Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

European Scrutiny Committee

30 July 2024 · 5 other contributors

Opened by Richard Tice Reform Boston and Skegness

BrexitDemocracy & ElectionsParliamentary Procedure

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Richard Tice raised concerns about european scrutiny committee in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • The importance of debating the motion was stressed.
  • Scrutiny, accountability, and responsibility were highlighted in speeches.
  • The proposed abolition of the European Scrutiny Committee was criticized.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Richard Tice Reform Boston and Skegness

It is important to have a debate on this motion. We have heard all afternoon splendid speeches and maiden speeches, yet the thrust of scrutiny, accountability and responsibility has been emphasised. While the other House has a Committee for scrutinising relations with the European Union, there is only one such Committee in our House, which includes the word 'scrutiny' but is now proposed to be abolished by the Government. The motion should reflect on the need for detailed scrutiny of negotiations and proposals regarding our relationship with the EU, as per the slogan 'Take back control', urging the Leader of the House to withdraw it and bring it back in September.

Other contributors (5)
  • Richard Tice Reform Boston and Skegness

    We have heard from the Government about the importance of our relations with the EU, yet the European Scrutiny Committee is now proposed to be abolished. This committee is crucial for detailed scrutiny of negotiations proposed by the Government on behalf of the people, reinforcing the point that it should continue.

  • Stella Creasy Lab Co-op Walthamstow

    While recognising the importance of scrutiny, I take a different view on the benefits of resetting our relationship with Europe post-Brexit. There is now uncertainty about where such debates will happen and what role parliamentarians may play in it, particularly regarding the dissolution of the European Statutory Instruments Committee.

  • David Davis Con Goole and Pocklington

    The hon. Member's point is significant, especially as the relationship with the EU evolves over the next five to ten years. The Government must maintain trust and clarify what mechanism will replace the European Scrutiny Committee to keep everyone on board with the journey.

  • Greg Smith Con Mid Buckinghamshire

    The European Scrutiny Committee evolved from scrutinising EU documents to taking over much of the function of the Exiting the European Union Committee, doing critical cross-Government scrutiny on retained EU law, Gibraltar border negotiations, and more. It was crucial for detailed scrutiny.

  • Lucy Powell Lab Co-op Manchester Central

    I am confused by the hon. Member's plea to keep a Select Committee that was a function of our EU membership, since he has spent his life and efforts getting us to leave it. Now we are no longer required to automatically take on those documents from the EU institutions.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy