House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Jan 1993

Mr. Fatchett : I must continue, as I know that it will frustrate all those Conservative Members who are keen to intervene in the debate if I take too long and they do not have an opportunity to speak.

Will the Minister describe exactly what the Government mean by industrial policy? What will be determined at European Community level and what at the United Kingdom level? Where does the principle of subsidiarity apply to industrial policy?

The Opposition favour an active industrial policy and active intervention in the market. We strongly believe that the market alone cannot deliver an efficient economy, high levels of employment and good social provision, and that the Government must perform that role. It has become clear during the current policy debate that those with free market views are now on the defensive. In the 1990s the free market has failed to deliver in the way in which those who support the free market claim that it should.

The role of Government intervention is once again back on the agenda. We support Government intervention in the marketplace, which is why we support an industrial policy. We have argued for that and will continue to do so. We support article 130 because we support the principle of an industrial policy. What do the Government mean by an industrial policy? Why have they changed their position on an industrial policy from a national one to a European Community one? I think that we shall have an interesting debate and I look forward to the divisions that will emerge among Conservative Members of the Committee. The Opposition are keen to have a Europe that emphasises growth, jobs and the provision of social facilities. That is why we seek this debate on industrial policy.

Column 57

5.45 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones) : Amendment No. 1 embraces many of the other amendmentsin the group. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)--as I am sure the Committee is--for stating that he will not press the amendment to a Division. I agree that the amendment provides the House with an opportunity to debate the industrial, consumer, commercial and research and development policies of the Community.

The issues under discussion are, by and large, covered in the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. Therefore, incorporation of the issues in the Maastricht treaty does not signify a particularly dramatic departure from existing Community practice. Whereas new chapters were included in the treaty for the first time on industrial and consumer issues, action was already possible under the treaty of Rome. Consumer protection legislation has been an important element of the single market programme.

Issues under discussion all fall within title II of the Maastricht treaty and amend the treaty of Rome. All the provisions are capable of action at Community level and are ultimately justiciable before the European Court of Justice. The principle of subsidiarity will apply in relation to those issues and others covered by the treaty. Her Majesty's Government will ensure that action respects that principle.

The amendments largely echo the arguments relating to the debate on the development of the Community held in the House in the mid-1980s and before. Amendments Nos. 358 and 361, in the name of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) remove the establishment of the internal market as one of the Community's objectives. I cannot believe that hon. Members would seriously wish to undermine the achievement of the creation of the single market less than a month after the United Kingdom presidency has brought the project to a successful conclusion.

Amendment No. 1 takes issue with the functioning of research and development policy as it has devolved under the Single European Act. I accept, of course, that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central moved the amendment to stimulate a debate. The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is present in the Chamber, can confirm that the United Kingdom has benefited from Community research and development policy and there is no case for reversing that achievement of the Single European Act.

A further characteristic of some of the issues under discussion is the influence that the United Kingdom can exert on the negotiating processes through the unanimity provisions negotiated at Maastricht. That does not apply to all sectors, but action under the industry title can be taken only with the agreement of all member states. The retention of unanimity when agreeing the research and development framework programmes allows the United Kingdom to play a decisive role in shaping future research and development policy.

One element that I believe will emerge from the detailed debate is the extent to which the Maastricht treaty--as it affects the specific issues under debate today--marks a substantial improvement in the position of the United Kingdom Government after the Single European Act.

Column 58

Mr. Marlow : I totally agree with my right hon. Friend, and I believe that the single market is important. However, I question the extent to which we have achieved it. Let us consider two important industries in this country : steel and coal. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made an apposite point when he asked whether there was a single market in the coal industry. The same could be said of the steel industry. Our coal and steel industries are more effective and efficient than others in the Community, but the others are larded with direct and indirect Government subsidies and other support, to the disadvantage of our industries. So there does not appear to be a single market in coal or steel.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) what regional policy means--which is, that we shall have to put more of our money into the Community budget to be spent in other parts of the Community?

Mr. Garel-Jones : Of course I agree that the establishment of a single market in which anti-competitive practices are wholly eliminated would be a perfect state of grace, but I doubt whether the Community will ever attain it. The United Kingdom Government made it perfectly clear when we announced on 31 December that the single market was "complete" that the struggle to maintain competitiveness and to seek to eliminate uncompetitive practices must continue unabated--as the Communists would have said, "La lutta continua". My hon. Friend referred to regional policy, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) in a characteristically moderate intervention. I say "moderate" because he asserted that the Community was a machine for idealistic socialism. In that, he was rather more moderate than our hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) who believes it to be a machine for communism. So I commend my hon. Friend's restraint.

Opposition Members believe the treaty to be an unbridled machine for the pursuit of capitalism and market economics. My belief is that the treaty of Rome does not fulfil for Europe Professor Fukuyama's prediction that history is over. It merely provides a framework within which European socialists--or whatever they call themselves these days--and those of us who are part of the centre-right family of European political parties will pursue the sort of market-oriented policies in which we have always believed.

It is worth remembering that the agreed seven-year financial perspective running through to 1999 will by then have involved an increase in the total public expenditure of the United Kingdom of 0.1 per cent. That is certainly a large figure--it is £200 million--but it is a very much smaller figure than the one that we agreed to at the time of the Single European Act.

One should also bear in mind the fact that the cohesion countries would say that their chemical, insurance, brewing and service industries are increasingly being taken over by large transnational companies based in the United Kingdom, Holland and Germany, producing enormous benefits for those latter countries. So even the large sums of money which will be spent on cohesion and on improving the trans-European network--roads, communications, and so on--will rebound to the benefit of British companies and industries which are making

Column 59

inroads into important sectors of industry in southern Europe, to the benefit of workers and investors in our country.

Mr. Budgen : Is it a fair summary to say that, at both Maastricht and Edinburgh, the Government made substantial concessions for the cohesion fund, and that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central was thus perfectly right to say that the Government had made a substantial concession? They had agreed to the principle of socialist intervention, so the only difference between the Front-Bench spokesmen--who so often agree on these subjects--is that the Government agree in principle to this socialist intervention but do not wish to spend quite so much money as the Opposition do.

Mr. Garel-Jones : That is not a correct appraisal. There is certainly no collusion between Opposition and Government Front-Bench spokesmen : there is consensus about policy, which is quite different. The only collusion of which I am aware is that between my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues and certain Opposition Members. That collusion is perfectly legitimate. They are a tiny minority in the House and if they are to have any impact on our debates it is perfectly understandable that there should be cross-party collusion on this matter.

I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend by saying that, although there is no collusion on our part, there is an element of consensus about our membership of the Community. To make a point at the expense of the Opposition : if our party has stood for anything over the past 20 or 30 years it has stood, first, for our independent nuclear deterrent ; secondly, for our belief in social market economics--I see my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West frowning, so I will leave out the word "social" for his benefit ; and thirdly, for our membership of the European Economic Community.

By consistently standing on those issues, our party has won three large victories. By opposing them for the past 20 or 30 years, the Opposition have produced a generation of politicians looking at us now--people who by and large have been deprived of office-- [Interruption.] I seem to hear my hon. Friend asking for a referendum. The last time I spoke to him he was not in favour of one, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was prominent in arranging a protest in favour of a referendum last Sunday--

Mr. Leighton : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How does a referendum relate to industrial policy?

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : We are indeed straying rather wide of the amendment

Mr. Budgen : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I support my hon. Friend the Minister in referring to a referendum, and suggest that you--

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. I have just ruled that out of order.

Mr. Garel-Jones : As you would expect, Mr. Lofthouse, I respect your ruling. When we come to certain other amendments which have been selected, I shall torture my hon. Friend about referendums later.

Column 60

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) rose --

Mr. Cash rose --

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am told by those who advise me that in my two speeches before the Committee thus far I have given way 50 times, as my hon. Friends would expect me to, but I also intend to do my best to get what I need to say on the record and to make some progress, so that other right hon. and hon. Members will not be disappointed when they try to speak. I shall give way to my hon. Friends after making a little more progress.

The emphasis of the new industry chapter on the creation of a favourable environment for industry is directly in line with United Kingdom policy. The industry chapter will not open up European industry to policies which are interventionist or dirigiste. The unanimous voting provisions of the chapter are welcome to the Government. Under the Single European Act, the Community could already adopt measures affecting industry through the internal market by qualified majority voting, by the research and development provisions and, of course, through article 235. Only measures supported by all member states will be acceptable under article 130. The United Kingdom attaches particular importance to the explicit statement that article 130 does not provide a basis for Community measures that would distort competition. Free and fair competition is essential to the functioning of the single market.

Mr. Gill : My right hon. Friend spoke about trans-European networks. My constituents who go to other member states see enormous amounts of European Community money being spent on roads and other infrastructure. That happens in countries whose populations are sparser than in Shropshire, but in some parts of that county it is impossible in some places to get roads that are wide enough for two vehicles. How can I explain to my constituents that their money can be spent in southern Europe and even in Madeira, whose population is smaller than that of Shropshire, when they have to put up with an antiquated and totally inadequate road system ?

6 pm

Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall try to help my hon. Friend in two ways. I would tell his constituents, as I could tell everybody in Britain, that the United Kingdom is lucky to have about a third of the major transnational companies in the Community. Those companies, which provide employment and wealth for my hon. Friend's constituents and for mine, are making large and successful investments in the industries in which Britain is especially good. Insurance is a good example. That is thanks not least to the removal of anti-competitive practices in other European markets. Such investments and services provide substantial benefits for our constituents.

A substantial British transnational company has just made a huge investment in southern Spain. If such a company seeks to move consumer products not just in Spain but around the Community, it is in the company's interests that the road and rail network be as efficient and as well invested in as possible. Of the three substantial contributors to the European Community-- the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and ourselves--the Federal Republic contributes about 30 per cent. of the cohesion fund, the French Republic contributes about 20 per cent. and, because of our abatement, we contribute

Column 61

about 5 per cent. I think that those percentages are right, but I am quoting off the top of my head. Even by 1997, the total increase in Community spending to which we agreed will represent only 0.1 per cent. of total public expenditure in Britain. My hon. Friend's constituents and mine are getting a jolly good bargain.

Mr. Rowlands : I am following the thrust of the Minister's argument, but I want to make sure that I understand it properly. Is he saying that all the provisions of article 130 on industry and research and technology do not in any way enhance the competence or the responsibilities of the Commission and the Community in those fields?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am saying more than that, and I shall deal with the issue in more detail later. In some specific areas--education and health are good examples, and I shall deal with them in detail later--the position of the United Kingdom is substantially improved compared with that which pertained under the Single European Act to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is so attached.

Mr. Cash rose --

Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall make a little more progress and then give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Shore : Will the Minister further clarify that point?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who has trailed his question. I shall clarify the matter later and give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I have done so. I should like to deal with the common commercial policy and refer to article 3 and the extension of Community competence. The common commercial policy has been at the heart of the European Community's activities since its inception in 1957. It is a basic provision of the treaty of Rome, and its importance has been reaffirmed in all subsequent amendments to the treaty, including those advanced by the treaty on European union.

The new title updates the existing provision and in addition--this is one of the areas in which there has been substantial improvement--removes the obligation under article 116 of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, on member states to co-ordinate their positions where there is no established EC competence in the area. We shall continue to act together, because in most cases it is in our best interests to do so. As before, there is no provision for European Parliament involvement. The new titles should reinforce transparency and predictability in the Community's trading patterns with the rest of the world.

Article 3 is billed in shock-horror terms by some hon. Members as containing new competences. It lists the Community's activities. The list is longer in the Maastricht treaty than in the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act. That is because the list has been extended to include references to the new competence chapters included in the Maastricht treaty for the first time. Nine new policy areas are listed in article 3, but that does not mean that there are nine new areas of competence. In all these areas, competence has already been exercised under the provisions of the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act.

Column 62

Mr. Cash rose --

Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall give way later to my hon. Friend with relish. I think that my hon. Friend remains a staunch defender of the Single European Act. I shall seek to establish that the matters that I am about to enunciate are an improvement on that Act and why the position that he supported with such enthusiasm in 1985-86 can be supported now. I shall explain how the Maastricht treaty codifies and clarifies competence in these areas, extends it to a small degree and contains it to a large degree. Article 126 deals with education--

Mr. Budgen : Will my right hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. The Minister will be aware that education is the subject of another debate.

Mr. Garel-Jones : With respect, Mr. Lofthouse, we are dealing with article 3 and the competences that it lists. Although I stand to be corrected by you, Mr. Lofthouse, one of those competences--

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. The Minister should address article 130.

Mr. Budgen : Perhaps I may be allowed to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). My hon. Friend voted for the Single European Act, and some of us have teased him about that, but he did not do it with any enthusiasm. Like many Conservative Members, he did it out of mistaken loyalty to the Government ; it was a good illustration of how the House often does not represent the true views either of the Tory party or of the nation.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I realise that my hon. Friend frequently regards support for the Government as mistaken.

Mr. Budgen : Sometimes it is.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I agree that that is sometimes the view, but some of us have not consistently taken it. I have dealt with the common commercial policy.

Mr. Marlow : My right hon. Friend made a robust defence of the cohesion fund, and said that to a certain extent it is in Britain's interests. He said that the fund is to be spent on infrastructure projects to help trade within the Community. Will he confirm that the fund will be spent on nothing other than infrastructure projects to help trade within the Community. Will he confirm that the fund will be spent on nothing other than infrastructure projects? Will it be spent only on transport?

Mr. Garel-Jones : Of course I cannot confirm that. I am simply giving it as an illustration. I was invited by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) to illustrate why it was that the cohesion fund could be seen as beneficial to his constituents. I gave him an example. No doubt, when we come to debate the cohesion fund in detail, I shall be able to provide my hon. Friend with many other examples.

Mr. Shore : Article 130 is at the heart of the debate. Will the Minister make it clear whether anything in it deals precisely with industrial policy? By that, I do not mean research and development, education and trade. Does anything in it add anything to, or take anything from, what was previously available under the treaty of Rome or the Single European Act?

Column 63

Mr. Garel-Jones : The answer is virtually no. The only additions were inserted at the request of the United Kingdom. They include, for example, the last sentence of article 130, which reads :

"This Title shall not provide a basis for the introduction by the Community of any measure which could lead to a distortion of competition."

I see my advisers nodding. That sentence was new and was inserted at the express intervention of the United Kingdom and will give comfort to those Opposition Members who seek, quite contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is doing, to demonstrate that the whole of the treaty is a capitalist plot.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : I have been following the Minister's arguments, in which he has denied that there is any potential for an increase in competence over industrial affairs--the point addressed in the amendments. Will he accept that, as the European Community grows and as we see changes in the patterns of companies and transnational activities, there may need to be increased competence to ensure that the European Community is able to deal with companies which may be so large that a single member state could not deal with them?

Mr. Garel-Jones : Of course I agree with that. One of the points that I made when I appeared before the Select Committee the other day was that one of the advantages of the Commission is that it is not a member state. Like all others, our member state would protect and support its industries up to a point. Some industrial practices and environmental policies will require a strong Commission which is not a member state and does not have the competing vested interest that any member state will have.

In view of your strictures, Mr. Lofthouse, I shall not extend myself on my next point. No doubt I shall have opportunities to do so later. The education competence in article 126 states clearly that the content of teaching and the organisation of the education system are for member states. Community competence is limited to co-operation among member states --teacher and student exchanges, for example. I believe that most hon. Members will support those new competences. As a further barrier to creeping competence, all harmonising measures are specifically excluded, and those words are repeated again and again in the so-called new competences. In addition, if that were not enough of an improvement on the Single European Act, under which such matters were dealt with by a simple majority, it is now levered up to qualified majority voting. In many other instances, we shall discover as we go through the Bill the improvements that have been made. In some sectors this will involve the extension of competence, but in many it will tighten and define competence. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) rightly pointed out, there are no substantial changes over the Single European Act other than, through our successful intervention, the introduction of the sentence that I read out.

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : The Minister is being generous in giving way. I should like to put on the record the fact that some hon. Members their number is not confined to Liberal Democrats--do not regard qualified majority voting as a

Column 64

bad thing and also consider that bringing in a unanimity rule, which is another word for veto, is often a barrier to progress.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Yes, I understand that. I do not regard qualified majority voting as necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, one of the reasons why I and so many of my hon. Friends supported the Single European Act was that it introduced into the Community the greatest measure of qualified majority voting that has ever been introduced in one single dollop.

Mr. Budgen : Yes.

6.15 pm

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with that. We did that for the very reason that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) set out--because we appreciated that, in our drive towards a single market, the vested interests of single member states might prove such that we would never make any progress.

My noble Friend Lady Thatcher, then the Prime Minister, calculated that the liberal instincts of the British Government would put us in the position where it would be extremely rare that we would be out-voted. I think that I am right to say that we have been out-voted on only four occasions throughout the whole process of negotiations on the single market. My noble Friend was right in calculating that, in our drive to obtain the single market, it would be in our interests to go for qualified majority voting was right. Some member states have been out-voted more often than us in one day.

Mr. Budgen : Lady Thatcher gave her support to the Single European Act because she made two false assumptions. The first was that she would be the Prime Minister and leader of the Tory party for a long time. Secondly, she believed that the Tory party would always be in power and would always control things in Europe. As my right hon. Friend knew at the time, she was wrong in both assumptions.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Lady Thatcher must speak for herself as to why she commended the Single European Act. I was amused the other day, as my hon. Friend no doubt was, to see my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) pray in aid Lady Thatcher when he rose to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who had got into a bit of trouble. I was amused--

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. We do not seem to be making progress, and it might be an idea if we did.

Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. As a privilege, could we just hear the end of the story?

The First Deputy Chairman : The answer to that is no.

Mr. Budgen : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is there not a general request for an opportunity to debate the wider issues? There is a great and continuing sense of outrage that many of us have stifled in previous days. My right hon. Friend meets the needs of the Committee in referring to wider issues.

The First Deputy Chairman : That is not a point of order for me. My duties are to chair the Committee and to see

Column 65

the Bill progress in a reasonable way. For the life of me, I cannot see what the opinions of Lady Thatcher have to do with the debate.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I accept your strictures, and will seek not to be drawn down those paths, Mr. Lofthouse.

We were talking about the Single European Act and the way in which amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 14 allude to areas of the treaty where, to the extent that a comparison can be made to the Single European Act, the changes are minor and strengthen and reinforce the

competitiveness either of the Community or of the United Kingdom's position.

Mr. Rowlands : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : No. I wish to conclude my remarks, so that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, and others, may speak. I do not want to disappoint my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), so I shall just say that I found it amusing that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey, while trying to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, should pray in aid my noble Friend Lady Thatcher, as it was he who, it might appropriately be said, cast the second stone against her.

Mr. Leighton : I do not want to become involved in arguments about Baroness Thatcher. Instead, I shall take up the arguments that were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on unemployment. In a previous debate, there was much mention of article 2 of the Maastricht treaty which sets out all sorts of things in motherhood and apple-pie wording. It does not state, for example, "We propose to put the economies of western Europe into recession and to have mass unemployment." There were similar words in the original Rome treaty. Nevertheless, within the Community, about 17 million are unemployed. It seems that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We should question why 17 million are unemployed. When we have chronic mass unemployment--it is often long-term-- it is meaningless to use words such as those that appear in article 2.

The operation of the exchange rate mechanism meant that the weaker countries had to link their currencies to the deutschmark, which meant that it was deflationary. It has resulted in considerable unemployment in countries such as Italy and France. It is a great embarrassment to me that a socialist Government in France, in carrying out these policies, have even higher unemployment than we have in Conservative Britain. The socialist party in France will pay a very high price for having pursued such policies at the next election.

The aim behind the treaty is price stability, and any fool can achieve price stability and low inflation if he is willing to put the economy into recession and have large scale unemployment. An interesting situation has arisen in Ireland. The Labour party there is going into office and Dick Spring will become deputy prime minister. Inflation is low in Ireland-- about 2.3 per cent.--but unemployment is 17 per cent. I wonder what Dick Spring will do. It would seem that he will be unable to reduce unemployment unless he cuts the very high interest rates that apply in Ireland, but those high rates are operating to keep up the punt in the ERM. It seems that it will be possible for the Irish

Column 66

Government to reduce unemployment only if they reduce interest rates, and that will mean leaving the ERM and, probably, devaluing the punt.

Mrs. Currie : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leighton : Whenever I speak, the hon. Lady becomes excited and wishes to intervene. I think that I had better get the intervention over with now.

Mrs. Currie : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be possible for all the countries that are within the ERM to cut their interest rates together? The ERM does not require high interest rates as such. If all the countries that are members of the ERM had their heads screwed on, they would all get their interest rates down.

Mr. Leighton : That is an interesting idea. Quite often we do not talk about reality. Instead of talking about the real ERM, we discuss someone's vision of an ERM that he or she would like. I suggest that the hon. Lady moves around the Community and tries to convince the various member states that she has the right idea.

Mrs. Dunwoody : I know that my hon. Friend will not want to misrepresent Mr. Dick Spring. When he becomes Tanaiste he will undoubtedly have a strong commitment to dealing with unemployment first and foremost. I am sure that we wish to support him in every way. We understand the problems that he will undoubtedly meet in dealing with the economic situation in Ireland.

Mr. Leighton : I accept that completely. I hope that I did not give any other impression. I was trying to outline the problem that Dick Spring will have to solve. I am certain that he will want to do so and will have a shot at it, but he will have to cut interest rates, which means coming out of the ERM and, I would think, devaluing the punt in the process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central contrasted what is happening in western Europe with that which is happening in Japan and the progress that the Japanese are making. He mentioned also the United States. Those countries have not had fixed exchange rates. They have not had the nonsensical ERM.

The truth that we must face is that western Europe is the unemployment blackspot of the world. We were blown out of the ERM and we must try now to remedy the damage. If we had economic and monetary union, we would be locked into the system.

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. Is the hon. Member going to reach industrial policy and article 130?

Mr. Leighton : I want to talk about the effect of industrial policy on unemployment. The single market is an area of fierce competition and it seems that we shall see a rash of mergers. Indeed, it is inevitable that companies will merge. After all, that is the object of the exercise. Eventually, each industry is likely to be dominated by two or three major firms. In this process, many firms will go to the wall. In an area of fierce competition, there will be winners and losers. What protection will there be for employees?

There has been a merger in the industry in which I worked before I came to the House of Commons, and that is the printing industry. On 17 September 1992, it was announced that the boards of Elsevier and Reed International had decided to merge their businesses to

Next Section

Home Page