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 / The day the King marched on Parliament: King Charles I, five MPs and the road to civil war - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 102

In this episode we speak with historian Jonathan Healey about one of the most extraordinary days in parliamentary history when King Charles I entered the Commons Chamber with soldiers aiming to arrest five MPs. This dramatic moment, vividly recounted in Healey’s new book The Blood in Winter, marked a crucial turning point toward civil war. We explore the power struggles, propaganda, and the geography that shaped the fate of a nation and the Westminster Parliament. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

News / Parliament gagged by super-injunction? A conversation with Joshua Rozenberg - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 101

Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg joins us this week to unpack the legal and constitutional ramifications of one of the most troubling intersections of government secrecy, national security, and parliamentary accountability in recent memory. Thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces were placed at risk of Taliban revenge attacks after a catastrophic government data leak in 2022 exposed their details. In response, ministers secured a “super-injunction” – so secret that even its existence could not be reported – effectively silencing public debate and preventing parliamentary scrutiny for almost two years. The breach, only revealed this week, led to a covert resettlement scheme which has already cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

News / One year on: How is Parliament performing? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 100

In our 100th episode, we take stock of Parliament one year after the 2024 general election. With a fractured opposition, a dominant Labour government, and a House of Commons still governed by rules designed for a two-party system, how well is this new Parliament really functioning? Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

News / Labour's welfare meltdown - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 99

It’s been a bruising week for the Government, as a Labour backbench revolt forced ministers to gut their own welfare reforms live in the House of Commons. We explore why Sir Keir Starmer appears to have such a poor grip on parliamentary management. Plus, House of Lords reform expert Professor Meg Russell explains why the hereditary peers bill may be a once-in-a-generation chance to tackle deeper issues — like curbing prime ministerial patronage and reducing the bloated size of the upper chamber. And in Dorking, faith and politics collide over assisted dying. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Submissions / Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties - Our evidence to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee

Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.