House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Feb 1992

Mr. Smith : If it is, indeed, clearly the case, we must ask why on earth the motion and the supplementary estimates are before us today. The motion is totally unnecessary if the Council of Ministers is still making a decision about whether to go to the European Court--as it did two years ago --in a process that is a perfectly normal part of the budget-making process. If that is so, it would be wrong to

Column 239

describe the present state of the budget as illegal and it is unnecessary to bring the motion before us. The Government have got the procedure about face.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose --

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) rose --

Mr. Smith : I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Hill : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. I understand that the rules of the European Parliament have been the same for many years in that the Parliament has the ability to vary the budget that is presented to it by about 6 per cent. Of course, that can be challenged, which is where the difficulty is beginning to arise. At the moment, there is no approved budget and the supplementary £450 million is a contingency amount to enable the Community to be able to pay its wages and to keep the Community going. The European Parliament is in a strong position against the Council of Ministers and perhaps even the Commission. The money is needed until the difficulties are sorted out either by the law courts in Luxembourg or by the Council of Ministers giving way.

Mr. Smith : As happened two years ago, it would have been far more sensible to mount a challenge in the courts if the Council of Ministers felt that appropriate and for the disputed elements in the budget--to which I shall come in a moment, because it is worth taking a look at the subject of the dispute--to be effectively frozen and for everything else to be released while the dispute was resolved by the courts. That would have been the sensible procedure, but I am afraid that that is not the way that the Government or Council of Ministers chose.

Mr. Budgen rose --

Mr. Smith : I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman and will not do so now because I should like to make progress and--

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) rose --

Mr. Smith : I shall give way for the last time to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Spearing : Referring to the answer that he has just given, is my hon. Friend aware of the 1982 recommendations of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service when the next such occasion arose when, whether or not it was sensible, the procedure that the Government have now adopted--however well explained or unexplained--was recommended ? That is why they are doing it now.

Mr. Smith : I believe that the Government have adopted an unnecessary and incorrect procedure, which has certainly not been well explained. My hon. Friend will be aware that the 1982 Select Committee report has already been mentioned. Instead of the Government's rushing to the House with a supplementary estimate vote, it would have been more sensible to ensure that the matter was sorted out in the normal budgetary procedure.

Mr. Cash rose --

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing) rose --

Column 240

Mr. Smith : I shall give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, but must then make progress because other hon. Members want to participate.

Mr. Higgins : The purpose of the Select Committee's recommendation at that time was that the House should have an opportunity to debate and consider the matter before the money was handed over. That seemed a sensible arrangement. If we were to proceed as the hon. Gentleman has just suggested and the court case were to go against us, we would be liable for penal rates of interest. The overall effect on our finances would thereby be worsened. That is why that is not a sensible way of proceeding.

Mr. Smith : I follow the right hon. Gentleman about the need to ensure that the House has the opportunity to debate these matters. It is perfectly open to the Government to ensure that that takes place at any stage of the budgetary process. We had our all-too-brief debate on the budget a couple of months ago. As on several other occasions, I should certainly endorse greater openness and parliamentary accountability about what our Ministers get up to in the Council of Ministers.

The first point to bear in mind is that I believe that the procedure we are undertaking tonight is unnecessary.

Mr. Budgen rose --

Mr. Smith : I shall not give way because of the pressure of time. The second point is that the increases in the budget, voted by the European Parliament in December, are within the financial perspective for 1992--a financial perspective endorsed and agreed by this Government some years ago.

The 1992 budget, as voted by the Parliament, also represents 1.11 per cent. of Community gross national product, which is 0.09 per cent. below the upper limit of EC expenditure set when the financial perspective was agreed four years ago.

It began to emerge from what the Financial Secretary said that the figure of £450 million is somewhat misleading. The dispute between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers relates to a far smaller figure than the £450 million British contribution that is before us. The Financial Secretary accepted that, on the Government's own admission, we are talking about an actual difference--an actual dispute--of £12 million for the year.

The root cause of the difference lies with the Foreign Ministers of the Community. Some time ago they decided, collectively, that it would be a good idea if the EC made available substantial sums of additional aid to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. They recommended amounts including 860 million ecu in aid for the former Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe, 300 million ecu for humanitarian aid, 300 million ecu to bring the structural funds into line with the real rate of inflation and other sums for the tropical rain forests.

The Council of Ministers included those amounts in the budget. However, in recompense for adding those amounts, it said that it did not agree with some of the items that the European Parliament had included in the draft budget. Those items included an appropriation for improving the early- warning system relating to trends in

Column 241

agricultural expenditure--an extremely important monitoring measure in which the Government should be interested-- and appropriations for research and development expenditure at a level commensurate with the agreements reached between the Parliament and the Commission. The dispute is about additions to the budget for eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, which the Council of Ministers wants to include in the budget, and amounts, principally for expenditure on research and development, which the European Parliament wants to include in the budget.

I have nothing against improving our aid profile to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. We all know how important that task is and how strongly the Prime Minister has endorsed it in recent weeks. However, I do not believe that that should take place at the expense of research and development assistance, which our country desperately needs. In fact, Britain receives the lion's share of such expenditure by the EC. We are a net beneficiary of EC funds in terms of reserch and development rather than a net contributor. The Government's proposal would wish upon us a lower amount of such expenditure than would otherwise have been the case. The motion is not only unnecessary but, if the Council of Ministers had its way, it would reduce desperately needed research and development funds. I want to turn very briefly to the related, but not directly associated, issue of additionality. This concerns European Community budget moneys that we are in danger of being unable to use because of the fact that the Government refuse to accept the rules of procedure. At risk are potential grants of £114 million, under the RECHAR programme, to the coalfield areas of this country, as well as amounts under other regional investment programmes. The dispute is a simple one. It is between the Commission and the Government. The Commission points to article 9 of regulation 4253/88, which states that the money under the regional fund must have

"a genuine additional economic impact in the regions concerned." Mr. Cash : Is anyone listening?

Mr. Smith : The hon. Gentleman asks whether anyone is listening. In the coalfield communities of this country, there are many many hundreds of thousands of people for whom this issue is extremely important. As a direct result of the Government's activity and their refusal to abide by the rules, which they endorsed when they agreed the directive, we are losing a large amount in regional investment funds.

Mr. Cash : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman's point is not directly relevant to this issue. However, may I ask whether it is not the case that Mr. Bruce Millan, the Commissioner, endorsed these very proposals when he was a Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is a point for debate, rather than a point of order.

Mr. Smith : We are addressing ourselves to the European Community budget. It seems to me that it is extremely relevant that we should look at funds that are in the budget and ought to be available to the coalfield areas

Column 242

of this country but are not reaching them. I realise that Conservative Members may not like to hear about additionality and about the RECHAR programme. I realise that they may not want to hear about what the Government's activity is denying us.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this debate about the entire Community budget or strictly about this supplementary estimate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is certainly about the supplementary estimate, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to that matter.

Mr. Smith : Indeed, I am doing just that. I am addressing my remarks to the £450 million that the Government say should be included. Some of that money goes to the regional funds, which are the subject if the additionality dispute. It is entirely in order to raise this matter, which gives rise to very considerable concern. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) parrots the Secretary of State for the Environment. What he has said is a total misrepresentation of the truth. The rules on additionality came into effect only in 1988. That happened because our Government sat down with the other Governments and agreed that they should come into effect.

Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green) : I recall that, when I was in office in Northern Ireland in 1988, the principle of additionality then applied to moneys that were sought to be given by the Commission for the benefit of Northern Ireland, so I am not sure of the history to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.

As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the coalfields and has introduced that matter into this narrow debate, may I ask whether he is suggesting that the Government should deduct from the £450 million the money that the Commission is withholding from this country? Would he support the Government if that were the proposal?

Mr. Smith : I was referring--had the hon. Gentleman been listening he might have noticed--to regulation 4253/88 passed by the Council of Ministers, including Ministers representing the British Government. I want to ensure that the British Government put enough openness and transparency into the system of regional aid and the RECHAR programme so that our coalfields can get access to the funds due to them. The Government are at fault in ensuring that the money does not come to the coalfield communities, and attempts by the hon. Member for Stafford and various Ministers, including the Secretary of State for the Environment, to say otherwise are nothing short of deliberately misleading.

The Secretary of State for the Environment in 1989, commenting that the structural funds were to be almost doubled over five years, added that, without the principle of additionality, Community funding would become a farce. In 1989, he endorsed the principle of additionality, as had the Government in 1988, but now the Government are refusing to accept the rules that they helped to make. It is about time that the Government changed their approach and made sure that funds that are needed in the coalfield communities of this country reach the places that need them. If they are not prepared to do that, they should give up and make way for a Labour Government to take office, and we will ensure that it happens.

Column 243

11.11 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : I beg to move,

That Class XX, Vote 1 be reduced by £100,000.

I ask the House to support a brief and narrow amendment simply expressing our concern about the direction of policy that the Government are proposing, our outrage at the waste of money by the EC, and the total lack of control.

In considering whether we are being told exactly how things stand, I appeal to the Financial Secretary to examine page 2 as well as page 8 of the estimates. Whereas we know that this is the result of an unlawful budget, page 2 talks not about £1 million or £10 million but says that the estimates increase spending by £450 million to £166,431,002,000. So basically it says that, as a result of what we are doing tonight, the estimates are being increased to that specified sum. But even if we say that that does not matter--even if we save just tuppence --I plead with hon. Members, before deciding on this issue, to consider what happened in 1982 when the same situation arose. The report of the Select Committee at that time said that a precedent was being created. Having said that it considered it to be an unsatisfactory precedent, it recommended that, if it ever happened again, we should not pay the disputed sum.

That is the only issue before the House tonight. Is it right for Parliament to authorise payment for something that is unlawful? If local councillors did what was unlawful and exceeded their budget, they would be individually surcharged. On the same basis, hon. Members who tonight support what is proposed should be surcharged in the sum of £1 million. They would then think twice before lending their support, for I doubt whether many could afford such a surcharge. If a business firm were to spend money illegally, its members could be put in prison. When we consider the hardships suffered by many people in the country today, are we right to vote money illegally?

Mr. Marlow : Opposition Front-Bench Members have suggested that the Government may not, with the other members of the Council of Ministers, challenge this illegal budget. Does my hon. Friend know whether this illegal budget will be challenged, and what is his reaction to that?

Sir Teddy Taylor : I do not know. The same thing happened last time and the Committee asked why our Government did not challenge it. What is the point of saying that we will wait until the Twelve do so ? Who are the Twelve ? Are they all countries that are paying in money ? We know that until recently Britain paid in and Germany paid in, and everybody else took out. Where is the financial control there ? Where is the great desire to ensure that there is not extra or illegal spending ?

Mr. Budgen : May not my hon. Friend be out of touch with the more progressive and on-going attitude of our party at the present time ? As I understand it, we now most of all desire to be at the heart of Europe. Surely that must mean that from time to time we simply lie down and give in to any illegal demands. Would anything else not be completely out of kilter with the modern desire to be friendly to everybody and to avoid confrontation ? Surely consensus politics demands that we simply hand the money over. That is what has been done in a large number of other areas, and it would be monstrous not to do the same in relation to Europe.

Column 244

Sir Teddy Taylor : I am sorry, but I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. I think that if Europe is to be a progressive,

forward-looking entity it must have the same principle as we had in the House of Commons--that money is paid out only if it is legally justified, if Parliament authorises it. We do not pay it out and say that we will see if we can get it back later.

It has been suggested that the amount is small. The Minister knows that that is a load of rubbish. Let us look at what happened in November 1987. Labour Members who attend all these debates faithfully will remember it. The previous Prime Minister said that we would make sure that we had strict budgetary controls. She said that we would give them lots of extra money and then the same thing could never happen again. And what happened ? They overspent wildly by having a metric year of 10 months, with 12 months of income and 10 months of spending. There was a massive overspend. If hon. Members apply the metric principle to their own balance sheets, they will find that they do very well indeed.

We were told what happened last time. A person called Mr. Spreckley, who works for the Treasury, gave evidence. He said :

"As the Lord Privy Seal said at the time of his statement, it would have been preferable had everybody agreed not to pay these disputed sums."

Does Parliament want to make illegal payment or does it not ? That is the only issue.

Mr. Allason : Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on exactly how the European Community can spend this money if it is not authorised to do so by the European Parliament? As I understand it, we are being asked now to make a payment which will be a part of the illegal budget. How will the Community be able to receive it and to spend it?

Sir Teddy Taylor : I can tell my hon. Friend that it is because, sadly, as he well knows, there are accountancy fiddles daily within the European Community. He knows that what happened in 1988 was a fiddle and a fraud. All hon. Members know it.

We should consider this simple issue : is it right, when the Select Committee told us in 1982 that we should not do it again, that we should not pay the money until there is a full debate?

Any hon. Member who believes in democracy must agree that it is a disgrace and an outrage that we are discussing this vital issue at this time of night, when nobody will know about it, nobody will listen and no one will hear about it. It is a disgrace that all the dirty things to do with Europe, all the scandals of Europe, all the wastes and frauds of Europe, are always discussed here at the dead of night so that people outside do not know what is going on.

Mr. Favell : Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that the winter Olympics will open next weekend? The draft general budget for 1992, which we are discussing today, refers to a second report by the ad hoc committee on a People's Europe, which relates to an appropriation of some £8 million. It then says :

"This appropriation is intended to cover expenditure on financing certain public relations projects in connection with a major Community presence at the 1992 Olympic Games in Albertville and Barcelona, in particular participation in the opening and closing ceremonies and action to underpin the

Column 245

Community identity of athletes from the Member States. To this end, the European Community flag will be used, particularly during the presentation of medals."

That is to cost £8 million. The Community has already spent £700, 000, on the world student games in Sheffield in July on what became known in Sheffield as "Europe Day". If my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East watched the rugby world cup, he will have seen that every time a player threw a ball in, a European flag appeared behind him. Unfortunately, I have been unable to discover how much that cost, but the advertising agent assures me that the Community was the patron.

Sir Teddy Taylor : My hon. Friend is quite right, and hon. Members should be concerned about that. They should not smile about it because it is a waste of money.

Mr. Budgen : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Teddy Taylor : No, certainly not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who is always so conscientious, will confirm that the EC has just given Essex county council a grant to assist it in dealing with the problems created by Essex boy and Essex girl jokes. Furthermore, the EC has paid 170 million lira to a mafia- controlled firm for delivering non-existent fruit juice to NATO headquarters in Palermo, and it cannot get the money back. Ultimately, those who care about cash, especially hon. Members from Northern Ireland who know about poverty because they see so much of it, will be concerned that we should not waste money.

Mr. Budgen : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Teddy Taylor : Certainly not.

There are one or two fanatics around whom we should disregard. One or two of the Euromugs, including the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), give us the same old drivel every time. They say that the Common Market is wonderful and should be given more money to spend. The realists are concerned about people's problems. The time has come for the House of Commons to make a stand and say that we are fed up with fraud, waste and the European Community spending money that it is not authorised to spend. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that we should not bother about the matter too much because the paper does not really mean what it says. Although this expensive paper produced by the Treasury says that an extra £450 million is wanted to pay for an illegal budget, my hon. Friend says that it does not really mean that. Although it says that it will put up the Government estimates by £450 million to £166, 431,002,000, my hon. Friend says that it does not really mean that. We are fed up to the teeth with this because we know that people are suffering from it. Money matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is always present during these debates because he is concerned about protecting people's interests. He was telling me what that £450 million will mean. For every pensioner on housing benefit, it will mean £5 a week, which is a lot of money. So we are not talking about silly amounts.

We should bear in mind that, when this happened before, a Select Committee told us that next time it happens we should not be mugs and pay it but should just

Column 246

say no. It told us that if the Community wants Britain to pay for illegal money, we should let it take us to court. The Council of Ministers should be aware that, if that matter goes to the European Court, we might win. The majority of the members of that Council are being paid cash for being in the EC. The time has come to say no. We have tabled a modest amendment. It does not seek to scrap the motion or wreck the Government's policy

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : We have been trying to do that for years.

Sir Teddy Taylor : My hon. Friend is right.

We say to the moderate Members who feel that something is wrong and should be put right that they should vote in favour of reducing the payment by £100,000. Let us give that to the poor and to the places which need help. In other words, we are not suggesting that the Conservative party or the Labour party should stand on its head. We simply say that we are fed up to the teeth with the waste and extravagance throughout Europe, and with the fact that expenditure is not controlled.

At the end of the day, the House of Commons should not be asked to pay for unlawful money. That is what we are being asked to do tonight. When that last happened, hon. Members will remember, a chap called King Charles had his head chopped off. The time has come for someone's head to roll. We have to stand firm.

There are not many hon. Members present. By having the debate late at night, the Government have made sure that the public will not hear about it. We have to stand firm. I appeal to the Labour Members who are always here--the decent, conscientious people who fight for the interests of their country--and to Conservative Members too to remember that democracy is more important than party politics. Therefore, I appeal to the House to make a gesture by voting for the modest amendment. In that way the House will say that the time has come to say no, and it will give a warning that it is fed up. 11.25 pm

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli) : The Financial Secretary sought to give the impression that somehow the post-Fontainebleau arrangements negotiated by the Government were superior to those negotiated by the Labour Government. He is nodding his head. The system of payments that existed between 1972 and the Fontainebleau agreement of 1984 was negotiated by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when the country acceded to the treaty of Rome. From 1972 to 1984 that was the system. From 1972 to 1977 there was a five-year transitional period. It was only in 1978 that the system of full payments came in.

There was an election in 1979. It took the Government five years to reach the Fontainebleau agreement. I make no complaint about that and pay tribute to the Government for doing so, but the Financial Secretary should not give the impression that somehow the system that the Conservative Government negotiated was better than that negotiated by the Labour Government.

Mr. Maude : I simply remind the right hon. Gentleman of what the Labour Government said at the time, which was that they had renegotiated the arrangements.

Mr. Davies : They were never renegotiated.

Column 247

May I make another point to the hon. Gentleman? Apparently some of the payments will be in respect of a possible illegal budget. This is not the first time that has happened. In 1978 there was a possible illegal budget exactly like this one, but the Labour Government did not come to the House and seek approval to pay money over while a dispute was going on. We stopped the cheque. By doing so, we got agreement fairly quickly. Stopping the cheque concentrates the mind, especially of the Commission. The Government should not pay the money. That would lead to the dispute being resolved quickly. The Government should not seek approval to pay money in respect of what could be an illegal budget.

Let us consider the Fontainebleau agreement. Despite that agreement, the United Kingdom is still the second largest net contributor to the budget. There are only two net contributors, year in, year out--Germany and Britain. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. France sometimes becomes a net contributor ; the following year it probably is not. Next year we will contribute £2.45 billion to the Community budget. Yet in terms of the per capita GDP, the wealth of the country, we rank below Luxembourg, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark and probably Holland. Despite that, we are the second major net contributor to the budget. Despite Fontainebleau, we are in the same relative position as we were before that agreement.

There must be something wrong with such a system, and we know what it is. We import more, we consume more and the common agricultural policy does not benefit us because we do not receive the payments because of the size and structure of our agricultural sector. Some people fondly believe that if we could reform the CAP we would pay less. This is not the place to debate the MacSharry proposals--I do not understand them all--but, having read them cursorily, I do not think that we would pay less even if the CAP were reformed under the MacSharry proposals. I do not believe that it will ever be reformed from inside, but if it were there would be large redundancy payments to the smaller farmers of Europe. The motor car workers who return home at night and milk a few cows will receive redundancy payments under the MacSharry plan, whereas the official farmers will be thrown to the market place and will not receive payments. To think that a reform of the CAP, should it ever take place, would reduce our contribution is to live in cloud cuckoo land.

It was suggested that if we could convert the CAP so that it withered away and became a sort of common regional policy, we would benefit. I am not sure about that. The Maastricht agreement contains a section dealing with "social cohesion"--I think that that is the latest phrase to be in vogue in the Community. As I understand it, the infrastructure fund is paid to member states in which the gross domestic product per head of population is below that of the Community average--£100. The rate for the United Kingdom is more than £100, countries with below average rates are Southern Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. Therefore, even the new common regional policy will not benefit us, despite the fact that GDP per head in Wales is £85--or £87 last year--in Scotland the figure hovers around £100, for the north of England the figure is below £100 and in the west midlands it is below £100, as it is in the north-west. Even that attempt at social cohesion

Column 248

does not benefit a country such as the United Kingdom in which the GDP per head is higher than the Community average.

I do not know how we shall benefit from any of the systems, yet we must do so. If we move towards economic and monetary union, the countries and regions on the Community's fringes--such as Wales, the north-west and the south-west--will suffer from the concentration and centralisation of a common currency.

Next year, we will repay £2.5 billion--a not abnormally high amount-- in public expenditure. That money could be used for hospitals, schools, research and development--which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) rightly said was important. That money will go across the exchanges to the undemocratic, bureaucratic institution and we shall never get it back. I do not believe that that institution will ever be reformed from the inside. The only hope--and it may be vain--is that changes in Europe and the enlargement of the Community will bring down the whole, silly edifice. The sooner that that happens, the better.

11.33 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : On the issue of additionality, it should be known that there is a constant fight between the Treasury and Ministers heading their Departments. Today I spoke to the Minister who is in charge of agriculture in Northern Ireland. He told me that he was fighting for moneys that his Department should receive, and that the Treasury was holding them up.

I believe that money from Europe that is earmarked for a specific job in a certain district in the United Kingdom should be additional money used for that purpose. Many schemes, such as the Spede scheme in Northern Ireland, are suffering at present, whereas those benefiting from the system in the Irish republic are using that power and money to undercut our economy. They already have their money. All sorts of additional moneys should be coming to us, and we should try to settle that issue once and for all.

If any Department had presented this estimate with such a degree of misrepresentation and falsehoods, the Minister involved would have been hounded out of the House. The Financial Secretary says that the House has not been given an accurate account of the provision for which it is asked to vote. We were given all sorts of explanations. Some tell us that we are voting for only £1 million a month, and others that the figure might be the whole £450 million. The House should know exactly how much it is being asked to pay.

The Financial Secretary nodded when the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) asked whether the consent of the House was required. When the hon. Member for Ashfield said,

"The Government have their hands in our pockets again", the Minister replied, "I do not have my hands in your pockets, but Europe does." It is the Minister's business to get Europe's hands out of the nation's pockets, because they are the hands of a thief. They are the hands of a law-breaker. They are the hands of a criminal. It is the Financial Secretary's duty to stop Europe's criminal practices.

I am asked as a Member of the House to vote on something that is not permitted by Community legislation. Let us admit that. If that is so, how can a Minister who believes in law and order ask the House to vote for something that is illegal? I say to the Financial Secretary

Column 249

that if he wants to impress Europe he must take the action suggested by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), and tell Europe, "We're not giving you the money. Go to the courts and ask for the money. If the courts of Europe say that we have to pay, we will consider it again." He should promise not to pay, but only to reconsider. That is the attitude that the Minister should adopt.

Mr. Cash : In view of my hon. Friend's extremely effective speech, does he consider that we ought to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee or to the Chairman of Ways and Means? If the House, even on the Government's own admission, is expected to make an illegal payment of as little, comparatively speaking, as £12 million--let alone £450 million on the Order Paper--that should be investigated by the House. We cannot be an engine of fraud. If the issue were referred to the courts, they would decide against the House. Does not my hon. Friend seriously consider having the matter thoroughly investigated--and not merely at this time of night?

Next Section

Home Page