---

Madam Speaker: Before we begin, let me inform the House that it has been indicated to me that, today alone, more than 46 Back Benchers wish to speak, and in my judgment a similar number will wish to speak tomorrow. I ask all hon. Members to stay in the House for the remainder of the day and see what their chances are. In such circumstances, I have had to impose a 10-minute limit for Back-Bench speeches.

Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be in order for me to ask you whether you would be prepared to refer the situation that has now arisen to the Procedure Committee for further consideration, or whether you would require a Member of Parliament to do that? In a two-day debate, only Front Benchers will be able to develop the argument or answer questions asked by other Members; the rest of us will have no time to develop the argument properly. Moreover, if there are interruptions, we shall not be able to give the information that is requested. I think that the Procedure Committee ought to consider the matter again.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is only recently that the Procedure Committee has given me authority to impose 10-minute limits on speeches throughout a debate. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider asking the Procedure Committee to look into the matter. I take his point very much to heart. I am concerned with the high quality of debate in the House, and I appreciate that, when I have to limit speeches to 10 minutes, we do not get the debate to which we are accustomed here.

3.59 pm

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Out of deference to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup

11 Dec 1996 : Column 288

(Sir E. Heath), I shall probably give way rather less than I sometimes do. The temptation will be for hon. Members to interrupt me, my temptation will be to give way and I should probably use a disproportionate amount of time, but I should like to cover a lot of ground.

This is an important debate, because it comes on the eve of the European summit in Dublin, where the British team--my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I--will be defending and advancing British interests in Europe. Our overriding aim at Dublin will be to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to benefit from our membership of the European Union and that we continue to play a major role in moulding that European Union as it evolves as a partnership of nation states. The key issue in addressing those objectives is, where does the national interest lie?

In recent weeks, we have debated the details of the arrangements for economic and monetary union--important details, such as regulations relating to article 109l(4) or the public accounting conventions of France--but those details are symbols, and they are a focus for more deep-rooted anxieties about Britain's future political and economic identity. The real core of the debate is the much wider and more important issue of the United Kingdom's national identity and our future role in the modern world. In my experience, this country returns to agonising about its national identity every few years or so when important occasions arise.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) rose--

Mr. Clarke: In the light of what I said earlier, I may give way later, when I get to more specific points.

I hope that, during the next two days of debate, the House can address and allay some of the anxieties about our relationship with Europe. I want to explain how, in my judgment, our political and economic future is bound up with the future of the European Union, and how our negotiations at Dublin and thereafter will be pursuing our national interest.

I hope that we can avoid irrelevancies. There is no Conservative politician in the House who is a federalist; no Conservative politician would accept a European super-state. Every Conservative opposes any suggestion of the creation of a united states of Europe. Treating the debate about economic and monetary union as if it were a debate about the creation of a super-state arouses public fears and deprives the public of sensible information about the issue. [Interruption.] We may return to this, but we last debated the matter when we debated the Maastricht treaty, and I responded then to several hon. Friends who intervened.

In my view, fewer and fewer people on the continent see economic and monetary union as a tool for political integration--[Interruption.] Well, if they do, we do not agree with them. If they do, I do not think that most of the younger generation of politicians on the continent agree with them either--by "younger", I mean people of my age and below. We have to judge the discussions on economic and monetary union in terms of British economic interests and Britain's role in the European Union.

11 Dec 1996 : Column 289

The United Kingdom is and must continue to be an extremely influential player on the world stage, but our future national identity and future international influence will be secured and strengthened by our retaining our position as a major European power.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be debating the framework for political co-operation between European Union members in the House tomorrow. The Government remain firmly in favour of the approach taken in the Maastricht treaty, where co-operation over matters such as foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs is dealt with on an intergovernmental basis--the so-called pillared approach.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): Hear, hear.

Mr. Clarke: I have always said, and my hon. Friend has always said--I have said it in the House and outside--that that pillared approach is and was the best feature of the Maastricht treaty. I will not read out my own speech as reported in Hansard at column 1108 on 27 January 1993.

The pillared approach opens the way for closer co-operation between member states on issues such as foreign policy and home affairs, but on the basis of unanimous decision taking by independent nation states and without the involvement of Community institutions such as the European Parliament and the European court. I have always said in particular that the British armed forces would never be committed to any foreign policy initiative unless the British Parliament supported it. The Government will ensure that it stays that way.

On the other hand, I have always said that the weakest part of the Maastricht treaty was the artificial timetable for economic and monetary union. Those have always been my views, and they remain my views.

Our economic interests are inextricably linked to our position in Europe. British economic success is the result of a combination of three factors: first, the Government's successful macro-economic policies; secondly, the Government's supply-side reforms, which have given us some of the most flexible products and labour markets in the industrialised world; and, thirdly, our access to the European single market, which is our biggest marketplace and the largest open market in the world.

The combination of those three factors is crucial to our future prosperity and success. All three of them lead to job creation, and make Britain a magnet for overseas investors looking for a foothold in the European market.

Mr. Marlow: No one has suggested that the single market is at risk. My right hon. and learned Friend said this morning that the single currency is no threat to nation states. Why does he think that the vast majority of the Conservative party is against the single currency? It is precisely because it would be the end of the nation state.

Mr. Clarke: I know that my hon. Friend holds that belief firmly, so I realise that for him it is a straightforward question. If I shared his belief, I would be against economic and monetary union. We need to have a debate. I do not hold that belief, and I do not think that such a belief is the be-all and end-all of debate.

11 Dec 1996 : Column 290

Other economic issues are involved, and we must consider the impact on the single market of the creation of a euro zone in the middle of it--I am glad that my hon. Friend and I agree on the importance of the single market. The Government's economic policy consists of getting right our macro-economic policy, our supply-side, micro-economic measures and the nature of the single market in which we operate and our influence on it.

The British Government played a leading role in creating the single market, and in seeking to complete it. When we signed the Single European Act, we entered into a single market that had institutions and rules. We have always accepted that a huge single market requires institutions and rules. We need to ensure that those rules are obeyed by every member state, and that the single market continues to provide the right climate for a competitive, free market economy such as ours to succeed.

That is one of the main reasons why I attend Economic and Finance Council and European Council meetings. It is in our national interest, and one of the key British objectives in our detailed negotiations on the euro zone as it emerges, to ensure that the right climate exists for our competitive position.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): How do we display our influence in economic affairs if the European central bank makes the basic economic decisions, and under the Maastricht treaty we are not allowed even to make representations to the bank? Is that not a collapse of sovereignty and democracy?

---