| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.7 pm
Mr. Oppenheim: I particularly enjoyed the speechof my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East(Sir T. Taylor), especially the part when he managed tosay something to the hon. Member for Rotherham(Mr. MacShane) that many of us have longed to say for a long time: get lost. I also particularly enjoyed his comments on the common agricultural policy, with which I agree 100 per cent. He asked about paragraph 7 of article 104c and whether we publish the Commission's response. The answer is yes--in the form of a written answer, which is placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East also suggested that Sweden has suffered as a result of European Union membership. I suggest that the cause of major problems in Sweden is the cumulative effect of years of socialism--very high spending, borrowing and debt. It now has to adopt monetarist policies and policies of fiscal prudence and deregulation to try to turn its economy round.
My hon. Friend also correctly argued that one can like Europe very much but be against the European Union. Those who are pro-European Union often try to tar Euro-sceptics, or those who are hostile to the EU, as hostile to Europe, but that is not always the case.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is always an assiduous contributor to these debates. He made an excellent point about the nature of public and
private investment and how they relate to the public sector borrowing requirement. His comments were absolutely right, except that borrowing by public corporations is excluded from the general Government financial deficit, which is the definition of Government borrowing for Maastricht and convergence purposes, as indeed are privatisation proceeds; so, for the purposes of the general deficit, it makes no difference whether borrowing is private or public.
The same applies to borrowing under the private finance initiative, which would be counted in the private sector, but, even if it was public sector, it would not count as public borrowing for Maastricht or convergence purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) made several points about convergence, with which hon. Members of all parties would broadly agree. He rightly said that convergence had not yet been achieved and that many would argue that it was unlikely to be achieved if European economies continued on their current course.
Mr. Marlow:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Oppenheim:
My hon. Friend will forgive me if I proceed for the moment, as I do not have much time and I want to respond to a number of points made during the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West also made the point that to proceed would ultimately be a political decision, regardless of whether the convergence criteria had been met. That is right, because the Maastricht treaty gives scope for the Economic and Finance Council that will meet next spring, followed by the Council of Heads of Government, to take a political decision; they are not bound by the Maastricht criteria. After that, the stability pact will have a political element. It will not be totally bound by treaty.
Mr. Marlow:
We know that the Government are, on balance, hostile to monetary union. If a group of other European countries seeks to go ahead with it on fudged criteria, will the Government seek to block that in the Council of Ministers, as they are entitled to do?
Mr. Oppenheim:
No. If other countries wanted to go ahead, even with muddled criteria, it would not be our job to prevent them from doing so. We must go into the negotiations, as we have done, and try to ensure that economic and monetary union is a success, because, in or out, it will affect us in a variety of ways. If our advice is not heeded, and EMU goes ahead without us, it is not our job to block the will of other countries.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) spoke for 24 minutes. Apart from some platitudes about Europe, he spent most of that time criticising our economic performance. I welcome his concentration on the British economy. If it is now so awful, how come new Labour has copied all our policies? The unique selling proposition of new Labour spin doctors seems to be, "Those guys over there have made such a mess of things that we have copied all their policies."
The Labour party has good reason to copy all our policies: we have the lowest debt of any European Union country except Luxembourg and the lowest unemployment by far of any major European Union country.
Mr. MacShane:
The figures are not comparable.
Mr. Oppenheim:
The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because my figures, which are used for Eurostat purposes, are based on the labour force survey, approved by the International Labour Organisation, and the Trades Union Congress has said that they are wholly reliable.
Our borrowing is lower than that of any other major EU economy. We have the highest growth of any major EU economy. Our current account is close to balance and is in a better state than Germany's. Those points were made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies).
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire said that our inflation rate was higher than that of some other European countries. He is right: it is 1 per cent. higher than those of Germany and France, which is not surprising, bearing it in mind that our economy is booming, whereas theirs are in a slump. If only Labour could have achieved an inflation rate 1 per cent. higher than the German and French rate, it would have had something about which to boast.
Since 1979, our growth in manufacturing productivity--the crucial indicator of competitiveness--has been the highest in any Group of Seven major industrial country; it has been 50 per cent. higher than the Japanese rate, twice the French rate and nearly three times the German rate. That is why a recent independent report stated that, since 1979, Britain has closed more than three quarters of the competitiveness gap with Germany.
We export twice as many cars as in 1979 and four times the steel. We are now the world's leading pharmaceutical exporter, and we have overtaken France to become the second largest aerospace producer and exporter.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
The Minister keeps referring to 1979. Can he explain why unemployment is double what it was then?
Mr. Oppenheim:
My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding has already answered that point: structural unemployment is growing throughout the developed world, not only in the European Union but in America, where unemployment is far higher, and in Japan. The difference is that, whereas in the 1970s--when, let us not forget, unemployment doubled under Labour--our unemployment was far worse than the European average, today it is far better, and falling. Relative to our main competitors we are doing far better.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire mentioned the minimum wage as one of new Labour's great Euro-friendly policies, but he cannot tell the House at what level it would be set under a Labour Government.
Mr. Oppenheim:
The hon. Gentleman smiles and says, "Very wise," but through his smiling face we can see the con that is being perpetrated on the low-paid. It is no good
We all want higher wages for everyone, especially the low-paid, but to pretend that there is some easy option and that politicians can dictate levels of pay with the wave of a magic wand is an unpleasant and dishonest con. The only way to increase the pay of the low-paid is to improve education standards and the competitiveness of the economy. That is why pay at all levels since 1979 has risen rapidly in comparison with what happened under Labour, when pay for the lowest-paid stagnated.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire concentrated on the economy, because the economy will win us the election. Most people realise that, although the Government have made some mistakes, by and large we have got things right. That is why, since 1979, we have closed four fifths of the competitiveness gap with Germany, and why new Labour's unique selling proposition is that we have got so much wrong that Labour has copied all our policies.
Amusing and enjoyable though this diversion across the economy has been, the purpose of the debate is to take note of the Government's assessment. There is nothing sinister in the surveillance that it outlines, and I urge the House to support the motion.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14B.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Order for Third Reading read.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill will reform what the Scottish Law Commission has identified as three bad rules in contract law. Consultations by the commission established that there was strong and widely held support for reform and that the rules should be abolished as soon as a legislative opportunity arose.
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997-98 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
26 Feb 1997 : Column 368
5.16 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |