As I have said, I will address the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman a little later. As we have said, this is a different approach to the scrutiny of a European treaty and the consideration of a European treaty Bill. This is the most effective way to scrutinise the Bill and the treaty, and I will reflect on how the new approach will work in practice later. The Government think that four and a half hours of open debate on themes and one and a half hours of debate on specific amendments is the right mix. Opposition Front Benchers have reached a different view, but according to a similar principle—they have suggested three hours of open debate and three hours for consideration in Committee.
Given the way in which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) framed his question, I shall also respond to the point raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Wells. In principle, the new approach commands a degree of cross-party support, and we will be flexible and judge whether, given that this is an innovation, the allocation of four and a half hours and one and a half hours respectively is the right mix. We will seek to do that as the process evolves, and I hope to add more detail when I formally move the programme motion—all I have done so far is move this motion.
Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty)
Proceeding contribution from
Jim Murphy
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 28 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
471 c39 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:27:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439256
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439256
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439256