| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Michael Spicer (South Worcestershire): Will my hon. Friend give us an idea of how much he believes those transaction costs are? Would they not be less than 0.5 per cent. of manufacturing costs?
Sir David Knox: I will not attempt to estimate something like that, because my hon. Friend would probably agree that exact estimates of that nature are not really possible, but even if the figure is 0.5 per cent., as my hon. Friend suggested, I should have thought that that was a fairly significant amount.
The second reason why I believe that there is a strong argument in favour of British membership of a single currency is that exchange rate fluctuations would be eliminated within the union, with consequent advantages to exporters and importers.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir David Knox:
No. I am not giving way a second time.
Thirdly, a single currency would facilitate the working of the single market and would result in an increase in trade in goods and services. Indeed, a single market needs a single currency to ensure that countries can no longer cheat by devaluing their currencies, and the inability to devalue would have the added advantage of imposing a powerful discipline on Government borrowing, on inflation and on the protection of the value of savings and pensions.
Fourthly, a single currency would be much stronger than any of the separate currencies, and that includes the deutschmark. As a result, the real economy would be much less affected by international currency speculation than it is now.
Fifthly, if we do not join a single currency but others do, the euro is likely to be one of the strongest currencies in the world, and this would mean that sterling would be even more vulnerable to speculation than it is at present.
Sixthly, if Britain stayed out of the single currency, it would be extremely difficult to maintain London as the leading financial centre in Europe.
These are the main reasons why I believe that British participation in the single currency is in principle desirable, although of course the decision whether we join must depend on the circumstances prevailing at the time.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir David Knox:
No. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
No matter what view one takes on this issue, it is imperative that Britain should play a full part in the negotiations in the European Union that are under way at present, without laying down any preconditions. Only by doing so can we influence the decisions that are taken.
Inside or outside, the single currency will affect Britain, and only if we are involved in the negotiations, and if we have not committed ourselves not to join, can we maximise our influence and so ensure that British interests are fully protected.
A decision now that we would not join a single currency during the next Parliament would negate our influence. In such circumstances, our partners in the European Union would pay no attention to the views and interests of a declared non-player. Far too often, Britain has opted out of negotiations about new developments in the European Union, only to have to live with consequences which did not especially suit us.
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North):
I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox), especially the last five or six minutes of his peroration on European development and the single European currency, because much in the views that he expressed accords with mine. If I remember, I will try to mention those in my closing remarks.
I chose to seek your eye on the first day of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to mention several issues, and after today we are locked into different themes.
First, as a trustee and director of the Lucy Faithful Foundation, I wanted to pass comment on the paedophile register. Now, because the Prime Minister has graciously agreed with the invitation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to include that measure in Government business, I must simply record my delight at that news and my wish that we follow it carefully, but thoroughly, through into effective legislation.
Secondly, I am disappointed that it appears that the stalking legislation is being consigned to private Members' business. [Hon. Members: "No."] I am sorry; in that case I am doubly delighted. If I keep this up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be carried away with ecstasy. [Hon. Members: "Oh, dear."] Non-narcotic ecstasy, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I consider both those measures thoroughly enforceable, and I am delighted that they will be passed in Government time.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) referred to one measure that I consider to be unenforceable. He commented on reports of my remarks on gun control. His raising of the matter with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would have been justified if those reports were true, but they were not. Therefore, not for the first time--at least in my memory--the hon. Gentleman has misled the House, knowingly or unknowingly. I am glad to tell the House what I have said about those issues.
First, I prefer to register my huge distress and my grief at the incidents at Hungerford and Dunblane. As a result of Hungerford, I acted as Whip during the Committee stage of the firearms legislation that was introduced immediately following that dreadful incident. I was on the Front Bench when the Government introduced 67 additional clauses during the Bill's final stages. I have followed those issues with some interest and diligence over the years, and the events at Dunblane distressed me every bit as much as everyone else.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has estimated that 250,000 handguns are held illegally in this country, and some well-informed commentators say that the figure is twice as high. Whatever the figure, an awful lot of handguns are held illegally in this country. If legislation were the solution, illegally held handguns would not be on the streets.
No mention has been made to date of any increase in police provision or resources to implement whatever changes in law are finally proposed. In those circumstances, any newly introduced legislation would be quite unenforceable. If Parliament wishes to ban handguns, it will do so. It has the power; it simply needs
the will to exercise it. However, we cannot let that happen in the belief that legislation alone will prevent another Hungerford or Dunblane, as patently it will not. All sorts of agencies have distorted my words, and I thank the hon. Member for Stockton, South for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight today.
Ironically, my third point relates also to forms of gun control. I am rapporteur of the Defence and Security Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly and, in that capacity, I must write a report about "Partnership for Peace" and its progress. Paragraph 2 of the Gracious Speech states:
As a means of joint consultation, "Partnership for Peace" was plucked out of the air ostensibly to ensure that nations aspiring to join NATO remained patient until their admission. There are 27 signatory nations to date--I understand that Switzerland is close to reaching a decision to join. Of those 27 nations, 11 wish to be members of the North Atlantic Alliance and the others have expressed no preference. The question must be: what happens to "Partnership for Peace" when those 11 countries are accepted or rejected? In terms of European stability and collective security, we must consider the issues very carefully.
The North Atlantic Alliance commits every member to fighting on behalf of another member that is attacked. Any nation that joins the alliance should accept that responsibility and that liability. "Partnership for Peace" seeks to upgrade the abilities and resources of other nations to bring them up to scratch. However, what will happen to nations that are not accepted as members? Of the 27 signatory nations, 16 nations are not interested. Those nations can collectively perform a function and play a role in working towards European stability. Those 16 countries could provide a haven for the 11 nations that might not be allowed to join, enabling them to make a positive and a constructive contribution.
The remaining partnership framework could then be developed and matured to form a lasting organisation, standing in parallel with the North Atlantic Alliance. The alliance would retain responsibility for article V activities--in other words, the defensive military side--and the partnership would add to consideration of and co-operation on non-article V exchanges. If that is to be achieved, it is crucial that Russia remains within the embrace of the partnership framework. That means that we must improve our dialogue with Russia and raise it to levels never before seen. We must give Russia a new role and a new, co-operative vision. If we are successful in that endeavour, we could move towards our ultimate goal.
"My Government will continue to play a major role in NATO's adaptation and in decisions on its enlargement, and to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security".
There is much to be said about that issue, but I shall try to be brief.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |