House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Mar 1993

Column 255

Question accordingly agreed to.

Again considered in Committee.

Question proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Winnick : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. At the beginning of our deliberations, the Prime Minister promised the House that we should have every opportunity to debate the Bill, line by line, in a Committee of the whole House. I put it to you, Mr. Morris, that if the Government are to force it through with all-night sittings and are able to do so only with the support of the Liberals, that is a sickening abuse of the procedures of the House.

The Jopling report, which is to be debated, emphasised that we should not debate after 10 pm. What logic is there in discussing issues of this importance through the night, especially when we do so only because of the treacherous Liberals?

The Chairman : The House has made its decision.

Mr. Cash : Before the vote, I made it clear that a number of important matters affected the taxpayers of this country who are discovering for themselves that the fraud that has been perpetrated in the European Community has been growing. I said that it was increasingly difficult for judgments to be made by the court, which identified two main reasons for deficiencies in financial management and control.

The first is inadequate drafting of legislation. For example, there may be a failure to specify adequate control arrangements, as with certain aid programmes or objectives and with structural fund training measures. Alternatively, it is said that the nature and purpose of support may not be easily amenable to control, as is the case with certain argicultural price compensation aids.

Secondly-- [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please doso quietly and quickly?

Mr. Cash : Secondly, it is said that there may be organisational deficiencies leading to errors or irregularities, which may not be detected or corrected. In the court's view, such problems with financial management, affecting the accounting and control of European Community finances, occur both in the Commission and in the member states, and the Commission has not checked sufficiently that national accounting and control arrangements for revenue and expenditure are adequate. What we have here is an indictment not only of the Commission but of the member states themselves. The finances of the European Community are in dire straits. The money of taxpayers is being thrown away.

richt treaty's provisions for the installation of the Court of Auditors as a full institution of the Community, as well as the increased powers of the European Parliament in respect of the Commission?

Mr. Cash : The very simple answer is that it should not be within the competence of the European Parliament in particular to deal with matters that are the concern of the electors and taxpayers of this nation. Such matters properly fall to be decided by the House of Commons.

Column 256

Mr. Taylor : We, too, could do that.

Mr. Cash : What an extraordinary thing to say. If we were to operate on the basis that everything decided here should be decided also in the European Parliament, there would be different reports from different institutions. We should have double jeopardy and the recycling of money, and nothing would be achieved. Half the trouble that we experience arises from the fact that there is not a sufficiently clear distinction between the functions of the House of Commons and the functions of the European Parliament. What my hon. Friend suggests would create even more confusion.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the number of auditors' reports that have exposed appalling fraud in the budgets of the European Community. Does he know that when this country held the presidency of the Council of Ministers our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer--no less--attempted, time and again, to raise this matter? The Chancellor himself told me that as soon as he tried to expose the fraud, the other delegates took up their newspapers. That is how much they cared about fraud in the European Community.

Mr. Cash : Indeed, and when the Select Committee on European Legislation visited the Court of Auditors it was given a very clear, verbatim account of the amount of fraud being perpetrated in the Community. The fact that Mr. Carey has been so critical of the present arrangements indicates that he does not believe that even what is proposed in this treaty would solve the problem. The real question is whether we shall be able to achieve a proper degree of control. The House of Commons has the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. A system that has been well established over centuries keeps proper control of our finances so far as is conceivably possible.

I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir. P. Hordern) is getting to his feet. This may be his first intervention in these debates, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I gladly give way.

Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham) : My hon. Friend is describing accurately the faults brought out by the European Court of Auditors and the faults that are inherent in the Single European Act which I believe he supported. He is right that there is no mechanism for putting these faults right. In the Maastricht treaty there are provisions for examination by the European Parliament of the European Commission. Surely that must be a significant advance over the position which my hon. Friend so accurately criticises. I cannot understand how he can object to the provisions in the Maastricht treaty that allow for some improvement in the position.

I tell my hon. Friend this in case he did not know the Comptroller and Auditor General himself, as well as some hon. Members, contributed to the effort to get the improvement. My hon. Friend ought at least to acknowledge the significant improvement which has been obtained in the treaty.

Mr. Cash : Irrespective of whether we want an improvement in the manner in which the finances of the Community are scrutinised and in relation to the discharge of the budget of the Commission, I still maintain that the

Column 257

real question, which lies at the heart of this issue, is the division of functions. An increasing volume of activity is being transferred. New competences, including the structural fund, are being transferred. I see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is unsure about it. I must ask him how we got ourselves into the position 18 months ago of agreeing an illegal budget retrospectively. I hope that he will respond, because that was a monstrous state of affairs. When such circumstances arise, hon. Members are entitled to ask what will happen with all the increased competences of the European Parliament and the Community institutions.

Mr. Budgen : Will my hon. Friend reflect for a moment on the well- researched observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) who has been a distinguished member of the Public Accounts Committee for a long time and who has given much thought to this matter? However, my right hon. Friend will not face up to two facts. First, many of the countries of the EEC are conniving at fraud. There is clear evidence that Italian Governments have from time to time connived at fraud, particularly in the agricultural sector. Secondly, the only way in which fraud could be rooted out would be to finalise the arrangements by which the EEC had the appurtenances of a single state--that it was given its own police authority and its own enforcement authority. Otherwise, it is inevitable that nation states, particularly where they condone fraud, will simply frustrate the inquiries of the Court of Auditors.

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. This is a lengthy intervention.

Mr. Cash : It may have been lengthy, but it was important and accurate. I can give chapter and verse to illustrate the very point that my hon. Friend has made. Paragraph 11.10 on page 181 of the report of the Court of Auditors says :

"Implementation of the Community legislation is rendered more difficult by the absence, in particular, in the Greek and Portuguese regions visited by the Court, of a viticultural land register or official plan of parcels. The vineyards are identified by a mere indication of their surface area and by vague references to their limits (names of the owners of neighbouring plots or topographical details : roads or water courses). It was for this reason that, in 1986, the Community decided to finance the establishment by the Member States of a vineyard register which would make it possible to identify, on a permanent basis, the vineyards belonging to each holding."

I give the next few words with deep regret :

"However, work on the setting up of this vineyard register--which, according to the legislation, was to have been completed by 31 July 1992 in Spain and Greece and should be completed by 31 December 1995 in Portugal-- is progressing slowly and, at the time of the Court's visit, had not resulted in any kind of improvement of the instruments for controlling the measures financed by the EAGGF Guidance Section."

10.30 pm

That is one example of what is going on. I would be quite astonished to read this in the Court of Auditors' report for last year were it not for the fact that I took part in a debate on the Court of Auditors' report four or so years ago, and I find that almost exactly the same kind of criticisms are being made now as were being made then. So why should I take the blindest notice of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham says when he suggests

Column 258

that we should go hell for leather down this route, accepting all these spurious claims that they will improve matters, when it is quite clear on the evidence that it will not happen? What some hon. Members will not and cannot understand is that the problems that are inherent in this treaty, difficulties that are inherent in trying to solve problems on pieces of paper, have no regard to the inherent corruption and veniality of many of the agriculturalists in other member states. I say that, I am afraid, with bags of evidence to support it. If hon. Members want to challenge me, I will take most of the night reading out the examples set out in this document.

Mrs. Gorman : I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. It is most generous of him. Taking his encyclopaedic knowledge of the report of the Court of Auditors, can he tell me if it has anything to say about the very fine line between expenses and corruption? For example, does it give us the price of the jet which Mr. Delors has at his disposal and which has "EC President" on the side, or of the fleet of stretch limousines which travel everywhere with him--Citroens, of course--covered in flags and all transported at the expense of the value added tax money which is collected and is about to be swollen by tax on fuel which will be charged to pensioners in this country? Does it say anything about that in the report?

Mr. Cash : I am sure that there are items which, one way and another, have not made their way into this report for reasons of sensitivity. As we are now moving towards what appears to be--over our dead bodies, as it were--a federal state, I have no doubt that an official secrets Act will be brought in to complement all this and to make sure that we cannot get access to that kind of information.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Seriously, could my hon. Friend remind our right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham that there is little point in adding yet another fraud investigation body, this time for the European Parliament, if we add, as we are doing in this treaty, massive new spending and responsibilities for the EC, based on artificial prices which are an economic nonsense? There is no way in which one could stop fraud, even if one were to set up a thousand departments and give them a thousand Citroens in which to travel round, looking for trouble.

Mr. Cash : Indeed, and the iniquity of the common agricultural policy, the iron hoof of monopoly, is well known to those who have studied the problems of the corn laws and the rest of it, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, whose affection for Cobden is matched only by my affection for John Bright. I suspect that Richard Cobden would be absolutely appalled at the way in which this monopoly arrangement in the common agricultural policy is being operated, because there is very little distinction between the degree of moral corruption that lies at the heart of the way the CAP is operated--I say that not merely as a generalisation but on the evidence that I can produce--between the common agricultural policy and the corn laws of the 19th century, particularly in their impact on the third world. The Court of Auditors makes some stringent criticisms of the way in which European Community finances impinge on poverty-stricken people in the third world.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Column 259

Mr. Cash : I shall be glad to give way to my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : As my hon. Friend paused for a moment, I could not stop myself asking him whether he recalled an incident that I may have told him about in the past, involving a company in Burton that had an unsatisfactory experience when it went to Italy and tried to buy a company there. The Burton company's representatives were presented with one set of books for the shareholder, another set for the would-be purchasers and a third set for the taxman. Some planes were revving up nearby, loaded with cases of cash about to be spirited away to Switzerland. That Italian company was supposed to be reputable, and a most reputable company from my constituency had intended to take it over. I need hardly add that we would not touch it--any more than we ought to touch the financial arrangements that are to be forced down our throats as a result of Maastricht.

Mr. Cash : Indeed. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I shall not be spirited away to Switzerland, at least in the immediate future, and certainly not before the end of the debate. I am fascinated to hear of the example that he cites, because it is matched by our experience. Many such Fred Karno examples and Crazy Gang incidents pour out of the reports of the Court of Auditors. However, at the heart of it all lies a serious tragedy : for every person who gains massively as a result of the frauds, which are organised on a massive scale and run into billions of pounds, there are other people in the Community who can hardly scratch together enough money to buy themselves a decent pair of shoes or set of clothing.

[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) does not seem to think that that is true. Perhaps there are no poor people in his constituency who could well do with the money that is ripped off from the system.

Sir Russell Johnston : If the hon. Gentleman is talking about poverty, he should acknowledge that poverty in this country has increased enormously under the Tory Government. If he is talking about cheating and fraud within the European Community, he must also readily admit that the Court of Auditors and the other Community institutions do their utmost to prevent them.

Mr. Cash : That is the whole problem, if I may say so. I have great affection for the hon. Gentleman, so I withdraw any suggestion that he may be attempting to look two ways at once. But it is wrong for him to suggest that we should not criticise the basis upon which the internal finances operate.

Sir Russell Johnston : I do not say that.

Mr. Cash : I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should give the matter careful consideration. The evidence suggests that nothing has been done and, on the basis of the arguments that I have presented and will continue to present, I do not believe that anything much will be done.

Let me take another example to which the Court of Auditors referred.

Mr. Skinner : Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, although so much fraud is going on in the Common Market, the Tory Ministers who go across there are not taking up the complaints about it? Ministers go across and

Column 260

discuss things with their opposite numbers at the Council of Ministers. Leon Brittan is there, too. He is a Tory ; what is he doing about it? I find it odd that Tory Ministers accept that massive fraud, yet hammer Lambeth Labour councillors whose only crime was to try to improve standards for their constituents. My brothers and their friends at Clay Cross were done by the Tories, too. Why is there one standard for Labour councillors and another for all those who are engaged in fraud in the Common Market? Why are Tory Ministers turning a blind eye to all the corruption and fraud about which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is talking when they hammer, surcharge and kick out of office people in Britain?

Mr. Cash : The hon. Gentleman will not take me down the route of criticising Tory or Conservative Members or ex-Members. I reserve my criticism for those who espouse federalism and all its works and pomps. Criticisms can be levied against those who want to take us down this iniquitous, fraudulent route, but not against Tory Members because we know our principles on these matters. We insist on having proper scrutiny of the finances of the Community.

Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central) : Is not the truth of the matter that we are criticising not necessarily political parties or personalities, but the absurdity of the system? In a nation that has prided itself on being honest and efficient in the way in which it conducts its civil life, our taxpayers are being hugely penalised for no other reason than that we are far more organised than the other 11.

Mr. Cash : My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The plain fact is that for every penny that goes in fraud, somebody loses because the whole basis of accountancy, of audit, of budgetary arrangements and of the discharge of the Commission's budget, which is tied up with the question of internal finances, is whether people have balanced the books properly, whether there are hidden items and whether there has been fraud. It is essential that the system is as good as it can be.

My great-great-grandfather was one of the first auditors in the 19th century. He was the chairman of the committee of inquiry into George Hudson, the railway king. I do not suggest that such practices have not been observed in the past. I am saying that as a result of his efforts--he went on to found the Institute of Chartered Accountants--there has been a considerable improvement in the quality of our auditing arrangements, which is why I paid tribute to members of the Public Accounts Committee and others. We have developed systems that, to a considerable extent, make the systems elsewhere in the European Community compare unfavourably. Our system is good. Their systems are sometimes virtually non-existent.

I am concerned that, for example, the Mafia will become deeply entrenched in the finances of the EC. I do not for one minute say that the Mafia is not already entrenched. However, I believe that the more centralisation we have, the greater is the probability that there will be an increase rather than a decrease in corruption. We should take that point seriously. As the amount of resources increases, so the opportunities for people to jump on the bandwagon or to get their noses in the trough grows. If hon. Members regard such subjects as being of minor importance, so be it. I and many hon. Members, whether in favour of the federal inclinations of the

Column 261

Community or not, do not want the existing system to be perpetuated. We want to know whether the purported improvements under these arrangements will make a hap'orth or half an ecu of difference.

Mr. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent) : Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, although we can all think of individual acts of fraud, the biggest is the common agricultural policy itself, which still accounts for more than 50 per cent. of the EC budget? Does he also accept that part of the act of fraud that comes under the CAP is the set-aside scheme? There was the example of a British farmer some years ago who received approximately £220,000 on the agreement that he would not farm that land for five years. Could the hon. Gentleman anticipate the reaction of the media if an unemployed or redundant coal miner or steel worker was given £220,000, told not to mine coal for five years and to go to the Costa del Sol

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. The subject of the amendment is narrow and the hon. Gentleman is straying well beyond it.

10.45 pm

Mr. Cash : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was beginning to spread his wings a little, Mr. Lofthouse, but he made an important observation on internal financing. I gave the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Francis Maude, evidence that I had accumulated which showed the way in which the set-aside system was being deployed, which is why I chose that example. Just as there are so-called vineyard registers which are not vineyard registers, in parts of Germany and Italy the maps that one might have expected them to use to determine set-aside are not used. I discovered that in parts of Germany maps that pre-date the second world war are being used, and that in parts of eastern Germany no one has the faintest idea of who owns what.

The idea that we are playing a game of fluff with this subject is a misunderstanding of what is going on in the European Community. As the Community enlarges its competence, internal finance become more serious, as does the fraud that goes with it. If a huge area of eastern Germany does not have the type of land registry system that we would expect, if the Italian systems are incapable of being properly monitored, and if there are moving olive groves in Greece and no one can tell who owns what, we are bound to find that the vast amount of money that we are paying to the European Community is draining away down the plug hole.

When the Foreign Secretary tells us that by our efforts in these debates we are putting Britain down the plug hole, I would answer that we ought to concentrate on the practical questions which underpin our objections-- fraud, corruption and the inability to maintain internal financing--and not on theological federalism.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Will my hon. Friend have time to mention the appalling fraud in EC tobacco subsidies, which are costing more than £1,000 million, especially in view of the tragic information that we received from the tapes half an hour ago that the head of the tobacco division of the EC's Agriculture Department, Mr. Antonio Quatraro, has jumped out of a window and committed suicide because he is alleged to have shown favouritism to

Column 262

Italian tobacco producers? When we think of the shortage of money for essentials in Europe and of unemployment, is it not appalling that all that money should be spent on wasteful subisidies to grow high-tar tobacco to be dumped in the third world?

Mr. Cash : That is disgraceful and it does not surprise me one bit because my hon. Friend and I have had reason to study the way in which many people have been trying to snuff out the opportunity for people to advertise tobacco or even to smoke it. We now find that the subsidies have been the subject of unbelievable frauds, and I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing our attention to that tragic case.

Sir Richard Body : Surely only in this country and Denmark is there sufficient knowledge of what is going on, through our census systems, to provide any form of policing. That information is not available in the remaining 10 countries. There is an almost total absence of such information in Italy and it is almost completely absent in Portugal--as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has said--and the other countries. We cannot pursue the allegations of fraud and will never achieve any sensible control over the extravagance of the common agricultural policy until the other 10 countries have the same sort of information that Denmark and the United Kingdom have.

Mr. Cash : Absolutely--and it is interesting that my hon. Friend should mention the United Kingdom and Denmark. Ultimately, those of us with a much more refined belief in the rule of law are fighting hardest to preserve democracy. That is the key element. I am delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just entered the Chamber--no doubt he has not come to listen to my speech. I missed him during the debate on economic and monetary union that went through the night ; he is, after all, in charge of the finances of this country. I had hoped that we might have had at least one or two observations from him on the way in which our economic and monetary affairs are being handed over to other countries to run.

I gave an example of the manner in which the Court of Auditors had had difficulties over Greece and Portugal, but that is not the end of the matter. I understand from the document that, in Spain, "an effective instrument for controlling plantations has only existed since 1986, the year in which a register of vineyards with entitlement to replant' was opened in certain of the autonomous regions of the country."

Regrettably, the all-too-familiar picture re-emerges. The report continues :

"This register does not, however, meet all the requirements of Community legislation. In Castille-La-Mancha"--

the very spot where Don Quixote was doubtless tilting at windmills--unlike us--some centuries ago--

"for example, vineyards which had already been grubbed up but in respect of which the grubbing-up operation had not been regularly declared were entered in the register."

To quote some Ministers who say it, the fact of the matter is that the document justifying entry in the register only states the fact that the wine grower is the owner of the vineyard and that he made a grubbing-up declaration on a certain date.

The report continues :

"the date of grubbing-up is not clearly indicated in any declaration submitted and recorded at the time the operation was carried out."

Column 263

That is not what we would describe as fraud of the sort associated with the corruption of the Mafia. It involves a way of life and a way of business.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : It is called the enterprise culture.

Mr. Cash : It is certainly enterprise viniculture. The way in which such people approach the issues involves their culture. That is one of my basic objections to the treaty. It is not merely a matter of simply drawing on a piece of paper some sort of glorified nirvana for the benefit of the bureaucrats, so that they can ease their consciences. It is not so that the bureaucrats can assume that bits of paper have been prepared or that--as in the previous debate--the bureaucrats come up with a so-called pillar to overcome the difficulty posed by the Commission and Mr. Delors wanting a bit more foreign policy control. These pieces of paper are very dangerous indeed ; moreover, they do not work.

Recently, I had dinner with a former Prime Minister. She asked me for my view on Europe. I said that I thought her task much more difficult than Churchill's. She asked why I thought that. I said, "He was faced with bombs and aircraft ; you are faced only with pieces of paper." Those pieces of paper have a deceptive way about them, particularly when they are locked into legal requirements : they are far more difficult for us to deal with.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and I spent many years as fellow members of the Standing Committee on European Legislation. My hon. Friend has been to the Court of Auditors with me. We had a very interesting time. The Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), is laughing : he obviously does not think that the Court of Auditors has been doing the job that it ought to have been doing. The fact is, however, that we have had first-hand experience of the underlying questions about which the court was concerned.

Mr. Carey, whom we met--I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford remembers him--has been very critical not only of the basis on which things are going, but of the way in which they would go under these arrangements.

Mr. Skinner : What did she say about the bits of paper?

Mr. Cash : I will not elaborate on that conversation. I will say, however, that she had, and still has, a very clear idea of the need for value for money. She knew what was going on.

I regret to say that, in the same report, the very question that was at the centre of one of her practical concerns--the Fontainebleau agreement, and our rebate--is now under attack from other member states, including Germany. The Court of Auditors' report has quite a lot to say about that.

Mr. Skinner : They need the money to pay for the vineyards.

Mr. Cash : That is true.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has just come in. I do not wish to leave any hon. Member out of the debate ; I am sure that everyone wants to contribute throughout the night. I must say, however, that the Court of Auditors' reports have some important things to say about fishing activities, with which I shall deal in due course. What is going on now in relation to fishing

Column 264

operations has a great deal to do with the way in which the moneys are disbursed : our fishermen are worried about the way in which the system functions, and that has led to many of the comments in the reports.

I briefly mentioned the court's view about the progress still needed to make the reform of the structural funds fully effective. Hon. Members may recall that there was a motion relating to cohesion funds last night. I do not know why we were in a position to vote on a matter that relates to the Edinburgh summit, which, as far as I know, has no authority whatever. I have no way of knowing whether it is possible for us to vote on a matter relating to cohesion funds, when, as far as I know, there is no authorisation in law. I have the greatest difficulty in understanding that.

The structural funds are part of the European Community's responsibilities. Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)--now a senior Minister of State--and I were in the House when the structural funds were first given substantial refurbishment. That refurbishment, the internal financing of which is the subject of the Court of Auditors' report, amounted to an absolutely massive increase in the amount of money which was made available under them.

11 pm

We are pouring out huge sums of money on a regional and social engineering exercise, compatible with the treaty as it is developing, that is essentially socialist in nature. [Interruption.] I suspect that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) knows what I am about to say. I should like to know whether any of the money which is being frittered away on these corrupt and fraudulent activities and which is not being propelast night. I should like to know whether my miners, in Madeley and elsewhere in the Stafford constituency, could obtain genuine access to that money.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Can my hon. Friend make it abundantly clear to the Stafford constituency miners, and to all the people of Britain, that not one penny of the cohesion fund will come to Britain? The real tragedy is that our friends from Northern Ireland, who attend these debates so assiduously, cannot get a penny, while a few miles away, in the Republic of Ireland, money is being poured in from the cohesion fund. This was slipped on to the Order Paper late last night when no one knew, and it appeared to break every parliamentary rule and convention. It is a terrible scandal. Nobody cares. Nobody has looked into it. Sadly, no one here can now do a thing about it.

Mr. Cash : My hon. Friend has, as usual, made an extremely good point. What lies at the heart of

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is the last statement by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) remotely true? Has the Clerk advised you that the authority of the House of Commons has been usurped in the way that my hon. Friend suggested?

Sir Teddy Taylor : Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. If we read what the Select Committee says, it tells the whole story. There is no precedent in the history of the United Kingdom Parliament of money being

Column 265

allocated for legislation before it has been approved. I will give my hon. Friend the papers, if he likes to come along here and get them.

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. There is nothing out of order at this stage, but I advise hon. Members to stick to the amendment. We are from time to time going well beyond the scope of the debate.

Mr. Cash : I am sticking rigidly, I am sure you will agree, Mr. Lofthouse--

Mr. Wells : Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I appreciate your ruling on the matter, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said is, I believe, a calumny on both your office and that of the Clerks. I also believe that you should rule on whether or not his accusations are accurate.

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. I cannot rule upon it.

Next Section

Home Page