European Union (Amendment) Bill

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; clearly, I have not yet made myself crystal clear to him or perhaps the Committee. On at least two occasions in this speech, I have agreed that, as patiently set out by the right hon. Member for Wells, it is a substantive change to say that ““European Communities”” does not mean the same as ““European Union””. Today in the House we are discussing primary legislation, including whether we should vote that the schedule, which makes substantive changes, as the hon. Member for Stone has pointed out, should be in the Bill or not. The schedule is a substantive change, and I say to the hon. Member for Stone and other Members that that is precisely why at the beginning I described the heading of clause 3 as misleading to the right hon. Member for Wells and others because of its maladroit wording—it should say ““Changes of definition and terminology””. Not only that, but I said that clause 3(3), which brings in the schedule, was badly worded because it contains the word ““terminology””, which should be left out. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stone missed that; I shall repeat what I said for his benefit. I said that clause 3(3) should read, ““The Table in the Schedule to this Act sets out substitutions required to reflect the consequences of the commencement of the Treaty of Lisbon.”” That leaves out the misleading word ““terminology””, which should not have been included because it refers to the schedule, which is substantive because the ““European Union”” does not mean the same as ““European Communities””.