1113 European Community (Right of Residence) 8 FEBRUARY 1990
[Mr. Aitken]
European residency by that route, and then, as EC nationals, they can, with the extensive rights and privileges granted to them, have full right of residence in this country.
I am simply arguing that, instead of turning up at a late hour and nodding these big changes through, we should beware that they have profound implications, which deserve the full parliamentary attention that was originally requested by the Select Committee.
Ms. Diane Abbott · (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington): I am listening with care to the hon. Gentleman's xenophobic ramblings. Given the weather in this country, the relatively low social security benefits and the general decline in the quality of life that has accompanied 10 years of Tory misrule, is he really saying that people from the four corners of the world are panting to come to Ramsgate?
Mr. Aitken: The hon. Lady's eloquence on behalf of Ramsgate means that if she were to lose her seat, there might be a job for her as the tourist promotion officer there. At the end of the day, these significant changes in the rules are valuable to European nationals. They are not available yet to British citizens. I suspect that the hon. Lady handles as many immigration cases as any hon. Member. She must recognise, as the whole House should -as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central recognises ---that whether one is for looser or tighter immigration, there is something intrinsically wrong with being offered, on the one hand, a set of British immigration rules that say one thing, and now suddenly, in a midnight debate in the House--[Interruption.] It is not quite midnight although it feels like it; it has been a long day. On the other hand, we now have a different set of immigration rules offered to us by Europe.
Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East): I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the House should debate such matters in a better way. Would the people who are economically inactive, of whom he spoke, who might come to Ramsgate or wherever, automatically qualify for British social security benefits, pensions and so on by coming here?
Mr. Aitken: No. I gather that the Government assure us, that by a mechanism not yet devised-when it is devised it will almost certainly not be large enough to operate, or be quick enough to be operated, in a satisfactory way-somehow there will be no financial loss to Britain because those social security benefits will be transferable across frontiers.
I am not arguing on an economic basis, but pointing out that we are now getting, as a result of the directive, two different sets of immigration rules and two standards. With such double standards, whether one favours one or the other, it is unacceptable that it should happen in this way, in a late-night debate, via a European directive.
The Government, whose relations with the Select Committee on European Legislation are normally good, have not behaved courteously or correctly in this episode because the Select Committee demanded a debate on the subject, recognising that it was of considerable political importance, but has been denied one. We are now debating it, in effect, after the horse has bolted. The
572 CD80/52 Job 14-3
European Community (Right of Residence) 1114
Government seem to have made every decision and made every concession except one—that is, whether unanimity is required or whether it can be done by majority voting. Other hon. Members who serve on the Select Committee on European Legislation may develop that theme because the Government have not behaved in a constitutionally correct way towards the Committee. The House should recognise that the changes in the immigration rules are being carried out in a wrong parliamentary way.
10.11 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) finished on a note that I wish to take up. There are two themes to tonight's debate the substance of the matter and the merits that have already exercised the minds of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and the hon. Member for Thanet, South. However, the underlying theme is that of the constitution and parliamentary procedure, and it is to the latter that I wish to direct the attention of the House. While I agree with the hon. Member for Thanet, South in his reference to the relationship between the Government and the Select Committee which is not good on that matter, although I hasten to add that there is a good understanding on most matters the damage is not to the Committee but to the House and to parliamentary procedure.
The issues before us are of considerable constitutional significance because they show that we do not deal properly with advising the House on what is afoot in the European Community in respect of institutions and developments. The Committee that I have the honour to chair cannot do that because the House has not provided it with adequate terms of reference, a matter that we hope will soon be addressed by the Government. The current arrangements could work better. They have broken down in spirit, if not in letter, on this occasion. Therefore, if I appear to be tedious in reading some of the verbatim reports of the Committee and the correspondence that has passed between the Minister and myself on behalf of that Committee, I apologise. However, it is important to have these matters on record because, irrespective of whatever of the substance of the matter may come back to haunt us in the future, the procedural matters relating to this debate may do so, although I hope not.
The treaty base was referred to by the hon. Member for Thanet, South. The Single European Act changed the whole outlook in respect of decision making in the Community. No longer was it possible for a single member to delay or to hold up decision making; indeed, the purpose of parts of the Single European Act, as the Leader of the House told us when he was Foreign Secretary, was to streamline and speed up decision making. Vast areas of decision making were transferred from, in effect, inanimity to qualified majority voting.
There are 76 votes on the Council of Ministers, 54 of which are required to pass a matter requiring a qualified majority, and 23 to block. The United Kingdom has 10 votes. I shall not go through the other member states as it would take too long. The important matter is whether the Commission promulgates a regulation under an article of the treaty that requires qualified majority voting, simple majority voting or unanimity. It is those three choices. If it promulgates it under unanimity, the powers of the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.