Further considered.

First, I thank the Minister of State for his kind words about my political future. He is a shining and living example of life after death as a Foreign Office Minister, and I congratulate him on his ability to survive.

Angus Robertson spoke about the funding of political parties. In practice and by definition, the prejudice will be against a national political party that does not wish to subscribe to an integrationist agenda and which thus escapes being cemented to a political grouping. The Minister understands that perfectly well.

I can tell Mr. David that we accept that there has been leakage. The idea that article 191 must be extended to deal with that leakage is absurd overreaction. There are very simple ways of dealing with leakage, and we would support them entirely. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we encourage debate among all political groupings in the EU.

Sadly, Mr. Hendrick is not here, but he made some interesting contributions to the debate. He said that 7 million euros was a piffling amount of money, yet what is at stake is not the amount of money but the principle. In any case, the amount of money can be increased.

I can tell Roger Casale that we have no objection to the formation of political groupings. People have a democratic right to form such groupings. We are anxious to ensure that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny of this important matter, which has been such a flashpoint in the EU. I am happy to pay tribute to the European Scrutiny Committee and all its members, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong to think that the Committee will be adequate when it comes to studying the measure. There should be total transparency with regard to finances, and nothing should be opaque.

On scrutiny, I believe that, given the difficulties in the EU and the controversial aspects of the proposal, the debate about the measure should take place on the Floor of the House of Commons. I remind the House that new clause 4 states:

"Her Majesty's Government should lay before Parliament an annual report setting out the funds received by political parties at European level of which political parties represented in UK Parliament are members, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 19 of the Treaty of Nice."

The House exists to debate exactly such matters. Hon. Members should debate the difficulties that exist with regard to the public's attitude to the financing of political parties, and to the money associated with Members of Parliament and with Members of the European Parliament. The House is the place for that debate, and I am dismayed that the Minister has not supported such a non-controversial proposal.

The new clause would strengthen the clarity of the EU. It would abolish the opacity that to a large extent causes the disconnection between the peoples of Europe and the institutions of the EU.

I shall unhesitatingly press the new clause to a Division.

I just want to say, by way of conclusion, that the matter is as serious as my hon. Friend Mr. Spring said. The Minister has tended to underestimate its seriousness.

We shall pursue the matter, both here and in the European Parliament. The measure is a direct attack on free speech, and an attempt to ensure that the Conservative party is put at a disadvantage, both in this House and in the European Parliament. We will continue to fight it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 360.

Question accordingly negatived.