European Union (Amendment) Bill

The amendment raises an important issue in respect of the textual interpretation of what the European treaty says. I am sure that when the Minister replies, he will tell the House that it is his opinion that no provision in the treaty would impose an obligation on the Parliament of the United Kingdom. My reading of the text makes me doubt that that is the case. The wording is, frankly, odd. It includes references to national Parliaments which were placed for the most part—that was the intention—to emphasise the principles of subsidiarity. However, when one looks at them detail, one finds that they seem to make the national Parliaments subsidiary. Let me give some examples. The original wording of article 8C was:"““National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union””," so that the principle of subsidiarity is respected. The tone is pretty patronising in that context, but it is surely for Parliament to decide what it may or may not wish to do. However, when the Minister went before the European Scrutiny Committee on 2 October, he emphasised that he thought the problem was one of drafting rather than of intent. He went on to say that changes would be brought about to the text before the matter was finalised, and indeed, there were. In at least two places where it appeared to impose a mandatory ““shall”” on national Parliaments, the ““shall”” was removed, although in one case it was not, and I shall come on to that. The Foreign Secretary said that he considered that all member states understood that we were in favour of Parliament being clear about its responsibilities and fulfilling them. However, the ESC asked the right hon. Gentleman a question that at earlier sittings it had put to the Minister for Europe—should not the draft's use of the word ““must”” in respect of national parliaments be altered to ““may””? The Government have never been able to secure a concession from their European partners to that effect, and it would be useful if the Minister could tell us why. I shall give the House another example. The original wording of article 63 was that national parliaments"““shall ensure that the proposals and legislative initiatives submitted under Sections 4 and 5 of this Chapter comply with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.””" Again, the Government secured an amendment that removed the word ““shall””, although on this occasion it was not substituted by the word ““may””. One oddity of this matter is that, inevitably, we have been considering the English text of the treaty, but it is worth looking at the French text, which has equal validity.