§ 19. Mr. Barnettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had about convening a further meeting of the Finance Ministers of the Group of Ten.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsNone, Sir.
§ Mr. BarnettDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that the last meeting at Bonn did not really solve anything, and would it not be better to have new talks now in the comparative peace of the present situation rather than wait for a new crisis?
§ Mr. JenkinsNo, Sir. I do not agree that the last meeting at Bonn solved nothing. It solved certain problems and made substantial progress. However, assuming that my hon. Friend is right, I find it a little difficult to follow why the fact that one conference was unsuccessful—which I do not accept, as I say—should be an argument for having another.
§ 20. Mr. Barnettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had on bilateral and multilateral swap arrangements since the meeting of Finance Ministers of the Group of Ten in Bonn in November, 1968.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsAs foreshadowed in the communiqué issued after the Bonn meeting of the Group of Ten, discussions have been taking place between central bank governors about possible ways to alleviate the impact on reserves of speculative movements.
§ Mr. BarnettDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that the monthly reports of failures that one reads about as coming from Basle, where the governors meet regularly, are not particularly helpful to stability, and could he say when he expects to be able to make a report on the success of these arrangements?
§ Mr. JenkinsI should not like to give a definite date. Nether do I think that one should be pessimistic about failure at Basle. There have been substantial successes at Basle during the past year, not least relating to the Basle agreements mentioned earlier. The questions raised by my hon. Friend are complicated, involving several countries, and it would 1098 be dangerous for me to give an exact forecast of when a statement could be made. However, if the outcome is of significance to the United Kingdom's financial position, I promise that I shall announce it to the House.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneWill the Chancellor of the Exchequer now answer a question which I asked him earlier on this matter? Does he not agree that proposals for recycling monetary movements can only involve, and are designed to involve, the perpetuation of both surpluses and deficits? Further, while he is on the subject, will he ensure that we have time for a debate on the Basle agreement?
§ Mr. JenkinsThat raises wide-ranging questions, one relating to a supplementary question on a previous Question, and another raising a matter for the Leader of the House, and it would not be entirely appropriate for me to deal with that. However, I agree that recycling arrangements do not deal with the root of the problem, though one can have flows which arise for speculative reasons and not purely from imbalance in the trade position.