European Union (Amendment) Bill

If we have left the governance of an area of justice and home affairs, we have left it, and when decisions about costs are made we will no longer be part of the process. I have made that clear before, and I make it clear again now. As for common foreign and security policy and defence policy, I do not wish to go into all the detail, but the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that"““the simplification of the nomenclature for Common Foreign and Security Policy decisions introduced by the Lisbon Treaty represents an improvement on the current situation.””" Permanent structured co-operation is clearly in the United Kingdom’s interest, and is sensitive to and supportive of NATO’s capacity and ambitions within the European Union. We are strongly in favour of it. Article 275 makes absolutely clear the definitions relating to common foreign and security policy and the jurisdiction of the courts. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) asked about the complication presented by the consolidated treaty texts. The fact is that they were produced after a request from the European Union Committee in the House of Lords. Incidentally, a similar request was made at the time of the passing of the Maastricht Bill, and the Government of the day did no such thing. We thought that producing the texts was a way of informing the debate, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not find it as helpful as the Committee expected it to be. The decision on common foreign and security policy and permanent structured co-operation was a deliberate decision in line with United Kingdom objectives to make PSC easier to set up, easier for member states to join, and easier for them to be suspended from if they no longer fulfil the requirements.