HC Deb 15 May 1978 vol 950 cc27-9
29. Mr. Spearing

asked the Lord President of the Council what consultations he has held concerning his commitment relating to the practice of the House to debate important EEC proposals prior to decisions in Brussels.

Mr. Foot

As I said in November, the House will have the opportunity to decide upon the question of the Government's undertaking before the end of this Session. I shall consult interested parties as soon as possible.

Mr. Spearing

Does my right hon. Friend recall that on 28th November last he called my motion modest? Does he still resist the notion that this House or its Committees shall decide which matters shall be debated and not rest on the decision of a Minister of the Crown? If he holds that position and brings forward a motion to that effect, will it not be putting the House back into the position prior to 1688?

Mr. Foot

The House will be able to judge whether I am making any such outlandish propositions when I bring forward the motion. I agree that the matter that we then debated was important, even though my hon. Friend's proposal did not carry us as far as he would wish in such a matter. I shall bring the proposition before the House at a fairly early date and the House itself will be able to judge.

Mr. Marten

Does the Leader of the House recall a suggestion that I put to him about three months ago, namely, that in order to avoid ridiculous late night debates on EEC matters we should perhaps, on one day a month, have a Consolidated Fund type of debate with votes at reasonable hours, say, 5 o'clock, 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock? As all three major parties, at the time of entry to the European Community, accepted the liability properly to debate EEC legislation should they not now all agree to that?

Mr. Foot

I am not sure whether that would be the most satisfactory way of solving the problem. I acknowledge that there are problems. But if we did not have debates at various intervals, as we have them now, it might be less easy to comply with the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and to fit in with the times when Ministers have to be entrusted with undertaking negotiations in Brussels. I do not believe that these matters could be consolidated into one day. We do try to overcome the problem, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.

Mr. John Ellis

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our present procedure is totally unsatisfactory? Major matters go through the House late at night, often with insufficient consideration, sometimes the Committees have not examined them and sometimes we have to consider a matter with the wrong documents. The Leader of the House has criticised the various suggestions that have been made today. Is he seized of a sense of urgency? What does he propose?

Mr. Foot

In the time that I have been Leader of the House we have had three or four debates on the way in which we conduct this business. In most of those debates the House has agreed—whatever criticisms hon. Members might still have—that we have sought to meet the previous criticisms. I do not say that the present situation is satisfactory because I believe that it arises from the nature of the position itself and the difficulties that are inherent in it. We try to overcome them. We have not achieved a perfect solution, but I do not believe hat the proposal made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) would be an improvement.

Mr. Dykes

Should not the Lord President be more positive about an anxiety which unites both pro and anti Common Marketeers? The Leader of the House has skilfully avoided giving an answer to another variation of the solution—that we should use more frequently the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c., allow it to consider intelligent motions, take the less important items upstairs and allow more time on the Floor of the House for the more important EEC items.

Mr. Foot

I am not sure that that is the best solution. The House insists upon debating some of these matters. Therefore, what the hon. Member proposes is that the House of Commons Committee should be transformed into the same type of Committee as the House of Lords Committee on these matters. I doubt whether the House would tolerate such a situation since this House has always been more insistent on its rights than the House of Lords.