| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Fox: The Government are preparing to enter the EMU after the next election without knowing what the risks might be. That system is unproven and there is no exit mechanism. Is that not an infinitely greater risk?
Mr. Temple-Morris: I will deal with the Chancellor's statement later in my speech, but I agree with it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the grounds for joining were set out very thoroughly in the statement. Any delay in the matter, which may not be in the national interest, has very little to do with the Government and virtually everything to do with the legacy that they have inherited from the previous Government.
Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage): Is there really all that much difference between the Government's position--which is to hold a referendum in perhaps five or six years, after the next general election, and to join a year or so after that--and that of the Opposition?
Mr. Temple-Morris: There is every difference between the two positions, most especially because the Government have made a decision in favour, in principle, of a single currency. It is as simple as that. There is now--since day one after the general election--a totally different attitude in virtually every Government pronouncement on Europe, in marked contrast to the previous Government's constant hostility over things
European large and small, which did this country absolutely no good. The previous Government's pronouncements were made for petty and party advantage, and their strategy did not work in the general election, which was the ultimate proof.
I have been obliged to state, because of interventions, that I can easily accept the Chancellor's statement of 27 October. I welcome a decision in favour in principle of a single currency. The decision is vital. I cannot understand how Conservative Members can say that--somehow, by using some miracle or conjurer's smoke--they are anywhere near the Government's position on the matter. Anyone who has listened to the early speeches in the debate, Front-Bench or Back-Bench, will be very clear about that.
The statement on the Government's position was pragmatic and sensible, and its timing was utterly understandable. As I began to say earlier in my speech, a referendum on joining is to be won. Anyone who believes in Britain's joining a single currency realises that rigorous terms will have to be met before we can do so, and that we will have to win that referendum.
Any fair observer will have to agree--it is widely acknowledged in the press--that the Government's inheritance has not been a good one. Years and years of constant Euro-bashing, which continues, has had its expected influence on the British public. Moreover, the Government's task has not been made any easier by large elements of the media, tabloid or broadsheet. The views of one or perhaps two newspapers almost make the Conservative party sound like Euro-enthusiasts, which is quite an achievement in this day and age.
The referendum is an important factor for the Government. I provide a case in point on a referendum, because of the considerable correspondence that has come my way over the past 10 days. My view--both personally and from the sensible contents of that correspondence and having talked to people in all walks of life--is that the British people are coming round sooner than expected on the European issue.
I accept entirely the pragmatic nature of the Chancellor's statement, but I am also a personal example. I think, and I hope, that the change in public opinion will accelerate. All I say to Ministers is to get us into that single currency as soon as is practicably possible. I have deliberately used the word "practicably"--because it is in the national interest for us to be in there sooner rather than later.
To escape the lock of my own position and of the single currency, I should like to make some general points on Europe. Although I will start with issues relevant to the single currency, I will not repeat myself. There are two additional points, one of which--the Euro X Committee--is extremely important and has already been dealt with partly in the debate. Unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I welcome the Chancellor's attempts to get on the Committee. It was very much in the Government's and the nation's interests that he should try to get on it, and I hope that there will be a change of mind and that he will be able to do so. Goodness knows, however, it will not be an easy task because of the position on that issue with which the Government have been left.
I am not alone in thinking that it is inevitable that the X Committee will develop into a power centre with interests way beyond the affairs of bankers and currency
dealers and that it is the beginning of an inner core or a first tier. As the committee will deal with the enormously important issue of the single currency and form an inner group that will meet in an only semi-institutional manner, in which national bonding will occur, it is but the beginning of something which will go far further. It is important to join the single currency so that we can be part of that committee and all the developments that will flow from it.
Another point to consider on economic and monetary union and the single currency is that our interim situation should be as short as possible. During the interim period, we will inevitably--the Governor of the Bank of England was talking about it only recently--be tied to decisions taken within the currency, even if we are outside it. The single market, for example, will ensure that that is so. It is not advantageous to the United Kingdom to be tied to decisions that we do not play an intimate part in formulating. Therefore, I hope that the interim period will be as short as possible.
All hon. Members know--I am sure that the Foreign Secretary, in his six months in office, has had abundant examples--that the common foreign and security policy is a very nationalistic issue. By no means, however, is the United Kingdom nationalistic in our foreign and defence interests. The policy is too important for this country to be left out of any developments that may, and eventually will, occur under it. It is in everyone's common interest to get together on the issue, simply because--it is common sense--the members of Europe have far more clout as a whole than does any individual member, however historic its world role may be.
In defence, we have already had an active and positive example of collective interest. We have worked bilaterally, most particularly with France. It is evident that European co-operation is necessary, and painfully evident that it is in our financial interests.
Flexibility, concentric circles, tiers--or whatever one calls it--will become inevitable within the existing, let alone a larger, Union. The temptation for our Government, or any Government, will be to be left behind by the excuse that any flexible system provides. As a general criterion, we must be active in any top tier of authority that will have serious effects and consequences for the British people. I believe that, as matters develop, there will be ever more tiers of authority. Such tiers will be positively encouraged by the doctrine of flexibility.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
It is a pleasure to speak in a debate in which most of the speeches have been constructive and lucid. After four debates on Europe in the House in one week, enthusiasm for speaking about Europe has not waned.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson):
For some.
I tell Ministers and the Foreign Secretary, who has left the Chamber--
Mr. Heath:
I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.
I welcome the new sense of engagement that the new British Government have brought to Europe in recent months. We must play a full role in Europe and make Britain's voice heard in the councils of Europe.
I hope that, in doing so, Britain will not just adopt a comfortable position. A huge agenda has opened up in recent months since the conclusion of the Amsterdam summit. I trust that Britain will be asking some searching questions about current European structures and how they relate to ordinary citizens.
I do not begrudge the Foreign Secretary his peregrinations, the aim of which should be to improve Britain's influence and to make the ethical foreign policy of which he speaks better understood. There are a great many reforms of the EU which urgently need implementing. Indeed, we have reached the point where the institutions of Europe need a complete makeover if they are truly to reflect our chief objectives: openness, accountability, maximum efficiency and making subsidiarity more generally understood. Subsidiarity should mean decisions taken not just at the level of nation state but at the level of the regions, too.
Over the next few months, we shall be applying a number of tests to the Government's performance as they take up the UK presidency. I do not use the word "test" in a censorious fashion; we simply want to determine the progress that may or may not be made during the next six months. Equally, we do not intend to make impossible demands. We certainly do not go in for the collective amnesia that seems to have gripped some Tory Members, who forget that, during their 18 years of government, very little progress was made on several areas in dire need of improvement.
The first such area is employability and the single market. Britain must give a clear lead on deregulation, where progress seems to have stalled in telecoms, energy, air transport, pensions, banking, insurance and biotechnology. Deregulation of all these areas needs to be revitalised.
I should like there to be more cross-border training and mobility of training opportunity. There may be scope for a vocational training exchange programme, just as exchanges operate in higher education. Britain must be at the forefront of attempts to cut unnecessary labour on-costs, in the context of pragmatic labour laws that recognise that deregulation does not mean no regulation. We need progress on developing a European company statute as well. So the first test will be whether there is a substantial reduction in red tape--or at least a consensus on how that can be achieved in the next six months.
The second test concerns preparations for economic and monetary union. Setting aside my doubts about the geometric possibilities of sustainable convergence, it is still clear that Britain will have a key role, whether or not she is an early member, in establishing the ground rules on which monetary union will take place. We must act as an honest broker, insisting on strict adherence to the convergence criteria while not agreeing with some
elements--Germany, for instance--that would seek to exclude the southern states almost on principle instead of on the economic facts.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |