Proceeding contribution from James Clappison (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 24 January 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union Bill.
European Union Bill
My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. Why are we making all the other requirements for a referendum clear on the face of the Bill if we can simply tack something on to Report or Third Reading? Why are we bothering to go through the whole process? To leave out this question, when we are making all those other requirements, would leave a significant gap, and in times to come we might contemplate with some regret our failure to fill in that gap. I cannot see the great problem with requiring a vote of the House to approve a Minister's opinion. On these Benches, and probably in other parts of the House, Members stood on a manifesto that promised greater parliamentary scrutiny, and this is an opportunity to fulfil that promise. I can see no great obstacle to doing that.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 522 c64
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Committees EU law EU accession European Parliament members Legislation European communities Powers Referendums Parliamentary scrutiny Sovereignty Treaties Reform UK membership of EU Turkey Treaty of Lisbon
- Legislation
- European Union Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:25:47 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704510
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704510
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704510