The topic of this article is a comparative analysis of parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of legislation contained in bills in the British system and in Continental Europe (with a special focus on Italy as case study). The main difference between the two systems is due to the establishment, especially in Continental Europe, of specific parliamentary tools, standards, or bodies to scrutinize the quality of legislation. The hypothesis underpinning the article is that this is the result of the different approaches used to draft bills in the two systems. The British model of legislative drafting has shown its strength: clearly, it is better having a legislative product which is well-drafted upstream, instead of a scrutiny downstream. However, in the United Kingdom, there is currently a debate concerning the opportunity to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of legislation by establishing legislative standards and bodies (such as a Legislative Standards Committee) for this purpose. The article will describe the Continental system of parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of legislation and then focus on the British debate. This will help to draw some conclusions, asking whether Continental Europe’s model of parliamentary scrutiny could be of any value for the United Kingdom.

中文翻译：

---

议会对欧洲立法质量的审查

本文的主题是对英国体系和欧洲大陆（特别关注意大利作为案例研究）法案中立法质量的议会审查进行比较分析。这两种制度的主要区别在于，特别是在欧洲大陆，建立了专门的议会工具、标准或机构来审查立法质量。支持本文的假设是，这是两个系统中用于起草法案的不同方法的结果。英国的立法起草模式已经显示出它的优势：显然，上游起草好的立法产品，而不是下游的审查更好。然而，在英国，目前正在辩论通过为此目的建立立法标准和机构（例如立法标准委员会）来加强议会对立法质量的审查。文章将描述大陆议会对立法质量的审查制度，然后重点讨论英国的辩论。这将有助于得出一些结论，询问欧洲大陆的议会审查模式对英国是否有任何价值。