With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.

On 27 October 1997, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the Government's policy on the European single currency. He said that he would publish details of how, should it choose to do so, Britain could join the euro. That became known as the national changeover plan. Today, we publish an outline of that plan as a basis for consultation.

I should like to thank the standing committee set up by the Chancellor to oversee preparatory work on monetary union across the economy. I am most grateful to the Governor of the Bank of England, the heads of the Financial Services Authority and the British Bankers Association, the presidents of the Confederation of British Industry and the British Chambers of Commerce and the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress for their contribution to this work. It has been a truly co-operative effort involving an unprecedented partnership between the public and private sectors. I am particularly pleased that the standing committee welcomed our intention to produce the outline plan that we are publishing today.

In his statement of October 1997, the Chancellor made clear the Government's view that membership of a successful euro would bring benefits to Britain in terms of jobs, investment and trade. He said that, in principle, the Government were in favour of Britain joining a successful single currency, and he set out the conditions necessary to satisfy our national economic interest.

Our intention is clear: Britain should join a successful single currency, provided the economic conditions are met. Our membership is conditional; it is not inevitable. Both intention and conditions are genuine. We believe that it is the right course for the country to resolve this issue for the British national interest, the future of our people and their well-being. It is that national interest that will always come first.

I do not dismiss the constitutional or political issues. They are real. Monetary union is a big step of integration, but so were the Single European Act and the European Union itself. In finance and business, the world is more and more integrated. It is moving closer together. If joining a single currency is good for British jobs and British industry, and if it enhances British power and British influence, I believe it is right for Britain to overcome those constitutional and political arguments and the fears behind them. For the very reason of the sensitivity of those arguments, we have also said clearly that the Government can recommend, but the people will decide in a referendum.

What we announce today is not a change of policy: it is a change of gear. If we wish to have the option of joining, we must prepare. The sheer nature, scale and complexity of the arrangements require considerable time for such preparation. Joining the euro is, for example, far more detailed in its consequences than decimalisation. If we do not start to face this reality now, we will simply not have the practical means necessary to make a choice.

There are those, on the Opposition Benches and elsewhere, who oppose the very idea of a national changeover plan. We can no longer afford to pretend either that the euro does not exist or that Britain should not actively prepare for it. Such a denial of reality does not promote Britain's interests; it betrays Britain's interests.

The euro is a reality. It exists. Eleven out of 15 other European Union members are in it. It represents 20 per cent. of world income—as big as the United States. It will be the currency of 290 million people.

The euro has begun and, on the whole, it has begun well. Of course, these are early days. There will be tests and strains ahead, but the launch was successful. Those who predicted that it would never happen or would launch itself in disaster have been proven wrong. And it will have a major impact on Britain, in or out: that much is obvious. That alone would rebuke those who would like to pretend that it is not there.

Fifty per cent. of our trade is with the euro zone. The launch of the euro means that an increasing number of UK firms are already starting to use the euro—and not just big business such as British Steel, Ford, Philips, ICI and Unilever; surveys by the Treasury's euro preparations unit show that some 45 per cent. of small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK have trading links with Europe, and they are already having to prepare to deal with the euro. The same surveys showed that nearly half all SMEs thought that the single currency would affect their business. Last autumn, some 14 per cent. of SMEs were already planning to use the euro, and the latest survey by APACS—the Association for Payment Clearing Services—shows that 247,000 companies intend to open euro accounts. Eighty-six per cent. of large retailers have suppliers in the euro zone, and 44 per cent. say that they are planning to pay euro zone suppliers in euros from this year. The euro, therefore, is now an everyday reality for British business, large and small.

When we came to office, we took immediate steps to help the country to prepare. Since the Chancellor's statement, the Treasury has run a major information and direct mail campaign for the 1.6 million small businesses in the UK. Some 350,000 copies of the Treasury's business fact sheets have been distributed, and there have been 750,000 requests for the fact sheet leaflet. We have established 12 regional euro forums across the UK, led by senior business people, who are making preparations at local level.

Firms can now pay taxes, file accounts, issue and redenominate shares, and receive certain grants in euros, and Customs and Excise has trained some 10,000 staff to respond to business needs. Small businesses will have the help that they need. The City of London is prepared, and is already taking a good share of euro-denominated business.

These, however, are all preparations for the euro with Britain, at present, out of that single currency. It is also necessary now to prepare for Britain being part of it. If, as we have already announced, we want to keep open the option of making a decision early in the next Parliament to join, we need to step up our practical preparations now; hence the national changeover plan. The public sector will give a clear sign of its commitment to prepare. Each Department now has a Minister responsible for euro preparations, and each will now report regularly on the preparations that are being made. Where computer systems are being upgraded, all Departments will build in euro compatibility where that represents value for money. In the case of the Department of Social Security, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, the scale and complexity of their computer systems make advance preparations critical. Together, those Departments are the main interface between central Government and the business community, and deal with almost every individual in the UK. They may need to spend some money prior to a referendum to make their information technology systems euro compatible, so that we can maintain the flexibility for Britain to make the changeover as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.

It is right that Parliament should be asked to give explicit approval to such expenditures, which will amount to some tens of millions of pounds spread over a number of years. We will therefore include provisions in the Finance Bill and the Social Security Bill that will authorise the spending—and, of course, there will be the normal votes on the appropriation accounts. The Government will be making active preparations for the euro, in the belief that it will be in this country's interests to join in the future should our economic tests be met. Business should start to do the same.

The national changeover plan sets out the range of work involved for different sectors. For example, in the retail financial sector, the British Bankers Association and APACS are leading work with the Bank of England on how to approach the conversion of their core IT systems. The retail sector more generally will be working, with consumers and suppliers, on a detailed code of practice on arrangements for the changeover. Businesses, large and small, need to focus on the impact of the euro on their business strategies.

On the basis of that work, and after studying the experience of the first wave of participants, the outline plan that we are publishing today shows that it is possible to streamline the timetable adopted in Europe, with no disadvantage to our economy and some benefit. Overall, we believe that it should be possible to move in four months, from a Government decision to a referendum; and, in 24 to 30 months, from a positive referendum result to the introduction of notes and coins. It would be a further six months before sterling notes and coins were withdrawn.

Therefore, the whole process—from a positive referendum result to the withdrawal of sterling—could be completed in about three years, which is considerably faster than the period required for the first wave of monetary union participants. However, a great deal of further work must be done to refine and develop the timetable, and particularly to clarify how soon after a positive referendum result we could actually join monetary union. As the plan makes it clear, we are committed to taking that work forward in collaboration with business and the wider public sector, so that we can produce a further plan in about a year's time.

As for the economic tests that the Chancellor established on 27 October 1997, there is much focus—which is entirely natural—on the politics of the euro project. It is, of course, an intensely political act. However, just as the euro cannot be conceived of except politically, it cannot be made to work except economically. It is, after all, an economic union. We have, as a Government, resolved the political issues in favour of the principle of joining, should the economic tests be met. But they must be met. The manner in which we joined the exchange rate mechanism is a standing monument to the danger of joining a monetary arrangement on purely political grounds.

There are, therefore, two ideological and absolute positions on the euro which I do not share. The first is that of "no, never", which rules out Britain's membership of the euro for always on the ground of constitutional principle. The position is perfectly principled and argues—no matter what the benefits in jobs, industry or even influence—that such a decision is simply wrong, on the ground of sovereignty.

I cannot accept that position, for the reasons that I gave earlier. In the modern world, one has only to look around to see that technology, global finance, mass communication—to say nothing of travel and culture—are coming together. The world is moving together. Sovereignty pooled can be sovereignty—or at least power and influence—renewed. I suspect that, even if we were today to rule out membership in principle and for ever, in a few years, that ruling would itself come under question. In the meantime, we would have lost all influence whatsoever in the economic future of the European Union, of which we will remain a member.

The second position is an unconditional "yes, now". It maintains that economic conditions are meaningless, and that we should join regardless. I believe that economic conditions are meaningful. It is precisely because the conditions are meaningful that we have said, to give some greater certainty to business and the country, that, barring unforeseen circumstances, we would not make a decision in this Parliament to recommend joining the euro.

It is worth, however, summarising the economic tests that the Chancellor established: sustainable convergence between the UK and countries within the euro zone; flexibility to adapt to change in the UK and in continental Europe; the impact on investment and the UK financial services industry; and whether joining the single currency would be good for employment.

Three points should be emphasised. The first is that economic convergence must not be momentary, but, as far as we can accurately foresee, sustainable. We are still at a different stage of the economic cycle from the rest of Europe. However, the difference between our official interest rates and theirs is narrowing. In October 1997, UK interest rates were at 7 per cent, with those in France and Germany at close to 3 per cent. UK interest rates are now at 5.5 per cent, compared with 3 per cent. for the euro area. The difference between our long-term interest rates and their own also is narrowing, and is now down to about 0.5 per cent. Long-term, UK interest rates are now about their lowest for 40 years. Our inflation performance also is consistent with the European central bank's definition of price stability. However, it is essential that convergence is settled and sustainable. We cannot say that yet.

Moreover, for decades we have been prone to far greater swings in the economic cycle than our continental counterparts. It has been boom and bust. That has enormously damaged investment and reduced our ability to grow without hitting an inflationary ceiling at relatively low levels of growth.

Under this Government, there is an entirely new framework for economic management in place. Bank of England independence has at long last given us credibility in interest rate decisions, as well as low interest rates. There are also new fiscal rules which the Chancellor has relied on to slash the £28 billion borrowing requirement and ballooning national debt which we inherited and put us on a path of fiscal prudence. The new framework is a revolution in economic management for Britain. On its foundation, we have put in place measures to boost education, skills, technology and productivity, and measures to enhance the ability of business to grow and prosper. However, we need to get through this more difficult part of the economic cycle and emerge stronger. For Britain to join the euro, it must be from a position of sustained economic strength.

The second point is that these are early days for the euro. It is sensible to see how it settles down and how the ECB steers a path consistent with both strong economic discipline and the avoidance of deflation.

Thirdly, it will take some time to make a clear judgment about whether the direction of economic reform in Europe will enable us to meet the tests that we have set out, particularly on flexibility and jobs.

Europe has a choice. Most of the countries in Europe have high and persistent levels of unemployment. The Asian crisis has brought home to all of us in the EU the fragility of the new world of globalisation. Our world economy is more interdependent than ever. The EU is competing not just with itself, but with the whole world from Asia to America. The single currency alone will not make Europe prosperous. The single currency plus fundamental reform in labour, capital and product markets and in our welfare systems can do so.

Economic reform is crucial, not just to the success of Britain's participation in the euro, but to the euro itself. I understand the worries of those who, while not ruling out the euro in principle, are none the less concerned about the type of euro zone that we might be joining. That is a real question. We must be sure that the EU is moving forwards, not backwards. There are real problems in the EU and Britain can play a part in the solution. The economic reform programme includes the action plans that we started at our Cardiff Economic Council. They require labour market reform through greater flexibility, capital market reform through a European venture capital industry and product market reform through extending competition and strengthening the single market. We are determined that these must be in place. [Interruption.]

Order. I would be obliged if hon. Members who are conducting running commentaries would desist.

It would be better if their running commentaries made any sense.

The way to provide social protection today is not more and more regulation or high business costs and taxes; it is through making our work force highly adaptable, more employable and better skilled, encouraging the development of technology, promoting small businesses and making our welfare systems help people off benefit and into work, with specific measures to combat social exclusion. We need a new social model for a new European reality.

I want a Britain strong, economically disciplined, with boom and bust eradicated, flexible, competitive and dynamic. I want us in a Europe that at best is moving firmly in the same direction, rather than trying to hold us back. That is a vision that lets us adapt the European social model to the new realities of global commerce; a vision that binds the EU and America closer together and lets us learn from one another.

We have stated today as a matter of Government policy that in principle Britain should join a successful single currency. That principle is real. The practical preparations that we have set out are real. The conditions—necessary so that we proceed with caution, with common sense and in our own interests—are real. We have set out a vision of Europe's future.

We have a vision, but it is a vision that is practical. We should have confidence in Britain, both in our vision and our pragmatism. I commend the statement to the House.

Many of us have listened to many statements, but never have we heard such a long list of clichés and verbiage accompanied by so little information.

It was all so simple for the Prime Minister before the last election. Perhaps he recalls his article in The Sun in April 1997, which appeared under the headline,

"My love for £. Exclusive by Tony Blair.

Tony Blair last night declared for the first time he loves the pound."

He admitted:

"'I know exactly what the British people feel when they see the Queen's head on a £10 note. I feel it too.'"

[Interruption.] He did not think it was a joke at the time. There were, he said,

"emotional issues involved in the single currency",

and he spoke about his passion for the pound. Has it not been a remarkably short journey from this love of the pound to the plan that he is announcing today to adopt the euro and abolish the pound? Has not the Prime Minister today committed the country to a course of action that is unnecessary, expensive and time consuming, and for which the British voters have never given their consent?

The Prime Minister must know that, if Britain joins the single currency, we risk being unable to run the British economy in the interests of British business. We also risk fundamental political powers—such as the power to tax and spend—being transferred away from democratically accountable British Governments. He must know that there is no sign of the British economy becoming permanently convergent with continental economies. The evidence that he just claimed to give could be equally given for the dollar, as for the euro. That is one of the preconditions that he himself has set for joining the euro.

The Treasury's own study of the economic tests states that the UK economy has become increasingly out of step with Germany and more synchronised with the United States. The document says that, if the UK were to enter monetary union,

"the loss of domestic monetary policy and the lack of exchange rate freedom could make the UK cycle more volatile."

That means more boom and bust—the right hon. Gentleman ought to be aware of that, if anybody is.

Why are there no answers today from the Prime Minister to those fundamental questions? Is it not foolish to embark on a changeover plan without the faintest clue about how the necessary convergence of the economies is to be achieved in the first place? Is it not foolish to do so without knowing why we should want to converge with economies in which one in eight people is out of work in any case?

The Prime Minister has given a long statement without being specific in any way about the costs involved. He referred vaguely in the middle of his statement to tens of millions of pounds of public money. Why will he not say how much money will be spent in the public sector that could have been spent on the education, health and public services that he said he would provide?

Why do the accompanying documents—which I have just seen on coming to the House—give no clue as to what is involved for the private sector? There are two pages about what it means for a corner shop under the heading, "Case Study: A Corner Shop". It begins:

"A small corner shop sells a variety of groceries and household supplies."

It will be mightily pleased to hear that. The document continues:

"on a given date the shop could simply switch over from giving change in sterling to giving change in euros."

It does not say how much that will cost. The only figure mentioned in the whole two pages on a corner shop is £1.99, on the basis that, if we convert from pounds into euros, the shop might not charge things at £1.99 any more.

What use will the document be to businesses? Are not tens of millions of pounds a huge amount for taxpayers and businesses to pay before such fundamental questions are answered? Does not the Prime Minister recognise that most businesses in the country are small and that the thousands of small businesses represented by the Federation of Small Businesses are against joining the euro and will not be persuaded unless they can see greater economic advantage?

Unless the public have decided to join, they should not be forced to spend their hard-earned money on a changeover plan. Is not the money really being spent so that the Prime Minister can show that he is doing his best to sign us up to the euro, parading in front of EU Councils as the man who would join tomorrow if only the stubborn electorate would allow him? Are not the tens of millions of pounds involved a high price to pay for his vanity?

Does not the Maastricht treaty require countries preparing to join the euro to shadow it for at least two years—not to join the exchange rate mechanism, but to shadow the euro? The Prime Minister spent 20 minutes talking about preparing to join without saying a word about the most important thing that one has to do if one wants to join.

Does the Prime Minister have any plans to shadow the euro before the next general election, with all that that means for running our economy according to conditions in other countries rather than in our own? If so, he should come clean now; and, if not, why do we need a changeover plan in the meantime? Why has he produced a changeover plan that talks about computer software and cash registers but is unable to say if or when the Government will do the most important thing?

This morning, the Prime Minister's press secretary claimed that the statement was about giving the country a choice. As he was briefing on the statement several hours in advance, it is a wonder that the Home Secretary has not slapped an injunction on him by now. Is it not the case that, instead of giving people a choice, the national changeover plan is part of a national handover plan, handing over our economic and political freedoms before we have even seen whether the single currency works for anyone, let alone for this country?

The Prime Minister wants to bounce the British people into joining the euro by spending tens of millions of pounds of their money on convincing them that it is inevitable. He says that it is not inevitable, but this whole process is designed to make it so. He wants to change the cash registers, computers and banking systems so that he can turn round and tell the British people that they have no choice but to change their currency.

Does this not all add up to a strategy of pretending to give people a choice while steadily denying and diminishing that choice? Is it not an attempt to lull people into thinking that a nation that has decided its own destiny for 1,000 years is no longer fit to do so? The Prime Minister has built his recent career on being all things to all people and reassuringly facing in one direction while heading off in another. That is the trick that he has perfected, and he has now surpassed himself: while he trumpets his love for the pound, his love for the euro is the love that dare not speak its name.

Would not a Prime Minister who really wanted to give the country a choice set out a viable alternative and show the people that there is another option and that we can choose to make a success of our own currency, as part of the European Union, trading in the euro as we trade in the dollar, in Europe but not run by Europe? Should not he make it clear that for the sixth largest economy in the world to have its own currency is a perfectly viable proposition and set out a strategy for how Britain can take the fullest advantage and make the most of the freedoms and opportunities of keeping the pound?

The Prime Minister does not want to develop such a strategy. He wants people to believe that the decision is made, that entry is inevitable and that the decision of the British people is a formality. I believe that he will find that he is very much mistaken.

At least the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is opposed to a single currency for good, for ever.

No, I have not.

No, he has not, he says. Well, he could have fooled me. We are to protect, are we, the thousand years of British history for the next Parliament but not the one after? This is the fourth position that the right hon. Gentleman has had on the issue since the election. In May 1997, he said that he was

"against the single currency in principle."

Then he said that he was against the single currency in principle "for the foreseeable future". Then he said that he had always said that

"we intend to oppose it at the next election".

That would mean for the next Parliament. Then he said:

"I don't think it's necessary to say we are against it in principle."

Now he is saying that he is against it for the next Parliament, but not that he is against it for ever. If anyone wanted to know why he and his party are not taken seriously on this issue, they should have listened to him just now.

I shall deal with some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. The whole purpose of the national changeover plan is to make the preparations necessary to allow us to make a choice. If we do not make those preparations, we will not be in a position to make the choice. As he has just told me that he does not rule out joining, he would be in the same position but at a later stage. It is important to try to do what is right for this country's interests. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are going to push people into it, but we have made it clear that there will be a referendum and people will have the ultimate choice. However, to allow them to be in the position to make that choice, especially with the euro now a reality, it is important that we make those preparations.

I believe that the expenditure is right, in order to prepare us for the euro. The Chancellor pointed out to me that the expenditure will be somewhat less than the amount the Conservative Government lost in their exit from the exchange rate mechanism. However, we do not want to bring back those memories.

The truth of the matter is that the Conservatives said that it would not happen. They were wrong. They said that if it did happen, it would collapse. They were wrong. Now they say that, whatever the circumstances, our motto should be "be not prepared". Wrong again. They have been wrong on every major issue connected with this policy every time that they have opened their mouths. The ostrich strategy will simply not work.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he is the first Tory leader in living memory to put himself on the opposite side from the CBI, the BBA, the British Chambers of Commerce and the City of London? We could even have the delicious irony of going into the next general election with the only fears on the financial markets being the prospect of a Tory election victory. That, I am afraid, is his contribution to the Conservative party, and he will rue the day he made it.

There is a rule of thumb about Government statements in the House, which is that the longer the statement, the more opaque the policy. That is a bit of what we heard earlier. I am reminded of a comment from a Minister earlier today when he was asked whether entry was a matter of when or if. He said that the Government's policy was that the two words are now interchangeable. I do not know precisely what that means.

The statement was very significant. Is not the truth simply that today the Government have crossed the Rubicon in favour of the euro? I greatly welcome that, even though the Government have crossed the Rubicon only by the tiniest millimetre. I welcome it even though the Government are trying to pretend that they have not crossed the Rubicon. I welcome it because now the Government will have to defend their position—something that they have not done before.

The statement has two levels: the level that one sees, and the level that one is supposed not to see. The level that one sees is the perfectly sensible statement about measures to be taken in preparation for the euro. We welcome those measures, which are sensible, realistic and practical. I am glad that they will be debated and voted on in the House.

The level of the statement that we are not supposed to see is the continuation of the Government's policy of leadership by stealth. They move forward a millimetre at a time, but sooner or later they arrive at a point from which they cannot go back. That point has been arrived at today.

I have a question for the Prime Minister. Today he has been attacked by the Tories, and tomorrow he will be attacked by the Tory, Euro-sceptic press. Does he then leave the position undefended, or does he leave it to others—such as the CBI and the other organisations that he has just mentioned—to defend it for him?

All those organisations have shown more leadership on the issue than the Government, but the Prime Minister cannot leave it to them. The Government will have to defend their position: they can follow a policy of stealth, but they cannot win a referendum by stealth. Unless the Government are prepared to come forward and argue the case for the euro, they risk this decision, the most important that Britain has to face, being lost by stealth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That response shows what that lot on the Conservative Benches want to happen. That is the policy that the Government are currently following.

Is it not a tragedy for Britain, as this country faces the most important decision that it will face in the next two or three decades, that the Government take the view that they want to join the euro but try to pretend that they do not, and that the Tories take the position that they want to get out of Europe but try to pretend that they do not?

I have a single, specific question for the Prime Minister, which will reveal his intentions. He has told us that he wishes there to be a referendum early in the next Parliament, which means that the necessary legislation must be passed in this Parliament. Does he understand that?

First, I will try to take that as a statement in support, but it is a little unfair to accuse me of acting by stealth. After all, I am all here, in the House of Commons, making the statement. As for the referendum, the position is as we have set it out.

I shall deal head on with the basic criticism made by the right hon. Gentleman. There are three positions with regard to the euro—"no, never", "yes, now" and "yes, on condition". That last position is where we are now, and it is the right position to be in. It allows us to signal our intention, to set out the proper conditions, and to say what is necessary for the euro to work for the British national interest.

I believe that that balanced, sensible course sets a direction for this country, but it makes it clear that joining the euro must be in the national economic interest and it sets out the conditions for that. I surmise that, if we were in different positions and I was asking the right hon. Gentleman questions, he would probably agree that these economic conditions have to be met. When he reflects on the matter, he is probably in the same position as we are.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was fair of the Leader of the Opposition to say that the position was unnecessary, expensive and time-consuming, but that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to his own position? The Tory position is unnecessary because people want to join the euro; it is expensive because the longer we stay outside, the greater will be the problem for business; and it is time-consuming because the House has no idea when the convergence criteria would be met to the satisfaction of the Conservative party. Is it not the Government alone who are prepared to take the necessary steps and put the choice to the people in a referendum?

My hon. Friend makes the sensible point that it is absurd of the Conservative party—if what we have heard today is their official position—to say that it will rule out the euro in principle, but only for 10 years. That is an absurd position: one either rules out the euro in principle, or one sets out the conditions necessary for entry.

My hon. Friend is also right to say that the position of the Conservative party is contrary to our national interest in the sense that, unless we make the expenditure and the preparations, we cannot be in position to exercise the choice. We are not forcing business to spend money, but saying what it would be sensible to do if they wish to be in a position to take advantage of the single currency, should Britain join it. I think that that common-sense position will appeal to the vast majority of people in business.

The Prime Minister will recall that I have on occasion been extremely critical of his and his Government's weasel words on EMU, whether they were in articles in The Sun or in statements to the House. Will he therefore accept that I welcome the marked change of tone represented by today's statement? In particular, I welcome the fact that he has reached agreement with representatives of the majority of British business on the practical steps that need to be taken if we are to give reality to the policy of prepare and decide.

Will the Prime Minister undertake to continue from now on to put his mouth where he thinks our money ought to be? Will he confirm that, in the real world, the British people should be concentrating on whether the country has achieved genuine and sustainable convergence with the economies of the euro zone, whether his Government can succeed in negotiating satisfactory terms for entry, and what their decision will be in the referendum, whenever it may come?

I largely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a major debate about the future of our country, and I have set out the Government's position by making a statement to the House. I shall, of course, carry on stating why I believe our position to be in the national interest. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I would share a view on one central point: to be pro-British, one does not need to be anti-European. We can be both, and, in a modern world, we should be.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement represents a major step forward? Not only did he set out practical preparations that the country must take, but he made it clear that, provided the economic circumstances are right, it is the Government's intention to join. This is the first time that the Government have said that so clearly. Does he agree that the time has come for a great national debate to inform the British people about the euro, and that the British Government must lead the debate?

Of course, my statement and its aftermath are part of the national debate. It is important that we have set out the economic circumstances that would make joining in our national interest. We have set those circumstances out clearly and we have signalled the Government's direction. We have set out the conditions clearly, and that is the right position to take.

The Prime Minister has been absolutely right in everything that he has said today. I welcome that, although I would have welcomed it even more if he had said it last June when the whole process began.

We risk what we suffered before for 22 years when we had no influence whatever in the policies being followed by what is now the European Union. We cannot afford to take that risk again. I urge that preparations should be made as speedily as possible. We have heard many pseudo-arguments, all of them dominated by one economic fact throughout the history of the world. That fact is this: no single market in the world has more than one currency. We cannot carry on successfully in a single market if we go for multiple currencies. That simply is not feasible. The rest of Europe knows that perfectly well, and the United States knows it too. Where would the US be if it had had more than one currency? There is no argument against that point, and I hope that the Prime Minister will act as speedily as is practically possible.

It is important to realise that a single currency in a single market can bring benefits in terms of jobs and investment in industry. That is why we have set out our direction today. There must be settled and sustainable economic convergence, but the direction needed to be set out, and it has been.

Will the Prime Minister make it clear when the information published by the Government is sent out that every elector will be told that, if Britain is a member of the single currency, he or she will lose the right to elect or to remove on polling day those who make the economic decisions that affect our lives? Will he also point out that, under the Maastricht treaty, he himself would be in breach of the law if he tried to influence the decisions of the central bank? Is he aware that democracy is held by many people, including me, to be a national interest? Is he also aware that, on this matter, there are divisions in all parties and there will be a free vote in the House? Will he give us an assurance that the Cabinet will have the same right to freedom that was made available in 1975 during the previous referendum campaign?

Hear, hear!

It is interesting to hear what I sometimes call the Thatcher-Portillo-Benn axis. I understand why my right hon. Friend holds that view very strongly indeed, but he must understand that there are those of us who are equally in favour of people having their say, which is why we will have the referendum. We have pledged that the final decision will be that of the British people. Pooling our sovereignty in this way, if it is in the national economic interest, better for British jobs, investment and industry and enhances British influence and standing in the world, is the right thing for Britain to do. We should have the campaign on the basis that people on either side of the argument are honourably intentioned but that we disagree, not about whether we should follow the national interest, but about what it is. I happen to believe that it remains in the course that we have set out today.

As part of the Prime Minister's changeover plan, has he turned his mind to the collapsing value of the euro? In forcing convergence and complying with the Maastricht treaty, is it his plan to shadow the euro downwards? If so, what will that mean for his inflation target?

That is not our policy. The hon. Gentleman and, I am afraid, the majority of Conservative Members want the euro to fail. That is all that they have left—[Interruption.] Literally, that is all that they have left to hope for: that the whole thing collapses. If the euro collapsed, even if we were out of it, it would be a disaster for this country. He and other Conservative Members should get into the real world today.

While I welcome this most important step in producing a changeover plan, is my right hon. Friend aware that whether we join the euro is the one crucial decision to be taken during the lifetime of this Government? Is he aware that the sooner we make that firm commitment to join, even without setting a date, the more seriously we will be taken by our partners in Europe and the more fully we will be able to participate in the crucial decisions that lie ahead?

The conditions are important too. As I said, this is an economic union and conditions relating to economic convergence and to the five tests that the Chancellor set out, including those relating to economic reform, are important for monetary union to work in this country's national interest. So the direction is clear, but those conditions have to remain in place and be satisfied because that also is in the national economic interest.

Would the Prime Minister recognise that this country, which has proudly defended its sovereignty for 1,000 years, has been told by every Conservative Prime Minister since the late Lord Stockton that we would enhance that sovereignty and our power and influence by drawing closer to Europe? Some of us still believe what we were told and followed the House of Commons whipping procedure at that time.

Will the Prime Minister recognise that his statement—which is a marked step forward in the intention of the Government to join a successful single currency—stripped of its party political rhetoric will be widely welcomed in areas of society way beyond his political party? With that in mind and given that the conditions entrenched in his statement have to be fulfilled before a successful application is made, will he recognise that that will be possible only if there is an all-party grouping to lead public opinion on the matter? Above all else, will he give the House a categorical assurance that he will lead that all-party alignment?

If I were a Conservative Member, I should reflect on what a former Deputy Prime Minister and long-time member of the Conservative party has just said. I believe that the issue is one that should be dealt with across the parties and I certainly intend to be at the forefront of that campaign. I have never believed that this is a issue that can be dealt with by stealth, and I do believe that the economic conditions are important. The national economic interest must always be paramount, but I believe that that is satisfied by the course that we have set out today. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that, if we follow the advice of the Conservative party and stay out of the single currency for 10 years, not only shall we be repeating the mistakes of British history for the past 50 years, but it would represent an abdication of political leadership? Does he also agree that, if we believe that a strong single currency is in Britain's interests, striving to meet the five economic criteria set by the Chancellor should be an explicit aim of Government policy?

The Chancellor has already made it clear that we want to meet those tests. My hon. Friend is right about the 10 years: the two justifiable positions are to rule out joining a single currency for ever, as a matter of principle, or to set out the economic tests necessary to make joining in the national interest. The Leader of the Opposition must recognise that it is genuinely absurd to rule out joining for 10 years, for that would mean that we had absolutely no influence on decision making, but we would still have to do all the things later that we are setting out today. It is far better to make the test our national conditions and do our best to meet them.

For once, I find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister: it cannot be right for us to join the euro until we have seen convergence in the economic cycles of our economy and that of the Europeans, nor can it be right to join until we have seen the liberalisation of labour and capital markets on the continent. That will take years—so why does the Prime Minister not join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in a policy that rules out joining for this Parliament and the next?

Because I do not believe that would be sensible or in the country's interests. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that convergence and economic reform are important, but we shall achieve them far better if we set out a clear direction for the country, which is what we have done today. The purpose of the national changeover plan is to put us in the position of making preparations so that we can make a choice. If we do not do that now, we will be in the position of being able to make no choice at all, and I cannot believe that that is right for this country.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, on any objective account, the Common Market-European Union has not been a rip-roaring success? The common agricultural policy, as he knows and agrees, has been a total failure; the common fisheries policy is not worth a hatful of crabs; and there are 18 million people out of work in the Common Market—and no signs of improvement. When we take all that into account, as well as the fact that, in seven short weeks, the euro has fallen by 7 per cent. against the dollar and 4.8 per cent. against the pound, all I have to say to my right hon. Friend—I am sure that he will take it on board—is that he should beware of those carrying out experiments in genetically modified currencies.

I think that the balance sheet shows that, overall, the European Union has been immensely positive for Europe and Britain's membership of the European Union has been positive or Britain. Of course we believe that the common agricultural policy needs reform, which is precisely why we are trying to make that reform happen, and of course we also believe that levels of unemployment in Europe are far too high. However, I do not believe that either the single market or the single currency has caused those problems. I think that long-term structural reform is necessary and that we should be part of that process to make sure that we put those people in Europe back to work.

One can criticise the European Union. However, if people take a step back and consider the history of Europe since the second world war, most would say that the European Union has been a success overall.

Given that the Prime Minister has today reaffirmed his intention to hold a referendum on this subject, does he agree with Lord Neill, who said that the Government who conduct a referendum of this kind should not distribute at public expense literature—even purportedly factual literature—outlining or otherwise promoting their case?

As we said, we shall respond in due course to Lord Neill's recommendations. Of course the rules should be fair for both sides, and we shall ensure that they are. When we respond to Lord Neill's recommendations, we shall publish that response in full so that hon. Members may see it.

The entire House must welcome a statement that takes us towards completing the single market under the terms of the Single European Act, which was passed under the previous Administration. That Tory Government committed us to economic and monetary union.

The Prime Minister said that a Minister from each Department would be enlisted immediately to sell the benefits of the proposal and supervise the single currency changeover. Will he give the House a commitment that those Ministers will be enlisted, with the foot soldiers of the European movement—those who support the single currency--from now until the general election?

The purpose is to ensure that the Government are geared up properly for the necessary preparations. My hon. Friend makes a worthwhile point by mentioning the progress that we have already made in the European Union. The Single European Act, which was agreed by the previous Government, was a substantial act of integration, involving qualified majority voting on a scale not seen hitherto and breaking down a series of barriers and securing standardisation across many areas within the European Union. It is important to view this move as part of development in Europe.

All the way through, we have set out clearly the direction that we believe is right for the country and the economic conditions necessary to make EU membership in this country's interests. That balance between the direction and the conditions necessary to make that direction viable and sustainable for this country is precisely right.

The Prime Minister has acted in what I believe to be the national interest by engaging first gear and moving towards preparing to join the euro. Anyone who opposes a national changeover plan must not want to have a referendum, because it can be held only if the British people are prepared. Anyone who thinks that British industry should not prepare does not understand the challenges that it faces: all businesses, whether small or large, are part of a supply chain.

Will the Prime Minister recall the words of the chief economist at ICI who said that it would not damage investment in the United Kingdom if we did not join immediately, but any signal that we would be out for a protracted time could be extremely dangerous for this country's economy and investment? I hope that the Prime Minister continues to change up gears as he moves towards the referendum.

There is no doubt that, if we were to follow a course of hostility to the whole concept, it would damage this country's influence and the prospects for investment in the United Kingdom.

What is the right hon. Gentleman's empirical evidence?

The hon. Gentleman asks what the evidence is. If he were to talk to most people around the world who invest in this country, he would learn that they recognise that it is important for Britain to be part of the European Union and to be positive about the single market and the single currency.

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) is absolutely right: there can be no referendum without a national changeover plan. If we do not start the preparations now, we will not be able to join—even if we wish to do so. The Conservative party's official position today is that, even if joining is manifestly in the country's interest—even if it is plainly in the interests of industry, jobs and investment and even if business and industry are clamouring for us to join—we cannot be in a practical position to join. That is not a sensible position for a party that used to be able to speak for a section of business.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the irony that when a British Minister of Agriculture is, for the umpteenth time, in Brussels trying to negotiate radical reform of one common European policy—the common agricultural policy—he, as Prime Minister, is announcing to the House a plan to join another common policy, a common monetary policy? The damaging effect of that would be far greater than any effect that the wretched CAP could have.

I do not agree. I have set out the tests and economic conditions that have to be met for the common monetary policy. As I said, our position involves, first, seeing whether there is a period of sustained convergence; secondly, finding out whether the European Central Bank settles down, and, thirdly, dealing with the issues arising out of the Chancellor's five economic tests for flexibility and economic reform in Europe. We are perfectly placed. We can set out a direction for the country, set out the conditions and, as a result of the changeover plan, take advantage of the fact that we have made active preparations.

Will the Prime Minister appreciate, leaving aside the vital constitutional issues, that most serious economists would tell him that it will be impossible to say whether or not the five economic tests have been satisfactorily met until the completion of at least two economic cycles, which makes nonsense of the timetable that he is putting before the country?

We do consult industry widely. I have set out the position of the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce and the British Bankers Association, and most people in the City of London disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is not correct to say that we are not listening to business and industry; we are doing so.

This statement is all the more welcome because it has been made regardless of the ravings of unelected, offshore press barons. The Leader of the Opposition talked about costs. Since the cost to the British economy of exchanges with European currencies in recent years has been equivalent to our contribution to the European budget, I suggest that the sooner we join the European single currency, the better.

The extraordinary thing about the Opposition's position is that they are opposed not only to the single currency, but to preparations. The right hon. Member for -Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) could have said that the time scale should be different, but he said that we should not even prepare and put ourselves in the position of being able to make a choice. That is plainly wrong. Without repeating to my hon. Friend what I have already said, I think it important that the conditions be met because they will make the satisfaction of our national economic interests the paramount consideration.

In his statement, the Prime Minister hedged his election commitment on the timing of the referendum and said that it would occur after the next election, except in unforeseen circumstances. Will he be gracious enough to tell the House what circumstances he envisages might lead to an earlier referendum?

If they were foreseeable, they would not be unforeseen. In referring to unforeseen circumstances, I was repeating precisely the words that the Chancellor used in his statement of 27 October.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as he consults business about his plans, the only criticism that he will hear is that preparation should be faster and it is essential that he picks up a gear? If he speaks to executives in Marks and Spencer, as I have done, he will hear that they have already gone a long way towards preparation. [Interruption.] If he speaks to people who are running small and medium enterprises, he will be told that if a Government ever came to power wedded to the sort of Europhobia that we have heard from the Leader of Opposition today, that Government would put an end to their businesses. Will he give them the assurance that they want—that what the Government should provide is leadership and help with their preparations, and that what the country needs is a clear, fact-based debate so that we can all be of one mind when we go into the euro?

That is exactly right. We are of course undertaking the preparations in consultation with business and industry, which again is why it is so bizarre that we are told by the Opposition that we should not even make those preparations. I would point out to those Opposition Members who now even shout at the idea of Marks and Spencer that, when the euro notes and coins come in, a lot of British companies—some of them—will be accepting them. Therefore it is sensible, surely, to make preparations.

As one who identifies with Europe with ease and served in the European Parliament for 10 years, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the euro is driven more by politics than by economics. The promoters of the euro are people who believe in a united states of Europe—a Europe of the regions—and the diminution of the nation state. I am sorry to say it, but I think that the Prime Minister's statement could be the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom. However, he was honest when, in his statement, he said,

"I do not dismiss the constitutional … issues"

they are real, and he was right when he said that. Has he drawn those real constitutional issues to the attention of the palace?

The position that the right hon. Gentleman outlines is the "no, never" position. It is a position that says we never, ever go in. I totally understand that position, but I personally believe that, if it is in the national economic interest, we should go in. I put my statement in the way that I did, not to dismiss the constitutional issue, but simply to say that, in the end, the only question is, "Is it an absolute barrier to joining?" and my answer to that is no; if it is in the interests of British jobs, British business, British investment, we should do so. I think that that is correct; and the answer to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is no.

The business for the remainder of this week will be as follows.

WEDNESDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Until 12.30 pm, a debate on the third report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on composition, recruitment and training of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, followed by a debate on the sixth report from the Agriculture Committee on flood and coastal defence, followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Rating (Valuation) Bill.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.

THURSDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 1 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.

Remaining stages of the Scottish Enterprise Bill.

Motion relating to the Corporation Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations.

TUESDAY 2 MARCH—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day].

There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

WEDNESDAY 3 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Consideration in Committee of the House of Lords Bill.

THURSDAY 4 MARCH—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the House of Lords Bill.

FRIDAY 5 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:

MONDAY 8 MARCH—Remaining stages of the House of Lords Bill.

Motion on the Implementation Bodies (Northern Ireland) Order.

TUESDAY 9 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

WEDNESDAY 10 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Continuation of the Budget debate.

THURSDAY 11 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.

FRIDAY 12 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 15 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

The House will also wish to be reminded that, on Wednesday 24 February, there will be a debate on VAT fraud in intra-community trade, the Independent Fraud Office and the Court of Auditors annual report for 1997 in European Standing Committee B [Economic Secretary to the Treasury], and that, on Wednesday 10 March, there will be a debate on transport infrastructure charging in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Wednesday 24 February:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: OJC 349, Court of Auditors report for 1997; 14031/98, Independent Fraud Office; 10786/98, VAT Fraud in intra-community trade; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 34-vi, HC 34-vii and HC 34-viii (1998–99).

Wednesday 10 March 1999:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 10778/98, Transport Infrastructure Charging. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC I 55-xxxvii (1997–98).]

The House is grateful for this week's and next week's business and for an indication of the business the week. after. Can the Leader of the House confirm that we will be reverting to the usual pattern of having business questions on Thursdays?

Will the Foreign Secretary be making a statement to the House following the expiry of the deadline for the talks at Rambouillet? In view of the interest in the subject on which the Prime Minister has just made a statement, and the large number of hon. Members who were not called, can we have a full debate in Government time on the national changeover plan? During that debate, can we have an answer to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), namely, whether the Government plan to shadow the euro or not?

The Leader of the House has confirmed the date for the Budget, but can she confirm that we have not had the normal debate on public expenditure which used to take place in the autumn? Can she assure the House that that debate will be provided in due course, in Government time?

Tomorrow, the House is expecting the report on the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence. Can the Leader of the House find time to debate the important issues raised by Sir William Macpherson and initiate a debate, which will, I hope, avoid any witch hunt of Sir Paul Condon? On that subject, can she guarantee that the House will be told the outcome of the leak inquiry? What has happened to the Home Secretary's plans to publish the draft freedom of information Bill, which is constantly trailed but never appears?

Finally, the Leader of the House has outlined the broad dates for the Easter and Whitsun recesses. Can she give the House the actual dates, so that it can plan its future arrangements with some certainty?

I can confirm that it is normally my intention to make the business statement on Thursday, but I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House to have the statement early this week, because we were not sitting last Thursday; otherwise, hon. Members might not have had much notice of the business to come.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be making a statement on issues relating to Kosovo. Obviously that is a matter that the Government will keep under review, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that, at present, those issues continue to be discussed. He asked also for a debate in Government time on the matters on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just made a statement. That statement was, of course, very full, although I recognise that many hon. Members wanted to speak. As the right hon. Gentleman will have realised from the business statement, there is time for the Budget debates; but we will bear in mind any request, made through the usual channels, for a wider debate on that matter.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about a restoration of what he called the normal debate on public expenditure. To my recollection, what used to be the normal debate on public expenditure was dispensed with by the Conservative Government when I was shadow Chief Secretary, which was a considerable time ago, and they never managed to reinstate it. However, that is certainly a matter that I will bear in mind and will discuss through the usual channels.

We obviously intend to have a full statement on matters that are raised following the outcome of the Stephen Lawrence report, although I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said yesterday about that document being leaked.

It remains the Government's intention to publish the freedom of information Bill; and I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to give the right hon. Gentleman the actual recess dates.

When will either the Defence Secretary or the Foreign Secretary make a statement to the House on the dramatically escalating conflict in the skies over northern Iraq? In the past few hours, two 2,000 lb bunker-busting bombs—likened by Jane's Defence Weekly to tactical nuclear weapons—were dropped very near the important Iraqi city of Mosul. As you know, Madam Speaker, Britain is not at war with Iraq and any pilots dropping such bombs who either fell from the sky or were shot down would not be prisoners of war. They would be in a very perilous position indeed, having wreaked such devastation on Iraqi cities, and would not be protected by the conventions of war.

All I can say to my hon. Friend is that, as he knows, the Foreign Secretary is heavily engaged in discussions on other matters at present. We endeavour to keep the House informed of major and significant developments. With regard to his final remarks, may I say to him with respect that being prisoners of war did not much protect British pilots who were shot down over Iraq in the past?

We warmly endorse the request for a full debate in Government time on the euro changeover plan. May we have an answer to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) put to the Prime Minister, which was not answered, about the timing of legislation for the referendum? We must ensure that it is in place before the next general election so that we can take advantage of the proper circumstances at the proper time.

On 4 February, I asked the Leader of the House whether she had taken into account the damaging statement made by her colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which appeared to suggest that maternal transmission was now the accepted explanation of how BSE could continue beyond the 30-month period, and she undertook to draw that to the Minister's attention. Can we now have a full statement on the Government's attitude to this matter, as the chief scientific adviser has now gone on record as saying that beef on the bone should not be banned on scientific grounds and that it is entirely a matter of politics? I appreciate that it is not possible to give a date for further debate on this issue because of time constraints over the next few weeks, but can we have an assurance that the Minister will come before the House and explain that apparent change in attitude?

On the timing of the legislation for a referendum, we are not yet at that stage. The hon. Gentleman will remember, as will the whole House, that, when the House has decided that it wants a referendum to be conducted, it does not necessarily take long to pass the legislation—I believe that it took only six weeks to deal with legislation for a referendum on the Scotland Bill.

I did take up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised with me about beef on the bone. I recall the observations of the chief scientific adviser, although not precisely in the terms to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. He will recall that my right hon. Friend made an extensive statement on that matter in the recent past—certainly since the hon. Gentleman raised the matter with me.

Pursuant to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), are not few other matters more important than a parliamentary discussion of the whole question of bombing and its endorsement? Incidentally, the endorsement of the bombing of the Al-Shifa factory in Khartoum has turned out to be a huge mistake.

There should be a proper discussion in Parliament of what on earth we are up to in Iraq. Is the bombing to continue? It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say that last time our pilots were badly treated, but if there is no declaration of war they have no legal rights, as we understand them, under the Geneva convention. Even if a shell does not hit one of the Tornados, heaven help us—if a Tornado can malfunction over Lincolnshire, it can certainly malfunction over Iraq. We are drifting into constant war. What matter could be more important for the House of Commons to discuss?

I fear that I do not share my hon. Friend's analysis of the position in which we find ourselves in Iraq. He will be as conscious as I am of the fact that those engaged in overflying, whether in the north or the south of that unhappy country, are there to prevent the free operation of Iraq's armed forces in persecuting those who live in the north and south of that country. They are there in pursuit of United Nations policy.

On the general issue of our approach to these matters and the policy that drives that approach, I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that, only yesterday, we had questions to the Secretary of State for Defence, when these matters may have been aired.

The Government insist on giving the House of Commons these inappropriate gift days, thereby preventing the Opposition from holding the Executive to account. If that should happen again, will the right hon. Lady procure the Prime Minister's attendance on the Tuesday before the free days, so that he can answer questions from the whole House?

I remind hon. Members that there was considerable pressure from both sides of the House—primarily from people who had not voted for us to run the experiment—to have different sitting hours on Thursdays and the possibility of some free days roughly during last week. The House took a decision on that matter, and many hon. Members who did not vote for it were foremost among those pressing for those days to be awarded. I further remind the hon. Gentleman that, although it has clearly slipped the memory of most Conservative Members, the Prime Minister attends Prime Minister's Question Time more consistently than either of his last two predecessors.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her answer about Iraq was totally unsatisfactory? British forces are continually engaged in conflict. They may be shot down, but they are killing civilians with no legal authority. Dennis Halliday, who is in charge of the United Nations oil-for-food programme, has said that between 5,000 and 6,000 Iraqi children under five are dying every month because of the sanctions. If the House of Commons cannot discuss that, and has to rely on the "Today" programme and "Newsnight", it reflects the Government's attitude to the role of Members of Parliament in this hugely important matter.

My right hon. Friend has gone beyond the terms of our defence engagement in Iraq. I am sure that he is as conscious as the rest of us of the fact that it is not because of sanctions that children are dying for lack of food in Iraq. If anyone is dying for lack of food in Iraq—[Interruption.] I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who is interrupting, that he knows that that is the truth. The Iraqi Government have the capacity to use the resources they get from selling oil to purchase food and medicines. If they do not to do so, because they choose to purchase arms, that is a tragedy—but it is not a tragedy of the British Government's making.

May I press the Leader of the House on the matter of a public expenditure debate, which was raised by right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)? Is the right hon. Lady hiding behind the arrangements made by the previous Government? Is she suggesting that she wants to continue those arrangements, and approves of them, or will she bring the public expenditure debate more into line with what her right hon. Friend the Chancellor is doing? The House has the impression that she is trying to hide something. Why can we not have a proper debate on public expenditure in its own right as a matter of urgency, so that we know exactly where we stand on that key issue?

I am not hiding behind anything, and I am not sure what on earth the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is saying. I remind him and other Conservative Members that, when he was a Minister, the previous Government made substantial changes to the handling of our debates on the Budget and on public expenditure. Those changes were never rectified. I agree that the matter should be looked at again, and it will be. It does not, however, lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to condemn the Government on a matter about which they did nothing.

Is it not absurd that the House of Lords is now on the second day of a debate on the White Paper on Lords reform, whereas we have so far been denied such a debate, which would be forward looking? There are obviously constraints, which we have mentioned, on discussing the Government's view of how the House of Lords should be reformed by way of the Bill currently before Parliament.

Furthermore, in any debate on the arrangements that the Prime Minister has just announced, could someone answer the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about the democratic control of the people over economic policy, and results through the ballot box?

It is true that the House of Lords is currently debating the White Paper, but the House of Lords does not have the Bill before it, because the Bill is being debated in the House of Commons. We have not ruled out a debate on the White Paper, but, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, it and the Bill deal with somewhat different matters: the Bill deals with the changes that the Government propose to make now, while the White Paper deals with the future. The fact that the House of Lords is discussing that does not mean that we should be discussing it at this stage.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield about what he described as the people's loss of democratic control over their affairs. I can only say that I have no doubt that these matters will be aired, and aired extensively, as they have been ever since the days when a Conservative Government took us into the European Community. I must add, however, that in my view both the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend are among those who would normally be telling us that the British people do not have enough democratic control over their financing in any event, irrespective of whether we join the single currency.

I acknowledge what the Leader of the House has said about the speed with which a Bill to implement the intention to hold a referendum may be pursued, and also what the Prime Minister said earlier about the need for fairness in the conduct of that referendum; but is the right hon. Lady in a position to say when the Government may present proposals for the establishment of an election commission with the remit of considering rules guaranteeing such fairness?

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, which was that the Government were considering the recommendations that had been made and would present proposals in due course.

This is the fourth year running in which the European Court of Auditors has issued qualified accounts for the European Union. Would it not be appropriate for the debate on the EU's budget to take place in the Chamber, rather than being tucked away in Standing Committee B? The people of this country could then be made aware of the extent of the misappropriation of funds, the fraud and the endemic corruption in the organisation into which her quisling Government wish this country to integrate.

It was, in fact, the last Government who decided that such matters should be dealt with by the European Standing Committees, and their decision has been endorsed repeatedly by the House. As the hon. Gentleman will know, any Member can take part in the Standing Committees' debates. Only recently, the Government widened the remit of the Committees, enabling them to discuss the full range of issues—including legislative proposals from the European Commission—that may be relevant to European Union business. That is a major step forward. We are improving scrutiny of European business, without having to bring it back to the Floor of the House.

The Leader of the House will have observed the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who were not able to question the Prime Minister on the changeover plan. May I repeat the call for an opportunity for the issue to be debated?

May I also make a plea for a debate on Gibraltar on the Floor of the House? That might also enable us to discuss the wider issue of dispatching Her Majesty's armed forces to other regions of the world to defend or protect people who are not Her Majesty's subjects, while the livelihoods of Her Majesty's subjects in the colony of Gibraltar are threatened by the unreasonable and intolerant attitude of a so-called partner in the European Union.

I cannot say that I feel inclined to offer to find time for a debate enabling us to discuss sending the armed forces to Gibraltar, but certainly the Government want any difficulties and disputes arising there to be settled as amicably as possible, and we are turning our mind to that.

I did indeed observe the number of Members who were anxious to take part in the exchanges about the Prime Minister's statement, but, as the hon. Gentleman will have noted, I have reminded the House that the Budget debate will provide an opportunity for the issue to be aired.

Will the Leader of the House consider making time available for investigation of the procedures by which the House considers secondary legislation? Frequently, statutory instruments are available only late at the Vote Office, so that considerable time has passed before hon. Members are able to examine them and consider whether they wish to pray against them. SI 229, for example, was laid before the House on 5 February, but was not available to hon. Members until 15 February. SI 274 was laid before the House on 8 February, but was not available before 15 February. SI 337, laid on 15 February, was still not available as of this morning. Does the Leader of the House agree that the House cannot perform its proper job of scrutinising Government legislation if Departments withhold the information necessary to do that job?

I am indeed mindful of the difficulties that are caused, and I experienced for many years in opposition. The hon. Lady will find that those difficulties are not new to the House—sadly—although they might be new to her. I share her view that the situation is not desirable. The Government are doing everything that we can to improve the handling of legislation, so that such delays do not occur. However, it takes time to rectify the very many defects that we inherited.

I am sure that the right hon. Lady will know that, on Tuesday 9 February, I raised a point of order with Madam Speaker, on an apparent leak of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's report on Sierra Leone. Subsequently—as I am sure that the right hon. Lady also will know—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), provided a written answer, stating that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office first saw the report after 8 am on 9 February. Today, the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) admitted that, in January, he leaked a copy of the draft report to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, that statement does not tie in with the information that we received last week or with the stated events of 9 February.

Will the right hon. Lady therefore arrange for the Foreign Secretary to come urgently to the House to make a statement explaining exactly when he, his Ministers, his officials, his advisers or No. 10 Downing street first saw that leaked document, and what use they subsequently made of it? Was it that document that enabled them to rubbish a report that had not yet been published, by making statements to the media at 7 am on 9 February?

I realise, of course, that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Surely, therefore, he will be aware that it is currently a matter for that Committee, and that, if there has been a leak of a Select Committee report, procedures in "Erskine May"—which I believe he will find on page 670—state what should be done if such an issue arises. Although I bow to no one in my respect for the proper handling of the procedures of the House—personally, I cannot recall that I have ever leaked anything or ever intended to do so—I should tell the hon. Gentleman, and hope that no one will take frivolous offence at it, that for him to suggest that the Foreign Secretary should abandon the talks that we all hope will bring peace in Kosovo and come to the House to deal with a question on that matter puts into perspective the very strange priorities of Conservative Members.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the resignation from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)—

Order. We cannot have a debate on that matter in business questions. I shall take the point of order after business questions have been completed.

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate next week on the Government's anti-democratic arrogance and techniques in using large amounts of public money to override public opposition to the euro and in using the trade union bloc of votes to override popular opposition to Labour's crony candidate for the leadership in Wales?

No.

The Leader of the House will know that she has a responsibility to protect the interests of Back Benchers. May I therefore add to the calls made by my right hon. and hon. Friends that there should be a full debate—not only during the Budget debate, but in Government time—so that the House may properly consider what is unquestionably the most momentous decision to be made by a British Government in decades, if not centuries: surrender of the pound sterling in favour of a foreign currency?

The right hon. Lady should not be so contemptuous of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). We are talking about serious matters. Palming us off with the suggestion of raising them during the Budget debate is not worthy of her or her position. I advise her to reconsider, given her responsibilities to the House.

With respect, I did not palm anyone off. I shall be astonished if the Conservatives do not take the opportunity of the Budget debate to allude continually to those issues. Today's statement was about practical preparations to enable us to join the single currency should the British people decide at some point that we wish to do so. The notion that that is the most momentous announcement made in the House for centuries is extraordinary. Those of us who recall the announcement that we were to join the European Union, never mind the whipped decisions to join the European single market and give up the veto—all decisions taken by Conservative Governments—will view the hon. Gentleman's remarks with astonishment.

Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind the points made by her right hon. and hon. Friends about Iraq? If she cannot find time for a full debate on that, will she ensure that the Foreign Secretary comes to the House to make a statement as soon as he gets back from the Kosovo peace talks? This is a matter of huge national importance, and I invite the right hon. Lady to pay greater attention to the comments of her hon. Friends.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that matter, because it enables me to correct something that I said in response to heckling by my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin. I referred to the purchase of arms, but I meant the expenditure of money on the Iraqi armed forces. I shall bear in mind the hon. and learned Gentleman's request for a statement, but I remind him that there was an opportunity to raise the issue at Defence Question Time yesterday.

That is not the point.

This is business questions, when hon. Members can ask for opportunities to raise matters that there has not so far been an opportunity to raise.

There was an opportunity to raise this issue only yesterday at Defence Question Time. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary seeks meticulously to keep the House informed, but I suspect that, should he come to the House to make a statement in the near future, it is possible that Kosovo will be more immediately on his mind than Iraq.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the House always takes seriously the leaking of Select Committees or House reports. She will also be aware that our hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) volunteered to the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning that he had leaked an early draft of the Committee's report. Will she confirm to the House that the appropriate procedure is that adopted by the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning? The matter should be referred to the Liaison Committee, which is meeting on Thursday this week. It will report back to the Foreign Affairs Committee and thence, probably via this House, to the Privileges Committee. The report of the Privileges Committee, after evidence has been taken, will be debatable in the House.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The proper procedure, laid down in "Erskine May", provides for his Committee to discuss the matter and for it then to go to the Liaison Committee. I think—I am speaking from memory—that the proper course is for the Liaison Committee to send any matter that it thinks should be reported to the Privileges Committee. I am not sure that it goes via this House, but I shall check that. My hon. Friend is right: there is a proper procedure to be followed. I was confident that his Committee would follow it.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary drew attention to the distinction between run-of-the-mill statements and other statements. Will the right hon. Lady be able to tell us which are run-of-the-mill statements before they are made? If not, will she ask Ministers to make their statements to this House first, with no briefing around them beforehand?

The hon. Gentleman's question is based on a false premise, because that was not what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that I listened carefully, and my right hon. Friend said that there was a distinction—however much one might deplore it—between the leaking or other disbursement of relatively run-of-the-mill documents, such as Green Papers or White Papers, and the leaking of the report of a judicial inquiry, which is not in any way—[Interruption.] I suggest that Opposition Members take this seriously. A judicial inquiry is, in itself, a serious matter. The report is not a Government document, or a Government policy facing criticism. It is the report of a judicial inquiry in which the Government's only role was to set up the inquiry so that the matters could be examined. The Government have nothing to defend or to be concerned about in terms of the publication and leaking.

As for the hon. Gentleman's desire to have matters reported to the House first, I entirely share it. I would simply say that, given that the action yesterday of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the Conservative spokesman, was to deplore the Home Secretary's action in launching an injunction in an attempt to protect the interests of the House, I take his exhortations with a pinch of salt.

Given the breath-taking inadequacy of the statement from the Prime Minister which the House has just endured, will the Leader of the House find time for a statement next week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he is able, once and for all, to commit the Government to publish a White Paper on the economic, political and democratic implications of abolishing the pound? Does the right hon. Lady understand that the publication of such a White Paper would enable the Chancellor to declare whether he agrees with the former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez that the European single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community? Moreover, it will enable the Chancellor to explain why he believes that the control of the British economy should be given up permanently to people whom we do not elect and cannot remove.

No doubt, there will come a time when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may publish documents dealing with those issues, but, since he is supposed to be publishing his Budget in the relatively near future, I doubt whether he is working on those at the moment. As for the hon. Gentleman's reference to the breath-taking inadequacy of the statement, I have observed—as, I am sure, has the House—that there is no statement that has yet succeeded in taking away his breath.

May I reiterate my request to the Leader of the House, made on 4 February, that she arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State for Health on the progress of the royal commission on long-term care which—she will recall from the Health Secretary's statement on 4 December 1997—he confidently expected would report within 12 months, and which is now more than two months late?

I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request, which I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who I am confident will be anxious to publish whatever he can as soon as he can.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise a gentle point of order on behalf of a minority—a quartet of us? I refer to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and me. We have no more wisdom than anyone else in this House, but it so happens that we are the four who have actually been to Iraq and have seen the holocaust. There are 560,000 dead children, and we have seen the pictures on the front of The Tribune newspaper. When one sees—

Order. I must equally gently remind the hon. Gentleman—who has long experience in the House—that there are other opportunities to pursue a matter of argument. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware of the resignation this morning of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), following his leak to the Foreign Secretary of a Select Committee document in January. You will also be aware of a number of written questions to the Foreign Office asking when exactly it was shown drafts or amendments of the Sierra Leone report. The answers given have at best shown grave discrepancies, and the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) last week by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), could have led hon. Members to believe that the Foreign Office had no sight of any document before 8 o'clock on the day of the embargo.

In the light of the resignation, and the admission this morning by the hon. Member for Dundee, West that he had shown a copy of the draft report to the Foreign Secretary one month before publication, is it not your view that the Foreign Secretary is not only complicit but should come to the House to make a statement? Has he applied to make such a statement?

On the latter point, no; but it is not a matter for the Chair to have a view on. The hon. Gentleman's point of order was presaged by a question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and, in the course of exchanges, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), set out the exact position. I understand that the matter is already being handled by the Committee and, following the due process, the matter may come before the House at some subsequent time.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there not a clear distinction between the procedure that the Foreign Affairs Committee must adopt, and that has quite rightly been put in train with the Procedure Committee, to deal with the leaking of the report, and the reply to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), which was disingenuous in suggesting that the first sight the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers had of the report was on the morning of its publication, when it is clear from the statement by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that the Foreign Office had sight of the report a month earlier? Have the Foreign Secretary or any of his Ministers given any indication to the Chair that they want to correct that misapprehension?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Accepting—you have already guided us most helpfully on the point—what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has said about the role of the Foreign Affairs Committee in investigating its side of the matter, which it properly must do, can you advise the House whether there is anything that we can do to find out what the role of the Foreign Office was in the matter?

The role of the Committee and its members will be properly investigated, as the Chairman has said, but how can we pursue the role of the Foreign Office, especially in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) have said about the inadequacy—I put it no more strongly—of recent Foreign Office answers?

Those are not points of order on which the Chair can rule. I have answered the question whether notification of any statement has been received. No such notification has been received. When Ministers make statements is entirely a matter for the Government. There are, of course, many ways open to right hon. and hon. Members to raise points of debate, and I am sure that it is not beyond their ingenuity to find those ways if there are points of argument that they want to pursue.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), to make a statement to clarify the apparent discrepancies that have been pointed out?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that that again is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. The Leader of the House will have heard the request that was made, and—