§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether it is in order for the motion relating to the supplementary estimate for £450 million of unlawful expenditure, and the attached pledge to legislate to make that payment possible, to be on the Order Paper and considered by the House of Commons in any way?
The facts are clear and specific. The European Community's Council of Ministers has power to fix a budget and, of course, it has done that. The European Parliament has the power to increase that budget by a specified amount, specified by EC law, and it has done that. However, the European Parliament increased the budget even further, in breach of all EC legislation, as stated on page 8 of the estimate paper No. 182, published by the Treasury. The purpose of the supplementary estimate which we have been asked to consider is to provide the United Kingdom's share of that quite unlawful expenditure, which comes to £450 million.
I am aware that the House of Commons is all-powerful and can, by resolution, do almost anything it chooses. However, if, as in this case, the House is being invited to approve expenditure which is illegal under EC legislation, I suggest our powers simply do not exist. It was made abundantly clear in the treaty of Rome that EC law is superior to our law and that spending has to be in conformity with that law. I suggest that the United Kingdom Parliament has no power to consider this motion. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to authorise its removal from the House of Commons Order Paper forthwith.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)On a point of order.
§ Mr. Peter Hain (Neath)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerLet me deal with one at a time.
I thank the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) for giving me notice of his point of order, because that has enabled me to look into it in great detail. The situation that he has described has happened before and has been dealt with in the same manner as is now proposed. The point was covered in the second report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee of the 1981–82 Session, in House of Commons Paper 226. The matter is fully debatable tomorrow, and I notice that the hon. Gentleman has already tabled an appropriate amendment. If, however, it were alleged that public money was being spent in a manner that was not in accordance with the law, that would be a matter for the courts.
§ Mr. HainAs the custodian of Members' interests, would you, Mr. Speaker, institute an early inquiry into the disturbing spate of burglaries from Labour Members' computers for professional intelligence gathering? Could that also include possible intelligence services' and Conservative party supporters' involvement? If the Leader of the House can make public statements on the matter, why can he not make a statement before the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerI looked at that article in The Observer yesterday. Thefts reported to the Serjeant at Arms or the 37 police are always carefully investigated. If further incidents of theft have not been reported, I suggest that they be reported urgently to the House authorities. I understand that the alleged theft from the hon. Gentleman was not reported at the time.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I was referred to, may I make it clear that the House authorities investigate all complaints about thefts and, in the majority of cases referred to in The Observer, some of which took place some time ago, no request was made for an investigation. It is not possible for me to have those matters investigated if no complaints were made at the time.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I was one of six hon. Members who reported thefts from their offices. The thief, who was a window cleaner, was interviewed at Bow street following traces that were put on my Vodaphone. It is remarkable —
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that it is appropriate to go into the method by which the culprit was apprehended.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is whether it is right that, when a thief is identified in the House of Commons, he should simply be given a police caution at Bow Street and not be charged. When I rang the police and complained, I was told that it was a matter of police discretion and their decision. Is that right? Is not the problem the fact that we do not prosecute? That is why we are not catching and dealing with the thieves.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman knows that I have no responsibility for the sentences in those cases.
§ Mr. Tony BanksOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on Sessional Orders. Last Tuesday, Mrs. Banks drove me to the House of Commons so that I could vote. She then went off to do some parliamentary business and came back to collect me, and when we went back outside we found that Mrs. Banks's car had been towed away by the Metropolitan police. She now faces a fine of £80. In view of the fact that she was conveying a Member of Parliament on his legitimate business, will you, Mr. Speaker, offer some assurance to Mrs. Banks that she will also be protected by the Sessional Orders?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman should have complained about that matter last week if it took place on Tuesday. However, it is a serious matter. The House knows that, on one or two occasions, there have been problems with cars left outside St. Stephen's entrance. In one case, we had to allow extra time on a Division because the car was not identified and it was thought that it might constitute a threat to us. Therefore, cars should not be left unattended at that place.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should you not consider the question of stolen disks and tapes with a little more concern, in view of the fact that, the last time a Labour Government looked like being returned to power, before 1974, it was later 38 disclosed through Peter Wright that the security agencies were engaged in trying to destabilise the prospective Labour Government? They continued to do so after a Labour Government had come to power. The matter should be approached with some zeal instead of being brushed off, albeit that some hon. Members may not have reported it to the police. In view of the spate of thefts of sensitive material, it is important that the matter should be investigated at the highest level, particularly as we face an impending general election.
§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that I need any more help on it.—[Interruption.] Order. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who raised the point of order, please listen? Such matters should be reported to the Serjeant at Arms and, if they are, will always be investigated. I have looked carefully at the allegations in the article, and the incidents involved were not always reported.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the answer given by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to questions about Friday afternoon's business and the end of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, will the Speaker confirm that there is no convention or rule requiring any private Member's Bill introduced on a Friday to take up a minimum amount of time before it is put to the vote? That is a matter of concern not only to me, but has been raised by other colleagues. The Minister's answer implied that there was an established convention which meant that the matter could not be determined on Friday.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt was a matter for the occupant of the Chair at the time.
§ Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope that this is not a further point of order about disks.
§ Dr. ReidIt is, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that it will be helpful. I do not want to over-dramatise events, but there is obviously suspicion among Conservative Members that that matter has only just been raised. In my case, there were two reasons why the matter was not reported. First—
§ Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North)It was top secret.
§ Dr. ReidIt was not top secret. I have nothing to hide on my computer—the hon. Gentleman may have.
The first reason was that, in my case, nothing was stolen, although it was obvious that someone had gained access to the computer.
Secondly, it was not until much later that it was obvious, not to me but to my researcher, that the incident was part of a pattern of events which was not obvious at the time. That pattern involved the theft of computer equipment and people gaining access not only to my computer, which does not have a lock, key or password, but to other computers that do. I hope that that explanation helps to show why, even though the incidents were not reported at the time, in retrospect, they may be far more significant than I or others realised.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat may be, but I repeat that, if such incidents occur, they must be reported; otherwise, it is not possible to look into them.