| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Cyprus
20. Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington): When he next plans to consult his European Union partners on further approaches to resolve the Cyprus problem. [90477]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): We and our EU partners are in regular contact about Cyprus and continue to give strong support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts towards a settlement in Cyprus. The members of the G8, which met on 20 June, and the UN Security Council, which met on 29 June, have urged the Secretary-General to invite the leaders involved in Cyprus to enter without pre-conditions comprehensive negotiations starting in the autumn. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have assured the Secretary-General that he will have our full support in efforts to get those negotiations under way.
Mr. Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reflect on the fact that today is the 25th anniversary of the cruel and tragic division of that island? I urge her and all Foreign Office Ministers to renew their efforts to persuade the authorities in Ankara to understand that any ambitions that they may have to join the European family of nations cannot be fulfilled unless and until they facilitate a settlement of the Cyprus problem.
Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of today's anniversary, and I know that an early-day motion referring to it has been tabled. He is also right that we should renew and redouble our efforts to make progress towards resolving the Cyprus issue and I made that point forcefully during my visit to Turkey last week.
Points of Order
3.31 pm
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 Speaker: No 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.]
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 Speaker:
I 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
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 Speaker:
The 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 Speaker:
I 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,
Madam Speaker:
As 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?
"not have to come under a Standing Order",
and that the motion fell
"to 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.
"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?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |