SCOTLAND BILL (Hansard, 23 November 1977)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)
on a point of order, Mr. Murton. I should like to raise a point of order of which I have given you notice. It concerns the legitimacy of amendments, particularly those in relation to England.
It may be within your recollection, Mr. Murton, that on 10th February 1977 the Temporary Chairman, then the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), said: Before calling the Minister of State to move the new clause, I ought perhaps to mention that right hon. and hon. Members will have read in Hansard a point of order which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) raised last Tuesday. I think that I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. He went on to say: The Chairman of Ways and Means has asked me to say that, in his view, were the referendum paper to contain what might be described as 'the independence question', this would not affect the unity of the United Kingdom unless some specific provision also existed to give practical effect to an affirmative answer. Amendments which involve no such provision are, therefore, not in this respect inconsistent with Clause I to which the Committee has agreed. He said later: It may save both him and me some time if I tell him now that the Chairman of Ways and Means has previously ruled that the scope of the Bill is related to the government of Scotland and Wales, and he has ruled earlier today that this new clause is within its scope. Therefore, as wiser heads than mine have decided this, I do not see that there is any point in the hon. and learned Gentleman's pursuing the matter."—[Official Report, 10th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 1787–9.] My point of order is to ask for your guidance, Mr. Murton, in the light of events last night, as to whether, unlike the previous occasion in the spring when we debated these matters, it might be thought, in the absence of Clause 1, more acceptable to you and the Chair to accept amendments that relate to England and the unity of the United Kingdom.

§ The Chairman
I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice of this matter. I can only rule, as I ruled on 18th January this year in another but not dissimilar context, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, that in deciding whether a particular amendment is or is not within the scope of the Bill"— or ought to be selected— I shall endeavour to use exactly the same criteria as my predecessors have always used in the case of other equally long and complicated Bills."—[Official Report, 18th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 97.] I might add that one of these criteria is, and always has been, the effect upon the Bill of any amendments that have previously been made by the Committee.

§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
On another point of order, Mr. Murton. In your wisdom of selection, you have chosen Amendment No. 39 as the third item within this period. As the debate has developed on Amendment No. 17 and those grouped with it, it seems that it would be convenient to take Amendment No. 39 within that group. I wonder whether that would be convenient for you, Mr. Murton, and for the Committee.

§ The Chairman
I had prior knowledge, a few minutes ago, of the matter that the right hon. Gentleman wished to raise with me. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate at this stage of the debate to introduce yet another amendment into the already large series now under discussion.