§ 11. Captain W. Elliotasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the British Government-owned United States securities has been liquefied since 1st January, 1965.
§ 32. Mr. Boxasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there has been any material change in the value of dollar securities held by the Treasury, through the Exchange Equalisation Account, since the end of April, 1965.
§ Mr. CallaghanNone of the portfolio of dollar securities has so far been transferred to the reserves. Well over half has been made liquid and is ready in the form of short-term dollar securities for immediate use if need be. The monthly announcement of reserve movements will indicate if the portfolio has been drawn on. The extent to which this has been done will be shown in the regular quarterly balance of payments tables.
§ Captain ElliotWhen the Socialist locusts have eaten these reserves, which reserves have they earmarked to eat next?
§ Mr. CallaghanYesterday I invited the Opposition, when I told them what I proposed to do, to indicate whether they supported this proposal, which was initiated by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am bound to say that the level of patriotism among hon. Members opposite gets lower and lower as the Session wears on, and I hope that some member of the Opposition Front Bench will get up and say something a little patriotic for a change.
§ Mr. Peter Walkerrose—
§ Mr. BoxIs the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that many people in this country are of the opinion that he is very complacent about this matter? Is he further aware that he seems far too willing to accept the liquidation of the dollar portfolio? Will he instead take a more optimistic view and tell us what he will do about building up or restoring the dollar portfolio if and when the time comes?
§ Mr. CallaghanYesterday's debate showed that it is the Government's policy—and I believe that it is one which can be achieved—to secure a balance in our payments by the end of 1966 without an undue repression of the economy. I thought that this was agreed on both sides of the House. That is the best way in which we can ensure that our reserves are maintained at a satisfactory level.
§ Mr. Peter Walkerrose—
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes not my right hon. Friend realise that the one or two questions which have been addressed to him by hon. Members opposite are intended to denigrate, not the Goevrnment, but the country?
§ Mr. CallaghanWhether they are intended to do one or the other is for anyone to judge. I will only say this: people who speak lightly in these terms do not know what they could be unleashing if certain circumstances were to eventuate. It behoves all of us—I do not exclude myself from this—to be extremely careful in what we say about these matters: it could have widespread international repercussions which could affect the trading 1256 and financial relationships of the whole world.
§ Mr. Peter WalkerIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is the strongest resentment on this side of the House at the attitude he has taken on this subject? Is he also aware that ever since he has been Chancellor of the Exchequer every measure which he has taken to support and defend sterling has been defended from this side of the House? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and many other Opposition Front Bench speakers have constantly supported him in his claim that there is no need for the devaluation of sterling. Comments of this sort come very ill from the right hon. Gentleman, who on three occasions has caused a crisis in sterling by his own irresponsible remarks.
§ Mr. CallaghanThe hon. Gentleman went to Germany recently. He asked me beforehand whether he could make a statement in support of the need to preserve the value of sterling. I am grateful to him for his help, as I have always been. But I hope that he will rebuke his hon. Friends who are making, both in the House and outside, irresponsible statements which can be calculated only to weaken our position.