Author: admin

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Chief Secretary sets out firm and fair approach to public sector pay [September 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Chief Secretary sets out firm and fair approach to public sector pay [September 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 16 September 1997.

    The Government’s approach to public sector pay next year will be firm and fair, the Chief Secretary Alistair Darling emphasised today. He set out the Government’s public sector pay policy in the publication of the annual evidence to the pay review bodies.

    He commented:

    “We made it clear in our manifesto that we were determined to put the public finances on a firm and sustainable footing and to do that we were committed to sticking to the existing spending totals for the first two years of this Parliament. That means that the pay review bodies must have regard to the affordability of any award, since public sector pay accounts for one third of public spending.

    We are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past by conceding pay awards which would undermine Britain’s long-term economic prospects.By taking firm action now we
    can build the conditions for long-term economic stability that we all want to see.

    Our aim is to pursue a firm and fair approach to public sector pay, recognising the need to retain, recruit and motivate staff, within tough cash limits.”

    The written evidence particularly asks the pay review bodies to take into account the following key points:

    • pay costs need to be kept within existing spending plans
    • review body groups have done well in relation to other
      public sector groups
    • the new procedures for the inflation target and monetary policy give greater confidence about future price stability
    • and proposes that pay recommendations for the coming year should be low, reflecting good inflation prospects, and consistent with the need for departments to maintain the delivery of services within their budgets.

    It also stresses that the extra money allocated to education and health in the Budget was for front line services and not pay increases.

    The full evidence is attached.

    NOTES TO EDITORS

    There is no public spending round this year. Pay costs will need to be contained within existing spending plans. There will be no access to the Reserve to fund spending on pay in excess of those plans.

    ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND PUBLIC SECTOR PAY POLICY

    This evidence presents the Government’s policy and expectations on public sector pay and the economic background to the work of the pay review bodies in framing their recommendations for the coming year.

    Introduction

    2.   The Government’s commitment to keep public spending within the existing departmental plans, will be a key consideration in determining pay in the coming year taking priority over other general pay and price indicators.

    3.   The Government recognises that there are competing pressures for the available resources.  Nevertheless, it is necessary to establish the right balance between pay costs and public services for the pay settlements in 1998.

    4.   In particular, the Government believes that Pay Review bodies must take account of the fact that Departments will have to be able to afford the pay increases while maintaining the delivery of services within their spending plans. Recommendations should be low for this reason and to reflect the good inflation prospects.

    5.   In support of this position the pay review bodies are asked to note that:

    • pay pressures generally remain subdued
    • pay review body groups have done well in the past by comparison with the rest of the public sector both in recent years and over the longer term
    • the inflation target, and the new monetary policy procedures, give greater confidence in future price stability.

    Public sector pay

    6.   The Government is committed to keep total public spending within the existing overall spending plans and to keep departmental programmes within the specific spending plans announced by the previous Government last November or, for health and education, the plans announced in the July 1997 Budget.  Pay costs will need to be contained within these plans without recourse to the Reserve.

    7.   Public sector pay needs to be considered in that context. Specifically,  the Government intends:

    • to take a firm and fair approach to public sector pay
    • to resist unreasonable public sector pay demands, and
    • to take account of the need to retain, recruit and motivate staff
    • within the framework of tough cash limits.

    8.   In total, the public sector pay bill is just under 90billion Pounds, equivalent to approximately 30 per cent of total public spending.  The breakdown of the total is as follows:

    Public sector paybill (1996) broken down by pay settlement groups[1]

    9.   For the pay review body groups, the total paybill is more than 30 billion Pounds, equal to a third of the total public sector pay bill. Pay settlements for these groups have significant consequences both directly on the relevant departmental spending plans and, by setting the tone for pay settlements, indirectly in public spending more widely.

    Public spending

    10.  The Government has embarked on comprehensive reviews of departmental spending plans aimed at the better distribution of available resources.  Meanwhile, and specifically for this year and next, the Government’s commitment is to keep to the overall spending plans announced by the previous Government in their last Budget in November 1996.

    11.  This means that there will not be the usual annual public expenditure survey this year.  While Departments have flexibility to adjust the distribution of resources within their spending plans they must keep within the existing totals.

    12.  For Health and Education, the totals include the additional allocations from the Reserve and from the proceeds of the windfall tax announced in the Budget in July 1997, but it is important to recognise the purpose of these additions is to spend more on services.  In commenting on the additional resources and the planning process now under way, the Secretary of State for Health stressed the need to make sure to get the maximum value for patients from the money that has been made available.  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment specifically said he expected the School Teachers’ Review Body to take into account the need for restraint in pay
    settlements so that the additional money can make a real contribution to raising standards.

    Pay settlements and earnings

    13.  Settlements have, over the last year, remained very stable by most measures (see Chart).  Settlements data include the following:

    • Industrial Relations Services (IRS) report that median whole economy pay settlements for the three months to end July 1997 was at 3 per cent for the 16th consecutive month.  Their annual figures for the 12 months to the end of July show the median increase in settlements for the whole economy was again at 3 per cent.  It has been at this level since October 1996.  The annual median increase in the public sector, which was at 2.9 per cent over April to June fell to 2.5 per cent in July.
    • In addition to sustained low levels of settlements, the IRS evidence shows that the upper quartile of the  headline 3-month series for the whole economy has been at or below 3.5 per cent since October 1996.
    • Incomes Data Services (IDS) reported in August that just under three in ten settlements from April onwards are  under 3 per cent, just over four in ten are between 3 per cent and 3.5 per cent with the remaining three in ten deals worth over 3.5 per cent.  Around one in five deals are concentrated at 3 per cent.  The top end of the range is heavily dominated by financial sector firms whereas the public sector dominates the bottom end.  Discounting the public sector, the IDS found that the level of private sector settlements was pretty similar in the second quarter of 1997 to that in the first quarter.  In September, IDS reported signs of a pick-up in the level of pay increases being awarded.  But of the new settlements they analysed, over half were for settlements worth under 3.5 per cent.
    • Settlements data collected by the Office of Manpower Economics to inform some central pay negotiations show a median of 3.5 per cent for private sector non-manual total pay settlements for the year to 7 June 1997, unchanged from 3.5 per cent in the year to 7 February.
    • The latest CBI Pay Databank shows continued stability in manufacturing pay awards which provisionally averaged 3.3 per cent in the three months ending June 1997, slightly up on the 3.2 per cent average for the first quarter ending March but down from 3.5 per cent for the three months ending June 1996.  Service sector pay awards averaged 3.6 per cent in the three months to end June, the same as in the three months to end March.

    Average earnings

    14.  Average earnings generally increase faster than pay settlements, reflecting the additional costs of other changes. But the same degree of stability is reflected in whole economy average earnings growth, which has been broadly stable for more than four years.  Average earnings growth fell back to 41/4 per cent in May 1997 from 4 3/4 per cent at the end of 1996.  Earnings growth in manufacturing has remained at 4 1/4 per cent-4 1/2 per cent since February 1997.  Average earnings growth remains low by historic standards.

    Trends in the 1990s

    15.  During the 1990s, pay settlements in the public sector have, with some temporary fluctuations, moved in line with private sector settlements.  Over the seven years to March 1997, IRS median settlements have averaged just over four per cent in both the private sector and the public sector.

    16.  There is, however, some disparity between settlements within the public sector.  Senior staff in particular have benefited from settlements significantly above the rest of the public sector.  For the future, the Government’s objective is one of consistency and fairness across all public sector groups and at all levels.

    Inflation

    17.  The new monetary policy arrangements are expected to establish a new climate of low inflation.  Under the new arrangements the Bank of England has operational responsibility to set interest rates to meet the Government’s inflation target (defined as the 12-month increase in the RPI ex MIPS) of 2.5 per cent. This new monetary framework provides a long-term approach which is transparent, open and accountable.  As a result, long-term interest rates and inflation expectations have already fallen.

    18.  The Bank of England’s central projection for underlying inflation 2 years ahead, published in its August inflation report,  is around 2 1/2 per cent. Their forecast has been reduced mainly because of the three 0.25 percentage point interest rate increases seen since June and the fiscal tightening announced in the budget.  The Bank’s short term profile for inflation is for “the twelve month rate to fall below 2 1/2 per cent over the next year or so, but then begin to rise as  growth in the economy picks up.”

    19.  The average of the Treasury’s compilation of independent forecasters views on inflation (RPI ex MIPS) published in September is 2.5 per cent for 1997.

    20.  Underlying inflation (RPI ex MIPS) rose to 3.0 per cent in July from 2.7 per cent in June, but fell back to 2.8 per cent in August.  The expectations are that it will be successfully contained by the inflation target and the new monetary policy procedures.  In the short term, headline inflation may run above the underlying rate, and has now risen to 3.5 per cent in August.  Nevertheless, in the circumstances, the government maintains that it cannot afford to let the headline rate influence this round of pay settlements when the prospects for the underlying rate are so good.

    Pay review body groups

    21.  In considering their recommendations, the pay review bodies should take a particularly rigorous approach to  the issue of affordability within existing plans.

    22.  Retention and recruitment remain good.  There may be some specific shortages in some areas, but the particular difficulties are not necessarily pay-related.  Generally, the skill shortages that may currently be putting pressure on pay in some parts of the private sector do not seem to be affecting the public sector.  There are no indications that any general across-the-board action on pay is necessary on this account.

    23.  The review bodies’ main policy recommendations for April 1997 were accepted but their  introduction was staged for all groups, for the second year running in most cases.  The 1997 recommendations averaged some 3.3 per cent.  This was considered high, and difficult to meet from existing plans without squeezing services.  The settlements were staged by paying 2 per cent from April 1997 and the balance from December 1997.

    24.  Staging reduces the initial costs of a pay settlement, but thereafter the recommendations are paid in full.  This creates an increase in pay costs in the second year that must be taken into account in assessing available resources.

    25.  When the staging has been completed in December, all groups will be receiving the full amounts recommended for the 1997 pay settlement, averaging 3.3 per cent.  Those groups whose settlement was staged in 1996 will also have similarly received the full increase recommended for that year, averaging some 4 per cent.

    26.  For both years, these averages are high in relation to other public sector settlements.  In 1996 most other settlements ranged from below 3 per cent up to around 3 1/2 per cent.  In 1997, public sector settlements have generally been lower in the range 2 1/2 to 3 1/4 per cent.

    27.  Similarly, over the longer term, pay settlements for the review body groups have tended to be at the top and of the range of public sector pay settlements.

    Conclusion

    28.  The Government asks the pay review bodies this year to make recommendations that recognise the need for pay settlements to be affordable within Departments’ existing spending plans, and to give this priority over other considerations.

    29.  In addition, pay increases should be low next year so that Departments can afford to maintain the delivery of services.

    30.  Recommendations should also reflect the particular circumstances of the remit groups, on a case-by-case basis, addressing specific issues as necessary.

    HM TREASURY
    September 1997

    [1] The three separated segments on the right of the chart cover employees whose pay is determined by the Pay Review Bodies.  The NHS employees covered by RBs are doctors and dentists, nurses, and professions allied to medicine.  Other NHS employees are included in the “Other Public Sector” group.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Venture Capital Trust – A Success Story [September 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Venture Capital Trust – A Success Story [September 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 11 September 1997.

    The success of the Venture Capital Trust scheme was praised today by Geoffrey Robinson, Paymaster General, in a speech to a Venture Capital seminar in London. He stressed that the Government was keen to work together with VCTs to develop the scheme and make it even better.

    He said:

    “The Government has made it abundantly clear that it wishes to see an increase in productive investment in industry. I want to congratulate you all on the way you have responded to the Venture Capital Trust scheme. Eighteen VCTs have raised over 360 million Pounds in the first two years of the scheme. Over 50% of funds have been invested in industrial products and services, including some high-tech companies. Over 60% of funds have gone into early stage and expansion investments. This is a good start.

    I am sure you will play your part in sharpening the focus of the scheme. We would like to see a concentration of your investment effort on the businesses that are going to help the economy grow. That means identifying sectors of the economy with exceptional growth potential and where small firms can move in and succeed more quickly than larger firms.

    This is, of course, only one element in a much wider picture. The Government is committed to the development of a dynamic and successful  economy. But if it is to play its part effectively it needs to be open to ideas from the private sector and particular from those who are at the cutting edge of entrepreneurship and enterprise finance. We have established an Enterprise and Growth Unit in the Treasury, not least to act as a channel for such ideas and to ensure that the Treasury itself is part of the productive partnership we want to develop between the public and private sectors.”

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Chancellor Launches Single Currency Advisory Group [September 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Chancellor Launches Single Currency Advisory Group [September 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 11 September 1997.

    Chancellor Gordon Brown today launched an advisory group to examine the practical implications of EMU, for business, which will arise whether or not the UK joins the single currency.

    Meeting representatives of the UK business community and other interested parties, including the TUC and the Consumers’ Association, at No 11 Downing Street, the Chancellor proposed setting up working parties to look at particular issues and
    for these then to report back to the main group.

    The Chancellor said:

    “The  single currency will have far reaching practical implications for British business whether or not the United Kingdom joins. It is vital that firms are prepared for those implications. A better prepared business sector will be more competitive in the changing economic landscape of Europe.

    “The Advisory Group will provide a two way channel of communication between the  Government, large and small firms, employees’ representatives and other interested
    bodies. It will allow organisations to discuss how best to meet the challenges and opportunities that the single currency will bring whether or not we join and  identify
    areas where the Government might help.

    “Working parties examining areas of specific concern will allow us to examine these implications in detail.

    “It will allow the Government to represent British interests effectively in the continuing discussions in Brussels about the practical arrangements for EMU.”

    Working parties will be set up to consider detailed practical questions, such as:

    Preparation lead times for firms : what are the major practical changes that firms would face and how long would it take them to adapt ?

    Introduction of euro banknotes and coins: what are the ideal dates for introducing  new notes and coins ?

    How does this fit with the legal rules governing the introduction of the euro ?

    What timing would suit countries joining later ?

    Information technology : what changes are needed and when?

    Euro usage if the UK is outside the single currency : outside the financial markets, which business sectors would use the euro and to what extent ?

    Pricing arrangements : how would consumer interests be protected without placing unnecessary burdens on business?

    Relations with public authorities : how would public authorities – eg tax authorities –  deal with the change?

    Business legislation and related issues : does business legislation need changing and are  guidelines needed ?

    Information for business and consumers : do businesses and consumers need more information and who should provide it ?

    The working parties will begin their work within the next couple of weeks. They will report back to the main advisory group before its next meeting – provisionally scheduled for December. Progress in the working parties and Advisory Group will be made public.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Business backs welfare to work top companies commitment to jobs programme [September 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Business backs welfare to work top companies commitment to jobs programme [September 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 11 September 1997.

    Some of Britain’s major companies have committed themselves totaking part in the New Deal for the young and long term unemployed, Chancellor Gordon Brown told the Churches’ Enquiry Into Unemployment and the Future of Work today.

    Welcoming the companies’ commitment, Gordon Brown said:

    ” Two months ago I met business representatives to launch  the New Deal for the young and long term unemployed.Today I can report encouraging progress :

    •   Allied Domecq expect to offer at least 1000 opportunities
    •   Tesco guarantee to interview all New deal applicants for work in their stores
    •   Ford will substantially increase training places for unskilled young people
    •   Nat West small business advisers will promote the New Deal to clients aiming   to increase their workforce.

    ” Other companies coming up with ways to support the New Deal include BAA, Radisson Hotel group, Lloyds-TSB, Rover, Dixons, Marks & Spencer, Sainsburys, Unipart, Amersham International, Northern Foods, Grand Metropolitan, GEC, Rover, Jaguar, Peugeot, the Prudential and Tarmac.

    ” Such progress so soon reflects the commitment of business to tackling the problems of unemployment in Britain as part of the Government’s welfare to work programme. “

    The Chancellor also set out progress in developing coaching and mentoring schemes,  opportunities for self employment and the role of churches in the New Deal. He continued :

    ” David Blunkett and I will shortly set out to recruit up to 50,000 coaches and outside independent mentors to encourage the young in the workplace. All  will be
    volunteers, some professionals, others who have already successfully   moved from welfare to work.

    ” For many young people, self-employment offers another route from welfare to work. We are looking at ways to  help and support them take the first steps towards
    running their own business, with training and support from those who have already succeeded.

    ” The churches’ leadership represents an important  contribution to helping the most disadvantaged. I want us to work together to achieve more, to promote awareness
    and debate.

    “Each Church and church member can be an ambassador for the New Deal in their own area. You know at first hand the problems in the communities you represent, and you know local employers.

    “Talk to them. Ask them how many unemployed they are planning to take on under the New Deal. Challenge them to make use of under-used training facilities.

    “Talk to the young unemployed. Help them to raise their  sights, motivate them and help to unlock the potential which each has and which must be fulfilled.

    “Most of all, help us to remove the fatalism and cynicism which abounds. Replace it with your energy and inspiration.

     “Together we can achieve what your Report aspires to: to challenge defeatism and complacency in the interests of the most disadvantaged in the community. “

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Get Ready for the Single Currency [October 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Get Ready for the Single Currency [October 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 30 October 1997.

    Now is the time for business to start preparing for a single currency, said Chief Secretary, Alistair Darling this evening.

    Speaking to Scottish businessmen in Edinburgh, Mr Darling emphasised the Government’s commitment to working with business:

    “We are the first British Government to declare for the principle of monetary union and now is the time for practical preparation.”

    In the week in which Chancellor Gordon Brown announced the appointment of  Lord Simon as the Treasury Minister responsible for business preparation for monetary union, Mr Darling urged business to  work with Government so as to give Britain a genuine choice about joining a single currency in the future.

    “We will be working with business so that we are prepared for monetary union should we decide to join in the next Parliament.  We have started that work now. And you need to play your part.”

    Concluding, Mr Darling said,

    “We are determined that the country should now begin to prepare so that, should we meet the economic tests, we can be in a position to decide whether to join a successful single currency early in the next Parliament.  That is why Government and business must prepare intensively during the next five years”.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Financial Secretary Dawn Primarolo urges Charities to use their voices [October 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Financial Secretary Dawn Primarolo urges Charities to use their voices [October 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 30 October 1997.

    Financial Secretary Dawn Primarolo today called on charities to offer their ideas, from the largest and most radical to the smallest and most detailed, to the current Government review into the way they are taxed.

    Speaking to the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) annual conference in London, Ms Primarolo encouraged delegates to make their voices heard before 1 December and influence their future.

    “This review is a unique opportunity for Government and charities to work together and take a fresh look at the way charities are taxed. Instigated by the Government in response to complexities with the existing system, the review aims to find a clearer and simpler path to fair tax treatment.

    “All suggestions are welcome, not only the creative and radical, but also smaller scale suggestions aimed at making the existing system work better. The responses we have had already range from letters from pensioners who work in their local charity shop concerning VAT zero rating, to detailed discussions and analysis of taxation from charity pressure groups.

    “The review will enable charities to influence their own future to produce a more coherent and consistent tax system. I urge all charities to make their voices heard.”

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Promoting Long Term Stability – Alistair Darling [October 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Promoting Long Term Stability – Alistair Darling [October 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 28 October 1997.

    The Bank of England Bill establishes a new framework which will promote economic stability and give a long-term focus to monetary policy the Chief Secretary, Alistair Darling said today on publication of the Bill.

    The main provisions of the Bill are the establishment of the Monetary Policy Committee and the transfer of banking supervision to the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

    On the monetary policy provisions, Mr Darling said:

    “The Bill introduces important changes to the Bank to ensure that it can act effectively and efficiently in its new role, and to promote a stronger financial system. Its publication marks another milestone in our determination to modernise Britain’s economy and create a modern Bank that can meet the new challenges of the 21st century.

    “The new framework will promote economic stability and will give a long-term focus to monetary policy in support of the Government’s objectives for growth and employment.

    “Low inflation means greater certainty for investors and savers, reduced costs and improved competitiveness.

    “In the long run, price stability is the main contribution monetary policy can make to achieving sustained high growth and employment.”

    Mr Darling also said transparency and accountability were important features of the new framework. He said:

    “The new framework maximises openness and transparency and ensures that the Bank is fully accountable and that its conduct of monetary policy meets the economic needs of the nation.

    “The Bank will conduct policy in an open and transparent manner and will be accountable to Parliament especially through enhanced scrutiny by the Treasury Select Committee.”

    On the transfer of banking supervision, the Chief Secretary said:

    “This is the first stage of a complete overhaul and modernisation of the supervision and regulation of the financial services sector. It will mean more effective and efficient regulation of financial services.

    “The changing market of the 1990s and beyond makes it essential to bring regulation of banking, securities and insurance under one roof. This move will modernise our regulatory structure – creating a new regulator that will command the respect of markets here and throughout the world.”

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Bank of England Bill Published [October 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Bank of England Bill Published [October 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 28 October 1997.

    The Bill, which establishes the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee and transfers banking supervision from the Bank of England to the Financial Services Authority was published today.

    The Bank of England Bill, gives effect to the policy changes announced by the Chancellor, Gordon Brown on 6 May when he announced a new framework for monetary policy and 20 May when the transfer of banking supervision was announced.

    The main provisions are:

    • setting out the monetary policy objectives of the Bank: to maintain price stability and, subject to that, to support the Government’s economic policy, including its objectives for growth and employment;
    • establishing the Monetary Policy Committee, which will have responsibility within the Bank for formulating monetary policy. The Committee will comprise the Governor, his two deputies and six other members. Two of those members will be the Bank officials responsible for monetary policy analysis and monetary policy operations respectively. The remaining four will be appointed by the Chancellor for their knowledge and experience;
    • giving the Bank statutory operational responsibility for  monetary policy. The Treasury will still have reserve powers, in extreme economic circumstances, to direct the Bank with respect to monetary policy, if they are satisfied that this is required in the public interest;
    • transferring to the Financial Services Authority the Bank’s functions in relation to the supervision of banks;
    • setting in place a new accountability framework for the Bank, based on:
      • statutory duties of the Bank’s Court of Directors, and specific responsibilities for the non-executive Directors;
      • requirements for the Bank’s accounts; and
      • laying the Bank’s annual report before Parliament.
    • greater transparency in the Bank’s operations:
      • the Monetary Policy Committee will publish its actions, minutes of its meetings and a quarterly report; and
      • the Court of Directors will review the Monetary Policy Committee’s procedures and make an annual report.
    • placing on a statutory basis arrangements for banks, building societies and overseas institutions to place deposits with the Bank in order to fund its operations.

    The Government’s intention is that the overall costs to financial institutions in aggregate, under the new arrangements, will be no greater than under the current arrangements, and preferably lower. The Financial Services Authority issued today a consultation document on its fee structure for banking supervision. The Treasury will be issuing soon a consultation document on the statutory cash ratio deposit scheme.

    The Bill was given its First Reading in the House of Commons today.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : New Financial Regulator to be called Financial Services Authority [October 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : New Financial Regulator to be called Financial Services Authority [October 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 28 October 1997.

    New Financial Regulator to be called Financial Services Authority

    The new financial regulator will be called the Financial Services Authority, Chancellor Gordon Brown announced today at the launch of the new organisation.

    The new regulator will take over responsibility for banking supervision from the Bank of England, financial services regulation from the Self-Regulatory Organisations (SROs) and insurance.

    Announcing the new name, the Chancellor said:

    “The name encompasses what the new regulator is all about. It is clear, straightforward and easy to understand which is exactly the way we want to see the new regulator viewed.

    “The Financial Services Authority will bring the regulatory structure closer into line with today’s increasingly integrated financial markets. It will bring more effective and more efficient supervision, giving both firms and customers more confidence in the system.

    “It will improve the competitiveness of the financial services sector and create a regulatory regime to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

    The Chancellor announced that statutory objectives would be set as part of the accountability framework for the new regulator. The Chancellor said:

    “One of my aims in setting up the new regulator is to improve the arrangements for accountability to Ministers and to Parliament. I believe that statutory objectives can play an important role in achieving this.

    “The objectives we set will give the new regulator a clear sense of its priorities. And will provide a benchmark against which the performance of the regulator can be measured. They will form the basis of the regulator’s annual report to me”

    The Memorandum of Understanding between HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority was also published today. This sets out the framework of cooperation between the three institutions.

    Work is currently underway on drafting the legislation to bring the new regulator into being. The draft Bill will form the basis of consultation in the summer of 1998.

  • Gordon Brown – 1997 Statement in the House of Commons on EMU (Economic and Monetary Union)

    Gordon Brown – 1997 Statement in the House of Commons on EMU (Economic and Monetary Union)

    The statement made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 27 October 1997.

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I want to make a statement on Economic and Monetary Union.

    Since the end of the Second World War Britain has faced no question more important and more contentious than that of our relationship with Europe.

    Divisions within governments of both parties, and hence indecision, have made British policy towards Europe, over many years, inconsistent and unclear.

    The economic consequences of these weaknesses have been a loss of international initiative and influence, recurrent instability and continuing questioning of our long-term economic direction.

    To break with this legacy, and to establish clear national purpose, which has eluded us for decades, economic leadership is essential, and Britain must now make the difficult decisions on Europe, however hard.

    The decision on a single currency is probably the most important this country is likely to face in our generation. Yet until now, there has been no detailed examination by government of the practical economic issues of EMU. There has been no proper preparation for a decision, because no previous Government could agree on whether they supported it in principle, nor whether there was an overriding constitutional objection on grounds of sovereignty or not; nor whether, even if a single currency worked and worked well, the Government would wish to be part of it. Forms of words like ‘keeping the option open’ – while no preparations were ever made to render the option practicable – have similarly served as a pretext for postponing the hard choices

    Now is the time to make these hard choices and set a long-term direction for our economic future in Europe.

    So I will deal, in turn, with the question of principle, the constitutional implications of EMU, and the economic tests that have to be met. In each area, I will set down the Government’s policy.

    When we came into Government I asked the Treasury to carry out an assessment of the economic tests that have to be met. Accompanying my statement is this comprehensive and detailed Treasury assessment which I am publishing today, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.

    ISSUES OF PRINCIPLE

    I start with the question of principle. The potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious: in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability. Of course, I stress it must be soundly based. It must succeed. But if it works economically, it is, in our view, worth doing.

    So in principle, a successful single currency within a single European market would be of benefit to Europe and to Britain.

    Secondly, it must be clearly recognised that to share a common monetary policy with other states does represent a major pooling of economic sovereignty.

    There are those who argue that this should be a constitutional bar to British participation in a single currency, regardless of the economic benefits it could bring to the people of this country.

    In other words, they would rule out a single currency in principle, even if it were in the best economic interests of the country.

    That is an understandable objection and one argued from principle. But in our view it is wrong. If a single currency would be good for British jobs, business and future prosperity, it is right, in principle, to join.

    The constitutional issue is a factor in the decision, but it is not an over-riding one. Rather it signifies that in order for monetary union to be right for Britain the economic benefit should be clear and unambiguous.

    So I conclude on this question of principle: if, in the end, a single currency is successful, and the economic case is clear and unambiguous, then the Government believes Britain should be part of it.

    There is a third issue of principle – the consent of the British people. Because of the magnitude of the decision, we believe – again, as a matter of principle – that whenever the decision to enter is taken by government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people. So whenever this issue arises, under this Government there will be a referendum. Government, Parliament and the people must all agree.

    So we conclude that the determining factor as to whether Britain joins a single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for doing so is clear and unambiguous.

    THE FIVE ECONOMIC TESTS

    I now turn to the Treasury’s detailed assessment of the five economic tests that define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made.

    These are:

    Whether there can be sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of a single currency.

    Whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change.

    The effect on investment.

    The impact on our financial services industry.

    Whether it is good for employment.

    I. Economic Cycles

    Of these, the first and most critical is convergence: can we be confident that the UK business cycle has converged with that of other European countries so that the British economy can have stability and prosperity with a common European monetary policy? That convergence must be capable of being sustained and likely to be sustained – in other words, we must demonstrate a settled period of convergence.

    Currently Britain’s business cycle is out of line with our European partners. Interest rates here are 7 per cent. This is the level the Bank of England has set in order to achieve our inflation target. But in Germany and France interest rates are close to 3 per cent. Across the continent, because business cycles are more coincident, short-term interest rates have been converging for some time.

    This divergence of economic cycles is, in part, a reflection of historic structural differences between the UK and other European economies, in particular the pattern of our trade and North Sea oil. These differences are becoming less distinct as trade with the rest of Europe grows and the single market deepens.

    But divergence is also a legacy of Britain’s past susceptibility to boom and bust: the damaging boom of the late 1980s and the severe recession of the early 1990s.

    Since coming into office, the Government has introduced long-term measures to ensure that we are capable of maintaining stability by giving operational responsibility for interest rates to the Bank of England and by implementing our deficit reduction plan for public borrowing.

    We will need a period of stability with continuing toughness on inflation and public borrowing. The Treasury’s assessment is that, at present, the UK’s economic cycle is not convergent with our European partners and that this divergence could continue for some time. To demonstrate sustainable convergence will take a period of years.

    II. Flexibility

    To be successful in a monetary union, countries will need even more flexibility to adjust to change and to unexpected economic events once the ability of countries to vary their interest rates and exchange rates has gone and the Euro and a single European interest rate are in place. Flexibility may be particularly important for the UK if there is any risk that our business cycle has not fully converged with those of the other EMU members.

    The Treasury assessment of the second test is that, in Britain, persistent long-term unemployment and lack of skills – and in some areas lack of competition – point to the need for more flexibility to adapt to change and to meet the new challenges of adjustment. The Government has begun to implement a programme for investing in education and training, helping people from welfare into work and improving the workings of our markets.

    Of course, other European countries need to tackle unemployment and inflexibility to make sure Europe as a whole is able to withstand any shocks that arise. The government will continue to argue that employability, flexibility and stronger competition policies must be a top priority so that monetary union can be successful.

    III. Investment

    The third test is investment: whether joining EMU would create better conditions for businesses to make long-term decisions to invest in Britain. The Treasury assessment is that, above all, business needs long-term economic stability and a well-functioning European single market. It concludes that membership of a successful single currency would help us create the conditions for higher and more productive investment in Britain.

    But the worst case for investment would be for Britain to enter EMU without proper preparations and without sufficient convergence and with all the uncertainty that would entail.

    IV. Financial services

    The fourth test asks what impact membership of the single currency would have on our financial services industry. EMU will affect that industry more profoundly and more immediately than any other sectors of the economy.

    The Treasury’s assessment is that we can now be confident that the industry has the potential to thrive whether the UK is in or out of EMU, so long as it is properly prepared. But the benefits of new opportunities from a single currency could, however, be easier to tap from within the Euro zone. This could help the City of London strengthen its position as the leading financial centre in Europe.

    V. Employment

    For millions of people, the most practical question is whether membership of a successful single currency would be good for prosperity and jobs. The Treasury assessment is that our employment-creating measures, and welfare state reform, must accompany any move to a single currency. Ultimately, we conclude that whether a single currency is good for jobs in practice comes back to sustainable convergence. A successful single currency would provide far greater trade and business in the Europe.

    The Treasury assessment is that in vital areas the economy is not yet ready for entry and that much remains to be done. The previous policy of keeping options open, without actively making preparations, has left parts of the economy un-prepared.

    Our overall assessment is that Britain needs both a period for preparation and a settled period of sustainable convergence. Both require stability.

    THE GOVERNMENT’S CONCLUSIONS ON EMU

    Applying these five economic tests leads the Government to the following clear conclusions.

    British membership of a single currency in 1999 could not meet the tests and therefore is not in the country’s economic interests. There is no proper convergence between the British and the other European economies now. To try to join now would be to accept a monetary policy which would suit other European economies but not our own. We will therefore be notifying our European partners, in accordance with the Maastricht Treaty, that we will not seek membership of the single currency on 1 January 1999.

    The issue then arises as to the period after 1st January 1999. We could simply leave the options open, as before, but with no clear direction either way for the rest of the Parliament. That would be politically easy but wrong.

    There would be instability, perpetual speculation about “in or out”, “sooner or later”, which would cause difficulties in the financial markets and for business and industry.

    It would make it harder to prepare for the possibility of a single currency because every step in preparation, every time the issue was discussed, would feed fresh bouts of speculation.

    It must be in the country’s interest to have a stable framework within which to plan.

    And we are fortified in this because on the economic tests we have set out, the practical difficulties of joining a single currency in this Parliament all point to the same conclusion.

    There is no need, legally, formally or politically, to renounce our option to join for the period between 1st January 1999 and the end of the Parliament, nor would it be sensible to do so. There is no requirement under the Treaty for this. What is more, no government can ever predict every set of economic circumstances that might arise.

    What we can and should do is to state a clear view about the practicability of joining monetary union during this period. Applying our economic tests, two things are clear. There is no realistic prospect of our having demonstrated, before the end of this parliament, that we have achieved convergence which is sustainable and settled rather than transitory. And Government has only just begun to put in place the necessary preparations which would allow us to do so. Other countries have for some years been making detailed preparations for a single currency. For all the reasons given, we have not.

    Therefore, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision, during this Parliament, to join is not realistic. It is also therefore sensible for business and the country to plan on the basis that, in this Parliament, we do not propose to enter a single currency.

    There are those who urge us to seek consent, in principle, in a referendum now or soon, but with a view to entering sometime later. Any serious gap between the referendum and the actual entry date would undermine the conclusions of the referendum.

    Because the essential decision is economic, it can be taken only at a time when government and then the people can judge that sustainable convergence has been established.

    So in our view the interval between the decision to join and our joining must not be unduly protracted.

    PREPARATIONS

    I have said that if a single currency works and is successful Britain should join it. We should therefore begin now to prepare ourselves so that, should we meet the economic tests, we can make a decision to join a successful single currency early in the next Parliament. At present, with no preparation, it is not a practical option. We must put ourselves in the position for Britain to exercise genuine choice.

    The questions of preparation are immense – practical questions for business, as well as for government. Euro notes and coins will, for example, be circulating across Europe from January 1st 2002. Some companies, like Marks and Spencer, have already decided to prepare to accept Euros in Britain. Others, will want advice on what is best for them.

    Because both the Government and business must prepare intensively during the next years, we will:

    commence work on the detailed transition arrangements for the possible introduction of the Euro in Britain, including the introduction of notes and coins, should we wish to enter;

    step-up the work on what business should do now to prepare for the introduction of the Euro in 1999, whether we are in or out; work with business on what government must do to prepare for EMU, should we decide to join it in the next parliament.

    To help with essential preparations, I have invited the Governor of the Bank of England and Sir Colin Marshall, the President of the CBI, to join me and the President of the Board of Trade in leading a standing committee on Preparations for EMU. I am pleased to say that they have agreed. I am also inviting the President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to join us. I can also announce that, from January a series of regional and sectoral conferences on preparations for monetary union will be held.

    Also, the Prime Minister has today decided to extend Lord Simon’s Treasury responsibilities to include European Business Preparations in the government, covering the long-term planning of the new standing committee.

    In addition to these practical preparations, there are reforms we can take which are both right in themselves, in the national economic interest, and which will help us to meet the five economic tests.

    We will promote greater flexibility in the UK economy and in Europe through our “Getting Europe to Work” initiative;

    We will be introducing new competition legislation, which draws on the best of European and wider international policy and practice as well as continuing to negotiate to secure the best interests of our financial sector and for the opening up the single market in financial services.

    We will set as one of the key objectives of our EU Presidency completion of the European single market.

    In my Mansion House speech I said that if we succeed in strengthening the ability of the British economy to sustain growth with low inflation, and if international conditions permit, I would hope to lower the inflation target. So we will monitor our inflation target and do so in the light of the European Central Bank;

    And we will ensure that our fiscal rules, and our deficit reduction plan, continue to be consistent with the terms of the stability pact, thus underlining our commitment to avoid an excessive deficit under Article 104c of the Treaty, and supporting greater coordination in ECOFIN;

    In Britain’s interests, we need to keep inflation low and public borrowing firmly under control.

    The single currency will affect Britain, in or out of it. It is in the British national interest for it to work. Vital decisions will be made during our EU Presidency in the first half of next year. We will use our position constructively and supportively and we will play a full part in ensuring its launch is successful – something that is in Britain’s interests as well as Europe’s.

    CONCLUSIONS

    To sum up:

    we believe that, in principle, British membership of a successful single currency would be beneficial to Britain and to Europe; the key factor is whether the economic benefits of joining for business and industry are clear and unambiguous. If they are, there is no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU;

    applying the economic tests, it is not in this country’s interest to join in the first wave of EMU starting on Ist January 1999 and, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision, this parliament, to join is not realistic;

    but in order to give ourselves a genuine choice in the future, it is essential that the Government and business prepare intensively during this Parliament, so that Britain will be in a position to join a single currency, should we wish to, early in the next Parliament.

    On Europe, Madam Speaker, the time of indecision is over. The period for practical preparation has begun. Today we begin to build a new consensus – modern and outward looking – for a country that throughout its history has looked outward to the world.

    We are the first British government to declare for the principle of monetary union. The first to state that there is no over-riding constitutional bar to membership. The first to make clear and unambiguous economic benefit to the country the decisive test. And the first to offer its strong and constructive support to our European partners to create more employment and more prosperity.

    The policy I have outlined will bring stability to business, direction to our economy, and long term purpose to our country. It is the right policy for Britain in Europe. More important it is the right policy for the future of Britain and I commend it to the House.