Measured or Makeshift? Parliamentary Scrutiny of the European Union

Publications / Reports

Measured or Makeshift? Parliamentary Scrutiny of the European Union

9 Oct 2013

In this 2013 pamphlet, leading politicians, commentators and academics set out growing concerns that parliamentary scrutiny of EU business at Westminster was inadequate, questioned whether there was a democratic deficit at the heart of the UK's relationship with the EU, and canvassed ideas for reform of Parliament's EU engagement.

Measured or Makeshift – Parliamentary scrutiny of the European Union comprises a series of essays from leading politicians and experts, exploring how the system for Parliament's engagement with the EU could be improved to address the democratic deficit and ensure that Parliament is more effective and influential in its scrutiny of European issues.

The collection raised challenging questions including:

Do parliamentarians want to be better informed, to shape decisions or to make the government change its mind?
Should Parliament's intervention in EU business take place at an earlier, more strategic, stage?
Should parliamentarians seek to influence the development of policy and provide an early warning system for government, as well as holding it to account at a later stage?
How do other parliaments scrutinise European issues, and are there lessons for the UK?

The essays evidenced a common desire to 'mainstream' European issues across Parliament, making a range of suggestions including:

Changes to departmental question time sessions
Greater involvement by departmental select committees
Giving MPs more decisive influence through votes that bind government action
Greater direct engagement between MPs and MEPs and with EU institutions as a whole

Hansard Society Director Dr Ruth Fox, who contributed the introduction to the collection, said:

'A common thread running through the pamphlet is that the House of Lords scrutiny model is better than that in the House of Commons. Too few MPs have a real understanding of how the EU works and many more of them need to engage more actively with the detail. Our membership of the EU affects almost every aspect of national life, but too many MPs deal in broad populist headlines rather than engaging actively with the details of policy and legislation emerging from Brussels. The ideas for reform outlined in the pamphlet are neither pro-European or anti-European – providing effective scrutiny of policy and laws is important whatever side of the debate you stand.'

Foreword Rt Hon David Lidington MP, Minister of State for Europe
Introduction Dr Ruth Fox, Director, Hansard Society
Is it time to reconstruct the European scrutiny system in the House of Commons? Bill Cash MP, Chair, European Scrutiny Committee, House of Commons
Effective House of Lords scrutiny of the European Union Lord Boswell, Chair, European Union Committee, House of Lords
The politics of European scrutiny Gisela Stuart MP
What does putting Parliament back in control entail? Christopher Howarth, Open Europe
Improving Commons scrutiny of the EU - while we work on a new UK-EU relationship Chris Heaton-Harris MP and Robert Broadhurst
Parliamentary scrutiny of Europe: what lessons from our neighbours? Dr Ariella Huff and Dr Julie Smith, University of Cambridge

Latest / Highlights

Blog / Once again, there is still no alternative: the costed proposals for Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

The Restoration and Renewal Client Board’s latest report once again confirms what Parliament has known for nearly a decade: the cheapest, quickest and safest way to restore the Palace of Westminster is for MPs and Peers to move out during the works. The “full decant” option was endorsed in 2018 and reaffirmed repeatedly since. Remaining in the building could more than double costs, extend works into the 2080s, and increase risks to safety, accessibility and security. With the Palace already deteriorating and millions spent each year on patchwork repairs, further delay would itself be an expensive course of action, one that defers decisions without offering a viable alternative.

News / A Humble Address: How MPs confronted the Mandelson scandal - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 130

It has been a bruising week for the Prime Minister after the House of Commons backed a Conservative “Humble Address” demanding documents on Sir Keir Starmer’s vetting of Lord Mandelson for the Washington Ambassadorship. We explain how the procedure works, what role the Intelligence and Security Committee may play in decisions on disclosure, and how legislation to strip a peerage could be introduced. Plus, the latest on the Restoration and Renewal of Parliament as yet another report lands with a new set of costings. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Why MPs can’t just quit: The curious case of the Chiltern Hundreds - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 129

Why can’t MPs simply resign, and why does leaving the House of Commons still involve a medieval-sounding detour via the Chiltern Hundreds or its less glamorous cousin the Manor of Northstead? This week we unravel the history, constitutional logic and legal fudges behind this curious workaround, with some memorable resignations from the past along the way. We also assess the Government’s legislative programme as the Session heads toward its expected May close, including the striking lack of bills published for pre-legislative scrutiny. Finally, as Parliament begins the five-yearly process of renewing consent for the UK’s armed forces, we examine why an Armed Forces Bill is required and hear from Jayne Kirkham MP on how her Ten Minute Rule Bill helped extend the new Armed Forces Commissioner’s oversight to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Assisted dying bill: How could the Parliament Act be used? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 128

As the assisted dying bill grinds through the House of Lords under the weight of more than a thousand amendments, Lord Falconer has signalled that time is running out. With the Bill unlikely to complete its Lords stages this Session, he has openly raised the possibility of using the Parliament Act to override the upper House in the next Session. In this episode we explore what that would mean, how it could work in practice, and the political choices now facing ministers and Parliament. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Who really sets MPs’ pay – And why you might be wrong about it. A conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of IPSA - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 126

What are MPs actually paid and what does the public fund to help them do their job? In this conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) we explore the delicate balance between supporting MPs to do their jobs effectively and enforcing strict standards on the use of public money. We discuss how IPSA has shifted from a rule-heavy “traffic cop” to a principles-based regulator, why compliance is now very high, and the security risks and pressures facing MPs‘ offices as workloads rise and abuse becomes more common. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | ACAST | YouTube | Other apps | RSS