European Union (Amendment) Bill

My hon. Friend, the Whip on duty, may say that, but it is extremely difficult to be generous with the rights of our constituents and the voters of this country. In essence, that is one of my concerns. With respect to subsection (2), which is what we are talking about, I would like to add a number of things to what my right hon. Friend said. Where a Minister of the Crown moves a motion under the arrangements proposed, there is a difficulty—I speak as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, on which you served with me for 14 years, Sir Alan, so you understand this very well—in that where a scrutiny reserve has not been complied with, it is perfectly possible that the cart and the horse are not in the order which one would expect. The net result is that it is possible that parliamentary approval could be followed by a decision, particularly in the context of qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers. Where that happens, such a decision automatically becomes binding on the House, without further implementation in the House, under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. In no way do I apologise for, or resile from, my insistence upon the necessity of saving our House, this country and Acts of Parliament by the insertion of the words ““notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972””, in order, apart from anything else, to make sense of the amendment that my right hon. Friend has moved. I will explain. To take my right hon. Friend's amendment No. 20, for example, if we were to insert the words ““by Act of Parliament”” but not include ““notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972””, the following would happen—I do not say that it could happen, but that it would happen. In the case of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988—I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen carefully to this—an Act of Parliament was passed that the European Court regarded as inconsistent with the 1972 Act. A case called the Factortame case went to the House of Lords and was heard by Lord Bridge and others. As a result of the lack of the words ““notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”” in the Merchant Shipping Act, our own House of Lords, effectively on instruction from the European Court of Justice, struck down our Act of Parliament. The House might find that incredible because, after all, that Act of Parliament had been passed in pursuance of Government policy, and in pursuance of the interests of British fishermen and, therefore, the interests of the people of this country.