Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have time for interruptions. We can correspond, as we do so happily.

Taking our exports in goods and services, our trade with the euro-zone is 13.4 per cent of GDP; our trade with the United States is 4.7 per cent of GDP. That is the balance. Even if we took NAFTA it would be only 5.3 per cent. Our imports in goods and services—I am not talking about only manufacturing but also about goods and services—are 14.2 per cent with the euro-zone and 15 per cent with the whole of the EU, but only 4.2 per cent with the United States and 4.8 per cent with NAFTA. Whichever way you judge the matter, it is clear that our trade with the euro-zone, as a percentage of GDP, and certainly as a percentage of total trade, is enormously more important with the euro-zone than with the United States.

Let me go on to the figures, as a percentage of trade, because that is the most realistic measure. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, gave some of the figures. Our trade with the EU as a whole—exports of goods and services—constitutes 53 per cent; for the euro-zone it is 50 per cent; for the United States it is 17 per cent; for NAFTA it is 20 per cent. Of imports of goods and services, the EU accounts for 52 per cent; the euro-zone for 49 per cent; the US 14 per cent; and NAFTA 17 per cent. By no stretch of the imagination can it be thought that the United States is more important to us.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, then tried to pull the wool over our eyes by talking about the currency in which we invoice. It is where we do the trade, not the currency in which we invoice, that matters. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, made clear that a large proportion—I do not have his figure to hand—of UK trade is in sterling. That does not mean that we are trading with ourselves; that is international trade. It is just convenient to invoice in sterling. If we entered the euro, all that trade would instantly be invoiced and denominated in the euro.

Imports and exports of oil throughout the world have always been in dollars. Our trade in oil with the Middle East is denominated in dollars. That does not have anything to do with the importance of our trade relations with the United States or the volume and value of our trade with the euro. That is such a vulgar and simple error that it is difficult to believe that it has survived debate in this House until now.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, raised another confusion: the issue of the index of exchange rates. He is right about that: the Bank of England's exchange rate index is far from perfect. As he said, it is based on an assessment made many years ago; and it is based on manufacturing rather than manufacturing and services. However, it is the only index we have, and follows the methodology used by the International Monetary Fund, so we must use it. But it is not relevant to our argument, because no policy decisions are taken on that basis. Policy decisions on monetary policy are largely taken on bilateral exchange rates rather than on any such basket.

29 Jan 2003 : Column 1244

So on all the aspects on which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, bases his argument, he is just plain wrong. He is wrong about the balance of trade between the United States and the euro-zone. He is wrong about interest rates. He is wrong about invoicing—as if invoicing were important. I do not want to hear that argument again; I have had enough of it.

Some other interesting things were said to which I should like to refer. I have not much to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, because I agreed with so much of what he said; I can say only, "Hear, hear". The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, gave us an interesting historical analogy with the gold standard. I recommend that she reads the 2002 Cairncross lecture by Ed Balls, the economic adviser to the Treasury, in which he goes into great detail about that point, pointing out that to a large extent what went wrong then was that a political timetable was set, rather than doing what we do now, which is to decide what is in the national economic interest.

I also enjoyed the history lesson given by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. The points that he and the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, made were relevant. Yes, of course it was true that after the war the dollar was so dominant that it became and stayed a powerful denominator for international trade.

I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said about demographic change over the past three centuries. I should like to think about the figures she produced. She challenged me to say whether I disagreed with the figures or the interpretation. As they are new to me, I shall have to read them and respond to her in more detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right about the decline of the manufacturing industry in this country. But, as I pointed out in response to a question from him, that decline in the manufacturing trade is common throughout the more developed world and not peculiar to this country.

A number of noble Lords rightly referred to the importance of inward direct investment, although they drew different conclusions. There was a minor point about the Netherlands effect and I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about that—not because I cannot give the answer but because it is so long, detailed and incomprehensible that it would bore your Lordships silly. I believe the noble Lord's argument concerned the issue of intermediate holding companies and I should like to answer him in detail about that.

Certainly, it is true that direct investment in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said, does not come particularly from the euro-zone—although it does partly. However, when it comes from countries such as Japan, it does not come because of our trade links with the United States—it goes directly there—but because of our trade links with Europe. It would be enormously serious if we were to put that at risk—and we would be putting it at risk if we were to turn our

29 Jan 2003 : Column 1245

backs on Europe in any way, whether in the form of the euro or in any other way. Clearly, direct investment is an important part of the argument. That is why it is one of the five tests.

As to the related issue, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, quoted Christopher Taylor of the NIESR. However, despite some of the things quoted by the noble Lord, the conclusion of Taylor in his paper was that,

    "the findings in this paper support the view that UK high-frequency exchange rate volatility would be reduced by joining EMU".

29 Jan 2003 : Column 1246

That is another important argument and conclusion from a thoughtful and interesting paper.

I am not going to go through—I would not be allowed to—the arguments about the five tests, the preparatory work, the timing and so on. I do not need to. Everyone knows that I cannot say anything new—there is nothing new to be said. If there was anything new to be said, it would not be said by me.

I have enjoyed the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as always, has been a wonderful opponent and I have enjoyed the opportunity to set the record straight.

        House adjourned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.

29 Jan 2003 : Column 1245

29 Jan 2003 : Column GC167

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [HL]

(Fourth Day) Wednesday, 29th January 2003.

The Committee met at half past three of the clock.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]

Clause 53 [Jurisdiction for terrorist offences]:

Lord Lloyd of Berwick moved Amendment No. 134A:

    Page 31, line 13, leave out "rape,"

The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this clause is to give our courts extra-territorial jurisdiction in respect of certain offences, which are set out in Article 1 of what is known as the framework decision, which was promulgated last summer, on 13th June 2002. That is in order to comply with our obligations under Article 9 of that decision. So far, so good.

The purpose of my amendment is simply to draw attention to what seems to me to be the extraordinary way in which the Government seek to achieve that in the Bill. I start with the simple point in the amendment because I cannot see rape mentioned in Article 1 of the framework decision. I may have missed it, but I do not think that I have, unless it could possibly be said to be included under Article 1.1(b). Article 1.1(a) says:

    "Attacks upon a person's life which may cause death".

Article 1.1(b) says:

    "Attacks upon the physical integrity of a person".

It is hard to believe that the Council had rape in mind when it used those words. I find the notion of a terrorist rape hard to envisage. It might intimidate the individual who is being raped, but how do you intimidate the public, or even a section of the public, by committing a rape? How do you seek to influence a government by committing a rape? It seems that the draftsman has added rape at this point with no real thought about what was intended, unless—if I may say so rather frivolously—he had a picture in his mind of those scenes often depicted by 17th century painters of the rape of the Sabine women, or something of that kind. Surely that is not what the Council expected when it required us, by Article 9, to provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction.

There is a wider point that goes beyond the mere omission of rape. Clause 53 confers jurisdiction on our courts where they would not otherwise have it. As I understand it, we already have jurisdiction in respect of numerous countries that are designated under the

29 Jan 2003 : Column GC168

Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978. That long list of countries is set out on page 77 of my report. It includes all the member states of the Union and many others besides. No doubt the list has been added to since my report. I cannot see any proposal to repeal the 1978 Act—if indeed it could be repealed conveniently, which I doubt. As far as I know it is still on the statute book. So why do we have to go through the whole process a second time? Is not the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 a sufficient compliance with our obligation under Article 9 of the framework decision? Do we really need a belt as well as braces in conferring jurisdiction on our courts? My experience is that when you have both belt and braces, they both tend to fail just when you most want them.

Thirdly, even supposing that we have to do something to bring some other country within the 1978 Act—I am not sure which country that might be—surely we are setting about it in as clumsy a way as can be. Why do we have to say that a person who has committed a rape in France, or wherever, is deemed to have committed it in England? Why not say in simple, straightforward words, which is all that Article 9 requires, that our courts shall have jurisdiction in such a case? Sir Winston Churchill said that there was too much damned deeming in our legislation. This is a perfect example of unnecessary deeming when all we need to do is say that in those cases our courts shall have jurisdiction. That is the language of the framework decision.

The Minister is already aware of my fourth point, because I wrote to him about it after Second Reading. He was kind enough to see me about it. We need a comprehensive list of terrorist offences, set out in a new Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Act 2000. That is where all the offences ought to be brought together. That list of offences could be added to from time to time as new conventions are agreed and new international terrorist offences are created. I recommended that in my report, but for some reason—I have never been sure why—that recommendation was not accepted. As a result, nowhere in our legislation is there a definition of what is a terrorist offence. One has to go far and wide to find out what they are.

The most obvious terrorist offence—a terrorist murder—is still nowhere included as a terrorist offence. There are all sorts of little offences, such as wearing uniform or drilling the public, but nowhere is a terrorist murder described as a terrorist offence. Even if we pass the Bill as it stands, a terrorist offence of murder will still exist only by implication where it has been committed by or against a United Kingdom national abroad. There will still be nothing about a terrorist murder committed in England. That is not the way to legislate. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page