HC Deb 12 February 1992 vol 203 cc982-5 3.45 pm
Mr. Speaker

Before I ask the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day, I have a point of order from Sir Richard Body.

Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we proceed with the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, your attention will have no doubt been drawn to the fact that, if passed, the Bill will enable a sum of no less than £450 million to be given to the Commission of the European Community. That money is necessary because the Community has illegally spent that sum of money. It therefore follows that we are seeking to condone something that is illegal.

Am I not right in saying that, under Standing Order No. 54, we are debarred from debating that fact for one reason only—that the Bill has been made the first Order of the Day? If it had appeared as the second Order of the Day, we would be able to debate it fully until 10 o'clock.

Although I hope that I would be the last to question the bona fides of those who manage the business of the House—I am not suggesting for one moment that they are using the procedures of the House to prevent a debate on the Bill—is there nothing that could be done now to make the Bill appear as the second Order of the Day? In that way, we could debate it.

Failing that, are there any steps that could be taken by you, Sir, to enable us to voice our objections to the Bill and to enable the public to be more widely informed about their money, the £450 million, which is being handed over for something that has been illegally spent?

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If hon. Members will allow, I shall deal with that point of order, because it might save time.

The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) is correct: under Standing Order No. 54(1), I am bound to put the Question forthwith on both the Second and Third Readings. The hon. Gentleman may regret what the Government have done in this matter, but it is a matter for them, not for me. However, when I put the Question, the hon. Gentleman, if he so wishes, could vote against it.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

Does it not say in Standing Order No. 54 that, if the Government choose, they can move the Adjournment of the House to enable a discussion to take place? There are several reasons why undoubtedly that should be done.

First, we are dealing with the illegal spending of £450 million, which is effectively equivalent to about £8 per head of the population of the United Kingdom. It is a great deal of money. Secondly, we know that the EEC is illegally withholding a great deal of cash due to the British Treasury. Thirdly, we know from the news today that the EEC plans to double the contribution of £2.5 billion which we have to make this year—that means that the contribution of £4 per family per week to the EEC will increase to £8.

If we cannot discuss such things, surely it means that Parliament is basically becoming useless. We cannot discuss the expenditure of money on an unlawful purpose—it was stated to be unlawful by the Treasury in its paper that we discussed late the other night. If the Government wanted to discuss the matter, could they not simply use Standing Order No. 54 to move the Adjournment? We could then debate one of the most serious issues—the legality of the EC and how money is taken from British taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker

Whether the Adjournment motion is moved is a question for the Government, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I have no authority to compel them to do that.

Sir Teddy Taylor

But they could do so.

Mr. Speaker

Well, they could.

As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, the Bill reflects exactly what the House agreed to last week, and that is all that it could do. If further payments of the same kind were required, the Government would have to present a new estimate, and a further Bill would then be necessary.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Cryer first, please.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a paper presented to the House when the matter was debated, the Treasury made it clear that it admitted that part of that money was illegal and subject to a challenge in the European Court. Under those circumstances, is it proper for Parliament to proceed to vote on that expenditure when part of it is challenged as being of dubious legality? There must be a Standing Order whereby the matter can at least be deferred rather than involve Parliament in a clear illegality, or an attempt to support one.

Mr. Speaker

I recollect selecting an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on that very matter last week. The House divided on it, and the decision of the House was taken.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Trade and Industry questions, you told the House that it must proceed by debate rather than by visual aids after I had shown a banned advertisement by the British Medical Association. May I seek clarification on that? There has been a long and honourable tradition of using visual aids in the House. An hon. Member once brought in a battery hen cage to illustrate the cruelty of battery cages and there have been many other examples. Although I realise that they could be abused because of television cameras in the House, can we not have the same right to use visual aids that was permitted before cameras came to the House?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

We shall have a dead fox here on Friday.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) casts his mind back to our debates on whether the House should be televised, he will remember that concern was expressed on both sides about the display of visual aids. Although the hon. Gentleman is technically correct to say that it is not out of order to display such items, I believe that it would be deprecated by the whole House if visual aids were generally used. After all, from what the hon. Gentleman wants, it is a small move to Members displaying advertisements for Coca-Cola, for example.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Further to the previous point of order, Mr. Speaker. In last week's debate, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) asked whether the consent of the House was required. He said that the Government have their hands in our pockets again and the Minister in charge of the debate replied: I do not have my hands in your pockets, but Europe does."—[Official Report, 5 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 260.] So the Government have admitted that Europe is putting its hands illegally into our pockets. Surely we should have time to debate that.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman may be right about what was said, but I have no authority to change the procedures. I am bound by them.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been occasions when similar situations have occurred and it has been pretty clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to press on you the need to get the business changed, and you have taken that into account.

You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House has not even turned up. We are discussing £450 million of illegal expenditure by the tinpot Common Market. You were not elected by the Common Market; you represent Parliament. What is happening in, or should I say over, your name today is that the Government are allowing £450 million to go through on the nod. You know only too well what will happen: when the Division bells ring after we have shouted no to the expenditure, the shop stewards—the Whips—of the Tory party will be on the Doors to shovel Tory Members through to gain a victory. It is a scandal, and you should suspend the Sitting in order that some discussion can take place.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman well knows that I am bound by the Standing Orders of the House, whatever my own feelings on any matter may be.

Several Hon. Members

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not need any more help on that.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Is it on museums?

Mr. Banks

No, it is on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. It is sometimes useful to know what one is voting for or against. Will you, Mr. Speaker, advise me on this matter? Clause 2 states: The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1993 the sum of £1,000. One cannot get much for £1,000 these days—not even if one happens to be the Queen. If additional sums beyond the £1,000 to go to Her Majesty are requested, will the permission of the House be sought?

Mr. Speaker

I understand that that is a token amount, which was fully debated last week.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak not because I have had my name mentioned but to say that, whenever we as Back Benchers have the opportunity to complain about what goes on in this place, we have to come to you. You are the protector of the Back Bencher. We have complained time and time again about European affairs being dealt with in the early hours of the morning. We have an opportunity to discuss that problem at this earlier time of day and the Government are denying Back Benchers the right to express their view on it. Come on, Mr. Speaker, get off your backside and do something about it!

Mr. Speaker

I think what we should be doing today is discussing the Standing Orders—I am bound by them and cannot go beyond them.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that the debate on 4 February was limited to an hour and a half, took place late at night and many Members who wished to speak were debarred from doing so? From the remarks that you have already made, it seems that it would be possible for the Government representatives to stay seated and say, "Not moved," so that the matter can come back and be placed second on the Order Paper on another day, and be debated. Is that the position?

Mr. Speaker

That could happen.