§ As amended (in the Committee), considered.
3.55 pm§ Madam SpeakerBefore we start the debates on the Report stage, I have an announcement. I understand that there is some interest in new clause 22, with which amendment No. 2 is grouped. I am sure that it will be of assistance to the House if I let it be known that the effects of new clause 22 and amendment No. 2 are mutually incompatible. Therefore, if new clause 22 is agreed to, amendment No. 2 will fall. On the other hand, if the new clause is defeated, I shall permit a Division on amendment No. 2 when the time comes. Perhaps we can now proceed.
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, in Committee—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. WalkerYou will be aware, Madam Speaker, that in Committee, and now as we are about to debate the Report stage, there has been, and will be, no opportunity to address specifically the impact of the Maastricht treaty on the treaty of Union and thus on the creation of a single unitary Parliament. I remind you that the Scottish Parliament was never dissolved, so this Parliament, and particularly the Scottish Members in this House and peers in the other place, is the guardian of the Scottish Parliament. As we have not debated the issue—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The House must come to order.
§ Mr. WalkerAs we have not debated the issue specifically, and we have not been, and will not be, given the opportunity to vote on it in a way that would influence the people of Scotland, it seems that we are heading for a constitutional crisis. If the other place were to debate that aspect of the treaty of Union and the impact on that treaty of the Maastricht treaty and were to pass an amendment that took note of that, just as new clause 9, which has not been selected, would have done, would it be in order if it came back to this Chamber?
§ Madam SpeakerI am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I would not dream of determining what might or might not happen in the other place. He knows that I was more than happy to see him and colleagues to discuss the matter, and I looked at it carefully. New clause 9 is beyond the scope of the Bill and therefore out of order.
§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You told the House that clause 22 and amendment No. 2 are incompatible and that, unless new clause 22 were negatived, it would not be possible to have a vote on amendment No. 2. Can I take it that you would allow a vote on amendment No. 2 if new clause 22 either were not moved or were withdrawn?
§ Madam SpeakerOf course, if new clause 22 is withdrawn or not moved, I shall allow a vote on amendment No. 2. That is logically the case.
§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would help hon. Members greatly to know whether, apart from the lead amendments in each of the seven groups, you would be prepared to allow votes on any other amendments grouped with them.
§ Madam SpeakerAs I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, I considered that matter carefully before I took the Chair today, and my answer is a straightforward no, unless, of course, they are consequential. I shall not allow any other votes on the amendments.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you help the House by saying whether this is the final selection of amendments and new clauses, or might you change your mind as the debate proceeds? For example, it would have been interesting to debate the inclusion in the referendum of a question on the social chapter, a concept which has much support in the House. Is this the final selection, or may you, Madam Speaker, change your mind?
§ Madam SpeakerI am not after changing my mind., but the hon. Gentleman might try me.
§ Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was disappointed that my amendment No. 54, which raises an issue on the social protocol separate from the selected amendments, is not on the list. The list is described as a provisional selection of amendments, so I was surprised to hear you say that this was not a provisional list but rather, in some respects, a final list. Will you confirm that this is a provisional list, and, if so, is there some prospect of you looking again at the separate issues that my amendment No. 54 raises?
§ Madam SpeakerThe list has to be provisional to allow for any new circumstances that might arise. By tradition, it is always described as provisional. I have selected these amendments, and the object of so doing is to allow a full and proper debate on major areas of the Bill. I gave careful thought to the matter before doing so.
§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will there be an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to explain further his attitude towards the second referendum in Denmark? You may recollect that, at the Edinburgh summit, the Foreign Secretary said:
It is not a political reality to suppose that we would sit down and negotiate a new treaty of wherever it is with I I members without Denmark.Then, Madam Speaker, you will recollect—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I am not having long points of order today which are really matters for debate. The hon. Gentleman has a point of order for me. I think he began by asking whether I would allow the Foreign Secretary to speak. I am very willing for the Foreign Secretary or any other Member of the House to speak during the debate. Does that help the hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. BudgenNot entirely, Madam Speaker, because it has since appeared that it is proposed that the I I should meet together for some purposes which are not defined and not confined to exclude a new treaty. I hope that you will allow a debate which enables the Foreign Secretary to explain his position; otherwise, some of us might say that he had betrayed Denmark.
§ Madam SpeakerI have shown by the provisional list of amendments the types of debate that will be taking place.
§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You kindly allowed a glimmer of light to appear between what you described as your provisional selection and your final selection. I wonder whether, in that tiny space, I could insert a plea for amendment No. 3, which I am sure will have the unique attraction of uniting the House in the provision of new criteria for convergence in the treaty, and which therefore deserves the opportunity to be put to the House so that it can receive that all-party agreement.
§ Madam SpeakerI have given careful consideration to all the amendments. I see that amendment No. 3 stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall not allow a Division on that.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the third debate, which has a constitutional character? You have selected new clause 2, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), which relates to the constitutional method by which the House has to approve any change in the treaty, for which there is provision. We are grateful for that, as it is an important constitutional matter.
However, in the same group, you have also selected new clause 4, which deals with the proposed single common foreign and security policy. It is proposed that we should debate whether the Foreign Secretary can assent to any matter that relates to a single policy, with or without the consent of the House. If my right hon. Friend had not, in his wisdom, tabled new clause 2 and it had not existed to be selected, we might have been voting on, rather than merely debating, the important constitutional question of the control of this nation's foreign policy.
I do not wish to apply further pressure, Madam Speaker, but you should consider new clause 4 because, it was only a matter of chance that my right hon. Friend tabled new clause 2 which takes precedence.
§ Madam SpeakerAs he well knows, the hon. Gentleman gave me a great deal of homework on constitutional matters at the weekend, and I spent a lot of time considering them as well as new clause 4. I did not come to this Chair having determined during the past hour what the House should debate, but have given the matter a lot of thought over a long period. I am afraid that the House must accept my judgment.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)Could you confirm, Madam Speaker, that the selection of amendments for debate and the suggestions for Divisions will mean that hon. Members who support the passage of the Bill and the social protocol will be able to unite with hon. Members who oppose the Bill and the protocol, and that they will be opposed by hon. Members who support the Bill but do not support the social protocol?
§ Madam SpeakerHon. Members must decide for themselves whether they are opposed or unopposed, as it is not a matter for the Chair.
§ Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that it has been past practice that, if a new clause or amendment has been discussed or voted on in the House, it is unlikely to 28 reappear, provisionally or otherwise, as a selected item for debate and Division? That is the case with new clause 43, in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
Are you aware that Scotland has been misled by the hon. Gentleman into believing that you would select it for a Division? He said:
If Opposition parties unite behind the clause, it will carry around 40 votes in the Commons and put the Prime Minister in an impossible position.Are you aware, Madam Speaker, that few people slept in Scotland last night, faced with the excitement presented by that prospect.Can you confirm that you will adhere to the usual practice and that you will not select matters for discussion that have already been disposed of? Can you also confirm that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan should not mislead the Scottish people in that way? They are not all as daft as he is.
§ Madam SpeakerI am utterly charmed that at least one Member of the House supports my selection. Thank you very much.
§ Mr. TrimbleAmendment No. 2 is couched in the same terms as amendment No. 27, which we considered in Committee. You took the view, Madam Speaker, that new clause 22 and amendment No. 2 were incompatible. When we discussed amendment No. 27 in Committee, the Attorney-General assured the House that it would have no effect or impact on the Bill or on ratification of the treaty. I wonder whether you have received different legal advice which would indicate that amendment No. 2 would have some effect, despite the fact that he assured us that it would not.
§ Madam SpeakerThe only advice that I listen to is advice as to whether amendments and new clauses are in order. After receiving such advice, I have to determine which to select and I have done so. May we now proceed with the Bill?