HC Deb 23 January 1968 vol 757 cc206-7
32. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the borrowing requirement of the nationalised steel industry has been taken into account in arriving at the forecast of the net borrowing requirement for 1968 contained in his predecessor's Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

The needs of the British Steel Corporation, as of other nationalised industries, were borne in mind in arriving at the figure of £1,000 million.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friends are very keen to talk about sacrifices by others. Is not it time the Government started to sacrifice some of their own claptrap about nationalisation in order to enable us to satisfy our creditors in the terms they are laying down for us?

Mr. Jenkins

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about claptrap, he should ask a supplementary question relating to the Question he put down and not something he prepared. The Question relates to the borrowing requirement of a nationalised industry, and no doubt he would wish on reflection, as would the whole House, the proper capital requirements of that industry to be met.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most surprising question from a Scottish Tory, because this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee Scottish Tories urged far greater expenditure on national sewage?

Mr. Jenkins

I am not in the least surprised to be informed that, even in the Scottish Grand Committee, there is a contradiction between what hon. Members opposite say in particular and what they say in general.

Mr. Higgins

The right hon. Gentleman has not read the Question. It is not whether the industry's borrowing requirement has been borne in mind but to what extent it has been taken into account. Will he answer that question?

Mr. Jenkins

Yes, Sir. But I think that what the hon. Gentleman probably does not appreciate is that the borrowing requirement is not directly related to any particular item of expenditure, whether current or capital, but is the difference between the total of Government expenditure and the amount brought in in revenue. It is therefore not possible to answer the question in as precise a manner as the hon. Gentleman would like. But certainly it was taken fully into account.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Adjournment.