HL Deb 12 June 2003 vol 649 cc383-6

3.16 p.m.

Lord Tebbit

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will set out the constitutional question concerning entry into monetary union to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded during his television interview with Sir David Frost on 18th May.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out in his Statement on EMU on 9th June: The Government's view is that, if the economic case is clear and unambiguous, then the constitutional issue, while a factor in the decision, should not be a bar to entry".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/03; col. 408.]

Lord Tebbit

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, not for the first time in response to Questions from me on this subject, he has totally ignored the Question? The Question I asked was: what is the constitutional issue to which the Prime Minister as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer have alluded? It is a constitutional issue which the Prime Minister says makes it necessary for us to have a referendum on the euro but not on the convention. What is it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the Prime Minister did not say that it was a constitutional issue which made it necessary for us to have a referendum on the euro. I have been looking back over the Answers that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, both in this Chamber and in writing. On 27th July 1999 I gave an Answer quoting remarks made by the Chancellor of Exchequer in October 1997, who said, that to share a common monetary policy with other states does represent a major pooling of economic sovereignty". —[Official Report, 27/7/99, col. WA 173.] That is a constitutional issue.

It is a fact that member states are not sovereign in areas where the Community has competence. This includes monetary policy aspects of EMU. But the pass was sold—if I may use that pejorative phrase—not in 1997 or in 2003, but when the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community, at which time, without a referendum, it was recognised that member states are not sovereign in areas where the Community has competence.

Lord Taverne

My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on finding a constitutional issue in the endless repetition of the mantra of the five tests which constituted the Chancellor's interview with David Frost on 18th May? Is not the real issue for the Government that further work on the euro should not be kept as a sacred preserve of the Treasury priesthood, which has been Euro-sceptic since the Common Market was founded, but should be much more open and a matter for the Government as a whole and the public as a whole?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates to the constitutional issue and what the Chancellor said to Sir David Frost on 18th May. I have looked up the transcript. What he actually said was: The constitutional issue should not be a barrier to joining. That was a decision we made as a government in 1997". I think that answers the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, as well.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, when the Minister confesses to my noble friend Lord Tebbit that the pass of our parliamentary sovereignty was sold under the 1972 Act, how does he explain the letter that the Labour Prime Minister, Mr Harold Wilson, sent through every letterbox in the land in 1975, stating that no sovereignty was at stake, that the danger of monetary union had been removed for ever, and that what we were voting about was merely a common market?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the only referendum—the only occasion on which this matter was put to the people of this country—was on the initiative of a Labour government and it followed renegotiation of the treaty. That was a quite different matter from the original decision of a Conservative government to make this major constitutional change without a referendum.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, with the leave of the House—

Noble Lords

No! Shame!

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was attempting to intervene.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

My Lords, if the Minister's Answer is taken at face value—in particular his reference to the constitutional issue lying in the pooling of economic sovereignty—and if the Prime Minister said that the referendum was necessary because there was a constitutional issue, why are we not to have a referendum on the constitutional convention and the proposals which will result in the pooling of sovereignty in a whole range of areas?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, it was specifically denied that the Prime Minister said we needed a referendum because of the constitutional issue. We have undertaken to consult the people of this country in a referendum on EMU because it is a matter of the most profound economic importance. There is no constitutional barrier, if indeed the evidence is clear and unambiguous that it is in our economic interest.

Lord Tebbit

My Lords, are we having a referendum on the euro because it is not a constitutional issue and being denied one on the convention because it is a constitutional issue?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is not about the convention. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lady Symons to continue to respond, as effectively as she does, on this matter. But neither of the statements the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, makes is true. Nothing has changed. We have been saying the same thing—I have been boring this House on the same subject using the same words for six years.

Earl Russell

My Lords, does the Minister agree that relations between political and economic power partake of the character of a seesaw? Does he further agree that a seesaw does not work when it is permanently down at one end? Does he therefore agree that the increasing concentration of economic power in large units creates a case for political power equally to be concentrated in large units, or else find it is unable to compete?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, that is a gross oversimplification of the relationship. The political and economic aspects of any issue are much more complicated than that of a children's playground.

Lord Howell of Guildford

My Lords, when the former Chancellor of Germany, the greatly respected Helmut Kohl, said repeatedly that monetary union will work only with full political union, was that also a gross oversimplification, or was he speaking the truth which the British people understand very well?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am not responsible for what the former Chancellor of Germany said.