Points of Order (Hansard, 1 December 1992)

§ Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your help in urging a review of the way in which Standing Order No. 20 procedures are organised. It is clear after yesterday's disgraceful performance by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), that the Labour party is using those procedures to smear him—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Standing Order No. 20 applications come to me. If there is any criticism whatever about the way in which they are handled, that criticism lies with me. If the hon. Member or any other hon. Member wishes to criticise the way in which such applications are handled, a substantive motion must be tabled, and I shall see that it is debated.

§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on today's Order Paper and, in particular, to the instruction that stands in my name. Indeed, it has appeared in my name on every Order Paper since the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
The instruction has not been selected, nor has new clause 22, which deals with the same subject—to empower the House to hold a referendum in Scotland to bring Scotland in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
Can you explain, how the House can meaningfully debate the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is based on the principle of subsidiarity, when excluded from such consideration is the only means available to apply subsidiarity to Scotland? Do you agree that the real world should, at least at times, impinge on our discussions in this place, especially as everybody in Europe knows that we cannot have European union without subsidiarity at every level, including in relation to Scotland? Why should we even refuse to debate the subject?

§ Madam Speaker
I can deal with the instruction which stands in the name of the hon. Member because it is within my remit to do so. The instruction, I must tell him, is plainly not in order. As he and the House know, I do not give an explanation in respect of the selection.
The matter of the government of Scotland, a subject of great importance not only to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) but to the whole House, is not cognate to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. So it is out of order, and I am therefore unable to call the hon. Member to move his instruction.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
There is no further point of order. I have dealt with the matter.

§ Mr. Walker
No, it is a fresh point of order.

§ Madam Speaker
If it is another point of order, I will hear it. I cannot hear further points of order on that matter.

§ Mr. Walker
You, Madam Speaker, will be aware that this unitary Parliament was created by the Act of Union in 1707 and that this Parliament cannot be bound by any decisions of previous Parliaments under our unwritten constitution. I seek your guidance on matters as they affect Scotland under the Act of Union, whether or not the Maastricht treaty, if it were to be enacted in the Bill before the House, would change substantially the relationship between Scotland, the unitary Parliament and our unwritten constitution. While it does not refer directly to what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has raised, it is an important aspect of the Union of the United Kingdom and it must be addressed before we proceed with the Bill.

§ Madam Speaker
That is a somewhat hypothetical matter and not one for me to deal with at this stage. The House must proceed, as it determined to proceed after Second Reading, with the Committee stage of the bill. We must leave it at that for the time being.