Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from William Cash (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 25 January 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union Bill.


European Union Bill

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that important point, and I was immediately coming to it—I have in my hand the explanatory memorandum, to which I referred before he intervened, precisely for that purpose. It stands in the name of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. A scrutiny matter is still outstanding, so paragraph 26 comes under the heading of ““Other observations”” and states:"““The Government regrets that the Scrutiny Committees””—" those of the Commons and the Lords—"““did not have time to consider this document before it was agreed at Council.””" I can tell the House that that happened because we were in a caretaker period and the European Scrutiny Committee, as such, was not sitting in that interregnum. The memorandum continues:"““It should be noted that whilst agreement on behalf of the UK was given by the previous administration, cross-party consensus had been gained.””" That is why I made the point that the responsibility lies with both this Government and the previous one.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
522 c209 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Crime Administration of justice Common fisheries policy Crown dependencies British overseas territories Fisheries EU law Electoral Commission European communities Gibraltar Economic situation EU action Economic and monetary union Northern Ireland Prosecutions Referendums Loans Peers Scotland Sovereignty Republic of Ireland Treaties Security Reform Wales UK membership of EU European financial stabilisation mechanism
Legislation
European Union Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk