Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty)

I am sorry, but I have very little time. It is obvious from this evening’s debate that hon. Members judge that certain clauses will require more time and in-depth scrutiny than others. Rightly, clause 2 will be the focus of our attention in Committee, but given that it introduces the Lisbon treaty almost in its entirety, it is important that there is a clear structure in place to help the Committee to debate the content of the treaty as efficiently and effectively as possible. There will be two days of debate on clauses 3 to 7, which will include discussion of the passerelles. Time will also be devoted entirely to discussing amendments to the Bill. Furthermore, a full day will be set aside to discuss clause 8, as requested by the Select Committees. It is time for the so-called themed debates on substantive motions to be understood as the innovation that they are. It is established practice when a Bill is in Committee or on Report to group amendments by theme. The motion provides a more structured and themed approach to the Committee stage. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made clear in his opening statement, it is important that, as with amending treaties, thorough scrutiny of the legislation is conducted by debate in Parliament, not by referendum. There is an important case to be made: the Lisbon treaty is good for Britain and good for the British people. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained on Second Reading, the debate on Europe should move from institutional reform to delivery. The Government’s structured approach to the Committee stage will enable the House to debate both the provisions of the treaty and the Bill. The structure of the Bill is one of the reasons why that is important. However, far more important is the wish to widen and deepen debate. The new, so-called themed structure should make the process of scrutinising the Lisbon treaty much more open and accessible to the whole House. Some of the previous Bill proceedings have had the opposite effect and confused and discouraged rather than shed light and encouraged understanding and participation. The themed structure is good, and interventions by Members today have not convinced me otherwise.