§ 55. Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated value of the deliveries either in cash or kind by Germany to Great Britain, France, Belgium and Italy, respectively, on account of reparations and cost of military occupation since the date when France entered the Ruhr up to the end of 1923?
§ Mr. SNOWDENAs the answer is a long one, and contains numerous figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPOET.
§ Following is the answer:
§ 1. No cash payments were made by the German Government on reparation account during 1923, beyond the payment of the six months Treasury Bills issued to the Belgian Government in respect of the last five-monthly payments for 1922, which fell due during 1923.
§ 2. The deliveries in kind made, by the German Government to Great Britain, France, Belgium and Italy, respectively, which have been notified to the Reparation Commission during 1923, were as follows:
| million gold marks. | |||
| Great Britain | … | … | 156 |
| France | … | … | 14 |
| Belgium | … | … | 5 |
| Italy | … | … | 123 |
| Total | … | … | 298 |
| (say £14,900,000) |
§ 3. In addition, the German Government issued paper marks to the various Armies of Occupation on requisition to the following amounts:
| million gold marks. | |||
| Great Britain | … | … | 16.0 |
| France | … | … | 8.0 |
| Belgium | … | … | 0.2 |
| Total | … | … | 24.2 |
| (say £1,210,000) |
§ 4. No figures have been reported to the Reparation Commission or communicated to the British Government by the French and Belgian Governments as regards the value of the seizures and confiscations effected in the Rhineland and the Ruhr, and no sum has been brought to account by the Reparation Commission in respect of such seizures.
§ 59. Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the large sum obtained from Germany under the reparation levy and the fact that the rate of the levy has been reduced from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent., the Government has retained the right of reimposing any larger duty when opportunity offers; and, if not, what is the reason for this decision?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the agreement as regards the reduction of the levy has effect only until 15th April, 1924. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.
§ Mr. HARMSWORTHDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider that the price of goods imported into this country from Germany will be reduced to the same amount as the reparation duty?
§ Mr. SNOWDENI must refer the hon. Member to an answer given last week to a similar question.
§ Mr. SOMERVILLEThe right hon. Gentleman says the last consideration does not arise. Has the right hon. Gentleman then more consideration for the pockets of the Germans than of our own people?
§ 62. Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue as a White Paper the verbal or written diplomatic representations which led to the agreement to reduce the reparation levy from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent. as published in the Board of Trade Journal on 29th February?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe negotiations were conducted orally, and it is therefore impossible to issue as a White Paper the representations which led to the conclusion of the agreement.
§ 63. Mr. SAMUELfurther asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which account all or part of the £18,000,000 received for reparation levy has been credited; and whether the credit has been treated as revenue, and for which year or years, or has the money been held in suspense account?
§ Mr. SNOWDENI would refer the hon. Member to the statements showing the amounts received during the years ending 31st March, 1922, and 31st March, 1923, respectively, and the application thereof which have been presented to Parliament (Command Papers 1664 and 1861). A similar statement as regards the year ending 31st March, 1924, will be presented to Parliament in due course. The credit is treated as revenue, under the heading of Miscellaneous Revenue, except in so far as it appears as Appropriations-in-Aid of Army Votes for the cost of Armies of Occupation.
§ Mr. SAMUELDo I understand that this money has been and is to be treated as revenue, and does not this mean that the general body of taxpayers will henceforth subsidise the import merchants by the amount of the surrendered 21 per cent.?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe taxpayer will benefit, under the arrangement which we made last week, by the difference between the nothing that has been paid since September and the 5 per cent.
§ Mr. SAMUELrose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI understand that Thursday has been appointed for the discussion of this question.
§ 64. Mr. SAMUELalso asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, during the negotiations about reduction of Reparation Levy, any proposal was made by the British Government to the German authorities that reduction of Reparation Levy should be met by reduction of German Customs duties on British imports into Germany?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe answer is in the negative. As the hon. Member is aware, Germany is prohibited by Article 264 of the Treaty of Versailles from reducing Customs duties on British imports without granting identical reductions on the imports of the other Allies.
§ Mr. SAMUELWhat objection would there have been to granting similar facilities to other Allies?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe hon. Member is evidently suffering from a mental illusion. He appears to be under the impression that this Reparation Act has something to do with Protection. It has nothing at all to do with Protection, and so long as I am responsible for its administration, it will not be used as an instrument of Protection.
§ Lord EUSTACE PERCYIn what period or at what date will the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, expire?
§ Mr. SNOWDENI could not at this moment state.