HC Deb 09 November 1920 vol 134 cc1010-1
65. Mr. REMER

asked the President of the Board of Trade why open unsecured credit was given to the firm of Messrs. Hillas by the imported timber disposal section to the extent of £600,000 when transactions with other firms of equal standing wore refused on other than a cash basis, and in other cases deposit of war bonds was insisted upon?


Credit was given to Messrs. Hillas and to a number of other firms in order to ensure the sale of Government stocks of timber through ordinary trade channels and to enable the Department to deal with shipments as they arrived from abroad particularly in view of the congested state of the home ports. Sales in large quantities could not be made for cash owing to the difficulty experienced by traders in financing the purchase of large consignments on a cash basis. A deposit of war bonds was not required from prospective buyers.


Is my hon. Friend aware that in my own experience I know of cases where the deposit of war bonds has been insisted upon?


I understand that in this type of case the war bonds were never required. I have made particular inquiries into this, and I find that that is the case. It is perfectly true that in certain instances security was required in another connection, where it was thought desirable in the interests of securing the money.

Forward to