| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Knapman : The point that I am trying to make is that our country's share of world trade has stayed--in fact fractionally increased to more than 8 per cent. The share of the EC as a whole has dropped from 25.5 to 20 per cent. What reason does the hon. Gentleman give for that?
Mr. Fatchett : I ask the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) to check his figures. His optimistic assumption about Britain's share of world trade is not accurate. The Minister may wish to look at a parliamentary answer he gave me on Thursday. If the hon. Member for Stroud looks at that answer, he will see the figures for Britain's balance of payments in manufactures against those of European Community countries and of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, and for Britain's share of world trade in manufactures. If he looks at those figures, he will see that his assumption is not wholly valid. I encourage him to do that piece of basic research.
I make three assumptions. The first is that the market alone is not sufficient and the second is that we need a policy that is more than competition. Thirdly, economic policy must have more than one objective. An industry policy via supply side measures supplements macro-economic policy. We believe that an effective and sensible policy for any country needs to be based on four economic criteria : growth, balance of payments, unemployment and inflation. Our criticism of the Government is that they have concentrated almost wholly on one criterion of economic success-- inflation.
5.15 pm
The cost of that policy to British manufacturing industry, to industry generally and to British economic performance has been great. It is easy enough to squeeze inflation out of the system. The real economic skills and success is to get a balance between the four economic objectives : growth, the balance of payments, jobs and inflation. The Government have failed to do that.
We believe that an effective industry policy acts as a vital supplement to effective macro-economic policies. Such a policy helps supply-side factors and it creates the conditions in which British industry will be able to perform. That is why we seek an economic policy for Europe and for the United Kingdom which emphasises
Column 49
growth and jobs. I commend to my right hon. and hon. Friends and to Conservative Members the comments made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the leader of the Labour party, in a speech last Friday.My right hon. and learned Friend said :
"There is clearly a danger"--
he was talking about European recession--
"that this may occur if the fiscal deficit rules of the Maastricht Treaty are rigidly interpreted. An excessively strict application of the protocol which specifies a target of 3 per cent. for government deficits would compound the existing financial squeeze which has been caused by high interests rates in Germany.
If all member states of the EC tried to satisfy the 3 per cent. target by the end of 1996, for example, (the earliest possible date for the rule to apply) the combined effect on total EC output would be a reduction of over 2 per cent. This is obviously absurd and simply not feasible for a majority of member states of the Community."
My right hon. and learned Friend's point is crucial. We need an economic policy that relates to all four criteria : growth, balance of payments, unemployment and inflation. Those criteria must be given equal importance and equal emphasis in terms of policy development. That is why we have seen industrial policy as a supplement to achieving those objectives of growth and of job creation. It is worth taking the House back to the comments made by the new EC competition Commissioner. His words could have been those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East. The Commissioner said :
"The ultimate goal is for the economy to perform for the people, so that everyone gets his fair share and companies have a good environment to prosper, to invest and to be competitive." That means more than one economic objective and not just squeezing inflation out of the system. It means having low inflation, growth, jobs and a balance of payments position that is manageable. That is the objective of an industrial policy that will supplement the supply side policy.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : I have listened carefully, but I am afraid that I am not quite clear on this point. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that our erstwhile leader was disagreeing with the straitjacket being imposed by the 3 per cent. or that he was simply disagreeing with the percentage that was being imposed? The point is important. There were other aspects of that speech that I found a little difficult to understand and I mildly resented being called a barnacle.
Mr. Fatchett : I certainly did not call my hon. Friend that.
Mrs. Dunwoody : No, the reference was in the speech to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Mr. Fatchett : I am not sure whether that reference is in the speech. I will pass my script to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition as our erstwhile leader. I am not sure whether that was an accurate description--unless there has been a palace revolution to which no reference has been made. In respect of a further recession, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East said :
"There is clearly a danger that this may occur if the fiscal deficit rules of the Maastricht Treaty are rigidly interpreted."
Column 50
That has been Labour's position throughout. There is concern about the fiscal and deficit rules and an argument that they cannot and should not be interpreted rigidly.Mrs. Dunwoody : With respect to my hon. Friend, I am still not clear what he is saying. Do we totally accept the straitjacket of the 3 per cent. while we disagree only with the size of the percentage?
Mr. Fatchett : I am not sure why my hon. Friend is in such difficulty. The point is that Labour looks for a range of economic goals which include inflation, growth and job creation. We believe that they are the key economic convergence criteria. We have said that consistently.
Against that backcloth, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East has made an important intervention. He has stated clearly that if there is a very strict interpretation of the fiscal deficit rules, there will be a further push into recession. If my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich reads more of the speech, she will discover that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East also refers to ways in which the rules can be interpreted more flexibly and more loosely.
Mr. Cash : It appears that the Leader of the Opposition now has serious doubts about the basis upon which the Opposition have entered into collusive understanding with the Government Front Bench in respect of the convergence and budget deficit arrangements prescribed under the Maastricht treaty. Does not the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) agree--
The Chairman : Order. Before the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) continues, I should say that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) was referring to industrial policy, but he strayed into convergence and other matters to do with the Leader of the Opposition. The group of amendments that we are discussing are related to industrial policy, research and development and in particular, areas related to article 130. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central was being very tight in his speech and I congratulate him on that. I hope that we can continue with that tightness.
Mr. Budgen : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Will you reconsider your ruling in that regard? The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made it quite clear that, in his opinion, industrial policy leads to objectives about growth, inflation and the balance of payments, all of which are generally regarded as wider economic issues. If the hon. Gentleman is allowed to discuss those points, surely the rest of the House should be able to do so as well.
Mr. Richard Shepherd : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. As I understand it, you said that the points that have been raised had no bearing on the amendments. However, I suggest that they should be considered in the sense that competitiveness is affected and the amendment seeks to remove powers to ensure the competitiveness of industry. Therefore, matters that have a bearing on the competitiveness of industry are surely within the call of the Committee.
Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. Bearing in mind the fact that later groupings of amendments deal with European monetary union, cohesion policy and many of the issues
Column 51
that are in dispute at the moment, when we reach those amendments, can we take into account the amount of time that we are spending on these amendments?The Chairman : I am grateful to all hon. Members. So long as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central related his comments specifically to industrial policy, he was in order. Understandably, in his discussion with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), he was tempted a little away from that. I hope that we can now return to that course.
Mr. Cash : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. You raised a point in respect to something that I was saying and not with respect to the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).
The Chairman : The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was echoing and encouraging the hon. Member for Leeds, Central to go further down that road. It seemed to me to be entirely wrong of him to do that. Perhaps we can now get on.
Several Hon. Members rose --
The Chairman : Order. I call Mr. Skinner.
Mr. Skinner : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As Chairman of this Committee, will you explain to me how it is possible to discuss industrial policy without referring to economic policy or the balance of payments. If we have an industrial policy that ends up with a £14 billion balance of payments deficit after this recession, that must affect industrial policy one way or the other. How can we eliminate the argument about growth? Since I have been a Member of this place, I have always believed that all those things hang together. I find it crazy for you to be ruling in this fashion.
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman is correct in so far as there can be allusion to all those points. However, there is a great difference between allusions to an exchange rate or other elements of policy when there are specific amendments on the Order Paper. It may have been some time since hon. Members have been in Committee. They should remember that, when we are discussing amendments, although hon. Members may allude to other elements that affect the amendments, the primary discussion must be about the amendment. That is the only point that I am making to the Committee. The Committee should bear that in mind.
Mr. Budgen : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I suggest that there is a good deal of truth in the suggestions of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? It seems to be the wish of the Committee to have, if possible, a slightly wider debate on the amendments. May I suggest that there was at the very least a grave misunderstanding about the decisions that were taken last week on the wider debate which, Mr. Morris, you may recall was concluded with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) being somewhat disconcerted. There is a need for some flexibility on a wider debate. When we tried to have a wider debate last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) had been sitting here for three days and my hon. Friend the Member for--
Column 52
The Chairman : Order. I probably know better than any hon. Member who was sitting in the Chamber during the previous four days and I probably know better than any hon. Member how long they had sat here.
Mr. Budgen : With great respect--
The Chairman : Order. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is showing great respect. We have had four days debating the titles, which were very broad areas of debate and purposely so. We are now moving to specific areas. I have made it clear that there can be allusions to exchange rate policy, devaluation and floating exchange rates and even to the coal mines that were referred to at the beginning of the debate. However, there are specific amendments on the Order Paper and the Committee has charged the Chair with having a debate on them. That is what I am trying to ensure happens. The fact that certain hon. Members have not sat on Committees perhaps for a fair amount of time and have forgotten how a Committee works means that it is my job to remind them of that.
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : I will take a point of order from Mr. Walker.
Mr. Budgen : If I might raise another point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : I will accept one more point of order from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
Mr. Budgen : Of course I accept that you will undoubtedly have made a note of the right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who rose last week. On the other hand, you may not wish to tell the Committee or give publicity to that number. Those of us who felt aggrieved and made a note of the number of Members who tried to speak may have a different purpose. I accept that you know, but the country may not know the extent to which those who had general views which they wished to express were unhappily stifled.
The Chairman : I will not hark back to last week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
Several Hon. Members rose --
The Chairman : Order. I must place on the record the fact that, prior to our proceedings today, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South- West has contributed more than 15 minutes--which, for some hon. Members, is long enough for a speech--simply on points of order and interventions.
Mr. Budgen : What is wrong with that?
The Chairman : I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that. I am saying that the hon. Gentleman has had a fair voice, and I hope that the country has listened to him.
Mr. Bill Walker : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I apologise for arriving late. As you probably know, my constituency is suffering very substantially. I was wandering around in my welly boots trying to find some answers to our ghastly problems.
You will be aware, Mr. Morris, that we are not about to discuss the broad issues on which we have had four days
Column 53
debate and in respect of which closures were accepted. We have had four days debate on the broad issues affecting the removal of one section and then the removal of others, which of course did not take place. I am the only Scottish Conservative Member whose views on Maastricht are different from those of members of the Government Front Bench, but I was not given an opportunity to express them even though they are widely held throughout Scotland. The closure motion by the Liberal Democrats on the first two days prevented a Scottish Conservative Member from being called. On the third and fourth days, I was not called.In order to express my views and those that are held by many people in my constituency in Scotland, one will have to include in the range of amendments matters affecting finance, and so on.
5.30 pm
The Chairman : I am sorry, but I have to inform the hon. Gentleman, who had the floor for 10 minutes prior to the debate today, that he will not be in order to bring in major matters of finance. He may allude to them. I repeat that the amendments are about industrial, consumer, commercial and agricultural issues, and they primarily refer to article 130. I ask hon. Members not to continue to rise but to read article 130 and refresh their memories on that point. Several Hon. Members rose --
The Chairman : No "furthers". I call Mr. Marlow.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a totally different point of order, Mr. Morris. I hope that you do not mind my raising it. A few minutes ago you referred to the hon. Gentleman who had the floor. I have been here for about 14 years and you have been here much longer than that, and very welcome you have been in the House all that time. I do not think that I had ever heard the expression "the hon. Gentleman who has the floor" until about a year ago. We have heard "the hon. Gentleman who was speaking", "the hon. Gentleman who caught my eye", and "the hon. Gentleman who was on his feet". "Having the floor" is an expression that is used in European Parliaments or other nation state Parliaments in Europe. This place was in being for about 700 years before the European Parliament was a twinkle in anybody's eye. I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to maintain our procedures and expressions rather than adopt those of institutions that are much younger than ours.
The Chairman : I have certainly used the phrase "the hon. Gentleman who has the floor" in Committee. It is a perfectly normal term and it has been used in many Committees. I see nothing wrong with the terminology.
Several Hon. Members rose--
The Chairman : Order. I am not taking any more points of order on that matter. [Interruption.] Order. I choose the language that I wish to express in a situation. Hon. Members have to accept that. Several Hon. Members rose--
The Chairman : I hope that they are totally new points of order. I have dealt with the point by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) about-- [Interruption.] I have, with respect. Perhaps if he rises in
Column 54
his place we will see whether he can be called today. The hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Stafford (Mr. Cash) have already spoken at some considerable length. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, too, has had the floor before today for only four minutes--he is quite correct--but he has been making up for it this afternoon. Nevertheless, I call Mr. Shepherd, but it must be a new point of order.Mr. Richard Shepherd : With respect, Mr. Morris, I have sat in the Chamber much longer than you have during the debate. My point of order relates to article 130, the very first words of which--forgive me for not having my glasses on--says :
"The Community and the Member States shall ensure that the conditions necessary for the competitiveness of the Community's industry exist."
Your ruling a little earlier about what one may choose to refer to seems to indicate a very limiting context. What is competitiveness unless it is formed by all elements, such as exchange rates, cohesion and diversion of investment? All those matters affect
competitiveness. How can one discuss competitiveness without discussing the nature of those arrangements?
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a major element to do with competition, but a whole host of matters affect competition. If the hon. Gentleman would, with respect--I do not mean this facetiously--re- read article 130, he will see that there are large elements about
"speeding up the adjustment of industry to structural changes ; encouraging an environment favourable to initiative"
and co-operation, and so on. Those are the main elements of article 130 and competition policy is a part of it as well, but the point that I am making to the Committee is that, in terms of cohesion, we have some specific amendments. I am thinking of 20 amendments on cohesion policy. It is appropriate to develop the whole of that argument. Today it is more appropriate to develop industrial policy and to make allusions to cohesion ; otherwise we will just have a general debate from now until we reach Third Reading, and that would not be in the interests of what hon. Members want. I am here to serve the Committee and to try to keep the Committee in order.
Mr. Cash : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : I call Mr. Cash with a final point of order, I hope.
Mr. Cash : Would it be possible for the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) to resume the debate? This waste of time has arisen because I merely mentioned the word "convergence". You have raised with me, Mr. Morris, the question whether that was in order. As a result of what you have said, it has now been conceded that it was. If the hon. Gentleman could now proceed, we could pick up where we left off.
Mr. Budgen : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman is approaching this matter in a very relaxed manner. Is it a new point of order?
Mr. Budgen : It is a new point of order.
The Chairman : The emphasis is on the word "new".
The Chairman : It is a new point of order. Thank you.
Column 55
Mr. Budgen : If I could conclude by putting on the record that these points of order flow inevitably from the sense of outrage in the Committee that further--
The Chairman : Order. That is not a new point of order ; it is not a point for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman feels a sense of outrage, I regret that.
Mr. Bill Walker : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : Is it a new point of order and not the one that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier?
Mr. Walker : It is a new point of order.
Mr. Walker : I seek your guidance, Mr. Morris. This is a United Kingdom Parliament, and the future of this Parliament vitally depends on the Union that took place in 1707. I have raised this matter a number of times and I have had some difficulty in following the changes that have been made to the 1707 Act of Union. It will not surprise you that I have spent a lifetime in politics on that topic. I do not wish to bore the House tonight, but my concern is the future of this unitary Parliament and it has little to do with expressing personal views or obtaining extra time. I believe that this Parliament is now at greater risk than at any time since 1707. [Interruption.]
The Chairman : Order. That comment could have been made on Second Reading. Nevertheless, I call Mr. Fatchett.
Mr. Richard Shepherd : On a totally new point of order, Mr. Morris. [Interruption.]
The Chairman : Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman, but I ask the Committee to recognise that the hon. Gentleman who was speaking wishes to develop his speech and to continue it. We have now spent 15 minutes on several points of order whch were not in order and one or two that were in order. I hope that this is a new point of order and that it is a specific point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Shepherd : You mentioned, Mr. Morris, that I had spoken for four minutes and you mentioned that another hon. Member had spoken for a length of time. In fact, I have not yet made a speech in Committee, as you will be well aware. I have not had an opportunity to express views or opinions other than to try to elicit information. Is it the practice, or is the Chair giving a ruling, that the length of time in an unguillotined Committee stage, and one that is subject to the acceptance of the closure only by yourself, will be a material factor in whether hon. Members are called, and in the length or shape of the debate and the freedom of speech in the Committee?
The Chairman : The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.
Mr. Fatchett : It is difficult to maintain the flow of a speech after a break of a quarter of an hour. If Conservative Members wish to raise another batch of points of order, perhaps they could inform me in advance, and I can go and have a cup of tea.
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) rose
Mr. Fatchett : I shall take one more intervention, before finishing my speech.
Column 56
Mr. Shore : My question relates directly to industrial policy. I share my hon. Friend's view of the inadequacy of market determination in the future of our industries. However, I am not clear about the role that European industrial policy is to play, as distinct from the research and development, education and training policies, which are also linked. Will my hon. Friend say something about that? What is article 130 about in terms of the amendment? What will it allow the Community to do that it did not previously have the power to do?
Mr. Fatchett : I think that my right hon. Friend must have had the opportunity to look at my notes during the substantial break for points of order. The next few points that I was about to make are as follows. First, does the Minister accept the principles that I proposed in terms of industrial policy? Do the Government share those principles? If so, why is there a distance between those principles and the application of industrial policy in the United Kingdom? Secondly--to pick up the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) how do the Government define industrial policy under article 130? How do they define European Community industrial policy? Is that policy more than research and development, more than providing help to small and medium-sized businesses and more than the development of skills at national and company level? If it is, will the Minister describe what he and the Government mean by industrial policy and how much money the Government would allocate to those policies?
Mr. Leighton : Will my hon. Friend give way?
| Next Section
| Home Page |