§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance—I shall do so briefly in view of the time—on what I regard as a vital issue of order relating to the Supplementary Estimates which the House will be required to approve tonight, without debate, at 10 o'clock?
Included in the Estimates is a provision for an additional sum of £364 million for the Common Market through the operation of advance payments in relation to our legal obligations. This new policy — basically, of member states offering the EEC a massive overdraft facility—is a controversial political issue, and you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the arguments which could be advanced but which I cannot raise on a point of order. Is it in order for a new, costly and controversial policy to be introduced by means of a non-debatable Supplementary Estimate? Our long tradition in the House is that Estimates should reflect agreed policies and legislation and not make new policy.
While Back Benchers know that they have your sympathy and concern at all times, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the Standing Orders preclude you from helping us? Is there any body or person to whom we could present this major constitutional issue, which undermines the power of Parliament and gives the Government, for the first time, the power to create new, costly policies without debate and discussion?
§ Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. At a time when many projects in Scotland have been turned down—I must not mention them when raising a point of order—it seems an outrage that funds of this magnitude should be agreed to on the nod. The House should have the right to debate the matter and say whether the expenditure should be approved.
§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, which was raised so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).
It is totally contrary to the conventions of the House that a major policy initiative should be introduced in what must be seen, whatever one's views on it, as something of an underhand and undercover manoeuvre through the Supplementary Estimates procedure. I ask you to defend the rights of hon. Members in all parts of the House by ruling against the unconstitutionality, in parliamentary terms, of such a measure.
This Supplementary Estimate may itself be unconstitutional in terms of our relationship with the treaty of Rome and the European Assembly. Under the treaty of Rome, it is the European Assembly, and that Assembly alone, which has the power decisively to accept or reject the EEC budget.
If it is possible for the national Parliament of a member state to circumvent the rulings of the European Assembly by introducing an overdraft facility in this way, in plain man's language, it is the equivalent of a bank manager suddenly granting an overdraft of £364 million without the authority and consent of the bank. I suggest that, in European legislation terms, this is an unconstitutional procedure, and I ask you to consider that when you rule on my hon. Friend's point of order.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will quote a short extract from some remarks made by the Prime Minister, who is normally right and was probably right when she said—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I cannot be responsible for what is said from the Government Front Bench.
§ Mr. MarlowArticle 199 of the treaty of Rome provides that the revenue and expenditure shown in the budget shall be in balance. It is not right, therefore, to raise loans for budgetary purposes. To do so would be contrary to that article. Thus, it would be wrong for this House to agree a loan to the European Community when, to do so, would be in conflict with an article of the treaty.
The European Community has promised to pay to this country last year's rebate of £600 million. It would seem improper for us to agree to this expenditure in advance of that repayment being made. To make a loan before getting our money back is a matter which should exercise the minds of hon. Members and, accordingly, we should have an opportunity to debate the issue.
§ Mr. SpeakerI assure the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that I have given careful thought to the points to which he made reference. He was kind enough to give me advance notice of his point of order, and that enabled me to look into the matter with great care.
I am, of course, bound by the Standing Orders. I must make it clear that the decision whether to vote the sums included in today's Supplementary Estimates will be a matter for the House, and therefore it will be possible for hon. Members to vote against them if they do not like them.
The issues raised by the hon. Member may be considered by Select Committees, and some of those issues have been reported on by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. Questions about the propriety of authorising a new policy by way of a Supplementary Estimate, to be included in a Consolidated Fund Act, can be drawn to the attention of the Committee of Public Accounts.
It is also open for individual hon. Members to propose to the Liaison Committee that it should recommend particular Estimates for debate on Estimates days. Today, however, the House must reach its decision on the Supplementary Estimate, in accordance with Standing Order No. 19, and that precludes debate or a separate Division, I regret to say, on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorThank you, Mr. Speaker.