My Lords, perhaps I may stick to the substance of the amendment. As I have not been privy to the debates in the usual channels, I ask why amendments that are similar in terms of the arguments employed have been de-grouped for sequential consideration. It has resulted in the debate being all over the place and we are spending far longer on it than might have been the case. I know that the Minister will not deal with that issue, but I hope that the usual channels will go away, contemplate whether we can make slightly speedier progress on these matters and perhaps have a debate that is more valuable to the rest of us who sit here and listen attentively.
I should say to the opposition Front Bench that I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on these amendments; and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that he is right that a consensus has prevailed in this country over the single market, competition policy, and so on. I pay tribute to the Conservative Party for having taken us there, but today no party here can say that it is a champion of that consensus to a greater degree than any other party. These are valuable probing amendments.
At this late hour, in order not to detain the House longer, I want the Minister to answer the question that he did not answer on the previous amendment. I believe that any treaty changes made to enhance the ability of the Commission, the European Court of Justice and other bodies to enforce EU rules would fall under the significance condition. My understanding is that where a treaty change merely confers additional powers on an EU body or institution to impose new requirements, obligations or sanctions on member states, and when this change is deemed not be significant for the UK, a referendum would not be required. In which case, do we really need to have the amendment? If the Minister gave us an answer as to where the significance test would apply—we debated that at length several hours ago—we would know which side of this amendment to be on. It would be most helpful if we could get some clarification on that.
European Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 April 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on European Union Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
727 c98-9 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:48:01 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_735611
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_735611
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_735611