|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that we are determined to enforce our own legislation. But of course we can never be effective in enforcing our legislation unless other capitals do likewise. That is why, as the noble Lord says, it is most important that other nations agree and implement fully action against money laundering, a question which comes up in a number of different fora.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Gibraltar is a small territory with a small administrative team, and that, as with many other countries within the EU, it has a backlog of a number of European directives with which to deal? Would she care to confirm that Gibraltar has undertaken to deal with the whole of that backlog, including the money laundering directive provisions, by the end of this year?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I confirm that Gibraltar has a number of regulations and pieces of legislation to carry through. That is why we have offered assistance to Gibraltar to do the work. However, it is essential that the authorities get on with that work because some of the issues have been outstanding for a considerable time.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her answers carry the overwhelming support of this House? This is a matter of high public importance and the sooner that the Gibraltar authorities realise that they must take urgent action the sooner the dispute can be put behind us.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I sincerely hope that the authorities in Gibraltar will act with all speed. Only in that way can they have a real relevance in the growth of their own business financial services and other legitimate interests which are carried on in Gibraltar.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Gibraltar Government have promised to pass 20 directives per month? As it is a small territory, 20 directives per month is not bad. Should not the Government be given a fair wind to assist them in that respect?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if when notified of the legislation to be carried through one does not make an early start, inevitably a backlog will build up. In order to clear the backlog one must then move faster than one would have done had one started at the right time. That is why we are giving Gibraltar help to get on with the job.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the statement referred to by my noble friend is incorrect. If the United Kingdom were to join a single currency it would be necessary to transfer part of our foreign exchange reserves to the European Central Bank, receiving in exchange an equivalent claim on that bank. There would, therefore, be an exchange of assets. It is not possible to say with certainty how large the value of that exchange would be, but it is clear that it would be a mere fraction of the sum quoted.
Lord Henley: My Lords, first, the transfer would not be as large as suggested in the European Journal, to which my noble friend referred. Secondly, it would be an exchange of assets and obviously we would have a claim on it. Thirdly, nothing is ever irreversible and there is no point in trying to make one's flesh creep by suggesting that it would be.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, given that the statement is inaccuratewhich is hardly surprising given that it comes from Bill Cash and the European Foundation documentit is as likely that there will be a loss of £36 billion as it is that we will be asked to eat only straight bananas? Is not the Government's position that it is what is needed by the end of the century and if there is a wholly sustainable convergence it would be sensible then to join, having waited some time to observe the situation, and that if we did not it would be extremely costly and damaging? Does the Minister concede that that is the Government's present position?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is difficult to work out exactly what the noble Lord is asking me to accept because he put a great many acceptances to me. I believe that he is asking what is the Government's position if and when we join the EMU. I can take him no further than the frequent statements made by all Members of the Government on many occasions; that it is too early to
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter may be inadequate? Under Article 107 of the same treaty are we not precluded even from asking questions about what can be done with whatever amount of our reserves we hand over?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that my Answer was inadequate. As I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, we can make a decision at the appropriate time, according to the opt-out which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister negotiated. We shall make our decision at that appropriate time.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the amount of the subscription in terms of foreign exchange is more likely to be in the region of 36 billion dollars as distinct from pounds sterling, and that that is a more realistic assessment of the amount to be transferred? Is the Minister aware that at the same time, under a protocol to the treaty which deals with these matters (paragraph 3 of No. 30), a credit will be created in the United Kingdom's favour for the sum that is deposited? Under what circumstances will it be possible for the United Kingdom to draw down on the corresponding credit which it will be granted under the protocol?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions and I shall do my best to answer some of them. He asked whether the correct figure is 36 billion dollars. I believe that the European Journal referred to 36 billion dollars but my noble friend referred to £36 billion. I cannot work out from where either of those figures emerged. The treaty refers to a sum of 50 billion ecu, which would be some £41 billion or 66 billion dollars. Obviously, if we were to join we should pay as our contribution some fraction of that total. What that fraction would be would depend very much on the number of others joining.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that in 1978 when we joined the European monetary systemwe joined the system and not the exchange rate mechanismwe similarly had to subscribe to the capital of the system? Can my noble friend say how much profit we have made on the subscription in view of the regrettable depreciation that has since occurred in the value of the pound?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice. It may have helped had my noble friend asked the question in a rhetorical style and given me the answer. I am sure that he is well aware of the answer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the Minister said that we could get back the money that we had deposited. Is it not true that Article 109/L4 in the body of the Maastricht Treaty provides that joining the single currency is irrevocable? Does not "irrevocable" mean that that is the end of the matter and we cannot go back?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was simply trying to make the fair historical point that nothingnothingis ever irreversible. I do not believe that it is worth trying to make people's flesh creep by suggesting that it is.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, whether the UK joins a single currency or not, as regards the City of London's planning for the existence of a single currency it is imperative that City institutions know now the kind of monetary instruments that will be disposed of by a central bank in its pursuit of monetary policy? Yet the Maastricht Treaty states that only the central bank can determine what those monetary instruments are. In those circumstances, monetary union is formally impossible, which may be encouraging to some of my noble friends. What steps are the Government taking to encourage the European Commission or the Council to determine the monetary instruments which will be disposed of by the European Central Bank so that the City of London can plan for and profit from any such eventuality?
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page