(REPEALS.) (Hansard, 19 February 1968)

§ Mr. Diamond
I beg to move, Amendment No. 16, in page 35, line 56, column 3, at end insert (1).
This is an Amendment to limit the repeal to Section 4(1). Subsection (2) is still needed. Therefore, this is a necessary Amendment.

§ Mr. Diamond
I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 39, line 26, column 3, after ' (4) ' to insert: ' the words "out of the Consolidated Fund" and'. This is only a minor tidying-up of Amendments made by the Bill to the European Monetary Agreement Act, 1959.

§ Mr. Diamond
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

§ Mr. Higgins
I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, but it is right, given the great deal of scrutiny that the House has rightly given to the Bill, that we should say how much we appreciate the way in which, in Committee, the Financial Secretary produced 187 a format of accounts which showed the basis on which the accounts are likely to be produced under the Bill, as it stands, when we discuss the Budget. It will be agreed that this year's Budget will be one of the most important in our country's history and it is therefore fortunate that we have been able to scrutinise the exact form of the accounts in advance, and also to implement a number of drafting Amendments.
As for the present form of the Bill, the Chief Secretary was rather uncertain about my point concerning the difference in the basis of the valuation of assets and the market value. If he will study what was said in column 163 of the Committee proceedings—as he has been kind enough to say he would—he will appreciate more readily the point that I have in mind.
Earlier on I loosely confused the National Loans Fund and the profits of the Issue Department. It is important to have both sets of figures. As it stands, under the relevant Clause the Treasury has discretion as to how much of the excess of market value over cost is transferred to the National Loans Fund. If the transfer takes place under the Clause we need to know what percentage of the difference has been transferred, because it affects the overall borrowing requirement.
This brings me to the only point of technical controversy that has arisen, namely, the definition of the borrowing requirement and, in particular, the borrowing requirement as specified in the letter to the I.M.F. written by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—now the Home Secretary. We are still very unhappy because we feel that the concept which has been given such prominence and importance in the letter to the I.M.F. has not been sufficiently defined in a way to enable the House to appraise the extent to which the Government have achieved the objective which they have declared. This is a difficult question in relation to the effect on the Exchange Equalisation Fund, and I would have hoped that the Bill made this clearer.
On the overall basis, however, the Bill has made improvements in our accounting procedure. It is fortunate that we have been able to have such constructive debates in Committee and this even 188 ing. It is a much better Bill than it was on Second Reading, and on that basis we will support it this evening.

§ Mr. Turton
The Bill, in respect of the provision of information, is a great advance. I hope that we will use it to make it a more effective measure of Parliamentary control on Government borrowing. It is in the interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the country. It may be that the Bill was never intended to seek out the causes of the inflation that is troubling this country. When the present Home Secretary made his statement in the last Budget many of us thought that he would attack that problem, but to that extent the Bill, with its present content, is a slight disappointment. I believe that this Bill can be used to give us more effective control after we have received this information.
Apart, perhaps, from a rather foolish little verbal sally by the right hon. Gentleman on the last Amendment, one remark with which I disagreed was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'AvigdorGoldsmid), who has now left us. He said that as Mr. Pierre-Paul Schweitzer would now be looking at the books we in Parliament had no need to do so. I think there is a very much more need for us to do so, especially when Mr. Pierre-Paul Schweitzer and his team are coming round.
That is why I hope that the Chief Secretary will convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the appeal that in working out the Bill he will so present his Financial Statement that Parliament may have an opportunity to have a separate debate on the net borrowing requirement each year at Budget time. That would be a very great help to Parliament's control of expenditure, because by this means we would be looking at the capital account.
I welcome the Bill. It is excellent, though limited in its scope.

§ Mr. Diamond
With the permission of the House, I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and 189 Malton (Mr. Turton) have said in welcoming the Bill. It is limited in concept, and limited for the reason to which I earlier referred, that although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did, as the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly describes, refer to the possibilities of considering major change, when this consideration took place it was found that the most we could usefully do, at present at all events, was what has now been described as an accountancy exercise. That is why we do not propose more than is in the Bill; and why it seemed that the discussion would inevitably have to be somewhat limited.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Bill gives further information, and it is intended to give further information. I assure him that I am absolutely at one with him in saying that right hon. and hon. Members should have the fullest possible information to enable them to conduct the debate in as informed a manner as is possible. I hope that the Bill will help to that end.
We are anxious to get the Measure through so as to be able to provide the new form of accounts in the forthcoming Budget which, I am told, is to be expected in due course. With the goodwill of the House, therefore, I think that we should now send it on its way so as to be ready in good time.