1119 European Community (Right of Residence) 8 FEBRUARY 1990
population in a smaller number of square miles than many other ember countries, and, therefore, that is of particular importance to us.
Can my hon. Friend say what will be the position of the citizens of East Germany if Germany reunites? Will they automatically have the right of abode here?
The third point I would put to my hon. Friend—and I appreciate that this involves some detail-is that I have always understood that citizens of the French overseas territories have rights of abode, and presumably that will apply in Britain, but it seems unfortunate that some of our own dependencies and protectorates do not have the same privileges. Could my hon. Friend comment on that?
I am not I say this almost thankfully-a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, but I read the note that the Committee
"was surprised to learn that political agreement was reached on the substance of the proposals of the Internal Market Council on 21 December."
That seems to be very strong meat.
The criteria used to determine sufficient resources in this case seem to be pretty basic—nothing like the Hong Kong £150,000. How do we determine whether there are sufficient resources? Is some form of means test involved, and how will it be brought about in practical terms?
I also have a copy of the supplementary explanatory memorandum on European Community legislation which I see is somewhat ominously entitled "final" on the front page. Turning to what I guess is the main issue, I see that paragraph 14 suggests:
"the legal base for all three draft Directives remains under discussion pending final agreement."
I wonder, therefore, whether my hon. Friend believes that this is the most suitable time to debate this matter. There seem to be several fairly profound legal and political implications. Indeed, paragraph 15 describes the full operational procedures, and I am afraid that I must read it out in full. It says:
"Proposals based on Article 7 or Article 49, among others, attract the Co-operation procedure. If, however, the Commission were to revise their proposals by substituting Article 235, as the legal base for each Directive, the Co-operation procedure would not apply. Until there is agreement on the question of legal base it is not possible to be certain whether the co-operation procedure is relevant.” That seems to me to be of paramount importance.
Mr. Spearing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I made a long speech. He has raised an important point—the bifurcation of a second reading by the European Parliament. He may be under a certain misapprehension about the timing of debates. There has always been a feeling in the House and the Committee that debate at an earlier stage rather than when the final document is ready is more likely to influence the Minister in the Council of Ministers, particularly prior to the common position being taken if the matter is debated a second time. Therefore, rather than having a debate too early, the feeling has been that, for the reasons that I have outlined, it is rather too late.
Mr. Knapman: Perhaps I should have said that we should be careful about drawing conclusions at this stage. Perhaps that would be more acceptable.
Should we be applying to the European Court of Justice to determine these matters, or should we be insisting on article 235? At what stage will my hon. Friend consider whether a veto should be used to force the matter?
Paragraph 16 states:
575 CD80/55 Job 15-2
European Community (Right of Residence) 1120
"Similarly, until the legal base is settled it is not possible to say what the voting procedure will be. However, in the event of Article 235 being chosen, each draft Directive will require unanimity."
Does my hon. Friend accept that it is vital to know whether majority voting or unanimity is applicable? Unless we know, we are taking something of a leap in the dark.
If national frontiers are to become things of the past --that is not putting it too strongly-we must be certain that the frontiers of Europe assume even greater significance.
10.36 pm
Mr. Peter Lloyd: A great many points have been raised. The House would not take it kindly if I tried to address each of them, so I shall comment on what I consider to be the crucial and essential points. I apologise in advance if I leave out any items that hon. Members consider important. If they draw my attention to them during or after the debate I shall reply to them in a letter, which I hope will be as full and frank as the one that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) commended for its content if not for its conclusion.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said little about the directives, so I presume that he was not too unhappy with them. He wanted us to harmonise the rules that we in the United Kingdom operate for the immigration of dependants from third countries with the European rules governing the movement of dependants between EC countries. We have the rules that best suit our circumstances and we should take decisions on them in the light of our particular national needs. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in changing them in certain directions. The EC rules for the movement of those who are economically active predate our entry into the Community. We had no hand in formulating them; they existed during the Labour party's last period in government. The Labour Government did not seek to bring them in line and I quite understand why.
If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central feels able to tell us now, would he change the rule for dependants so that the maximum age for child dependency is not 18, as it is in our immigration rules for third countries, but 21? The House would be interested to know, and so would I.
He asked about Schengen. We are not associated with Schengen. We do not have observer status there. We are extremely interested in what eventually emerges. No treaty has yet been signed. If it is, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assumption of what our attitude would be. We do not regard it as a blueprint or model for the rules and arrangements in the wider Community.
Mr. Darling: I am surprised by that, because I had always understood from official and unofficial sources that, first, the Government are kept informed by a civil servant at Schengen and that, secondly, as everyone in Schengen is a member of Trevi, in which the Government are represented, it would be inconceivable for the Benelux countries, France and West Germany to adopt the Schengen rules but seek to do something entirely different by Trevi. If I am wrong, I should welcome a Government statement on that. The previous Home Secretary made a helpful statement-I am not suggesting that he made an admission—saying that the general thrust of what I am saying is right.
1
}
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.