European Union Bill

I think that the duty of the elected House of Commons is not to try to hoodwink the public into believing—although the sovereignty and primacy of the House of Commons are self-evident—that the Bill will bolster our credentials, when that is clearly not the case. Members who really want to change things, and to prevent the primacy of EU legislation, should try to amend the European Communities Act 1972. EU law is enacted by this Parliament, although anyone listening to some hon. Members today and some commentators outside might believe that it had no role in it whatsoever. The primacy of EU law over national law is clearly enshrined in the 1972 Act, which was passed by this Parliament. It can also be amended by this Parliament. I should be happy for those who obviously do not wish us to remain in Europe to table an amendment to that effect—that would be the proper thing for them to do—but clause 18 merely reiterates what is already there, as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly. As the European Scrutiny Committee in paragraph 82 of its report states,"““Clause 18 does not address the competing primacies of EU and national law.””" The idea that passing the clause would somehow enshrine, or protect, the sovereignty of the House is complete and utter nonsense. Paragraph 82 continues:"““The evidence we received makes plain that these two spheres of law coexist, usually peacefully, clashing occasionally. When ""they do clash, neither side gives way. The Court of Justice of the EU maintains that EU law has primacy over national law, including national constitutional law.””" That is clear from the ruling in the case of Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council. I find it disturbing that some Members appear to believe that the courts have no role in the interpretation of law. As one of my hon. Friends observed earlier, the laws that we pass in relation to Europe are interpreted over time, and that is the role of the courts. It would be completely wrong for Parliament to interfere directly in the interpretation of a law once it had been passed. European law is no different from other laws in the sense that there are various possible interpretations of it. The Thoburn case made it clear that European law could not direct what the House of Commons could do in terms of making its own laws.