As the government's new deal with the EU takes shape, Parliament's duty to examine the detail grows. The House of Commons needs a new mechanism for European scrutiny.

By Stella Creasy, MP for Walthamstow and Chair of the Labour Movement for Europe

This article was originally published by The UK In A Changing Europe.

Across red wall and commuter belt alike, polling shows the public now recognise leaving the European Union was not the silver bullet for our nation’s woes once claimed. Yet nor do they have a desire to return to the divisive era of referendums. Instead, a practical deal with the EU to start solving the problems that businesses and consumers have experienced – whether lorry loads of fruit and veg rotting at the borders or the delinking of our interconnected energy markets – is taking shape. As more flesh forms on its bones, so Parliament’s duty to scrutinise what it means for constituents grows. And in the ultimate of ironies, the only place which hasn’t taken back control following Brexit is the House of Commons itself.

From the early days of this country’s membership of the European Communities in 1973, right up to the end of the last parliament in 2024, the House of Commons had a European Scrutiny Committee. Its job was to examine the documents, rules and laws issued by the EU that had an impact on UK law and policy. Under this arrangement, the European Commission would give notification of incoming changes, the UK government would write an explanatory memorandum, and the Committee would then deliberate and report back with the help of specialised staff.

The Committee was by no means a perfect instrument. At times poorly attended, and dominated by the personality of its long-time chair, the stridently Eurosceptic former MP for Stone Sir Bill Cash, its purpose became distinctly fuzzy after Brexit. The workload was often less document scrutiny and more soliloquies to sovereignty. Little wonder the incoming Labour government took the chance to abolish it all together, with the Leader of the House Lucy Powell claiming “the principal job of the Committee – to examine the documents produced by the EU institutions that the Government would automatically take on board – is no longer required”.

Brexit made strange bedfellows of many, and this decision was no exception. Both myself and newly elected Reform MP Richard Tice argued this was a mistake because leaving the EU didn’t lessen the load of issues that required inspection. Indeed, the complexity of implementing the Brexit deal (the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement), was grounds enough to merit retaining a dedicated committee.

Since the Brexit deal was finalised, the volume of documents issued by the EU that automatically apply to the UK has been greatly reduced – but not removed. New or amended EU laws that fall under the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement or the Windsor Framework automatically apply to the UK. So do European Commission proposals for negotiating positions to be taken with the UK under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

All this means there are still EU documents examined in exactly the way the European Scrutiny Committee used to operate. The difference now is that this only happens in the House of Lords – specifically, through its European Affairs and Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committees, by virtue of a political agreement between the Cabinet Office and the Lords committee chairs. Whilst clearly expert-led, MPs now experience a ‘benefit’ of Brexit whereby such scrutiny is being done only by unelected peers.

After the UK-EU summit in May, the question of parliamentary engagement has become more urgent. Once they succeed in signing an SPS agreement and linking emissions trading systems, the government’s argument for abolishing the European Scrutiny Committee will no longer be true. These deals will require the UK to keep up with EU laws and regulations as part of ‘dynamic alignment’. The UK will get a role in shaping these EU rules, yet to be seen in practice. Even before that happens, the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill includes powers for ministers to align on a case-by-case basis with EU product regulations.

In other words, a flow of relevant documents from the EU is coming soon. Failing to scrutinise them properly could lead to poor outcomes for UK businesses and consumers – for example, if the implications of new regulations and their interaction with existing UK law are not fully understood.

A case can be made that this task could be taken on by the highly capable existing departmental select committees, such as those on Foreign Affairs or Business and Trade. But those committees are already busy – and most importantly, the job of document scrutiny is different. As the Institute for Government point out, decisions relating to alignment with EU law involve trade-offs between different policy areas, something that committees set up to examine a single department are not best placed to do. This is a unique job, best done by a single committee with specialist staff – either established as a standalone body, or composed of members nominated from other relevant select committees, along the lines of the former Committee on Arms Export Controls (CAEC).

As chair of the Labour Movement for Europe, I have a keen interest in ensuring that the government’s reset in relations with the EU succeeds. Effective parliamentary scrutiny is a vital part of that. But sceptics value scrutiny too – that’s why an amendment to a recent bill advocating for this was signed by Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Reform and Plaid Cymru MPs. With historical precedent and cross-party support, it’s time Parliament reset its own European relations.

Image credit: Diliff (Creative Commons)