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.’
Table of contents
- 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
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
The end of the transition period is likely to expose even more fully the scope of the policy-making that the government can carry out via Statutory Instruments, as it uses its new powers to develop post-Brexit law. However, there are few signs yet of a wish to reform delegated legislation scrutiny, on the part of government or the necessary coalition of MPs.
Parliament’s role around the end of the Brexit transition and conclusion of the EU future relationship treaty is a constitutional failure to properly scrutinise the executive and the law. As the UK moves to do things differently after 1 January, MPs must do more to ensure they can better discharge their responsibilities regarding the making of UK treaties.
The EU (Future Relationship) Bill is to be considered by both Houses in just one sitting day. How unusual is such an expedited timetable and how much time will parliamentarians really have to look at the Bill? How will MPs participate in proceedings given Covid-19 restrictions? And how will proceedings, particularly the amendment process, work on the day?
The Coronavirus pandemic has added to the questions surrounding the nature of the Parliament that should emerge from the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal programme. But, with concerns over the programme’s governance and public engagement rising, the report arising from the current review of the programme will not now be published this year.
The debate about remote participation in House of Commons proceedings raises critical questions about what constitutes a ‘good parliamentarian’, what ‘fair’ participation looks like, and who gets to decide. As things stand, the exclusion from much parliamentary business of pregnant women, among others, undermines equality of political representation.
Disputed parliamentary election results – often taking months to resolve – were a frequent feature of English political culture before the reforms of the 19th century. But how could defeated candidates protest the result of an election, and how were such disputes resolved?