International Monetary Fund (Hansard, 1 July 1969)

§ 9. Mr. Marten
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the results of the recent negotiations with the International Monetary Fund.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins)
I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 23rd and 25th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 1001–1010; Vol. 785, c. 1521–1534.]

§ Mr. Marten
While recognising the Chancellor's point in his previous remarks, that he does not intend to publish the quarterly figures of domestic credit expansion, may I ask whether he does not think that the experts will arrive at an approximate quarterly figure? Therefore, would it not be better to reconsider and publish them?

§ Mr. Jenkins
No, Sir. Experts can often reach very divergent figures. I told the House, during that debate—and I think that they were accepted—the reasons why I did not propose to publish the quarterly accounts.

§ Mr. Ian Lloyd
On the narrow question of our relationship with the I.M.F., is our national position in any way less circumscribed than it was when Montague Norman had to advise the 218 British Cabinet in the early 1930s of the terms laid down by J. P. Morgan?

§ Mr. Jenkins
I do not think that Montague Norman had relations with the I.M.F.

§ Mr. Heffer
Are the terms of the Letter of Intent likely to lead to an increase in unemployment, particularly towards the end of the year? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in areas like Merseyside, unemployment is far too huge, and that, on the basis of the Letter of Intent, it seems that it could go a lot higher?

§ Mr. Jenkins
No, Sir. I see no reason to change my views about the likely course of the domestic economy, and, therefore, about the likely course of employment as a result of the Letter of Intent, from those which I had after the Budget.

§ 18. Mr. Ridley
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the next visit of the International Monetary Fund team to the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins
Probably in August.

§ Mr. Ridley
As we are now a fourth tranche borrower and are at the limit of our credit, would the right hon. Gentleman supplicate the I.M.F. to allow him to publish a White Paper about the results of these visits so that everyone may know what conditions have been attached to our financial survival in the' future?

§ Mr. Jenkins
If I thought that it would be right to publish such a White Paper, I would do so. It has not been thought appropriate in the past to do so; for example, after the quarterly visits which took place last year. I have published more about our relations with the I.M.F. than was previously published.

§ Mr. Heffer
While I accept the point which my right hon. Friend makes, which we appreciate, may I ask whether he will make it clear to the representatives of the I.M.F. that we are not a banana republic, that we have had just about enough of squeeze and freeze and that we will not tolerate any further high levels of unemployment?

§ Mr. Jenkins
No question of bananas arises and, as far as I can gather, we 219 are not at present a republic. The wider issues raised by my hon. Friend were debated extensively last week. I would not wish to go further into, or take away from, what I said then, which is that I believe it is possible—indeed, this is what we intend to do—to get our balance of payments right on the basis of a healthy economy at home.

§ 31. Mr. Hordern
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will write a supplementary letter to the International Monetary Fund, setting out the economic objectives and policies included in his Budget but not included in his letter to the International Monetary Fund of 22nd May, 1969.

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Hordern
Surely the Chancellor must change his mind on this? Does he not recall saying in his Budget speech that the Government would publish without delay some of the more important provisions of the White Paper "In Place of Strife", and that this was so because of the occurrence of unnecessary and damaging disputes? Surely it is essential to publish a supplementary letter to the International Monetary Fund without delay.

§ Mr. Jenkins
No. The hon. Gentleman is trying to drag this in rather unconvincingly. This did not at any time play a part in the discussions with the I.M.F.

§ Mr. Heffer
Will my right hon. Friend clarify the point he made earlier about our having a healthy economic situation without this leading to an increase in unemployment? Will he tell the House clearly that there will not be any further increase in unemployment in the coming months?

§ Mr. Jenkins
No, Sir. Clearly with this index as with others nobody is going to give an exact prediction of what will happen. I am sure that my hon. Friend, if he thinks about it, will agree with that. I see no reason as a result of the Letter to the I.M.F. to change the view about the general progress of the economy during this year which I expressed at the time of the Budget debate.

§ 33. Mr. Onslow
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Letters of 220 Intent have been sent to the International Monetary Fund on behalf of Her Majesty's Government since the Fund was established; and on what date each of them was signed.

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins
Seven. The dates are: 28th July, 1961; 19th July, 1962; 9th July, 1963; 8th July, 1964; 27th April, 1965; 23rd November, 1967; 22nd May, 1969.

§ Mr. Onslow
Is there any reason why they should not all be published?

§ Mr. Jenkins
That question should more appropriately be addressed to right hon. Gentlemen on the hon. Gentleman's own side.

§ Mr. Maudling
Is the Chancellor aware that I have said myself that I should be delighted for there to be publication?

§ Mr. Jenkins
It is a little late for the right hon. Gentleman to say that.

§ 34. Mr. Higgins
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether United Kingdom drawing of future quarterly instalments of the standby credit covered by the latest letter of intent to the International Monetary Fund depends on the Fund's holdings of sterling being below 200 per cent. of the United Kingdom quota; and what estimates he has made of the future level of the Fund's sterling holdings.

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins
The arrangements for drawing future instalments of the standby are designed to ensure that Fund holdings of sterling will remain below 200 per cent. of the United Kingdom's quota. The future level of the Fund's holdings of sterling will depend on our drawings under the new standby and on whether other member countries make drawings in sterling.

§ Mr. Higgins
If the level of sterling in the Fund is not sufficient to enable the full amount to be drawn at any quarterly period, will we be able to draw only that amount which would bring the balance up to 200 per cent.?

§ Mr. Jenkins
I do not think that this will arise. As I see the position, we shall be able to do the scheduled debt repayments and make the drawings without there being a question of our going above the 200 per cent.