Point of Order (Hansard, 20 May 1992)

§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you give the House any information about whether the Government intend to make a statement about the Earth summit at Rio de Janeiro, which starts on 2 June?
I have just had the amazing experience of visiting the other place, where a five-hour debate on the Earth summit is beginning. In the House of Commons, however, we have heard no indication of the Government's policy on an issue of global importance. Furthermore, the Minister for Overseas Development—who was formerly in this place, and is now in the other place—was not present in the other place to deal with the issue.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair. I have grasped the main point that the hon. Lady has raised, and she may wish to raise it again during Business Questions on Thursday.

§ Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I return to the original point of order? Is it not totally unfair—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I have given a ruling and I will not go back on it. I will take only points of order on other issues.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are about to begin a debate on a Bill that implements a treaty that has to be merged with another treaty, yet we have no text of the merged treaty. We do not know who will perform the merger, or who will produce the interpretation of which treaty shall prevail in that merger.
Yesterday, Madam Speaker, you ruled that the Bill before us was perfectly in order—which, of course, it is, because it is a three-clause Bill. However, it implements a treaty that will be incomprehensible unless the House has a copy of the merged document consisting of the treaty of Rome and the treaty of union. The Foreign Office has failed to provide us with essential information: we are legislating in the dark.
I have here a merged text of the two treaties, which has been drawn up by Professor Stephen Bush. Would it be in order if I laid it on the Table, and we adjourned so that 260 hon. Members could read it? It is only 188 pages long, and it would be useful if we knew what we were legislating about.

§ Madam Speaker
I refer the hon. Gentleman and the House to the statement that I made yesterday. He should consider raising those matters in debate rather than on a point of order.

§ Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the benefit of those who have raised the matter, may I remind the House that the vast majority of Scots who live in Britain—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I have made a ruling that I will take no more points of order on that issue, and we are not going back. I have made my position abundantly clear.

§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has said, we are about to debate a Bill that enshrines the principle of subsidiarity in the United Kingdom's constitution. Unfortunately, the majority of hon. Members are not prepared to apply that principle in Scotland. In such circumstances, how can those of us who represent the democratic majority in Scotland secure Scotland's national rights by ensuring that that principle is applied in Scotland as it will be applied throughout Europe?

§ Madam Speaker
It is for individual Members to decide how they deal with the Bill and how they vote at the end of the day.

§ Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)
Further to the point of order with regard to the treaty of union, apart from the effect of the treaty being difficult to comprehend, the clauses of the treaty are, in many cases, not clear and have to be open to interpretation. Normally, when we deal with a complex Bill with a lot of clauses whose interpretation is uncertain, there is the opportunity in Committee to table and move amendments in order to test the meaning of each clause. When this Bill is considered in Committee, will there be an equivalent opportunity for Members to table and move amendments to test the meaning of each clause?

§ Madam Speaker
I think that we must wait for the Committee stage. It would be wrong for me to predetermine what will happen then. However, I hope that the most thorough examination will be made of the various clauses and amendments, once the Bill is in Committee. Perhaps we can now proceed.