§ Mr. SpearingOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that on Thursday my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council announced the business for this week and said that the subject of oil pollution was to be debated today. However, we see listed on today's Order Paper, for the first time, two EEC documents—R/1004/78 and R/ 1315/78. I understand that in taking this action the Lord President intends to discharge the obligation to the House laid upon him by the Scrutiny Committee to debate the matter.
It may be that since document R/1004 deals with marine pollution arising from the carriage of oil from the"Amoco Cadiz"and the action taken by the Community, and as document R/1315 deals with matters which may have been ratified already by Her Majesty's Government, this is a reasonable thing to do. But I hope that it will be possible for the Lord President, on a point of order, to explain why this business was not announced last Thursday, whether he intends to pursue this practice and whether he will give an undertaking about future changes of business at short notice.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe Lord President?
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I were always to answer points of order of this nature, I am sure that you would be the first to call me to order—and if you did not do so I might well call myself to order. It is true that the proposals for the business for today were put down at a late stage last week and were decided at a late stage then. That was why reference to these documents was not made in last Thursday's Business Statement. I assure the House that there is no intention of introducing any innovation on that account.
Moreover, the Scrutiny Committee's recommendation on these matters was that they should be further considered by the House in the course of a future debate 31 on marine pollution arising from the carriage of oil at sea. That was why the matter arose in this case. The Scrutiny Committee went on to say that in its view such consideration need not delay adoption by the Council. Therefore, it would not make any difference to the rights of the House as suggested by the Scrutiny Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that explanation, but I have taken account of his remarks. We seek to abide by the general understandings about the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and the way in which they should be dealt with by the House.