HC Deb 07 March 1996 vol 273 cc467-8

4 pm

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of which I have given advance notice to the Clerk of the House. On 5 March, the European Court made a judgment relating to fishing and other matters, which has serious constitutional implications for Parliament's supremacy. Will you take account of the fact that, under the judgment, there appears to be a determination to assert the system under which the treaties operate and to imply that it would be impossible for this House to amend the European Communities Act 1972? That is the Act from which the European Court of Justice obtains its jurisdiction, so that it can give decisions about legal matters arising from directives. If that judgment was to be assumed to refer to the 1972 Act as well, would you reassert Parliament's supremacy?

Madam Speaker

I understand from the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks that he is about to write to me on the subject—perhaps that is the way to proceed. I shall certainly consider the issue carefully and give my response. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, but I should like to draw his attention to the debate on the intergovernmental conference that is to be held on Thursday 21 March, when he might seek to catch my eye. I shall, of course, look at his letter when he writes to me.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you be prepared to advise the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on the extremely important issue that he raised? I am sure that my constituents in Maryport would wish to extend to him support for his campaign to save 300 jobs—

Madam Speaker

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman knows full well how to pursue the matter. If he comes to my office, I shall ensure that he receives every help and support. He knows very well how to proceed.

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)

This is a point of order for the Chair.

Madam Speaker

I am delighted to hear it.

Mr. Powell

I listened to the reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) regarding a debate on the monarchy. It was your suggestion, Madam Speaker, that the matter should be raised by the Leader of the House.

In view of the fact that he has said today that he has no intention of allowing the subject to be raised, would you give a ruling or advice to hon. Members on how the matter can be raised?

Madam Speaker

No. The hon. Gentleman is quite incorrect. I made no such suggestion. I was asked quite properly whether it was in order for the House to debate such a motion. I gave the correct answer: yes, of course it is, with a properly drawn substantive motion from the Government or the Opposition. That was my response and it still stands.

Mr. Peter Hain (Neath)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I have your guidance on the proper issues for consideration on motions for the Adjournment of the House? We considered the Scott report last week. In the week after next, we shall debate the intergovernmental conference on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Surely such momentous issues—especially European issues—should be considered on proper motions that can be amended, so that the House can take a decision on them.

Madam Speaker

Those matters should be resolved through the usual channels. The shadow Leader of the House is on the Front Bench and has no doubt noted what the hon. Gentleman had to say.