§ Mr. John Swinney (North Tayside)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to the title of this afternoon's Opposition day debate on health care provision in the United Kingdom. On 1 July, when responsibility for health policy was transferred from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament, you were a very welcome visitor to Edinburgh for the Parliament's opening. Is it appropriate for a debate on health care provision in the United Kingdom to take place in the House of Commons, bearing in mind the fact that the Scotland Act 1998 has come into effect and legislative competence on health policy has been transferred from Westminster to Edinburgh, or is this another example of the Conservative party's inability to come to terms with constitutional change?
§ Madam SpeakerNo question of order arises. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the devolution statutes have, of course, altered ministerial responsibility, and they therefore affect questions and Adjournment debates to which such responsibility is directly linked, but debates on abstract motions, such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers—[Laughter.] Debates on such motions are not limited in the same way.
§ Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not giving you adequate notice of my point of order; I have no excuse save my own incompetence. I raised a point of order during last week's debate on the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill relating to the fact that a Minister has to make a statement before Second Reading on the compatibility of all Government legislation with the Human Rights Act 1998, which the House passed last November. The response of the Chairman of Ways and Means to my point of order was:
No similar provision occurs in the case of either private Members' or private Bills."—[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 464.]That means that the House will debate the Bill without having legal advice on its compatibility with the human rights convention, an onus that I believe was placed on us by the 1998 Act.In addition, I believe that the promoters of the Bill have received legal advice, but it has not been published. The House has neither its own independent advice nor access to the legal advice given to the promoters. I would welcome your consideration of how we should proceed on that matter.
§ Madam SpeakerI know that the hon. Gentleman was advised by the Chairman of Ways and Means that private Bills are not covered by section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. That Act obliges a Minister in charge of a public Bill to make a statement of compatibility. If he wishes to change the law, he will have to invite the Government to do so or he might have to introduce a Bill himself. If I can be of any further help, I will certainly look at what he has said and come back to him, but I doubt that I can do anything more at this stage.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I also apologise for not having 968 given you due notice of this point of order, and I am not expecting an immediate answer. I should like to ask you to reflect on the proceedings last night under the business of the House motion concerning the Railways Bill, as recorded in column 899 of Hansard. A number of issues arose during a fascinating debate. The Deputy Speaker advised us that the matter did
not have to come under a Standing Order",and that the motion fellto be determined on its merits.When my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked whether there had to be a Second Reading of the Bill in the next Session, the reply was:That is not a matter on which the Chair can rule—it is a matter to be elicited in the course of debate."—[Official Report, 19 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 899.]That experimental procedure—it was quite clear that it was experimental—leaves unresolved a number of important questions, not least the status of any changes that the Select Committee may seek to make to the Bill as a result of its deliberations. That would, in turn, lead on to the question whether such a Bill in those circumstances required a Second Reading distinct and separate from the first Second Reading.The House is in an odd position. We are in a state of complete uncertainty as to the status of the Second Reading, the Select Committee deliberations and so on. It would be helpful if you would think about this matter, Madam Speaker, and let the House know your views before the recess.
§ Madam SpeakerThe motion that was passed by the House last night was a free-standing motion, and it was not under any Standing Order. Had it been so, that would have been shown on the Order Paper. The effect of the motion is that the Bill is not committed to a Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 63, but stands referred to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. I shall ponder what the right hon. Gentleman said, and if I can be of any further help, I shall come back to him.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During your response to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), the House giggled sympathetically when you used the phrase "an abstract motion". With respect, is that not ducking rather an important issue? What is to be classified as an abstract motion and what is not? Some of us would like guidance on what motions affect the whole of the United Kingdom and what areas—alas, in the opinion of some of us—are no longer the responsibility of the House of Commons. This is a very important issue.
§ Madam SpeakerI made a statement to the House last week. There is no ducking of any issues. If the House of Commons finds what I say amusing, hon. Members can laugh about it by all means. We should express ourselves in various ways.
§ Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, apologise to you for not giving you due notice. Late last night in the debate about the procedures that we were to follow on the Railways Bill, 969 at column 922 of Hansard, I drew the House's attention to Standing Order No. 65, which says:
All Committees to which bills may be committed…shall have power to make such amendments therein as they shall think fit".I wonder whether you could, on reflection, give us some guidance on whether we are able, in the usual way, to table amendments that the Select Committee would have to consider, as though it were a Standing Committee. If any Member of the House tables such an amendment, how is a Select Committee to handle it, and how is the Committee to report the Bill back to the House for us to consider those amendments at a later stage?
§ Madam SpeakerAs I said to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who raised a point of order with me on a similar issue, I have not been given notice of these complicated questions so I shall report back on those matters.
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, apologise for failing to give you any notice of my point of order, which follows on from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He has just pointed out the fact that, last night, the House was advised from the Chair that we should wait to discover whether there would be a second Second Reading, a fact that we were intended to find out in the course of debate. Given that we did not do so, and that you have kindly agreed to look into this matter, can we be told how in future, if such a situation recurs, we are to discover well in advance of any such second Second Reading that it will take place?
§ Madam SpeakerThat may be an issue that has very little to do with the Chair, but a good deal to do with the 970 Government. However, I will look at the points of order that have been raised concerning the issues that were dealt with last night.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerI have already taken a point of order from you, Mr. Dalyell. Please resume your seat.
§ Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When you are considering the complicated events of last night, will you bear it in mind that, during our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker advised us that we were debating a committal motion, and not a continuation motion? With the greatest respect, that would seem to be somewhat at variance with your thoughts this afternoon, which make a great deal more sense to me—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. They are not at all at variance. It was a committal motion last night.
§ Mr. St. AubynI apologise.
§ Madam SpeakerSo you should. What is your point of order to me?
§ Mr. St. AubynMy point of order is that you have just told the House that the Bill was not committed to the Select Committee.
§ Madam SpeakerIt was committed to a Select Committee. It was not committed to a Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 63, but stands referred to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. Perhaps hon. Members should listen clearly to what I have to say and refer to the Official Report tomorrow.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hesitate to cross you, but are you prepared to issue a Speaker's certificate to any motion or item of business that is abstract, as this is a matter of considerable consequence to Scottish Members of Parliament?
§ Madam SpeakerThe answer is no. Abstract is a term of art, and I have a very wide vocabulary.