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).
Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty)
In drafting the motion, we also looked with great care at the provisions for previous Committees. There are lessons to be learned, to which I have already alluded, from previous EU debates on the timing and structure of parliamentary scrutiny. Committee proceedings lasted four days on the Single European Act, five days on the treaty of Amsterdam and just three days on the treaty of Nice. Of course, with great hesitation I refer to the organisational debacle that was the Maastricht treaty process, which lasted for 23 separate days. An analysis of previous debates also shows that the majority of hon. Members throughout the House consider the Committee debates, with the Chamber being the property of a few lonely souls, as something to be avoided. I turn now to the length of time in the motion and the effect of it.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 471 c43
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Democracy EU law European Union EU institutions EU reform Powers Referendums Parliamentary procedure Treaties Treaty of Lisbon
- Legislation
- European Union (Amendment) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-02-25 15:32:41 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439284
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439284
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439284