§ 1. Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Government policy relating to the right of Scottish banks to print currency notes after the proposed introduction of the euro. [130567]
§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid)It is with some regret, Madam Speaker, that I rise to take part in what will be your final time in the Chair for Scottish questions. May I take this opportunity, on behalf of the people of Scotland, Members of Parliament from Scotland, and, I am sure, the whole House to thank you for the way in which you have presided over our deliberations for a considerable time? I wish you all the best for the future.
Turning to the question, I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues. The Government are well aware of the importance of the issue of Scottish Bank notes in the event of United Kingdom membership of economic and monetary union and it remains one of the issues for negotiations if the UK were to join EMU.
§ Mrs. LaingI thank the Secretary of State for that full and vague answer. After 300 years of United Kingdom Union in which the Scottish pound has been preserved, does he not find it sad that, because of the Government's attitude to our relationship with the European Union, there is a great risk that the Scottish pound will be abolished? Is he not at all concerned about the risks to the economy of the whole United Kingdom that a European single currency joined by the United Kingdom would have? Has 882 he not listened to what Sir Eddie George said today about the great risks that the single currency would bring to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, or are we to assume that Sir Eddie George is not to be listened to in Scotland because he is the Governor of the Bank of England?
§ Dr. ReidMy congratulations go to the hon. Lady and the author of that contribution. As I have explained to her already, and as the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), has already made plain in his correspondence with the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers, the Government—and, incidentally, the Bank of England—agree that the position has not changed recently. No final decision has been taken. We are well aware of the importance of the facility in Scotland to produce pound notes and we will bear that in mind if and when it comes to joining the euro.
Our position is balanced, and not vague as the hon. Lady describes it. It is predicated on the best interests of this country, politically and economically. It is certainly distinguished in its pragmatism from the positions of principle held by the three opposition parties. The Liberal Democrats would join the euro tomorrow, irrespective of the consequences. The Scottish National party takes three positions of principle that change with time, but I understand that the latest incarnation is that it would join at the earliest possible date, irrespective of the consequences. The Conservative party holds the qualified principle—the only one philosophically known to man—that this is matter of absolute principle until the end of the next Parliament, when it ceases to be a principle. All those are absurd positions. We will not be dogmatic; we will act, as a Government, in the best interests of the people of this country.
§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)Does my right hon. Friend agree that the single currency arrangement made between Scotland and England in 1707 has been extremely beneficial to all concerned and that none of my constituents are campaigning for a return to groats and baubees? Does he further agree that entry to a shared European currency on the right terms would be just as beneficial to all the citizens of the United Kingdom?
§ Dr. ReidI have to give a qualified answer because my experience does not go back as far as 1707. For as long as I have been around I have thought that we have benefited greatly from that arrangement, and it would be a non-progressive step to go back to groats and baubees. However, I notice that the Conservative party, which aspires to government, wants us to go back to threepenny bits and sixpences and no doubt it will be poles, perches and baubees before we get much further into the debate.
On the euro, we have made it absolutely plain that there is a triple lock. If and when we decide that the criteria have been met, a decision will not only have to be agreed by the Cabinet and the House, but will be put to the people of this country. A combination of the pragmatic approach as to what is in the best interests of this country and a 883 democratic approach, which will put the issue before the people, provides the best of both worlds. That is in contrast to the positions offered by the opposition parties.
§ Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that it is quite difficult to be dogmatic about a policy of dither and delay? The Government need to recognise that if Britain is to be a member of the European single currency, we must take practical steps now to achieve convergence and make the possibility of winning a referendum achievable. What is the Secretary of State doing to achieve that?
§ Dr. ReidI have never had any difficulty in watching Liberal Democrats take a dogmatic approach to dither and delay. For many years, they have run on the slogan "What do we want? Gradual change. When do we want it? In due course". There is no difficulty in finding that to be so on the hon. Gentleman's part.
Our position is perfectly sensible and pragmatic. We believe that it is in the interests of this country that there is a general decision to join a successful single currency, but that that should take place in the right conditions and at the right time, which is why we have set out criteria. We believe that the decision should command the support of the Cabinet and Parliament, as well as the country, which is why we promised a referendum. Most people would agree with that common—sense and pragmatic approach, rather than the dogmatic position of Opposition parties.