I do not wish to prolong this exchange. As I said, I am not answerable for the Government. It is clear which version I am using. I would like to think that when I refer to article 218 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU, hon. Members can find it, whatever version they use. To put paragraph 3 of article 218 into context, it deals with the question of whether the high representative would hijack foreign aid, as hon. Members may recall. Now that we are focused on the issue, I shall, at last, quote the paragraph:"““The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, shall submit recommendations to the Council””"
and so on. That clearly suggests that the hijacking or giving of exclusive power or authority to the high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy does not include the concept that the high representative would abrogate the power to determine the EU's policy for its aid budgets, let alone member states' aid budgets. It refers to circumstances"““where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy””."
That suggests that the Commission would, in instances in which the agreement envisaged does not relate exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, submit its own recommendations to the Council. So there is a division there. Most hon. Members would not expect foreign aid to come under common foreign and security policy, although I understand that there is a fear about it being so subsumed.
I turn next to article 21 of the treaty on the European Union, which in my version of the consolidated texts from the Vote Office is on page 18. The final paragraph, which is the second part of paragraph 3, states:"““The Union shall ensure consistency between the different areas of its external action and between these and its other policies. The Council and the Commission, assisted by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall ensure that consistency and shall cooperate to that effect.””"
The word on which I would place emphasis for the purpose of the debate on the amendments is ““consistency””, which is the fifth word of that paragraph and occurs again towards the end of the paragraph.
I know that there can be problems of translation of European Union documents, depending on which language they were originally written in. Sometimes they are stitched together from different delegations and different sherpas, as I believe they are called. However, the word in that paragraph is ““consistency””, not ““coterminosity””. The amendments, as I read and understand them, imply that in that part of the consolidated texts where the word ““consistency”” is used, ““coterminosity”” is meant. I do not read the texts in that way.
European Union (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Rob Marris
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 25 February 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union (Amendment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c853-4 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-11 17:47:36 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448385
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448385
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448385