Business of the House

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for using an opportunity at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday and on other occasions to ask for a debate about Black History Month. It is thanks to her and colleagues’ efforts that we have been able to announce that debate today, so I pay tribute to her. I am sure the issues she raises will be discussed during that debate. It is vital that the narrative is reframed, and that we expose the attitudes she describes on social media and elsewhere, which are fuelled by ignorance and hate, and put an end to them.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

May I suggest that the Leader of the House celebrates her special birthday by granting a debate on the amendments to the international health regulations that were agreed at the World Health Assembly in the summer, and that we give MPs a vote on the issue before we hand over sovereignty over important matters of national public health to the World Health Organisation?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those birthday wishes. As I have gently said on previous occasions, he slightly misunderstands the situation, but of course we always bring important matters before the House. When those matters require a vote—and, in fact, in some cases when they do not require a vote—we have been, and will continue to be, very forthcoming.

European Scrutiny Committee

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is important to have a debate on this motion. We have heard all afternoon splendid speeches and maiden speeches, have we not? But the thrust of this afternoon has been scrutiny, accountability and responsibility. It seems extraordinary to me that while the other House has a Committee to scrutinise our relations with the European Union—indeed, today it has proudly announced that it has been reformed—and the Government want to reform the House of Lords, we could have a situation in which there is only a Committee to scrutinise relations with the European Union in the other place. We have talked about scrutiny all afternoon. Of the 27 Committees referred to on the Order Paper, the European Scrutiny Committee is the only one that includes the word “scrutiny”, yet it is the one Committee that the Leader of the House wants to do away with. I find that extraordinary.

We have heard from the Government before the election, during the election and since the election about the importance of our relations with our friends in the European Union and how negotiations may take place on a whole raft of important issues. Do hon. Members remember the slogan, “Take back control of our borders, our money and our laws”? Surely the whole point of our debate about our relationship with the European Union is that this is the place where we debate and legislate for laws on behalf of the people, so if we are to take back control of our laws, surely those laws and the negotiations proposed by the Government on behalf of the people should be scrutinised in detail and earnest, as has been proposed all afternoon with regard to other matters.

I suggest to the Leader of the House, the Government and the Whips that we need to reflect on that. I urge the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion, reflect on it from the sedentary position of our sunbeds over the next month and bring it back to the House in September.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Those of us who will be not on a sunbed but in our constituencies do recognise that point. The hon. Gentleman and I will take a different view on the benefits of what the Government are doing to reset our relationship with Europe now that we have left the European Union so that we can finally get the trading benefits sorted and sort out the border tax mess left by the last Government. Does he recognise that there is now a lacuna where people may question where such a debate will happen and what role parliamentarians may play in it, and that perhaps one fruitful thing would be to clarify what will happen to the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which seems to have been dissolved yet was looking at the European laws that we were transposing into UK law?

There are a number of questions that may not be for this evening but are for the future of this Parliament. Given what the hon. Gentleman is expressing, he and I might disagree on the outcomes, but we agree that they are important questions, and we would like to understand what will happen next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

I thank the hon. Lady for her constructive and positive contribution. The reality is that it is incumbent on us, on behalf of millions of people who believe in democracy in this country and wanted to take back control, to scrutinise the negotiations that the newly elected Government will have in multiple areas with the European Union in Brussels and the European nations. It seems extraordinary to take away the ability to look at that in detail—I am not sure how millions of people will understand it.

[Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I have listened to the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), and I guess I am the third way because I do not agree with either of them. The hon. Gentleman has a significant point. As the relationship with the European Union evolves over the next five or 10 years, it is important that the Government maintain the trust of the British people. If this mechanism does not exist, I would like the Leader of the House to say what mechanism will replace it. Will there be a duty on different Select Committees to report on their part of it? Or will there be some other mechanism to keep everyone on board with the journey that the Government are taking us on?

[Richard Tice]

I thank the right hon. Member for his most helpful contribution. He reinforced the point: where is the scrutiny that our citizens rely on us all to exercise on the Government? However well intentioned the Government’s negotiations are, we have a role to play to avoid unintended consequences. It is splendid that the other place has its own scrutiny Committee—[Interruption.] I have not been invited over there. I reinforce the point that this is the democratically elected House. We are charged with scrutinising the Government’s negotiations with partners all around the world. It is incumbent on the Leader of the House and the Government to continue the European Scrutiny Committee, which has done good work and is surely best placed to continue that focus.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I served on the European Scrutiny Committee for the entirety of the last Parliament. Its work evolved from simply scrutinising the documents that came from the European Union and had direct effect on our law, to taking over much of the functions of the Exiting the European Union Committee after it was disbanded. The Committee was doing critical cross-Government scrutiny on things such as retained EU law, the negotiations on the Gibraltar border and the continuing operation of the trade and co-operation agreement. As a Select Committee it was not departmental in its outlook but entirely cross-cutting across all of Government.

[Richard Tice]

I thank the hon. Member for that most helpful contribution, which reinforces the value of the Committee, its focus and its determination to get the laws right for our millions of citizens. I therefore urge the Leader of the House, again, to withdraw the motion and to reflect on these contributions. Let us come back in September, have a debate on it and find the right way to proceed. The motion should be withdrawn.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

I thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for his contribution. I look forward to watching him race with his towel to the sun lounger—I am sure he will be beaten by many other Europeans.

I am a little confused by the hon. Member’s plea to keep a Select Committee that was a function of our membership of the European Union, since he has spent his life and all his efforts getting us to leave it, which we have now done. Therefore 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. In fact, I understood that he and his party wished this Parliament, other Departments and therefore other Select Committees to take on that job of considering all such issues in detail, because we are no longer members of the European Union and are therefore no longer required to automatically take on those documents. I listened to what he said but am confused by it.

[Richard Tice]

rose—

[Lucy Powell]

I am not going to give way, because we are all at the end of a long day and many of us are looking forward to our European holidays. I know that that is where the hon. Gentleman will be going straight away from here, to spend his euros on tapas and European beers. I will not take up his offer of withdrawing the motion. I have heard what he said, but perhaps he can reflect a little, over that tapas and a beer on his sun lounger, on the confusion he has displayed tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

Perhaps there is an opportunity for a wider debate on the make-up of Select Committees. I can see some of the issues, but I reiterate that the Modernisation Committee needs to strike a balance between being effective and making fast progress. It needs to be representative, but not too big. I reiterate to the smaller parties my commitment to having ongoing, meaningful engagement, and to having them come regularly to the Committee to give evidence and views. Of course, the proceedings of the Committee will be fully transparent; we will have calls for evidence, and our deliberations will be regularly published for the whole House to see.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has just made a very good case, and has asked you a specific question: is it fair? From your lack of reply, I think it is implicit that you agree that it is not fair. You have it in your power to change that, as a matter of fairness and of listening to smaller parties. If you do not agree with that, I think constituents all over the country will find it absolutely astonishing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

Order. Will Members refrain from using the word “you”? You are speaking through the Chair.