| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should note that I have come to the House at the earliest available opportunity. I have made a detailed statement, and published the Treasury assessment. I would say to him that none of that detailed assessment published by the Treasury appeared in any newspaper before we came to the House.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): My right hon. Friend will know that most industrialists in a constituency such as mine believe that it is essential that we should get into the single currency as soon as possible. They recognise that 1 January 1999 is impossible because of the failures of the previous Government. The commitment that has been given today now needs a commitment from those industries that invest and keep jobs in this country, because I believe that it is an important commitment on both sides and will benefit places such as Burnley, and the whole of the country, in the years ahead.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he reflects the views of industry and business in this country that Britain should not be left behind on vital issues of principle affecting the future of our economy. It is for these reasons that the preparations will start, it is for these reasons that there is a consultative committee with business, and it is for these reasons that the standing committee has been set up.
The Conservatives' failure to say that the test of monetary union will be the economic benefits--indeed, their view that, even if benefits could be proven for monetary union, they would still be against it--shows that they are now the anti-business party in Britain.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
Given the right hon. Gentleman's comments on strengthening employment and improving the competitive situation, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer now advise the House to reject the employment chapter of the Amsterdam treaty, and will he inform the House whether he consulted the Governor of the Bank of England before briefing The Times on 18 October?
Mr. Brown:
I am in regular contact with the Governor of the Bank of England about many issues. As far as the
I still have not heard an answer to the question whether the Conservative party still wants a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty--one of the other proposals that came from the leader of the Conservative party.
As far as employment is concerned, the British Government are leading in Europe in making issues related to employment, and skills and education for employment, central to the European agenda; that is absolutely right.
Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which I warmly welcome, and on his clear rejection of the Luddite economics of the Conservative party. Is it not a matter of plain common sense that any decision on the part of the British Government to join a single currency should be based on the economic evidence that prevails at the time, not on the basis of any arbitrary timetable, which now appears to be Conservative party policy?
Mr. Brown:
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is now Conservative party policy that the Conservatives will not join a single currency or consider it for two Parliaments. They have been unable to explain, since the excitement of their get-together at Eastbourne, why they have retreated from their previous view that they would not enter in the foreseeable future, and suddenly it became 10 years. Indeed, the retreat to Eastbourne became the Eastbourne retreat on policy as a result of what they had decided.
It is economic logic that will take the decision as far as the Government are concerned, and until the Conservatives make up their minds whether they support the single currency on principle, they are like people without a route map, and they will inevitably get lost.
Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup):
Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that his whole-hearted commitment, and that of the Government, to a single currency is extremely welcome, and that it will be widely welcomed by industry and by finance in this country, by Europeans, and by all those who have invested here from outside?
On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to accept the single currency immediately and to become one of the first members participating in it is bitterly disappointing. He and the Government will lose all influence in the European Union in all financial questions and in everything concerned with the single currency--he cannot expect or hope for any influence. That means that the other countries that are debating it and settling it will have their own way. What is more, there will be a general loss of respect for the British among all the other member countries because the right hon. Gentleman has decided to take no action.
Secondly, is the Chancellor aware that he will now find it extremely difficult to keep up the pressure in the way he claims to desire? I cannot have much confidence in a committee that contains the Governor of the Bank of England, who said at the IMF Hong Kong conference, "Why is everybody in a hurry?" That does not seem to be a sign of someone working towards the end which the Chancellor himself wants.
I am one of those who was here in 1950, and I cannot banish from my mind the recollection of the ghastly blunder made by Mr. Attlee and his Chancellor of the Exchequer when they refused to have anything to do with the initial negotiations over the Coal and Steel Community. The result was that we were left outside all the institutions for 22 years, until I signed the treaties in Brussels in 1972. During those 22 wasted years, we had not a scrap of influence. [Interruption.] I quite understand the attitude of my colleagues who say that we should never have joined at all--because they have lost the day.
The Chancellor should also bear in mind the fact that a perfect match of economies will never be achieved outside the single currency; it will come only when countries are inside the currency. That will force them to take the measures necessary to bring about the unity which the Chancellor rightly requires.
Mr. Brown:
Despite some of his comments, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for continuing to argue the case in principle for monetary union over many years. We are agreed that monetary union is a good thing in principle if its economic benefits can be proven. We are further agreed that there is no constitutional bar to joining; and the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be wrong of the Government to put their head in the sand, and that we should make proper preparations so that we can reach the point of decision.
I would part company with the right hon. Gentleman in that I do not think it right for the Government to join without being sure that the economic benefits to the British economy can be shown to be obvious. We must pass the necessary economic tests before locking ourselves into what will be a major change in the way our economy works. The tests that we have set--on convergence, flexibility and the effect on jobs--would have to be met before it would be responsible to argue that we should definitively go in.
The Europeans will be pleased that we have made this statement of principle. It was the right thing to do. They will also be pleased that we have removed any constitutional bar to joining and that we are making preparations. The right hon. Gentleman will agree, on reflection, that it is right to have the Bank of England represented on a committee looking at euro coins and euro notes. The Europeans will be happy that we are making active preparations to join.
Madam Speaker:
Thank you. We shall now move on--[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I am sure that we will return to this question, but Members must understand that it is quite impossible to call everyone who has an interest. We have had a good exchange of views in the past hour and a half.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you know that I tabled an application under Standing Order No. 24 to adjourn the House so as to enable it to debate the fact that the Government are gagging Euro Members on matters of major constitutional importance. Your Secretary informed me that you had decided not to allow me to move that application. I told your Secretary that that power was not obvious in the text of the Standing Order. Indeed, the Standing Orders were redrafted in March of this year.
Your Secretary, Madam Speaker, was good enough to refer me to the statement that your predecessor made in 1991, when he held that the Speaker had a power not to allow such applications even though that was not apparent in the text of the Standing Order.
5.3 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |