📜 Scrutiny of European Statutory Instruments

• Motion to Establish a Committee for Scrutiny: The House of Commons discussed a motion to create a new Standing Order. This order aims to establish a committee responsible for reviewing draft instruments and documents related to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The committee will decide if these instruments require further scrutiny or should be approved using an affirmative procedure by both Houses of Parliament.

• Importance of Scrutiny Highlighted: Jim Allister from North Antrim emphasized the critical need for scrutiny of laws, especially those originating outside the UK’s parliamentary framework. He noted the lack of scrutiny on laws imposed on Northern Ireland by the European Parliament, which affects over 300 areas of regulation.

• Concerns Over Lack of Scrutiny and Representation: Allister expressed concern about the absence of scrutiny of EU laws since the European Scrutiny Committee was disbanded. He also highlighted the lack of Northern Irish representation on the new Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which could scrutinize these laws.

• Transparency Issues: There was discussion on the lack of transparency regarding EU laws applicable to Northern Ireland. Allister pointed out the absence of a public list detailing these regulations and called for such transparency.

• Specific Examples of Unscrutinized Regulations: Allister mentioned the example of an EU regulation allowing mealworms and insects in food products, imposed on Northern Ireland without consultation or scrutiny by either the Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Parliament.

• Northern Ireland’s Unique Position: The debate touched on the complexities of Northern Ireland’s position under EU laws, particularly under the customs code, which treats Northern Ireland as EU territory but not the rest of the UK. This creates significant trade and scrutiny issues.

• Response and Clarifications: Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons, clarified that the motion focuses on the European Statutory Instruments Committee, not the European Scrutiny Committee. She noted that in the absence of the committee, all relevant measures have been processed through the affirmative procedure. Powell also responded to concerns about representation by stating that relevant measures relating to Northern Ireland would be considered by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

• Outcome of the Motion: The motion to establish the new Standing Order was put to a question and agreed upon, ensuring that future EU-related statutory instruments would be considered by relevant select committees, with potential oversight by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for matters affecting Northern Ireland.

The session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around the scrutiny of European statutory instruments and their impact on Northern Ireland. The primary source of disagreement is between Jim Allister and the broader procedural setup, as well as Lucy Powell’s response. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

1. Criticism of Scrutiny Processes: Jim Allister expresses significant dissatisfaction with the current scrutiny processes for European laws affecting Northern Ireland. He highlights the lack of scrutiny since the dissolution of the European Scrutiny Committee and the absence of Northern Ireland representation on relevant committees, as seen in his statement, “Since Northern Ireland is the region most affected by many of these laws, I have to register my disappointment that not a single Member from Northern Ireland was proposed for the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.” This represents a clear disagreement with the current parliamentary arrangements.

2. Interventions Supporting Criticism: Other Members of Parliament, such as Greg Smith, Gregory Campbell, and Sammy Wilson, reinforce Jim Allister’s arguments. Greg Smith specifically criticizes the Labour Government’s commitment to scrutiny, stating, “Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me, as someone who sat on the European Scrutiny Committee in the last Parliament, that it is no surprise that the Labour Government do not want to scrutinise this legislation coming from the European Union…” This indicates a shared dissatisfaction and disagreement with the current scrutiny mechanisms.

3. Response from the Leader of the House: Lucy Powell, in her response, attempts to clarify the scope of the motion and defends the decision not to maintain a dedicated committee for European statutory instruments, arguing that it would not be cost-effective. She states, “The European Statutory Instruments Committee did specific work, and we now feel that it would not be value for money for the House to pay for a Chair and to facilitate a Committee…” This response directly addresses and potentially disagrees with the concerns raised by Jim Allister and others about the need for more robust scrutiny.

4. Explicit Disagreement on Representation: Robin Swann’s intervention during Lucy Powell’s speech further highlights the disagreement on representation. He asks, “In regard to that, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) asked, if there is such a low number of instruments and the Committee is not to meet so regularly, why not give Northern Ireland a place on it?” This underscores the disagreement regarding Northern Ireland’s inclusion in the scrutiny process.

While there is clear disagreement, particularly from Northern Ireland MPs, the disagreements are grounded in specific procedural concerns and are articulated in a relatively structured and orderly manner within the session. The session does not escalate into broader or more heated exchanges, which would warrant a higher disagreement rating.

Therefore, a rating of 3 is given to reflect the moderate level of disagreement centered on procedural and representation issues, yet conducted within the norms of parliamentary discourse.