European Union Bill

My Lords, there is not much between us. On the other hand, it is important to have clarity. If there are other Acts which are required in relation to this situation, the option is to mention them. The words ““an Act”” do not give any precision whatever. Therefore, the use of the phrase, "““of the European Communities Act 1972””," is much clearer. I think I am right in saying that the statutes, which are referred to as being other statutes—part of ““an Act””—use the words defined in the European Communities Act; for example, the Community treaties. Those words are specified in the 1972 Act. All those Acts, in their dealing with European Community law, would be understood as having the meaning assigned to these phrases in the 1972 Act. If the 1972 Act were to be repealed, those phrases would be repealed with it because they would be deprived of the meaning which they had when the Act was enacted. My noble friend Lord Waddington asked about ““only””. If he wants to improve our amendment, it is open to him to propose an amendment to that effect. Of course, that is still possible. If the amendment is passed, he could improve it at Third Reading because I am sure that clarification of an amendment passed on Report would be possible at Third Reading. I do not think it is required, but if he thinks it would improve it, let us see. This amendment specifies the Act on which we rely. My noble friend Lord Flight talks about belt and braces—I suppose I am getting to the stage when they may be an important matter. If I am right, all the European legislation which is incorporated into our law has been done by virtue of the European Communities Act and the definitions provided in that Act.