House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Dec 1996 (pt 46)

9.18 pm

Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe): The speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) underlines the reality demonstrated by this debate--that there is, across the House, strong support for a positive

11 Dec 1996 : Column 367

and constructive relationship with Europe and for maintaining our option to enter or stay out of a single currency. Clearly, the Labour and Conservative parties have sizeable minorities who are hostile to Europe. We have seen a document signed by 50 Labour Members of Parliament who express that opinion, and I imagine that a similar number of Conservative Members share their views. But they are not the majority, and they have been made to appear so by the press--about which so much has been heard in this debate, and rightly so.

We are halfway through this important debate--which I greatly welcome--and its value has been demonstrated. The real voice of the House of Commons needs to be heard above the xenophobia and paranoia to which we have grown accustomed over the past two or three years. We have now been able to see a little of what the Euro-sceptics actually believe in. In my view, scepticism is not a genuine political position--one must believe in something.

We have seen a series of contradictions from the sceptics on both sides of the House. They believe, for example, that a single currency will not work and that it is a leaky ship. They think that it will be a disaster, and they may well be right. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has pointed out, it could conceivably turn out as they say. I think that that is unlikely, for reasons on which I shall touch in a moment. But those who say that this is a hopeless cause, a leaky ship and a dreadful mechanism that will impose terrible and insupportable burdens on our economy and will make us pay money that we do not have cannot have it both ways.

The sceptics in my party cannot claim to be good Conservatives, and I speak as someone with dry, right-wing credentials--that is, I believe in good housekeeping and all the other good monetary disciplines that are, to a degree, enshrined in the Maastricht criteria. I do not believe that any country can devalue its way into prosperity, and experience over the last generation has demonstrated that. Yet my hon. Friends--who, in months and years gone by, seemed to share those views--now reject them because the views have been embraced by the nasty, suspicious and scheming continentals. It does not negate the sanctity of those principles if other people have now discovered--albeit belatedly--that they are good ideas.

Frequently, the German bogey is brought out of the box. The fear is that, having failed in two world wars, this is the way in which the Germans will achieve domination over western Europe to start with and eastern Europe the day after tomorrow. Oddly enough, the German people seem unconvinced of that and, at the moment, the majority of German people are deeply suspicious. Some 60 per cent. or 70 per cent.--depending on which opinion poll one believes--have yet to be convinced by their political leaders that joining a single currency is a good idea. If I were a German who had worked hard for 45 or 50 years to maintain and develop a stable and strong economy and a stable and strong deutschmark, I would take a lot of convincing that I should launch the deutschmark into a system with other currencies with less impressive track records.

The Euro-sceptics refuse to face up to many challenges and constantly make negative attacks, but they face a conundrum. What are the other countries up to? Why are

11 Dec 1996 : Column 368

seven, eight or nine countries trying every trick in the book--I accept that there are some tricks being played--to get into the single currency?

Those countries live in much closer contiguity to the Germans than we do and they have genuine experience of German domination and understand much more clearly the realities of Germany. But are they stupid? Are they ready to give away their sovereignty, or do they know something that our Euro-sceptics do not know? I suggest that the answer is the latter.

We must also take account of the possibility that those countries are ready to throw away all their achievements, yet the record of many of them over 30 years is better than ours. In 1965, one could get more than DM11 for a pound and now one can get only DM2.30 or DM2.40, or whatever the rate happens to be today. I cannot believe, therefore, that either the Germans or any of the other countries will launch a ship that will sink within a year or two. We shall have to wait and see, but that seems highly unlikely.

The sceptics tell us that our trade opportunities with the rest of the world are wonderful, and I believe that they are, thanks to the Government's stewardship, but we should not forget the balance of trade and the almost 60 per cent. of our trade that is conducted with European Union countries. To put the matter in perspective, we should remind ourselves that our trade with the Netherlands amounts to as much as our trade with the six Asian tigers, China, Indonesia and the Philippines put together, and that our trade with Sweden amounts to as much as our trade with the whole of Latin America.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) suggested that economic success had proved that the United Kingdom could prosper without the single currency, but of course there has not been a single currency. We are dealing with the world as it will be. There is no doubt that, at whatever time and in whatever shape a single currency comes, it will come, so it cuts no ice to suggest that we have done well without it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames also said that he welcomed the opportunity to go it alone in monetary affairs. He had the honour of being Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of all people, surely Chancellors of the Exchequer know that going it alone in monetary affairs is not exactly an option.

On interest rates, it is interesting to note that our borrowing costs are somewhere between £5 billion and £7 billion more than Germany's, because interest rates there are much lower. If we had the German rates, the savings would mean a cut in income tax amounting to £10 a week for the average household. The chances are that a sound single currency will enable us to live with lower interest rates, and we must bear such factors in mind for our constituents' sake.

Some of my hon. Friends say that the majority of people in this country are doubtful and suspicious of the European Union and, more especially, of the single currency. I accept that that is true--it is also true, as I said, in most if not all the countries of the European Union--but it is the job of responsible politicians to lead and educate the electorate and not merely to listen to and follow them.

This debate has demonstrated that, to put it mildly, our minds should be kept open about the beneficial effects of a single currency. It would be a gross dereliction of duty

11 Dec 1996 : Column 369

to fail to lead the British people in the paths of common sense simply because Mr. Christopher Booker and the newspaper editors and owners about whom we have heard so much have misled them. I am glad to say that the debate has demonstrated that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members have that common sense, and I hope that we shall hear more of it in the months to come.

9.28 pm

Mr. Mike O'Brien (North Warwickshire): This is the debate that the Government did not want. A couple of weeks ago, they tried to sideline debate on crucial issues relating to the stability pact and the single currency to a backstairs Committee. It was only because ordinary parliamentarians, both Government and Opposition, were so outraged at their behaviour that we are having this debate on the Floor. The British constitution relies on the Executive's abstinence from the abuse of power: it gives great power to an Executive with a majority. Members of Parliament protect their right to debate issues. That is the check on Executive power. The Government tried to undermine the rights of Back Benchers by denying them the right to an open debate on the Floor on the single currency documents.

Mr. Marlow: That sounds strange from a Front-Bench spokesman of the Labour party. It has just passed party regulations that mean that anyone who speaks out of line will be thrown out. They all have to be drones and clones in the Labour party now.

Mr. O'Brien: In our party, we have sensible, reasoned debates. One could hardly call the Conservative party's debates sensible or reasonable.

The Government tried to prevent proper debate. Even now, they are trying to deal with the issues through a debate on the Adjournment because they are frightened of a vote that they might lose. They could not pass their resolution in European Standing Committee B and fear that they will be embarrassed on the Floor. They have become so bereft of proper respect for the British constitution that they are prepared to hide their embarrassment about the divisions in the Tory party by frustrating the right of Members of Parliament to debate and vote on fundamental issues. Those who elect us deserve better than that from the Government.

I do not want to criticise the Chancellor of the Exchequer too much; he has had enough criticism from his Back Benchers. In any case, I agree with much of what he said. As he spoke today, we watched the ranks behind him seethe. They were splintering before our eyes. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) referred to the barracking of the Chancellor. The Chancellor was supposed to be speaking for his party, but I suspect that his view was not that of the majority of his Back Benchers. As his speech went on, it seemed more like a personal manifesto--his personal commitment to the European ideal. The exchange with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)--in many ways, the personification of Tory divisions--seemed like the first shot in the post-general election leadership campaign. The inevitable conclusion about his speech was that the Chancellor spoke for himself, not for the Government and much less for a majority of the Tory party.

11 Dec 1996 : Column 370

Recent newspaper headlines have expressed the consternation felt by the British people about the fiasco of Tory European policy. One Sunday newspaper called it

"Major's Meltdown--ruin upon ruin and rout upon Tory rout--the kites did not fly, boomerangs exploded and scooters were parked on lawns."

The Sunday Times headline was "Divided we fall" and it had a picture of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, saying:

"Defeated and divided they could wander in the wilderness for years, even decades".

It implied that the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister were more concerned with the post-general election civil war in the Tory party than with the belief that the Tory party, even if the current policy is sustained, would ever be able to take Britain into a single currency.

The Mail on Sunday said:

"thousands of Tory supporters this Sunday morning will be embarrassed and humiliated by the warfare among their party's leaders.

The Mail on Sunday shares that embarrassment and humiliation."