European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — Schedule 7 — Paragraph 13 — Scrutiny of Powers of Ministers — 12 Jun 2018 at 16:15

Geoffrey Cox MP, Torridge and West Devon voted to enable greater scrutiny by MPs and members of the House of Lords of Ministers' use of powers to make regulations to deal with issues related to international obligations and the implementation of the withdrawal agreement on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

The majority of MPs voted to enable greater scrutiny by MPs and members of the House of Lords of Ministers' use of powers to make regulations to deal with issues related to international obligations and the implementation of the withdrawal agreement on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

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

The motion rejected by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 128

Lords amendment 128[2] stated:

  • Page 49, line 4, leave out paragraph 13

Paragraph 13[3] was titled: Parliamentary committee to sift certain regulations involving Minister of the Crown and stated:

  • (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if a Minister of the Crown who is to make a statutory instrument to which paragraph 6(3) or 7(3) applies is of the opinion that the appropriate procedure for the instrument is for it to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  • (2) The Minister may not make the instrument so that it is subject to that procedure unless—
  • (a) condition 1 is met, and
  • (b) either condition 2 or 3 is met.
  • (3) Condition 1 is that a Minister of the Crown—
  • (a) has made a statement in writing to the effect that in the Minister’s opinion the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and
  • (b) has laid before the House of Commons—
  • (i) a draft of the instrument, and
  • (ii) a memorandum setting out the statement and the reasons for the Minister’s opinion.
  • (4)Condition 2 is that a committee of the House of Commons charged with doing so has made a recommendation as to the appropriate procedure for the instrument.
  • (5) Condition 3 is that the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the House of Commons as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) has ended without any recommendation being made as mentioned in sub-paragraph (4).
  • (6) In sub-paragraph (5) “sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons sits.
  • (7) Nothing in this paragraph prevents a Minister of the Crown from deciding at any time before a statutory instrument to which paragraph 6(3) or 7(3) applies is made that another procedure should apply in relation to the instrument (whether under that paragraph or paragraph 14).
  • (8) Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (alternative procedure for certain instruments laid in draft before Parliament) does not apply in relation to any statutory instrument to which this paragraph applies.

The references to paragraphs 6(3) and 7(3) refer in turn to clauses 8 and 9 which relate to "Complying with international obligations" and "Implementing the withdrawal agreement" respectively.

Explanatory notes to the paragraph in question in the Bill stated[4]:

  • Paragraph 13 requires, before instruments under clauses 8 and 9 that are proposed for the negative procedure can be made, that the minister lays a draft of the instrument before the a Committee of the House of Commons, along with a memorandum explaining the choice of procedure. This committee has 10 sitting days to make a recommendation as to the appropriate procedure for the instrument. After receiving the recommendation, or after 10 sitting days without a recommendation, a minister may either proceed with making a negative instrument, or proceed with an affirmative instrument instead.

Explanatory notes to Lords amendment 128[5] stated:

  • Lords Amendment 128 would remove the sifting committee provisions which applied to powers other than clause 7(1). This is as a consequence of amendment 110 applying a single provision to all the powers. The Bill as introduced to the Lords had two identical provisions for sifting applying, with the same effect, to different selections of powers.

At the time of this vote MPs had already voted[6] to reject Lords Amendment 110, so the context of this vote was a Bill without an alternate provision providing for special arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations in question.

Prior to this vote MPs had voted to reject Lords amendment 110.

Parliament's glossary states[7]:

  • Negative procedure is a type of procedure that a statutory instrument can go through. A statutory instrument under the negative procedure will automatically become law without debate unless there is an objection from either House. Conversely affirmative procedure refers to a procedure where a statutory instrument must be approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords to become law.

==

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 (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con312 (+2 tell) 0099.1%
DUP10 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 10100.0%
Lab3 251 (+2 tell)097.7%
LDem0 120100.0%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 350100.0%
Total:325 304098.6%

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
Frank FieldBirkenheadLab (minister)aye
Kate HoeyVauxhallLab (minister)aye
Graham StringerBlackley and BroughtonLab (minister)aye

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