| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel the slightest bit uneasy at having sat for all those years in the same Cabinet as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)?
Mr. Howard: Not at all. My right hon. and learned Friend and I go back a very long way. We have been friends for a very long time and we agreed on far more things than we disagreed about.
Nations control their economic and monetary policy because it is in the interest of their citizens that those decisions be taken according to national needs. By saying that it is a question of when, not whether, we join economic and monetary union, the Government are intent on signing away in perpetuity our right to decide those vital matters for ourselves. Ministers claim that the constitutional implications are irrelevant. How will they explain that to British workers thrown out of work because European interest rates, set with the needs of all of Europe in mind, are too high for Britain; or to households facing an inflationary boom if interest rates are too low? How will they explain to British voters that their votes will be powerless to change those policies because the decisions will no longer be made in Britain?
It is, of course, easy to understand why the Government, given their record, are tempted entirely to remove matters of economic management from the domestic political arena. After 19 months in office, they have already generated the headlines produced by every previous Labour Government: interest rates up; taxes up; unemployment up. It is therefore easy to understand why they no longer want such questions to feature in our general elections. But what would be the point of having general elections if the parties were unable to stand on differing economic programmes?
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch):
If, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think, EMU is wrong in principle, why does not the Conservative party rule it out for ever?
Mr. Howard:
I am saying that those are relevant questions to be taken into account. They are not matters completely to be put to one side, as the Government pretend, by uttering the mantra that there is "no constitutional bar", as though that were enough to make any further discussion totally irrelevant.
The truth is that the management of our economy is not some side issue for Ministers to ponder in their spare time, but the primary function of a modern Government. How can removal of control of economic decision making from the House not be a weighty matter to consider in the context of economic and monetary union?
The fact is that--on the single currency, on tax harmonisation, on defence matters, on European economic policy, on judicial co-operation, on European integration and on enlargement--new Labour is trying to be all things to all men. It tells the British people what it thinks the British people want to hear, and then signs what the other countries of Europe want it to sign.
As Europe lurches to the left, Labour's only goal is not to be left out. Instead of standing up for Britain's interests, it goes with the flow. Labour is unwilling to express clear views on the matters because its views are not fixed. It is unwilling to explain its principles because it has no principles to explain. Instead, for the sake of a quiet life, it intends to avoid debate in Britain, while being carried on the left-wing tide in Europe.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
When I listen to debates on Europe in the House, I sometimes feel that one should call down Chinese curses on both Front Benches. The reason is terribly simple: I believe that the United Kingdom electorate really do have the right to know exactly what is happening within the European institutions.
Unfortunately, our debates on Europe have now become almost set pieces, in which one side is prepared to say, "Your Government did everything wrong" in response to the other side, which is busily saying, "Our side intends to do everything right." I have been an hon. Member long enough to understand that such an approach to an important subject is not unusual. However, we have now reached such a stage in discussions on development, particularly of a monetary control system which will determine the United Kingdom's future for many generations to come, that we might be able to put before our constituents a rather clearer picture of what is involved.
I have just returned from Brussels where--following the dictates of my Ministers, who assured me that I would have a completely different attitude once I had gone--I returned to the haunts of my youth. I should say that, occasionally, I did actually live and work in Holland, in Belgium and in France. I am one of those strange people who do occasionally speak foreign languages. I also do not find that my physical presence in Brussels affects my political view one small iota. Perhaps it makes my view even worse, but it certainly does not change my attitude.
I think that we should now be saying that we have sufficient evidence to put before the British people about the implications of what is being proposed. We should
say to them, "Talk about the report of the Court of Auditors", which, for the third time, has been unable to approve the accounts. The report describes in considerable detail straightforward fraud, although we have enough crooks in this country to understand the implications of that. People will be attracted where there are large sums, and it is not really surprising to discover that large institutions are unable adequately to control the amounts of money flowing through them.
We should, however, at least be saying openly now what we think of as subsidiarity and what we accept as central control. Ultimately, those are the only things that really matter. If we do not have a clear view of what policies are to be moved from the House and dealt with in European legislation, we shall never explain the political implications of doing so. The move towards a common currency must inevitably take with it a very clear commitment to a common taxation policy. I do not understand how anyone can pretend that that is not so. Some people would say that that consequence is not only sensible, but normal and, indeed, desirable. At least let us be reasonably outspoken about it. Let us say very clearly what the implications will be.
If we agree to measures, as we have done in the past, that bring with them a very considerable transfer of resources, let us say, "Fine; but that does not mean that we accept that there must be a common tax base or a common attitude towards taxation of particular industries. There will also be instances in which, for one reason or another, we wish to retain total freedom of action." The debate is not being framed in those terms. Too many people are already being given the idea that the debate can be thought of in highly superficial terms: "It would be nice if we had a common currency, because you won't have any difficulty changing your money when you want to go on holiday." I see some artificiality in that argument.
Do we really want a situation in which decisions are taken about major industries in a way that we cannot control? Let us take a small instance, involving an industry that I happen to know about, although it is certainly not one of the most important. If the British authorities decide to give specific taxation advantages to the film industry to encourage a local industry--to attract to Britain those who write and who act in British film productions that normally would have been made elsewhere, sometimes in Ireland but most usually in the United States--are they to be told in future that doing so is unfair discrimination because it is an industry that must have an absolutely flat taxation base right across the European Union? If so, fine; let us argue it out. However, let us not pretend that that is not the ultimate aim of many of the proposed changes.
Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury):
Has not the hon. Lady received an equal number of representations from United Kingdom industries concerned that there should be a "level playing field" with other member states, but complaining about the ways in which other member states subsidise their industries? Does it not logically follow that, if one has a single market, one has to ensure that there are rules of fairness that apply throughout that market, which otherwise will become distorted, often to the disadvantage of UK companies?
Mrs. Dunwoody:
That is exactly the theory on which many people have operated for many years. That was why
I am saying something different--that the United Kingdom Parliament has a duty to tell the electors that when we talk about Euro money, we are also talking about Euro taxation and the ultimate aim of common bases. It does not matter whether it is taxation, industry aid or a long-term commitment to specific budgets; we are talking about common aims. I hope on some occasion to raise the inequities, absurdities and hypocrisies of the transport policies that we have been discussing this week in Brussels, because it is clear that there is a dichotomy in many institutions. The European Commission claims to be concerned about CO 2 emissions, yet it pushes hard for ever larger lorries to be allowed free access throughout the European Community. We should not allow that to go unobserved.
Both Front-Bench teams are failing to serve the populace well. They should tell the people in simple terms that within the next year and a half, there will be a concentrated campaign, funded largely by European Community money--of which we pay a large part--to try to persuade us that our future inevitably lies in a Euro monetary system that will have its final decisions made in another country and another system, which is not answerable, does not respond to its own monetary controls and does not meet with the agreement of its auditors.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |