At the beginning of this Parliament, against some stern opposition, the Government declined to establish a dedicated committee on European relations. As the Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by former shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry, has now highlighted, that decision must be revisited.

For some time, the Government’s caution in describing its ambitions for the UK’s relationship with the European Union was understandable. Ministers were reluctant to overstate the prospect of a “reset” before there was enough substance behind it, or before the political conditions existed to sustain such a claim. A European scrutiny committee, with no European scrutiny to conduct, could have hung like a millstone around the neck of Keir Starmer. 

That caution was reasonable. But it is no longer sufficient. 

The UK-EU relationship is now moving into a more structured phase. The pattern of engagement is becoming more regular, the agenda more extensive, and negotiations more organised. As that happens, the House of Commons needs a scrutiny structure that reflects the reality of the relationship now taking shape. 

This is a straightforward constitutional point. As the UK’s relationship with the EU becomes more developed and systematic, Parliament must have the means to examine it properly. That requires more than occasional debates, and more than scrutiny dispersed across departmental select committees. Those committees do important work, but they are not designed to provide a continuous, cross-cutting view of the UK-EU relationship as a whole. 

The lack of a dedicated European Scrutiny Committee matters because the issues under discussion do not sit neatly within departmental boundaries. Trade is often bound up with regulation. Security cooperation can involve data, legal frameworks and institutional questions. The alignment of UK law with EU law, or indeed divergence from it, poses challenges in terms of both parliamentary procedure and minimising trade barriers on the ground. Individual agreements may appear limited in isolation, but together they can amount to a significant shift in the overall character of the relationship. The House of Commons should be able to assess that wider picture clearly and consistently. 

A dedicated European Scrutiny Committee would provide the mechanism to deliver this.  

It would allow MPs to examine negotiations as they develop, consider the cumulative effect of agreements, and hold ministers to account for the broader direction of policy. In other words, it would give the elected House the institutional capacity to scrutinise a relationship that is once again in flux and becoming more complex and consequential. 

They should not be viewed through the lens of the cantankerous European Scrutiny Committee of the “Get Brexit Done” parliaments. On the contrary, stronger parliamentary oversight could make any improvement in our trading and diplomatic relationship with the EU more durable. A closer relationship must carry the legitimacy that comes from visible, serious and democratic scrutiny. A deal done in the dark by ministers will not command the legitimacy that our EU politics now demands. 

There is already cross-party recognition of, and support for, this principle. Stella Creasy, Chair of the Labour Movement for Europe, has been consistent in calling for MPs to have a meaningful role in the reset and realignment of UK-EU relations. Even voices from the opposite end of the argument, such as Richard Tice, have argued that Parliament must not be side-lined in shaping the country’s future relationship with Europe.  

European Movement UK is proud to lead the secretariat of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Europe because it is a forum which has real value. It has helped sustain discussion across parties and keeps the UK’s relationship with Europe firmly on the parliamentary agenda. But an APPG cannot substitute for a select committee of the House of Commons. It does not have the same formal authority, the same powers, or the same role in holding ministers and departments to account. The APPG would instead aim to work alongside a new European Scrutiny Committee, providing a wider channel for both civil society and the public to engage with the open and democratic process of parliamentary scrutiny.

A dedicated European Scrutiny Committee is the sensible and proportionate response to the stage the relationship has now reached. If ministers are serious about building a more constructive and better organised agreement with the European Union, they should also be serious about ensuring that it is properly scrutinised by the elected House.