European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — New Clause 1 — Scrutiny Committee — 13 Dec 2017 at 21:25

Jeff Smith MP, Manchester, Withington voted in the minority (Teller for the Ayes).

The majority of MPs voted for a committee of MPs to have a role in scrutinising certain actions related to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

It appears the intent would have been for the committee of MPs to have a role in determining the degree of parliamentary scrutiny certain secondary legislation made under the act would be subject to; although this wasn't explicit.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled Scrutiny Committee and stated::

  • “(1) For the purposes of this Act ‘a scrutiny committee’ refers to either—
  • (a) the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, or
  • (b) a Committee of the House of Commons which is established to perform the specific functions assigned to a scrutiny committee in this Act.
  • (2) The scrutiny committee referred to in subsection (1)(b) shall be chaired by a Member who is—
  • (a) of the same Party as the Official Opposition, and
  • (b) elected by the whole House.”

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory note:

  • This new clause establishes the principle that there shall be a Commons triage committee which works alongside the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to determine the level of scrutiny each statutory instrument shall receive.

Alone, given there were no references to a scrutiny committee in the Bill and the rejected new clause was not linked to other amendments, even informally via the explanatory note, acceptance of the new clause would have resulted, at least temporarily, in a nonsensical situation.

There were however other amendments put forward which sought to give a scrutiny committee roles:

Amendment 36:

  • Schedule 7, page 43,line 3,after “if” insert “a scrutiny committee determines that

Amendment 37:

  • Schedule 7, page 43, line 15, at end insert—
  • (g) is otherwise of sufficient policy interest to merit the application of sub-paragraph (1)

Amendment 38:

  • Schedule 7, page 43, line 19, at end insert—
  • “, unless a scrutiny committee determines that the instrument is of such significant policy interest that it ought to be subject to approval of each House with a procedure that allows for amendment.”

These amendments, which don't appear to have been considered, would have impacted Schedule 7, Part 2 of the Bill, paragraph 5, titled "Power to implement international obligations". The effect of these amendments would have been to empower the scrutiny committee to determine if the various conditions for requiring secondary legislation to be approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, had been met. A new condition of "significant policy interest" would have been added to a list including: "establishes a public authority in the United Kingdom", "creates, or widens the scope of, a criminal offence" etc. Perhaps the speaker would have selected these amendments for consideration had the proposed new clause not been rejected.

==

Debate in Parliament |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con301 (+2 tell) 0095.6%
DUP10 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 10100.0%
Lab0 242 (+2 tell)093.1%
LDem0 10083.3%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 34097.1%
Total:311 292094.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive