Campaign for an Independent Britain

A document never before made public sheds light on what, over the past 18 months, has remained one of the best kept secrets in British Politics: the real reason why, when New Labour came to power, it “chose”, as The Times put it last week in an editorial on Mr Brown’s pre-budget statement, to stick to the Tories’ tight limits on Government spending.

It is true, as The Times had it, that “the in Labours parliamentary party have never understood why Mr Brown felt the need to be so tight-fisted”. But it seems The Times itself, like most people, doesn’t understand it either. The fact is that Mr Brown’s decision to keep a tight rein on public spending was not a matter of choice. It was ordered in a secret document, Council Recommendation 11393/97, issued in Brussels on October 28 1997.

Brussels had requested the previous British Government to put forward proposals to cut its “excessive budget deficit”, to ensure that Britain conformed with the terms of the Growth and Stability Pact under the Maastricht convergence criteria. Successive Conservative and Labour ministers came up with proposals for holding down Government spending until the year 2001-2, until in October last year the Council of Ministers came up with its instruction: that “the united Kingdom Government strictly implements it budgetary policy”, “maintaining a rigorous control of public expenditure” in accordance with these “commitments”.

Thus, even if had wished to, Mr Brown would not have been free to give pay rises to nurse, teachers and the rest, for the simple reason that it was forbidden by EU rules. Why has none of this ever been admitted? Because the order from Brussels was issued under Article 104c (7) of the Maastricht Treaty, which explicitly states that when the Council of Ministers issued instructions of this highly delicate nature, “these recommendations shall not be made public”. In other words, not only has Mr Brown had his hands completely tied by the instruction itself; he is expressly forbidden by the treaty even to tell us of its existence. What a tribute to the “transparency” of our new system of government that such a key document is understanding British politics in recent years should, until now, have remained so firmly hidden from public view.