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

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 23-27 February 2026

MPs will debate the fourth anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; changes to the Charter for Budget Responsibility; student loan repayments; support for bereaved children; and St David’s Day. They will also consider the Armed Forces Bill, the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, and the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. Cabinet Ministers Steve Reed, Wes Streeting, Douglas Alexander, and Lisa Nandy face departmental questions. In the Lords, Peers will scrutinise the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the Crime and Policing Bill, and the National Insurance Contributions Bill, alongside debates on UK–EU relations and transnational repression. Select Committees will question the Bank of England Governor, former OBR chairs, standards regulators, and Ministers, including an inquiry into trade sanctions.

News / The forgotten pioneer: Who was Margaret Bondfield, Britain’s first female Cabinet Minister? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 132

Why is Britain’s first female Cabinet Minister largely forgotten? Historian Nan Sloane discusses her new biography of Margaret Bondfield, the trade unionist who became the first woman in the British Cabinet. Rising from harsh shop-floor conditions to national prominence, Bondfield took office as Minister of Labour in 1929 at the onset of the Great Depression. As economic crisis split the Labour Party, her reputation never recovered. Was she a pioneer, pragmatist, or unfairly judged? Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

Events / The Ukrainian Parliament after four years of war - Dr Sarah Whitmore

On the fourth anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Dr Sarah Whitmore will be speaking to us about how the Ukrainian Parliament has functioned under wartime conditions. 6:00pm-7:30pm on Tuesday 24 February 2026 at the Houses of Parliament, Westminster

News / What happens when you lose the party whip? A conversation with Neil Duncan-Jordan MP - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 131

Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan reflects on rebelling against the whip and calling for Keir Starmer to resign, as we assess the fallout from the Mandelson–Epstein affair and its implications for the Government’s legislative programme and House of Lords reform. We examine Gordon Brown’s sweeping standards proposals, question whether they would restore public trust, revisit tensions over the assisted dying bill in the Lord and discuss two key Procedure Committee reports on Commons debates and internal elections. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

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.