1.
asked the Minister of National Insurance why the book values of the securities of the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund are described in the 1948–49 accounts as cost price, when in fact they were market values on 5th July, 1948, at which date depreciation of the absorbed funds amounted to £12,867,972; and when this will be corrected.
The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. These securities are shown in the accounts of the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund for 1948–49 at market value as on 5th July, 1948.
That is utterly incorrect. It gives the cost price. Will the right hon. Lady explain why the expression "Cost price" is used for a column of figures which bear no relation to cost prices?
The hon. Baronet really must not make these statements in such an emphatic way. Here are the accounts. He has a copy in his hand. If he looks on page 10 under "Receipts" he will see "Investments transferred at market value as at 5 July, 1948." I suggest that in future he reads the accounts carefully.
Will the right hon. Lady look at page 12 with its "Statement of Securities, &c., held at 31 March, 1949," where she will see, in the middle column headed "Cost price," the figures I have mentioned?
The hon. Baronet alleges that the accounts do not contain the market value, and I have pointed out that it is given on page 10. If he looks through the whole of the accounts, he will probably find that this sum is mentioned on other pages. I must remind him and the House that he fell into the same error last week, simply because he refrained from reading the document.
Will the right hon. Lady be good enough to consult the Treasury on this matter, when I think she will find there is some substance in the contention of the hon. Baronet? The heading of this column is certainly open to grave misinterpretation.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I have to address myself to the Question. He will find that the answer I have given is perfectly correct.
Will the right hon. Lady say what is the loss on revaluation and where it is accounted for?
Certainly. It is in the accounts, if the hon. Gentleman cares to read them.
Will the right hon. Lady be good enough to consult the Treasury, because if she does I think she will find that they substantially agree with the point made by the hon. Baronet?
With due respect, the right hon. Gentleman cannot teach me my job. I have read the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, in which I know the hon. Baronet takes a great interest. I understand the position perfectly well. The fact is that the hon. Baronet, I think, is a member of the Public Accounts Committee and he did not attend the meeting. In future, if he attends the meetings, he will not fall into these errors.
Will the right hon. Lady be good enough to recollect that I did attend the meeting?
I cannot answer that question.
Does the right hon. Lady remember, from her experience at the Ministry of Food, that points are one thing and personal points are another, and it is the former rather than the latter that we expect from the Minister at Question Time?
On a point of order. Is the right hon. Lady in order in referring to the proceedings of a Committee which has not yet reported to the House?
The fact is that a Report of a Select Committee which has not been reported to the House should not be quoted here.
I am referring to the accounts before me, before the hon. Baronet and before the whole House.