficulty when he said that subsidiarity would now be subject, first, to the acquis communautaire, thereby explicitly ruling out those great ambitions that subsidiarity would be used as an engine of repatriating power, repealing directives and removing powers that were no longer valid or necessary; and, secondly, to article F4 of the treaty, which says that the Union will now have the right to arrogate to itself powers to deliver any of objectives of the treaty.

The Amsterdam treaty further amends the objectives of the Maastricht treaty. We know that some phrases that, to the United Kingdom eye, can sometimes seem relatively innocuous, can store up immense long-term political difficulties. One such phrase is "ever closer union". I am sure that, when the UK Government first signed up to it, it was regarded as relatively innocent, but it has become an engine of integration across a range of issues.

5 pm

If we consider that the provisions on subsidiarity will now be subject to the treaty's objectives, and that, after the Amsterdam treaty, the European Union has as one of its purposes to make its entire territory an area of "peace, security and justice", we begin to see that we are constructing a system in which the centralised institutions have carte blanche to do virtually anything they like.

No one in the House, or beyond, would object to the abstract concepts of peace, security and justice—who would? But if someone says that he is creating an organisation which can take upon itself whatever powers it needs to deliver such wide-ranging and sweeping objectives as peace, security and justice, where the only brake on the exercise of those powers—the provisions on subsidiarity—is made explicitly subject to that all-embracing power and that all-encompassing provision, we begin to see that—to pursue the often-used cliché that compares the European Union to a train—the train is heading downhill rapidly.

Not only is there no dead man's handle, but there is no brake. The subsidiarity provisions, which were only the lightest touch on the brake pedal, have been disconnected. The brake fluid has been removed and replaced with, at best, water and probably nothing else. As a result, we now have a rollercoaster that cannot be stopped.

For those reasons, I believe that what started as a brave and noble experiment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, the former Prime Minister, to find some basis of agreement to create a brake on the process of European integration, has, owing to the present Government's exceptionally bad negotiating tactics, become a further strengthening of the motor of European integration. For that reason above all, this amendment, perhaps more than any other amendment being considered by the Committee, must be passed. Without it, all the assurances that we have heard from the Prime Minister and other Ministers will be entirely worthless.

Mr. Bercow

Subsidiarity has been trailed over a long period as the saviour of British sovereignty. The reality of the past few years has demonstrated clearly that it is nothing of the sort. At best, it is a sop to those concerned with the preservation of self-government; at worst, it is a cloak that disguises or seeks to disguise the ever-increasing arrogation of powers to the central institutions of the European Community, now the European Union. It is a dangerous phenomenon that has been misrepresented.

We can argue the toss for ever and a day about the motives that guided the treaty makers at the time of the treaty of Maastricht and whether they intended it to be a genuinely decentralising force or whether they thought that it was a cloak covering further centralisation. In the final analysis, the motives matter not; the results matter a great deal. We now have the opportunity, after a period of several years, to assess what has happened and to reach a conclusion.

A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred to the start of the debate, which, it has to be said, began with the negotiations over the Maastricht treaty. It is important to know what article 3b, which I describe as the infamous article 3b, of the Maastricht treaty said. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) referred to it and his comments bear repetition.

I shall share a private thought with the Committee today: the precise contents of article 3b have been imprinted on my mind for at least six years. I want to share them with the Committee. The article states: In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community". I never bought into the concept, although I greatly respect the integrity and good intentions of those who did. It always struck me as mealy-mouthed, insubstantial and almost certain to be abused.

In order that the context of the debate about subsidiarity should be understood, let us remind ourselves of some of the reactions to it and the events that followed its inclusion in the treaty of Maastricht. Immediately after the signing of that treaty, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) expressed the belief that the subsidiarity provision of the treaty would be a great protection for the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that he meant it—"Hurrah," said he and others. They thought that it would stop the federalist engine speeding ahead. The truth is that even then—and I remember it—others were not so persuaded.

I refer, for example, to no less an authority than Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, no friend of the anti-federalist cause, but a considerable voice on the subject of European union and integration. He described article 3b as a "prime example of gobbledegook". He said that to regard the formula chosen as a constitutional safeguard showed "great optimism". That was his considered judgment at the time; he believed that it would not protect the rights of nation states and the primacy of national self-government.

Mr. Cash

Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only did Lord Mackenzie-Stuart say that in respect of the original proposals for subsidiarity, but he reaffirmed his view after the Birmingham European Council of 16 October 1992 in a letter that he wrote, either to The Times or The Daily Telegraph? He became even more concerned after that summit than he was before.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. As I noticed Lord Mackenzie-Stuart becoming increasingly cynical about the provision, I too became increasingly cynical.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

My hon. Friend might not be aware that some of us were persuaded to vote against the Maastricht treaty—albeit in my case, only at Third Reading—because of our experience in Brussels. In March 1993, the then Secretary General of the Commission, a British civil servant called Williamson, told British Members of Parliament from both sides of the House—I know that Labour Members were equally upset and astonished—that everyone knew that the British had overplayed subsidiarity to a ridiculous extent and that it was not even worth talking about.

Mr. Bercow

I was not aware of that important fact, but I have now been enlightened by my hon. Friend, and his comments do not surprise me one jot. The sheer cynicism and deviousness of many of those who sought to fob us off with that supposed concession at the time know no bounds.

There was, ultimately, a test of the robustness, the virility, of the subsidiarity provision. That test came on 12 March 1996 when this country heard—I hope with a deep sense of shame—the opinion of the Advocate General in relation to the working time directive. I am delighted to see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), has raised his eyes from his notes and is paying attention.

What the Advocate General said was a damning indictment of our gullibility in the first instance. On 12 March 1996, the Advocate General gave his opinion on the attempted annulment of the working time directive. He said: In view of the fact that the objective provided for in article 118a is harmonisation, there is no doubt that the aim of the contested directive can be better achieved by action at Community level than by action at national level. He was putting it on the line, so clearly that no one could doubt it, that it was always intended that such matters should be determined supranationally, not nationally. Therefore, those who entertained the hope that we could preserve sovereignty in respect of our domestic working practices were to be disappointed.

Many people never supposed for a moment that we could do so. For example, Lord Tebbit of Chingford was never in any doubt about that. He was perceptive about it from the outset. He knew perfectly well that the subsidiarity doctrine would be abused—and sure enough it was, to the extent that we could not even control our own working hours. That is what happened to subsidiarity then.

We now move on in the debate to phase 2—to the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. My hon. Friends will have noticed that the new buzz-word is "proportionality." The objective is not very different: to convey an impression of reasonableness while offering nothing substantive of the sort. It is, in that sense, a slightly preferable word to "subsidiarity", which—for all except those as intellectually distinguished as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)—is difficult to understand or interpret. "Proportionality" seems a fairly obvious word and it conveys an impression of reasonableness which is not likely to be matched in practice.

I emphasise the point: under the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, in the treaty of Amsterdam, the doctrines of the occupied field and of the acquis communautaire are established as sacrosanct and not to be challenged. There is no suggestion that anything would be allowed which would override the primacy of those doctrines, which are dear to the heart of every European federalist.

Although some of us were sceptical of the likely effectiveness of subsidiarity at the time of the treaty of Maastricht, some federalists did not want to make even that concession because they were petrified that it would lead to a decentralisation of power. Therefore, this time they were determined to get their own back: to emphasise beyond doubt that central forces within the Community would hold sway, that the acquis communautaire was safe and that the doctrine of the occupied field was not under threat. They succeeded.

Other hon. Members have referred to what the protocol says, and it is important that the debate should respect and reflect the words of the protocol. What does it say? The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and the objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full"— not in part, but in full— of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance". I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is listening carefully. The protocol continues: it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national law and Community law, and it should take into account Article F(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which 'the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies'. Therefore no one can say, "Ah, 'tis unclear; there is scope for optimism," or, in future, "The wool was pulled over our eyes." Neither of those things is or could ever be true. It is clear that the Community is to hold sway.

It must be recorded that there are currently six Labour Members in the Chamber for the consideration of a matter of the most momentous magnitude for the future of this country. A Government Whip has now left the Chamber. Indeed, I thought for a moment that two representatives of Her Majesty's Whips Office were about to absent themselves from the Chamber because they were more interested in the minutiae of Government whipping than in the significance of subsidiarity provisions for the future status and self-governing capacity of our nation.

My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) rightly referred to the substantive paragraph of the protocol, section (2), which I just quoted, which talks about the way in which the protocol will be applied. It is important also to refer to section (3), which reinforces and complements section (2). It emphasises the fact that in no sense is the protocol a challenge to Community power. Indeed, as hon. Members will see when they study it, it adds: Community action within the limits of its powers may be expanded where circumstances so require". Therefore, not only shall we not get a net decentralisation of power under the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol, but there is scope for further centralisation.

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)

rose—

5.15 pm

Mr. Bercow

Let the Minister not pretend ignorance. Let him not say subsequently that he did not know. He is seeking to drive through the House, under guillotine, a treaty the effect of which will almost certainly be to increase Community power and to diminish the cause of national self-government. That is the reality.

If the Minister disagrees with that thesis—if he has any serious counter to it, bar the knockabout badinage that has come to characterise the sub-standard responses to the debate that we have suffered to date—let him now say what his response is, but it is not good enough for him to dismiss our anxieties. Still less is it good enough for the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—who I believe feels pained that he is unable vocally to contribute to our debates, and so contents himself with taunting us by showing the disgusting and vulgar, loud European Union socks that he is wearing—to sit and be self-satisfied about it. This is a matter of the utmost seriousness, with portentous consequences for the future of our country.

Mr. Cash

Smelly socks.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) makes a mildly impolite, but possibly apposite, reference to smelly socks. I say to him, in all candour, that the smell of the socks is nothing like as great as the stench of the course of European federalism, from the effects of which the country is suffering. I am sure that we can agree on that point.

The protocol says several things of interest. It says that Community matters shall be defined. Matters for the Community shall have to meet certain tests. A couple of optimistic or naive—or both—Labour Back Benchers may have some hope that the effects of that provision will be minimised, because Community action can be taken only if it meets certain criteria. What are those criteria?

First, we are told that, in order for action by the Community institutions to be taken, an issue should be "transnational" in character. The problem with that is that there is no absolute definition of what constitutes transnational. I would argue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and the shadow Foreign Secretary would argue, that the regulation of working hours is not a matter of transnational concern but a legitimate preoccupation of elected British politicians in the British legislature. On the other hand—genuinely and with good motives—many Labour Members may contend that it is a legitimate concern of the European institutions.

I do not believe that supranational regulation of working hours is necessary for an effective single market, but some Labour Members might. I simply point out that there is no natural, obvious, broadly acceptable definition of what constitutes transnational. If the Minister is planning to set our minds at rest by saying, "Ah, but it must be a matter of transnational concern; the Community cannot by its own fiat pluck something out of the air and say that it is a matter of transnational concern on which the Community must legislate," I reply that the case is not proven.

The second point is that, in order for Community action to be taken, it should be necessary for the requirements of the treaty to be fulfilled. That gives Conservative Members no succour either, for all that that requires is that those who want maximum Community action should draft clauses that would obviously require such action; alternatively, they should draft clauses to the treaty that could allow for such action.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale alluded to that point a few moments ago. He referred to noble but often sweeping objectives which are enshrined in Community law and in treaty obligations. Precisely how they are to be fulfilled is left open. Often it is left open because member states know that there are genuine differences between them over how it would be interpreted. We, the British, are usually patted on the head and told not to worry because nothing concrete is at stake—these are general declarations, in accordance with the continental approach to law making, not the British insistence on specificity. Of course, at a later stage, these obligations are referred to as justification for centralised action and Community diktat. If we object, we are told that we signed the treaty and the words clearly mean what the majority of countries say they mean. So when the Community legislates, we will have no success if we try to object.

Thirdly, we are told, in relation to this provision, that there should be benefits in scale or effect as a result of Community action. There is no argument to be had there, either. As far as we are concerned, the disbenefits in scale and effect of the application of the working time directive across the EU should have prevented its adoption—but they did not.

It is therefore a wholly ineffective attempt at reassurance if any representative of the Government says that there are tests that have to be met before Community action can be taken. There is none that is absolute. There is none that is dependable. There is none that offers encouragement to those Conservatives who believe that we have been consistently misled, let down and betrayed by the process of EU treaty making.

Sir Michael Spicer

My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech, but I want to add a word about tests. We British have always thought that our legal arrangements allowed for specificity, whereas the Roman legal system is based more on general objectives. Indeed, we have often been conned by that difference. The protocol specifically states, however, that the matter should be subject to the general objectives of the treaty. That in itself underlines the importance of what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend is correct. The federalists have given the game away by saying that the satisfaction of key treaty objectives is what is required to justify Community action—thereby admitting that, as long as they can invoke the high-falutin' terms of the treaty, they can get on and do their business. They feel no need to justify themselves beyond that.

What is the final sop that the treaty offers those of us who are concerned to preserve self-government? It is that, under the terms of the protocol, the Commission will be required to consult widely before proposing legislation, and wherever appropriate, publish consultation documents. Is that not enough to warm the cockles of the heart? Is that not a blessed reassurance as we debate the contents of the Amsterdam treaty? Does it not cause the hardest-hearted Euro-sceptic in the Chamber—I look eagerly to find my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), only to find that he has momentarily absented himself—to relent? Nothing of the kind, for it constitutes no check on the legislative ambitions of the Commission. It merely represents a challenge to its ingenuity.

Although I deplore the impact of the Commission's activities on the affairs of this country over a long period, I do not think that the people in the Commission are stupid. It is always wise to know one's enemy. I am in no doubt that the Commission is packed with highly intelligent, dedicated officials—

Mr. MacShane

Like Neil Kinnock?

Mr. Bercow

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is looking at me in that way because he is a disappointed man. I do not know whether he has ever applied for a job in the Commission and failed to get it, and so is critical of the intellectual powers of Commission officials.

Mr. Rammell

I am staggered by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Do you not begin to understand that whatever views you hold—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please confine himself to parliamentary language and stop saying "you"?

Mr. Rammell

I apologise, Mr. Lord. Whatever views one holds on the pace and development of European integration, describing the Commission as the enemy just inflames the debate. It does not begin to clarify the issues; indeed, it is a disservice to the issues that we are debating.

Mr. Bercow

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's sincerity: I disagree with his point. Let me be explicit. I believe it necessary to have a central power in the European Community. One can argue the toss also about, say, the Single European Act—but I chose my words advisedly. I referred as I did to the Commission not because I have any personal hatred of, or contempt for, the officials who serve it but because I believe in judging by results.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) is a regular attender at the proceedings of this Committee; I know that he has well-formed, strongly held opinions on European integration. I disagree with him usually, but I respect him. In the Labour party generally these days, however, there is a preoccupation with form and an inattention to substance. I am concerned about substance, not about being polite for the sake of it. I focus on what the Commission has done to this country. I happen to believe that it has been highly damaging to this country over some years. I also assert that this country has frequently been misled, as often deliberately as accidentally, by the Commission. That is the rationale behind the words that I used.

I said a moment ago that the requirement to consult widely and to publish consultation documents whenever possible constituted no check on the legislative ambitions of the Commission: it was merely a challenge to its ingenuity. My anxiety is that it will want to meet that challenge. It will beaver away, working ferociously hard to identify new areas in which it believes the Community should act.

Again and again we return to the point over which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome skimmed. When there is a dispute, who decides? If we disagree, who is the judge? The answer is: the European Court of Justice. That is the point to which, it seems, the Minister has no meaningful or intelligible response. If he has one now, I shall happily give way to him. I pause to see whether this distinguished representative of Her Majesty's Government will rise from his seat to favour the House with his wisdom. The answer is that he will not, just as he failed to do the other day.

Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead)

It is rather offensive for the Minister to be constantly invited to contribute in that way, when the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the debate will be replied to.

5.30 pm

Mr. Bercow

That is the most bizarre observation that I have heard uttered in the House since 1 May 1997. The notion that it is impolite to ask a Minister to respond there and then to a point strikes me as peculiar. We are, after all, engaged in a debate.

The Minister is a pleasant fellow, but there is just a chance—I put it no higher than that—that he might forget to respond to some points. To suggest that he would deliberately choose to ignore certain points would be a gross discourtesy, and I make no such suggestion. His forgetfulness would be entirely inadvertent—the consequence of a 15-hour day and the effect of his long run round Hyde park corner in the morning, which might cause him to neglect to respond to our arguments on subsidiarity. The other day the Minister did respond to a point from the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), but he did so poorly. I would hope that he could do so better this time.

I shall focus finally on the Government's attitude to date to the subsidiarity protocol. To my mind, the Government have capitulated to the European Union on that front. Three points illustrate the argument forcefully.

First, the Government have contented themselves with the protocol. They have made no objection whatever to the fact that this far-reaching proposal is enshrined only in a protocol within the treaty, on pages 84 to 86, if memory serves me correctly. The notion that a measure with such profound ramifications for the future self-government of this country should be confined to a protocol, without a murmur of protest from the Minister, is unacceptable. It is unworthy of a Minister to commend to the House such a lamentable capitulation to the European Union.

Did the Minister even try to ensure that something better was on offer? Did he race—we all know that he runs regularly and fast—after his opposite numbers in the EU and argue with them about it? Nay, there is no evidence that he did anything of the kind. He was content to accept a protocol further to consolidate the power relationship between the European Community and Britain, in favour of the former.

The second point about the Government's capitulation is that they have effectively ganged up with the European Court of Justice against the national constitutions of member states. Germany, France and Denmark have consistently argued that their national written constitutions supersede treaty obligations. The Community now contends otherwise. It seems that the British Labour Government want to support the Community and attack those who depend on their national constitutions. That is unwise. We have no such national constitution. Others do, and they depend on it for the preservation of their sovereignty. It is wrong for the Minister to line up with the ECJ in that way.

Thirdly, the Prime Minister has made no protest about the protocol. If the Minister wishes to argue to the contrary, no doubt he will rise, notwithstanding the exhortations of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). The Minister will be anxious always and everywhere to defend the effectiveness of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Pope

Hear, hear.

Mr. Bercow

I might have known. There is no subsidiarity in the Whips Office, but one is told that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) is in the Blairite faction, as opposed to the Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), who is in the Brown faction. [Interruption.] That is amply confirmed by the comments of other hon. Members.

If the Minister wishes to rise to defend the Prime Minister, he may. Our understanding is simple. The Prime has in no way criticised the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol. My recollection—I shall be advised otherwise if I am mistaken—is that in his statement of 18 June to the House following the Amsterdam conference, the Prime Minister hardly referred to the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the treaty. He alluded to many other points, and attempted to sell it as a great deal for Britain. Whether, in skipping through the subsidiarity provision, he accidentally missed the significance of pages 84 to 86, we are none the wiser. Whether it was the broad-brush approach, or whether he was so anxious to say, "I have to say," that he did not manage to focus on subsidiarity, I know not. [Interruption.] It was, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) points out, a plot, the details of which my right hon. and learned Friend may wish to expose later. The Prime Minister had nothing serious to say on the subject of subsidiarity then, and he has not since.

The truth can be simply stated. The power of the European Union over the affairs of this country has grown. That power is growing. Under the provisions of the treaty and the subsidiarity protocol, it will continue to grow. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the time will come, and it will not be long from now, when that power and the drift in the direction of more Community power will need to be arrested and reversed. If it is not and we let down future generations, that betrayal will not be forgotten and it will not be forgiven.

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)

I am somewhat abashed to be following the precedent of my three hon. Friends, whose eloquence was beyond all measure greater than mine.

Mr. MacShane

No, no.

Mr. Letwin

In this case, genuinely, yes.

I shall deal with much slighter and more particular points, relating to the way in which protocol 7 has been drafted. I draw the Committee's attention to the concept of proportionality. Most of the discussion has concentrated on the notion of subsidiarity, although my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned proportionality.

Proportionality is described in the first paragraph as a principle according to which any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty", as my hon. Friend mentioned. Some of us have sat for many hours in one of the European Standing Committees, where a series of directives have come before us that have been defended by Ministers. We have frequently asked whether the measure in question went beyond what was necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty. On every occasion, we have been assured that the objectives of the treaty were sufficiently grand in scope to justify the particular measure in hand.

An inspection of the entire range of possible directives, going far beyond the directives that have so far come before us—directives of huge scope and imagination—would reveal that the objectives in the treaty, which have, of course, been enlarged, as my hon. Friends have repeatedly pointed out, are sufficiently great to justify them.

There is no challenge in the challenge that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham suggested had been posed to the Commission—no ingenuity is required—because the objectives are so generally couched that brake in terms of conformity with objectives, like the proportionality brake, becomes devoid of meaning and application. We will never, I speculate, find a case where the Commission proposes a directive or considers the proposition of a directive and then discovers that the rule of proportionality affects the formation or the application of that directive. That is why I suspect that the attention of the Committee has been almost wholly upon the principle of subsidiarity.

There is a great difference between the way in which proportionality is described in the protocol and the treatment of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is linked quite specifically not to the objectives of the treaty but, in paragraph (5), to the objectives of the proposed action. It might be thought that, somehow or other, that narrowed matters and gave us at least the beginning of some check on the development of Community action.

It might be thought in the case of a particular directive—I shall choose an uncontroversial example, such as the ban on tobacco advertising—that, if we could show that the objectives of the proposed action could not be sufficiently achieved within the framework of the nation state, we could throw out the directive. The wording of paragraph (5) gives us some hope that that aim could be achieved. It replicates the wording of article 3b of the Maastricht treaty, which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, to his great credit, is able to remember. Even if one has an impoverished memory and is required to read it, one can see that the article is couched in those terms.

My hon. Friends have pointed out that much of that hope is removed by paragraph (2) of protocol 7, which makes it abundantly clear that, whatever argument we might make about the tobacco advertising directive, it could never be effective if it could be shown to be based on an existing acquis communautaire. That removes the first leg of a possible argument. Secondly, we would not be able to make the argument if it could be shown that the directive in some way cohered with, was based upon or sprang out of the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding relationships between the Community and the states.

We might find also that we could not make the argument because it might be shown that in a particular case it was necessary for the Union to arm itself with the directive to attain its objectives and carry through its policies. That is the point to which I shall refer specifically this afternoon. There is a great conceptual link between the notion of subsidiarity based on the objective of a proposed action and the notion of subsidiarity as something to be applied only in light of the ability of the Union to give itself the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.

Linking those two notions makes it clear what the protocol on subsidiarity, phrased in those terms, is telling us: a directive must not be challenged on the basis of subsidiarity if it can be shown that the directive in question is a carrying through of a policy adopted by the Community and is therefore necessary to the carrying through of that policy. Upon reflection, one can see that that is a wholly remarkable state of affairs. We have a protocol that purports to limit Community action, the genuine meaning of which is that, if the Community adopts a certain policy, it is reasonable for it to adopt a directive because it will ipso facto cohere with its objectives in having adopted that policy. Having adopted a policy and a directive coherent with that policy, we can say nothing against the directive on the grounds of subsidiarity.

If I knew how to construct brakes on my behaviour that consisted of my informing the police that it was legitimate for me to do anything that cohered with an objective that was a matter of my policy, I should be a happy man. The fact is that, in general, when one tries to create legislative constraints, one couches them in terms other than those that depend entirely on the proposition that whatever Mr. X wishes to do becomes legitimate by virtue of his wishing to do it.

I am genuinely puzzled, because, even if Ministers were profoundly dozy during the Amsterdam negotiations—we have evidence of that from other sources relating to different parts of the treaty—I cannot believe that the Foreign Office does not contain anyone who is able to engage in the construction that I have just outlined.

Mr. Cash

I do not wish to disturb in any way the brilliance of my hon. Friend's analysis, but does he recall the words of Lewis Carroll in "Through the Looking-Glass", who said, a word …means just what I choose it to mean …The question is, which is to be master—that's all."?

5.45 pm

Mr. Letwin

I have learnt much about treaties at the feet of my hon. Friend. He is right in his implication that the situation is even worse than I have portrayed: if the words were not so clear, the European Court would be the arbiter of their meaning—and we can guess how that arbitration would run.

However, the strange thing is that my hon. Friend may not be quite correct, because the words are clear—even to someone of a sceptical inclination—and they must have been clear to members of the Foreign Office who were supposedly supporting Ministers at the negotiations. Therefore, the full meaning of those words must have been communicated to the Minister, to the Foreign Secretary and to the Prime Minister. They must be aware of this state of affairs. If they are, it is strange that they have not told the British public that subsidiarity now means that any directive may be adopted so long as it coheres with the objectives of the European Union.

That gives me genuine cause for concern that I may have misinterpreted the protocol. I genuinely hope that, for once—and not as a debating point—the Minister will answer that point. I hope that he will provide some reassurance and confirm that my interpretation is fallacious. If it is not, we have buried utterly the concept of subsidiarity—alas, the concept of proportionality was never alive; so we shall have two dead concepts and a protocol that has no meaning. I fear that my hon. Friends are right and that, at worst—in this case, the worst is the truth—we will be left with a cloak for the expansionist intentions of the European Union.

Mr. Blunt

I shall try, in my rather inadequate manner, to pick up some of the brilliant points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The first concerns the opportunity, presented to the Government in the conduct of the negotiations, that has been lost so lamentably.

In introducing the concept of subsidiarity—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred so effectively—my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, played the French and the other continentals at their own game. He introduced an idea that, surrounded initially by warm and unobjectionable language, meant very little in terms of treaty obligations at Maastricht. However, Britain's ultimate objective was to develop a line of policy, translated into treaty requirements, that had some teeth.

Tragically, the Government changed on 1 May, and the opportunity that had been presented in the conduct of treaty negotiations at Amsterdam was lost. The ball was passed to the Labour party, which promptly dropped it. There was an opportunity to put into the treaty language on subsidiarity that meant that the application of subsidiarity to the acquis communautaire would have real teeth. It appears that that policy is supported by the Liberal Democrats. In a sense, that is itself sadness enough.

At the same time, in the conduct of the negotiations, we saw an example of where the French and other continentals were successful at the same game in a different sphere; the defence negotiations. There was language about eventual common defence that could mean anything. It was happily signed up to as, in a sense, a concession to an idea that had no teeth at Maastricht. It was turned into the progressive framing of defence policy and an absolute commitment to progress. Our partners in Europe will be able to ask, "Where is the progress if there is none?" and hold us to the terms of the treaty.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset talked about the concept of proportionality. It seems bizarre to have a treaty provision that defines something as unobjectionable as some sense of proportion in terms of what the actions of the Community should be. Should not that apply to the vast majority of the way in which the Union works? Only, perhaps, if an organisation is rapidly taking on some of the characteristics of "Alice in Wonderland"—to judge by some of its treaty provisions—will we be in this place debating a design of the European Union.

My central point is about use of language. The ideas of subsidiarity and proportionality are meant to sound reasonable—I return to the point made so brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. The trouble with the conduct of much of the European debate—not only the treaty of Amsterdam, but over decades—has been the amount of disingenuous debate and information that has been put into the public domain.

European integration is a perfectly honourable idea. I respect people who hold the cause dear for the highest of motives. If only they were prepared to make their case with honesty, clarity and vigour to the people of our country, we could engage in a proper debate about the merits of the argument.

Some of us fear that the process of integration is a danger to the entire European project and the achievement of peace between nations since the end of the second world war. We fear that progress towards economic and monetary union is coming far too fast and far too soon, with the people of the United Kingdom—certainly—blissfully unaware of the nature of the dangers of that process and of the change that will take place in their politics if the train is allowed to continue along its track.

When the Minister replies, I ask him to treat the Committee with respect, to use language fairly and honestly and to be clear about the Government's exact objectives. I ask him not to cloak concessions and agreements made at Amsterdam with disingenuous language that is designed to suggest that the agreements are something that they are not.

Mr. McWalter

I did not intend to speak, but it might be helpful to introduce some counter-balance to some of the things that have been said. A claim being made for the Government's case is that words are increasingly being manipulated to mean whatever we decide to make them mean. The expression, which has been quoted, comes, the Committee might be interested to know, from Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking-Glass" who said that words can mean whatever we take them to mean or whatever we decide them to mean. When Alice objects to that proposition, Humpty Dumpty replies that it is not a matter of language—the question is

which is to be master". The debate has an "Alice in Wonderland" feel. Opposition Members' arguments boil down to the expression "acquis communautaire". It is the pivot for everything that they have said. The willingness to co-operate and work together, as understood by members of the European Community, seems strange and hostile to Conservative Members. They cannot begin to connect with the idea that we might want to have a constructive and co-operative relationship with our European neighbours.

That being so, they say that we are faced with—well, it cannot be a Trojan horse because it is French—some sort of Parisian horse, or whatever, that allows us—

Mr. Blunt

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McWalter

I shall give way shortly. Please let me get started.

The argument of Conservative Members is that others are to be allowed to run roughshod over all issues that involve national sovereignty and the independent action that we as members of the United Kingdom would want.

The issues before us have many more aspects than those outlined by Conservative Members. A first-order problem concerns the way in which our Europe and our country operate. For example, the problem of acid rain is obviously transnational. One country's pollution can be another's acid rain. When I read protocol 7(5), I find, basically, a provision that expresses how important it is to justify Community action and to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity should be met.

The guidelines state that "the issue under consideration" should have transnational aspects which cannot be satisfactorily regulated by action by Member States".

Mr. Bercow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. McWalter

I was asked to allow an intervention earlier; I shall take that one now.

Mr. Blunt

The hon. Gentleman is basing his speech on a false premise. He is saying that Conservative Members who are concerned about the progress of European integration are against co-operation with our partners in Europe. We are passionately in favour of co-operation and partnership with our partners in Europe. It is we who are grounding these objectives in their practicality. The developments that the hon. Gentleman is supporting will place an onerous burden on the individual nations of Europe and therefore destroy co-operation and partnership between the nations of Europe. That is the danger.

I would argue that my right hon. and hon. Friends who take the view that I have outlined are, in a sense, more passionately pro-European than those who are calling for European integration. Down the road of integration lies the end of the European project.

Mr. McWalter

The problem is that voluntaryism is often insufficient. I take up the second part of paragraph (5), which refers to where actions by Member States might significantly damage Member States' interests". One state may decide that it is rather cheap to produce something in a way that causes pollution and a neighbouring state might decide that it would like some action to be taken to prevent that happening. We need to have a sense of voluntary co-operation, and it is clear that the extent of it is extremely important.

We try to get as much as we can by way of voluntary co-operation, but the European Community commits us to membership of a framework within which we must take seriously the fact that some individual member states' actions should be restricted by the greater union of states.

Sir Michael Spicer

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McWalter

I shall move on to the third section of the paragraph before I give way. It states: action at Community level would produce clear benefits by reason of its scale or effects compared with action at the level of the Member States. The whole package makes sense in respect of issues such as acid rain. It is not simply an absurd recipe, as was suggested earlier, whereby the only limits and constraints on Community action are sui generis, or part of the treaty itself.

Mr. Bercow

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman's mask has slipped. He spoke soothingly about the virtues of co-operation. He then discovered that Conservative Members objected not to co-operation, but to unwarranted imposition. Citing acid rain is an easy case, but it does not prove the point. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the European Court of Justice, in foisting upon us its preference for the working time directive, was co-operating with the United Kingdom or telling her what to do?

6 pm

Mr. McWalter

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that acid rain is an easy case, clearly he knows more than I do about the solution to such issues. The problem of acid rain requires concerted and difficult transnational agreements that are not voluntary but need to be binding in the interests of our planet. We are a long way short of achieving that. The heart of the issue between Conservative Members and ourselves is often where to draw the line.

The hon. Gentleman clearly agrees that the business of not exporting pollution requires effective transnational agencies, but some of us are of the view—it is enshrined in the earliest drafts of the treaty of Rome—that anti-competitive practices, for example, are also important. If one nation adopts a framework for its employment law that seeks to export not its pollution but its unemployment, that may be of equal concern under the competition rules.

Sir Michael Spicer

The problem with the acid rain argument, which is often used to support the line of thinking in which the hon. Gentleman is currently engaged, is that most acid rain comes from non-European countries.

Mr. McWalter

Particularly since the reunification of Germany, a great deal of it comes from European countries, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.

Mr. Bercow

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely and with interest. He refers to anti-competitive action: that action is unacceptable; it is therefore necessary for the Community to take a central view and implement a Community policy in the context of the working time directive. In principle, what is the difference between that and a common taxation system? Although it seems unlikely under a Labour Government, if the United Kingdom has lower taxation rates than other European Union countries, is that not anti-competitive? In principle, does the hon. Gentleman rule out the adoption of a common direct taxation system within the European Union—yes or no?

Mr. McWalter

The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows that, ultimately, all such matters need to be decided by partners in the European project trying to decide where that borderline lies.

Mr. Bercow

What does that mean?

Mr. McWalter

There is no need to go mad about it. We accept that there is scope for genuine debate about where the lines should be drawn. Some member states may take the view that what we decide to do about immigration policy, for example, is a Europewide matter. The British Government have not taken that view. We have the right to take the view that it is not a matter of European concern. The Opposition should grant the Government some generosity of spirit about the way in which they want to work for the British national interest within an effective European Union that can do much to improve the conditions in the world economy.

Mr. Cash

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that David Begg and a number of others wrote an interesting paper about subsidiarity in the context of pollution and transnational matters entitled "Making Sense of Subsidiarity: How much centralisation for Europe?" they wrote: The quality of water drunk by a Dane does not change the welfare of a Spaniard, and there is prima-facie evidence that this directive flies in the face of the principle of subsidiarity. Furthermore, when the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities considered the matter, it concluded: while the case against some aspects of the bathing water directive on subsidiarity grounds is well-founded, it may be politically unrealistic to look for the repeal of the directive. In other words, there was a sense of alarm and despondency among members of the House of Lords Select Committee, including some distinguished jurists, because they knew perfectly well that, although there was every reason to repudiate the bathing water directive, politically, it would go through. That completely undermines the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. McWalter

I am about to conclude, but I shall address the point. In any loosely liberal political system, there is always an ebb and flow between the different participants in any power regime. Sometimes powers are given to central authorities, sometimes they are removed. On the basis of the conduct of the previous British Government, many people might have concluded that the consolidation of power by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister was so excessive that there would never again be the prospect of effective devolution or impetus to local government. Luckily, however, there was a rising up against that philosophy, and, as a result, we now have a Government who are committed to devolution, to local government and to empowering people to take more control over their own lives. What applies in Britain also applies in Europe.

I thank the House for listening to me, and I conclude by saying that this is an excellent treaty and I am very happy to support the Bill.

Mr. Cash

Article 3b of the Maastricht treaty and the rubbish that that generated, the con trick that it involved and its amplification under the Amsterdam treaty, show that, effectively, member states are saying, "We can do what we like, but we shall wrap it up with minimal reservations so long as the lawyers are well paid for dancing on the head of a pin." Basically, the whole issue boils down to that.

We have heard some superb speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I pay tribute to them, as they addressed the heart of the matter, arguing the case intellectually and with reason. In the context of the development of the European Union, for practical purposes nothing has been changed by the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty, although, where Maastricht ran into difficulties, there have been spurious attempts to produce alternative arguments and to put a spin on it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset pointed out, the acquis communautaire lies at the heart of the problem. It is spelled out in article B of the treaty, which states: The Union shall set itself the following objectives: including to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it with a view to considering to what extent the policies and forms of cooperation introduced by this Treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and institutions of the Community. When one puts forward proposals to ensure the effectiveness of the mechanisms and institutions of the community, no notice is taken.

The treaty goes on: The objectives of the Union shall be achieved as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the conditions and the timetable set out therein while respecting the principle of subsidiarity, as defined in Article 3b of the Treaty establishing the European Community. That means that we shall continue as before. We set out certain objectives, and everything continues inexorably towards a process that includes the acquis communautaire, the ratchet effect and the fact that nothing that has been decided can be challenged. As my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale, for Buckingham and for West Dorset have pointed out, the moment that we raise any objections, we are thrown back on to the objectives of the treaty. Inevitably, we go in a complete circle.

The process is a disgrace, because it puts forward, in words set out in a treaty that are justiciable and subject to the European Court of Justice, arrangements that are self-fulfilling and self-denying. On the one hand, they set out the objectives, but on the other they purport to give rise to the possibility of questioning them. However, questioning takes us back to the objectives, which include the application by the European Court of Justice of original objectives that go back to the intentions incorporated in the Maastricht treaty and, in many respects, before that. That is a continuous process. The more one looks at the protocol, the more obvious that becomes.

The objectives of the treaty are not what is necessary to achieve the kind of Europe that is essential for harmonious relations into the next century. The treaty says: In exercising the powers conferred on it, each institution shall ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is complied with. It shall also ensure compliance with the principle of proportionality". As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, that takes us back to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty, which are set out in the preamble. It is well known that the Court of Justice has to have regard to the preamble to decide how to interpret the provisions. That is different from the way in which we have interpreted law in the United Kingdom. We come back again and again to the circular argument.

Paragraph (3) of the protocol says: The principle of subsidiarity does not call into question the powers conferred on the European Community by the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice. So we get another circular argument within the circular argument. The Court of Justice has to prevail if the question arises whether it should have jurisdiction. The whole thing is gobbledegook, as Lord Mackenzie-Stuart pointed out. It makes nonsense of the process of European integration.

I do not understand how the Minister can justify the provisions. The worst of it is that, after going through all the arguments and making attempts to persuade, no further argument can be engaged in. What do we do now, given that we get no answers from the Minister and no arguments from Labour? There is only one Labour Member present on the Back Benches. We are going nowhere—[Interruption.] Well, there are some on the left- hand side of the Chamber who are doing and saying nothing. We have to take more effective and immediate action to stop the nonsense that is going on.

6.15 pm

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

I shall be brief. Indeed, my contributions to the Committee have been becoming increasingly brief. I should like to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) about the circular argument.

The protocol says: Subsidiarity is a dynamic concept and should be applied in the light of the objectives set out in the Treaty. It allows Community action within the limits of its powers to be expanded where circumstances so require, and conversely, to be restricted or discontinued where it is no longer justified. That is what we had all understood subsidiarity to mean—powers could be given back. That is what it says clearly in the second part of the third paragraph of the protocol. However, the first part of that paragraph says: The criteria referred to in the second paragraph of Article 3b of the Treaty shall relate to areas for which the Community does not have exclusive competence. In other words, subsidiarity means control over what we have not given to the Community—it is what is left. We must enjoy it while we still have it.

Mr. Doug Henderson

The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) should enjoy it quickly.

In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), let me say the Government cannot accept the amendment, but I hope to announce, in a future debate this evening, a review of the way in which matters discussed at the Council of Ministers are reported. I hope that that will cover issues of subsidiarity.

We have had an interesting debate. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) was able to intervene. He provided some necessary balance, making some important points on the sensible provisions in the treaty.

The debate started with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who is not in his place, saying that the Conservative party believed in devolution. That is an interesting revelation. I was not aware of that policy change. We have heard a lot of arguments about subsidiarity in the European Union, but we have not heard much from the Conservatives about subsidiarity within a nation state, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out. If the Conservatives are to be consistent, they must examine subsidiarity not only in the European Union, but in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Letwin

rose—

Mr. Henderson

I shall not give way at the moment, because I fear that I may run out of time.

We have witnessed an internal debate in the Conservative party on the provisions. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), whose contributions we look forward to in every debate, said that, when he was a special adviser to Jonathan Aitken in the previous Government, he felt that he had been fobbed off with the provisions on subsidiarity that were drawn up at Edinburgh.

Mr. Bercow

If the Minister wants to make a debating point, he ought at least to get the chronology right. The original subsidiarity proposal was enshrined in the treaty of Maastricht in 1991. I had the pleasure to serve as the special adviser to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1995. Get it right, Minister.

Mr. Henderson

It is a minor but interesting point whether the hon. Gentleman was fobbed off before he worked for the coin of Jonathan Aitken or while he was working for the coin of Jonathan Aitken.

Mr. Blunt

The Minister should be prepared to send the Excalibur file of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to him so that it can be checked.

Hon. Members

It is too big.

Mr. Henderson

It is too big, indeed. I think that I shall leave that matter, lest I give away Government secrets.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)—I have no doubt that he, too, will correct me if I paraphrase him inaccurately—made the point that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had the right intention on subsidiarity. He would say that, as someone who was—I think—the right hon. Gentleman's press secretary at that time, although I say sincerely that the hon. Gentleman's loyalty is respected. His point was that the subsidiarity provisions operated under the Conservative Government had not worked or been effective.

That contrasts interestingly with the view put by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) when he opened the debate. I am sure that he, too, will correct me if I paraphrase him incorrectly. His view was that the subsidiarity provisions under the Conservative Government had worked or had had the potential to work, but had been undermined by the provisions that were agreed in Amsterdam, which the Committee is debating. So we have heard three different views from Conservative Members on the content of the previous provisions under Maastricht and how they relate to the current provisions. Incidentally, if the newspapers are correct, I should extend kind regards to the hon. Gentleman on his birthday.

Mr. Bercow

It is my birthday.

Mr. Henderson

There is a spate of birthdays.

The hon. Member for South-West Devon argued that paragraph (2) of protocol 7 of the Amsterdam treaty stops the proper application of the protocol, yet the wording to which he referred is almost identical to the wording that was drawn up under the Edinburgh guidelines and negotiated by his party. Therefore, I find it very strange that he is taking such a position.

I shall—hopefully—explain my understanding of what was agreed in Amsterdam. Under Maastricht, article 3b set out the principle of subsidiarity in very general terms. Protocol 7 of the Amsterdam treaty spells out in detail the procedures that must be undergone to demonstrate that the principle of subsidiarity has been satisfied. That is categorised in paragraphs 4 and 5. That will provide a clearer test for the courts to apply if a measure is challenged on subsidiarity grounds. Equally, it will give the Council clear grounds on which to hold the Commission to the principle of subsidiarity when it proposes legislation.

The advantage to us in Britain is that, if we believe that a matter should be dealt with under subsidiarity and the Commission does not deal with it in such a way, it would be open to any nation state, including ourselves, to go to the European Court of Justice to redress the matter. That would have been extremely difficult under the previous provisions.

We have a coherent set of proposals. They represent a way forward and give practical effect to the concept of subsidiarity, which has been supported in principle by Front-Bench teams on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Streeter

My hon. Friends and I have listened with great interest to the Minister's response. They were seeking bankable reassurances; hoping even that our interpretation of protocol 7 was in some way incorrect; hoping that British interests had been protected in Amsterdam after all. I listened carefully to the Minister's winding-up speech, and it is clear that no such reassurances have been given. We have no option but to conclude that the very powerful arguments made throughout the debate by Conservative Members are correct. The vital principle of subsidiarity has not been enhanced by protocol 7. In fact, it has been diminished by protocol 7.

A concept already considered by many to be less than perfect is now seriously undermined—holed below the waterline. It is clear—the Minister has not contradicted us in any way—that paragraph (2) of protocol 7 makes the concept of subsidiarity subject to the acquis communautaire, the European Court of Justice and article F4.

In a sparkling speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) got one tiny thing wrong. The Prime Minister did refer to the principle of subsidiarity on 16 June following the Amsterdam summit. He said that it had real teeth following the agreement of protocol 7. However, as we have heard, nothing could be further from the truth. The protocol has pulled the teeth of the principle. Perhaps, again, the Prime Minister did not understand what he had signed.

We have witnessed one of those parliamentary occasions on which the strength of Conservative Members' arguments has increased as the debate has gone on and the compelling nature of our arguments has been there for all to see. Perhaps it is possible to have a different view on the effectiveness of the subsidiarity provisions agreed under Maastricht, but, having listened to the debate carefully, it is not possible to have a differing view on the effectiveness of the Amsterdam treaty's subsidiarity provisions. The treaty seriously undermines the principle of subsidiarity and seriously damages the national interest.

It was not the Opposition's intention to push the amendment to a Division because, thanks to the ridiculous and iniquitous guillotine that the Government have imposed on us, it would have a knock-on effect for later debates, which are also important. However, such has been the power of Conservative Members' arguments, such is the importance of the issue and such has been the paucity of the Minister's response that we are left with no alternative but to put the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 362.

Division No. 131]	[6.27 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Amess, David	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Arbuthnot, James	Collins, Tim
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Colvin, Michael
Baldry, Tony	Cran, James
Bercow, John	Curry, Rt Hon David
Beresford, Sir Paul	Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Blunt, Crispin	Day, Stephen
Body, Sir Richard	Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Boswell, Tim	Duncan, Alan
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Duncan Smith, Iain
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Brady, Graham	Evans, Nigel
Brazier, Julian	Faber, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Fabricant, Michael
Browning, Mrs Angela	Fallon, Michael
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Flight, Howard
Burns, Simon	Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Butterfill, John	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Cash, William	Fox, Dr Liam
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Fraser, Christopher
	Gale, Roger
Chope, Christopher	Garnier, Edward
Clappison, James	Gibb, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)	Gill, Christopher

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Ottaway, Richard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair	Page, Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Pickles, Eric
Gray, James	Prior, David
Green, Damian	Randall, John
Greenway, John	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Grieve, Dominic	Robathan, Andrew
Hague, Rt Hon William	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Hawkins, Nick	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Heald, Oliver	Ruffley, David
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	St Aubyn, Nick
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Sayeed, Jonathan
Horam, John	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Shepherd, Richard
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Hunter, Andrew	Soames, Nicholas
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Jenkin, Bernard	Spicer, Sir Michael
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Spring, Richard
	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Key, Robert	Steen, Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Streeter, Gary
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Swayne, Desmond
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Syms, Robert
	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Lansley, Andrew	Townend, John
Leigh, Edward	Trend, Michael
Letwin, Oliver	Tyrie, Andrew
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Walter, Robert
Lidington, David	Wardle, Charles
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Waterson, Nigel
Loughton, Tim	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Luff, Peter	Wilkinson, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Willetts, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Wilshire, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Madel, Sir David	Woodward, Shaun
Malins, Humfrey	Yeo, Tim
Maples, John	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian	Tellers for the Ayes:
May, Mrs Theresa	Mr. John M. Taylor and
Moss, Malcolm	Mr. John Whittingdale.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ainger, Nick	Brake, Tom
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Brand, Dr Peter
Alexander, Douglas	Breed, Colin
Allan, Richard	Brinton, Mrs Helen
Allen, Graham	Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Browne, Desmond
Ashton, Joe	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Atkins, Charlotte	Buck, Ms Karen
Austin, John	Burden, Richard
Baker, Norman	Burgon, Colin
Ballard, Mrs Jackie	Burnett, John
Banks, Tony	Burstow, Paul
Barnes, Harry	Butler, Mrs Christine
Barron, Kevin	Byers, Stephen
Battle, John	Cable, Dr Vincent
Bayley, Hugh	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Beard, Nigel	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Bennett, Andrew F	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Benton, Joe	Canavan, Dennis
Berry, Roger	Cann, Jamie
Blears, Ms Hazel	Caplin, Ivor
Blizzard, Bob	Casale, Roger
Borrow, David	Cawsey, Ian
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Chaytor, David	Golding, Mrs Llin
Chidgey, David	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Chisholm, Malcolm	Grant, Bernie
Clapham, Michael	Grocott, Bruce
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Grogan, John
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Gunnell, John
	Hain, Peter
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clwyd, Ann	Hanson, David
Coaker, Vernon	Harris, Dr Evan
Coffey, Ms Ann	Harvey, Nick
Coleman, Iain	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Colman, Tony	Healey, John
Connarty, Michael	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Cooper, Yvette	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Corbett, Robin	Hepburn, Stephen
Corbyn, Jeremy	Heppell, John
Corston, Ms Jean	Hesford, Stephen
Cotter, Brian	Hill, Keith
Cousins, Jim	Hinchliffe, David
Cox, Tom	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Crausby, David	Hoey, Kate
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Home Robertson, John
Cummings, John	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hope, Phil
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Dafis, Cynog	Howells, Dr Kim
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	Hoyle, Lindsay
Darvill, Keith	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Humble, Mrs Joan
Davidson, Ian	Hurst, Alan
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Hutton, John
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Iddon, Dr Brian
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)	Illsley, Eric
Dean, Mrs Janet	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Dismore, Andrew	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Dobbin, Jim	Jamieson, David
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Jenkins, Brian
Donohoe, Brian H	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Doran, Frank	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn, Hatfield)
Dowd, Jim
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Edwards, Huw	Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ennis, Jeff	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Etherington, Bill	Jowell, Ms Tessa
Fearn, Ronnie	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Keeble, Ms Sally
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Fitzsimons, Lorna	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Flint, Caroline	Keetch, Paul
Flynn, Paul	Kelly, Ms Ruth
Follett, Barbara	Kemp, Fraser
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Foster, Don (Bath)	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Khabra, Piara S
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Kidney, David
Foulkes, George	Kilfoyle, Peter
Fyfe, Maria	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Galloway, George	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Gapes, Mike	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Gardiner, Barry	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	Laxton, Bob
Gerrard, Neil	Leslie, Christopher
Gibson, Dr Ian	Levitt, Tom
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Godman, Norman A	Linton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger	Livingstone, Ken

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Rendel, David
Llwyd, Elfyn	Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Lock, David
Love, Andrew	Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
McAllion, John	Rogers, Allan
McAvoy, Thomas	Rooker, Jeff
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Rooney, Terry
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McDonagh, Siobhain	Rowlands, Ted
McDonnell, John	Roy, Frank
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Ruane, Chris
McIsaac, Shona	Ruddock, Ms Joan
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Mackinlay, Andrew	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McNulty, Tony	Ryan, Ms Joan
MacShane, Denis	Salter, Martin
Mactaggart, Fiona	Sanders, Adrian
McWalter, Tony	Sarwar, Mohammad
McWilliam, John	Savidge, Malcolm
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Sawford, Phil
Mallaber, Judy	Sedgemore, Brian
Mandelson, Peter	Shaw, Jonathan
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Sheerman, Barry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Shipley, Ms Debra
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Martlew, Eric	Skinner, Dennis
Maxton, John	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Meale, Alan	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Merron, Gillian
Michael, Alun	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Soley, Clive
Milburn, Alan	Southworth, Ms Helen
Miller, Andrew	Spellar, John
Moffatt, Laura	Squire, Ms Rachel
Moran, Ms Margaret	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Morley, Elliot	Stinchcombe, Paul
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Stoate, Dr Howard
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mountford, Kali	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mudie, George	Stringer, Graham
Mullin, Chris	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Stunell, Andrew
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
O'Hara, Eddie	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Olner, Bill	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
O'Neill, Martin	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Organ, Mrs Diana	Timms, Stephen
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Tipping, Paddy
Palmer, Dr Nick	Todd, Mark
Pearson, Ian	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Pendry, Tom	Truswell, Paul
Perham, Ms Linda	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Pickthall, Colin	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Pike, Peter L	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Plaskitt, James	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Pollard, Kerry	Tyler, Paul
Pond, Chris	Vaz, Keith
Pope, Greg	Vis, Dr Rudi
Pound, Stephen	Walley, Ms Joan
Powell, Sir Raymond	Ward, Ms Claire
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Wareing, Robert N
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Watts, David
Primarolo, Dawn	Webb, Steve
Prosser, Gwyn	White, Brian
Purchase, Ken	Wicks, Malcolm
Rammell, Bill	Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Rapson, Syd	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Willis, Phil	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Winnick, David	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)	Wyatt, Derek
Wise, Audrey
Wood, Mike	Tellers for the Noes:
Woolas, Phil	Mr. John McFall and
Worthington, Tony	Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Six o' clock, THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN put forwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to the Order [17 December].

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.