European Union (Amendment) Bill

moved Amendment No. 28D: 28D: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause— ““Parliamentary scrutiny of the merging of the offices of the Presidents (1) A Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of, or otherwise support, a decision under any article of the Treaty on European Union or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that relates to, or in so far as it relates to or could be applied in relation to, the merging of the office of the President of the Council with the office of the President of the Commission unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with this section— (2) Parliamentary approval is given if— (a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown moves a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to vote in favour of, or otherwise support, the decision, and (b) each House agrees to the motion without amendment. (3) In this section— (a) ““the Treaty on the European Union”” means the Treaty establishing the European Union, signed at Lisbon on 7th February 1992 (as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon), and (b) ““the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”” means the Treaty establishing (what was then called) the European Economic Community, signed at Rome on 25th March 1957 (as amended and renamed by the Treaty of Lisbon).”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this subject was to some extent covered in Committee in a rather dismissive debate. It is the question of the new presidency roles that are being created, a matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who is not in his place because he has not been very well, warned us to be very careful when it came to agreeing to Bills creating new presidential posts, particularly those where the job specification remains gloriously uncompleted. The debate in Committee confirmed that it is yet to be decided exactly how these roles will be fulfilled and how they will work. There are some sketchy propositions in the treaty, but that is all. In Committee it was asserted that the unity of the two posts was unthinkable, that no one was advocating it, that it could not happen under the treaty and so on. It is not quite like that, and we need some more reassurance because it would be sad if—looking back on this time, should some of the predictions that there will be a merger of the two come to fruition—we in this Parliament were criticised for failing to be on our guard. The much quoted Valéry Giscard d’Estaing said: "““We will probably have to have at least two executives in the beginning, but the process of reform will not be complete in 12 months””," implying that it would be completed. The Italian Prime Minister said: "““We should ask ourselves whether it makes sense to maintain two presidents of the executive, one for the Council and the other for the Commission, or whether it would be better to have a single office, presiding over both institutions””." The idea is around, and it is not true to say that there is no question of it. We need to be reassured on it. This amendment simply urges that we should have one more addition to the famous list of passerelle-guarding provisions in Clause 6. We shall come to a good many more of the passerelle issues that somehow got left out of Clause 6. We tried one earlier this evening and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reminded us, this House voted the other way, so those provisions, which were more strictly defined as opt-in provisions rather than as passerelles, were excluded. However, this would be a good one to have in the Bill. It is puzzling to know who decided which of the many provisions and passerelles in earlier treaties that are included in the Lisbon treaty should be listed in Clause 6 and which should be left out. That is a puzzling issue, and I shall share some thoughts about that matter with your Lordships in the next amendment. In the mean time, this amendment would be useful and reassuring, and when it eventually happens, if it does, or when the pressure comes up for it, it would prevent future commentators turning round and criticising us for not being on our guard and at least seeking some reassurance that Parliament will be fully involved when and if it occurs. I beg to move.