1 Introduction
1. Under the heading of 'Europe', the Coalition's
programme for government said that it would "examine
the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear
that the ultimate authority remains with Parliament." On
10 September the Minister for Europe wrote to the Committee announcing
the Government's intention to introduce legislation to ensure
that the British people and Parliament would have more say on
proposals to transfer power and competence to the EU. On 6 October
the Minister wrote again to say that the Bill would include a
provision affirming the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The European Union Bill was presented to Parliament on 11 November
2010. We immediately announced our intention to conduct an inquiry
and to produce a Report on the Bill's asserted Parliamentary sovereignty
clause before the Bill's Second Reading. It is our intention to
report on the Bill's Part 1 provisions, which require "referendum
locks" for transfers of powers or competencies and primary
legislation for passerelles, at a later date.
2. This is the first occasion on which we have conducted
pre-legislative scrutiny. We were conscious of the need to receive
submissions from EU and constitutional legal experts of differing
views and to challenge them in public evidence sessions; we therefore
asked the Government for sufficient time to be made available
between First and Second Reading to allow that to happen. In response
to that request, the Minister replied:
"You ask that there should be sufficient
time after introduction of the Bill for your Committee to consider
and take evidence on the Bill and its provisions. In implementing
the Government's commitment for a referendum lock, I am very much
aware of the need for Parliament, and indeed our wider public,
to have political and legal clarity on what this will and will
not mean in practice. It is therefore important that your Committee
should be able to consider properly the Bill and its provisions,
and in order to assist in your consideration of the Bill, I should
be pleased to appear before your Committee soon after First Reading."[1]
3. Given these encouraging words it is hard to see
why, in a Parliamentary session which has until 2012 to run, we
were given less than four weeks in which to take evidence and
agree a Report. The Foreign Secretary declined our request that
he, rather than the Minister for Europe, should give evidence.
The Minister for Europe's evidence session is now to be held on
the day before the Bill's Second Reading. It appears to us that
the Government has abided by the letter but hardly the spirit
of its commitment to allow the Committee properly to consider
the Bill and its provisions.
4. The Committee received 14 written submissions
and took evidence from five expert witnesses: Professor Paul Craig,
Professor in English Law, St John's College, Oxford; Professor
Trevor Hartley, Professor Emeritus of Law, London School of Economics;
Professor Trevor Allan, Professor of Jurisprudence and Public
Law, Pembroke College, Cambridge; Professor Adam Tomkins, Chair
of Public Law, University of Glasgow; and Professor Anthony Bradley,
Research Fellow, Institute of European and Comparative Law, University
of Oxford. We are extremely grateful to all those who took the
trouble, at very short notice, to produce written submissions
and give oral evidence. Regrettably, shortage of time before Second
Reading denied us the chance of hearing from the Minister for
Europe before agreeing this Report. We have, however, a detailed
letter from the Minister on clause 18 and the Government's Explanatory
Notes on which we comment in our Conclusions.
5. Given the complexity of the subject matter which
it addresses, this Report sets out in some detail the legal relationship
between the United Kingdom and the European Union and the current
debate on the scope of Parliamentary sovereignty, before evaluating
the Parliamentary sovereignty clause in the light of the evidence
received and coming to our conclusions.
6. European legislation has a profound impact on
the daily lives of the voters and the people of the United Kingdom
in virtually every sphere of activity. The quantitative impact
is significant. According to the House of Commons Library note
of 13 October, "The British Government estimated that around
50% of UK legislation with a significant economic impact originates
from EU legislation." But as the note also indicates, the
qualitative effect is deeper, particularly with EU Regulations
which automatically become part of national law as soon as they
are adopted in Brussels.
7. All this is reflected in the immense range and
impact of the myriad and specific competences and powers derived
from the Lisbon Treaty. These can be judged by the several pages
of the table of contents to the Treaty covering such matters as
external action, foreign and security policy, security and defence
policy, citizenship, internal market, agriculture, fisheries,
free movement, border checks, asylum and immigration, civil and
criminal and police matters, justice and home affairs, transport,
competition, tax, economic and monetary policy, employment and
social policy, public health, consumer protection, industry, the
environment, energy, commercial policy and financial provisions.
8. All of these are regulated within a framework
of European Union law within the jurisdiction of the Court of
Justice of the EU with implications for Parliamentary sovereignty.
Recent vivid examples of the application of European Union law
and jurisdiction include provisions relating to the City of London,
European economic governance and the Irish bailout, to name but
a few.
1 Letter from the Minister for Europe, 6 October 2010
(not printed). Back
|
