European Union (Amendment) Bill

The hon. and learned Gentleman is probably right about that. The circumstances in which that would arise would be the use of ouster clauses—excluding the jurisdiction of the courts and keeping judges out of things. That situation could in theory arise in the circumstances that we are discussing. I have raised those points merely to illustrate the problem of using the word ““supremacy”” in a change made to a Bill. It is not a word that can be used with any precision. New clause 5 seems an entirely sensible suggestion. The Government should come to the House to explain in what way proposals are in line with principles of subsidiarity, and so on. I might quibble with the word ““evidence”” in the new clause. It is not a matter of fact or evidence, but of argument and reasoning. The drafting is not perfect, but the proposal seems entirely right. The debate on these topics is worth having, but apart from new clause 5, I am not certain that the new clauses add would anything useful. In some cases, were they to be passed, they might be quite difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Minister's reply.