§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the motion that we are about to consider to be considered under Standing Order No. 102(5) when the Standing Committee which met to consider the document did so only yesterday and the Hansard report of its proceedings reached the Vote Office only this morning?
As Standing Order No. 102(5) provides that you can select for debate any amendment tabled by any hon. Member, does it not undermine the rights of Members if they do not have, until the day in question, the report of the Committee's proceedings? That might appear to be rather a niggling point, but it is an important one which I hope you will consider.
The Euro instruments on machine safety were unanimously recommended for debate by the Select Committee in its November report on the basis that this was one of the most ambitious plans for the internal market and that it could increase substantially the costs of industrial firms. In its January report, it explained that it would automatically require the amendment of two major Acts of Parliament.
We know that the Council of Ministers effectively settled these matters in December 1988, but the Committee did not even consider them until yesterday, when there was no debate, apart from a two-minute speech by the Minister, who apologised for their having already been settled in Brussels.
If, Mr. Speaker, you do not agree that the motion is out of order, can you not declare it null and void under Standing Order No. 41, which deals with irrelevance? Why should the time of the House be wasted on silly motions to approve or disapprove when sovereignty has gone and the decision was made in Brussels in December? This makes nonsense of our consideration of European legislation. May we have a decision on the motion, or else do away with it entirely, instead of wasting the time of the House, the Clerks and yourself?
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to put to you additional factors for the consideration that I hope you will give this matter.
Unlike the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), I do not think that the fact that this was decided in Brussels before debate is strictly relevant to the central point. If on the Order Paper there appears a motion on a document that was sent to Committee by resolution of the House under the appropriate Standing Order, surely there should be at least an interval of a day between the appearance of the Official Report of the Committee's proceedings and of a motion in the House. That would enable hon. Members to table amendments to it for discussion the following day.
I do not dissent from what the hon. Member for Southend, East said about the importance and unusual nature of this matter, but, whatever the content of the Committee's resolution, my point stands.
§ Mr. William Cash (Staford)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A resolution of the House of 1980 declares that in all possible circumstances there should be a debate before the adoption of a common position on a 399 matter of this sort. If that is not strictly adhered to, our difficulties when considering matters vital to the future of industry in this country will increase. I should be grateful if this could be given further consideration in the appropriate quarters.
§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) for missing his first few remarks after the Division. Although our views about membership of the Community may vary, I echo my hon. Friend's remarks—he may look surprised—and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation.
Whatever our views, procedures must be correctly followed. The House needs the essential elements of a scrutiny procedure to be effective. Recently, and for all sorts of reasons, there has been a disturbing increase in the number of decisions taken by the collective institutions of the Community before matters have been properly considered by the House. That must be put right. It behoves us all to get it right. Hon. Members are worried, and we seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)I have not had much time to consider this matter, hut, in view of the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, it would perhaps be better if the Government did not move the motion tonight so that I can look into it.