No, that was not the position. It should be remembered that when we were at the bottom of the band, the countries at the top supported us, but that was merely one for one. The inter-marginal support tends to be forthcoming but not when one is are the bottom of the band. I know Deputy Cox fully understands that one should not wait until one is at the bottom of the band, a point made not only by us but by four or five other countries. After we had devalued, on the following Monday morning, but more particularly on the Tuesday morning, the speculation moved on fully to the Danes, who took a rather quick decision that they were not going to sit there. I cannot say whether their decision was to leave the system altogether, as alleged, or whether to devalue by a large amount, but it was one or other. At that stage the political fear — in respect of which we would like to have received support — hit other countries, mainly one, when they acted to give inter-marginal intervention and a reduction in interest rates. It was that which stabilised currencies at least for the present though I would still hold the view that perhaps more should be done.
I made my point clear on the reports in Denmark that, while it is all right to maintain everything is now fine, such problems may recur. I agree with Deputy Cox that greater flexibility within the system on more general realignments would not be a bad thing, if undertaken within the EC monetary committee. The House should remember that had a meeting been held of the monetary committee in September last, or late August, they might have said: "Let us call it as it is"; certainly two or three other countries, not ours, would have changed their exchange rates. That has been fairly well acknowledged, both politically and in the reports since.
On the political aspect, the Central Bank was very much part of all the decisions taken up to the last minute. Indeed, we acted at all times on the basis of its advice which I very much appreciated during the currency crisis.
