European Union (Amendment) Bill

My Lords, I have a somewhat different view and interpretation of Article 352 from that of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. He said that it allows the EU to take any measure that it wants. I do not think that that is correct. I would even take issue with his description that it allows the EU to extend competences. It uses the words: "““If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined by the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties””." This has to fit within a policy in the treaties to obtain one of the objectives. I do not think, therefore, that you are extending competences if you invoke Article 352 and it is certainly does not apply to any measure that the EU might want to take. We have had a lot of talk this afternoon and this evening about double locks and triple locks. I think that there is a seven-part lock on this article. The first is the use of the word ““necessary””, as opposed to ““useful”” or ““desirable””. I am sure that there would be litigation over the term ““necessary””, if necessary. Then you have this criterion referring to action, "““within the framework of the policies defined by the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties””." That is the second lock. Then you have the need for unanimity, which means a veto, including by the UK or other member states. Then you have to obtain the consent of the European Parliament. Then there is the yellow and orange card procedure for national parliaments. I would say that, with the European Parliament role and the national parliamentary role, there is proper parliamentary scrutiny, as well as what would happen at Westminster under whatever procedures are agreed here. I do not accept that there is no proper parliamentary scrutiny. Then you have Article 3, which the noble Lord dismissed. I happen to think that it is quite important. It states strongly and clearly: "““Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States’ laws or regulations in cases where the Treaties exclude such harmonisation””." Finally, as has been said, this cannot be used to extend the CFSP provisions or, indeed, something do with Article 40—I think that it is to do with agriculture, but I am afraid that that is outside my pay grade. I just submit that there are considerable safeguards within Article 352. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, described it as meaning that you can just come along and say, ““We want to do something else””. That is a misrepresentation of Article 352.