Formal minutes
Thursday 14 January 2021
Virtual meeting
Members present:
Hilary Benn, in the Chair
|
Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Joanna Cherry QC Mark Eastwood Florence Eshalomi Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra |
Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Mr Barry Sheerman Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis Dr Philippa Whitford |
Draft Report (The shape of future parliamentary scrutiny of UK-EU relations), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 50 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 51 read, as follows:
Brexit is done and we agree with the Government that Parliament no longer requires the complex EU scrutiny mechanisms that have existed until this point. What we need now, as a sovereign state exercising that sovereignty, is a new and proportionate mechanism to scrutinise our relationship with the EU. We believe that a single European Affairs Committee is all that is now needed; the House no longer requires two select committees with large memberships. Given that what we are proposing requires a revision of the existing mechanisms for EU scrutiny within the House of Commons committee structure, we recommend that a European Affairs Committee be set up under a temporary Standing Order, initially until the end of this Parliament, thereby allowing a decision to be made after that period as to whether it is working effectively, needs to be adapted, or whether it should end. Proposed Standing Orders for the creation of a European Affairs Committee can be found in Annex 1.
Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from, “the EU” to “the House no longer requires”.—(Nigel Mills.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Noes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Question accordingly agreed to.
An Amendment proposed, in line 7, leave out from “large memberships.” to the end of the paragraph and insert “In fact we consider that any new EU Affairs Committee will unavoidably duplicate the work of departmental select committees and members and staff of such a committee will lack the specialist knowledge available to those committees. We therefore recommend that the Liaison Committee produce recommended allocations of responsibility for oversight of EU-UK relations to individual departmental select committees and itself establishes a sub-committee to co-ordinate this work to ensure import issues are being addressed and minimise duplication. The sub-committee could consist of the Chairs of committees most affected by EU-UK relations.”.—(Nigel Mills.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Noes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Paragraph 51, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 52 read as follows:
The UK-EU relationship will require ongoing scrutiny and a new European Affairs Committee should be the primary ‘owner’ of that scrutiny. As highlighted by Professor Simon Usherwood, this would give “an opportunity for Parliament to be not merely a place that is a convening point and a clearing house for European issues within the UK, but a key axis for EU-UK relations”.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to delete from “require ongoing scrutiny” to “As highlighted by”.—(Nigel Mills.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Noes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Paragraph 52, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 53 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 54, read as follows:
The areas of the UK-EU relationship that will require ongoing scrutiny are outlined in Chapter 2. In summary, the proposed European Affairs Committee should focus on:
- Monitoring the implementation and operation of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement;
- Scrutinising the work of the Partnership Council and its specialised committees and working groups
- Scrutinising the work of Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee;
- Examining the implementation and operation of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol;
- Monitoring and scrutinising policies that affect the rights of EU citizens in the UK and of UK citizens in the EU;
- Monitoring and examining any disputes that arise under any UK-EU agreements;
- Scrutinising any review of current agreements or consideration of suspension or termination and any negotiations to change or extend the terms of current agreements or make new agreements;
- Monitoring developments in EU law and policy that affect the UK;
- Developing interparliamentary relations with the European Parliament and parliaments in EU Member States”
Amendment proposed, in line 2, to delete from “in Chapter 2.” to the end of line 3 and insert “The Liaison committee should produce recommendations for which departmental committee is best placed to focus on the following issues, potentially through use of joint committee or guesting where appropriate:”.—(Nigel Mills.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Noes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Paragraph 54, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 55, read as follows:
We recommend that the remit of a European Affairs Committee should cover three core areas: (1) implementation and operation of the Withdrawal Agreement, (2) implementation and operation of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and (3) the UK’s relationship with the EU. The Committee should have a cross-cutting thematic role, covering all Government departments. The Cabinet Office should therefore be responsible for coordinating the provision of evidence to the Committee on behalf of the Government.
Question put, that paragraph 55, stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Noes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Question accordingly disagreed to.
Paragraph 56 (now paragraph 55), read as follows:
For a European Affairs Committee to be effective in its new role, it will require additional formal powers beyond those of most other select committees (i.e. beyond the ability for call for persons, papers and records). As Dr Sara Hagemann told us, “Parliaments that have a lot of influence and are strong in European affairs in particular are those that have formal powers that enable them to directly influence Government positions, so there are institutional reasons for that influence.” For example, Agata Gostyńska-Jakubowska argues that “rather than abolishing the [European Scrutiny Committee] scrutiny reserve completely, parliamentarians should try to retain it in a modified form by amending the procedure to reflect the new post-Brexit institutional architecture.” The Liaison Committee suggests that a further way of Parliament engaging with the Joint Committee would be to require the Government to place particular issues on the agenda of the Joint Committee subject to the EU’s consent.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, delete from the beginning of the sentence to “additional formal powers” and insert “The Liaison Committee or its sub-committee will require”.—(Nigel Mills.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Noes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Paragraph 56 (now paragraph 55), as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 57 (now paragraph 56) read as follows:
Whilst of course the UK Government and the EU should rightly have the ability to agree decisions within meetings of the Partnership Council and its specialised committees, Trade Partnership Committee and Trade Specialised Committees, Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee and its specialised Committees and Joint Consultative Working Group as they see fit, we believe it is also appropriate for Parliament to be able to scrutinise the work of these bodies and hold Ministers to account for the decisions and positions they adopt. As well as having sight of documents in relation to these meetings (both before and afterwards), we recommend that a European Affairs Committee should be able to recommend that the Government request that an item be placed on the agendas of such meetings. We think this is a fair compromise in response to the loss of the European Scrutiny Committee’s formal ‘scrutiny reserve’ mechanism. The Government should ensure the Committee is aware of any deadlines that would need to be met in order for such a request to be successfully made.”
Amendment proposed, in line 9, delete from “we recommend” to “should be able” and insert “the Liaison Committee”.—(Nigel Mills.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Noes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Paragraph 57 (now paragraph 56), as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 58 to 63 read as follows:
Membership
58. There is currently a large disparity in the membership numbers of Commons select committees. This Committee (the Committee on the Future Relationship with the EU) has 21 members, the European Scrutiny Committee has 16 members and the Foreign Affairs Committee has 11 members. Larger committees tend to come about due to two, often linked, issues: (1) sensitivity/politicisation of topics, and (2) the need for representation from a wider number of political parties and/or UK nations. In terms of what works best, Dr White told us that:
I would go for a smaller committee than either of the EU committees that we have at present. The reason why your Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee have been large in the past has been to do with the politics and the need to represent lots of different viewpoints. I hope that, going forward now, that might be slightly less necessary, that the EU question is settled to a large degree, and that you could have a smaller, more efficient committee, because smaller committees of the size of other departmental committees of 11 tend to work better.
59. Dr White also pointed out however, in relation to the need for UK-wide representation, that:
I know that past practice has been, among the usual channels, to ensure that, where there are particular interests in different policy areas, representatives of smaller parties get to be represented where the formula for setting who would be on an 11-member committee would not normally give them representation. A committee focused on the UK’s future relationship with the EU is one where you would need to ensure that smaller parties that wanted to were able to be represented. The Northern Ireland issue […] is very significant for the Westminster Parliament, given the significance of the Northern Ireland protocol moving forward and the scrutiny of that.
60. The membership size of a European Affairs Committee is a tight balancing act. On one hand we know that smaller committees tend to be more nimble, specialised and effective. On the other hand, we view it as essential that all constituent parts of the UK are fairly represented. This is especially pertinent to Northern Ireland, which will continue to be more closely aligned to the EU than the rest of the UK. We recommend that the size of a European Affairs Committee should be broadly in line with the size of the departmental and other cross-cutting committees. It is important, however, that all four UK nations be fairly represented and, when necessary, the size of the Committee should be increased to achieve this objective.
Elected Chair
61. The Liaison Committee’s Report on select committee effectiveness contains a section on the impact of elected chairs which concludes that “the relevant changes to Standing Order No. 122B be made to extend chair elections to all select committees.” This was for three mains reasons. Firstly, because of the positive effect they had on the gender diversity of chairs. Secondly, because “there is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that elections have led to more confident committees, with an increasing willingness to innovate and push the boundaries.” And finally, because it enhances the credibility of the committee system.
62. Select committee chairs elected by the House are now the norm rather than the exception. In the view of Dr Hannah White, “in any [European] committee system that is designed going forward, it is really important that the chair of the committee is elected, in line with best practice across the rest of the committee system.”
63. It is no coincidence that the increasing prominence of select committees has coincided with the increasing number of select committees with chairs elected by the House. In order to provide the level of authority and legitimacy that a European Affairs Committee would need, we recommend that any such committee has a chair elected by the House of Commons, as is now normal practice for most select committees.
Question put, That paragraphs 58 to 63 stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Noes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Question accordingly disagreed to.
Paragraphs 64 and 65 (now paragraphs 57 and 58) read and agreed to.
Paragraph 66 (now paragraph 59) read as follows:
As the House of Lords European Union Committee has demonstrated, effective use of the sub-committee system can allow committees to cover more ground than would otherwise be the case. For a European Affairs Committee, that ground could be expansive, covering for example the Withdrawal Agreement, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and future EU legislation. We recommend that a European Affairs Committee should have the power to create one or more sub-committees, if it decides that this is the most effective way to discharge its remit.
Amendment proposed, in line 3, delete from “the case.” to the end of the paragraph and insert “While we do not accept Agata Gostyńska-Jakubowska’s recommendation of a standing committee, we do consider that use of sub-committees by departmental select committees for EU-UK relationship work would represent a sensible option to them in managing their workloads.”.—(Nigel Mills.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Noes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Paragraph 66 (now paragraph 59), as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 67 to 69 (now paragraphs 60 to 62) read and agreed to.
Paragraph 70 (now paragraph 63) read as follows:
Dr Hannah White suggests that one way of building links with other select committees is that a “European Affairs Committee could make use of guesting procedures to bring together small sub-groups of Members to work with it on different topic areas. In a way, it would be co-opting people with the right expertise for the right task, while being small enough to be nimble and to keep everybody focused on their role within the core committee.”
Amendment proposed, in line 2, delete from “is that” to “could make use of” and insert “committees”.—(Nigel Mills.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Noes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Paragraph 70 (now paragraph 63), as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 71 (now paragraph 64) read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 72 and 73 read as follows:
72. We recommend that a European Affairs Select Committee have the same powers departmental select committees have to work concurrently with other committees and to share evidence. We recommend that it have a power similar to the European Scrutiny Committee’s power to seek an opinion from other committees in relation to document scrutiny. We further recommend that these formal powers to share information and work together be accompanied by proactive informal engagement between committee chairs and at official level to ensure that select committee engagement on European issues is built and sustained.
73. In our view guesting processes are currently underutilised across select committees and, given its crosscutting nature, a European Affairs Committee should resolve to be a beacon of best practice in this area. To maintain a proactive and coordinated approach to engaging with other select committees on EU issues, we recommend that a European Affairs Committee should have the same powers as other committees to invite members of other committees to ‘guest’. We further recommend that it make a permanent offer of a ‘guesting’ slot on their committee to the Northern Ireland Affairs, Scottish Affairs, Welsh Affairs, Foreign Affairs, International Trade, Home Affairs and European Statutory Instruments Committees. A European Affairs Committee should seek to let any or all these committees (or any others) know if their upcoming evidence sessions are likely to be of interest/relevance to the competences of other select committees, with a view to involving them.
Question put, That paragraphs 72 and 73 stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Noes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Question accordingly disagreed to.
Paragraphs 74 to 82 (now paragraphs 65 to 73) read and agreed to.
Paragraph 83 (now paragraph 74) read as follows:
We recommend that the Parliamentary authorities should provide the resources necessary to facilitate the UK branch of the Assembly (which should include representation from both Houses and devolved UK legislatures), including a dedicated secretariat.
Amendment proposed, in line 3, delete from “Houses” to “), including”.—(Nigel Mills.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Noes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Paragraph 83 (now paragraph 74), as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 84 (now paragraph 75) read as follows:
We recommend that Commons’ representation in the Assembly should be drawn from any new European Affairs Committee, the UK’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and relevant departmental select committees. The party balance on the Commons side of the delegation should reflect the party balance in the House. The delegation should include representation from all UK nations.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, delete the first sentence.—(Nigel Mills.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
|
Ayes, 11 Lee Anderson Mr Peter Bone Mark Eastwood Sally-Ann Hart Antony Higginbotham Nigel Mills Nicola Richards Gary Sambrook Jane Stevenson Matt Vickers Dr Jamie Wallis |
Noes, 5 Joanna Cherry QC Florence Eshalomi Stephen Kinnock Seema Malhotra Dr Philippa Whitford |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Paragraph 84 (now paragraph 75), as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 85 to 100 (now paragraphs 76 to 91) read and agreed to.
Annex agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Fifth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available (Standing Order No. 134).
[The Committee adjourned.
Published: 21 January 2021 Site information Accessibility statement