§ 57. Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from the Mexican Government the amount of money which the Mexican Government has paid during the past 10 years to the International Committee of Mexican Bondholders; and whether any of that sum has been retained by or for that committee for expenses?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden)I am informed that the total sums received from the Mexican Government by the international Committee of Mexican Bondholders amount with accrued interest to approximately $45,000,000. Of this sum approximately $5,000,000 have been retained for expenses, including the charges of depositaries, paying agents, etc., in the various countries. No remuneration has been paid to any member of the Committee for his services.
§ 58 and 60. Mr. REMERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is aware that the Mexican Bondholders' International Committee of 11 American bankers has, after many attempts during 18 years, failed to obtain resumption by the Mexican Government of its obligations to British holders of its defaulted bonds; and will he now intervene by requesting British bondholders to communicate with him so that His Majesty's commercial representative in Mexico may take steps on their behalf with the Mexican Government irrespective of American interests;
(2) if he will ascertain what decisions have now been arrived at by the international committee with regard to British holders of the defaulted obligations of the Mexican Government receiving payment; and how soon such payment is to begin?
§ Mr. EDENA new agreement between the Mexican Government and the International Committee of Bankers was concluded on the 22nd of December last, and has been approved by both Houses of the Mexican Congress. This is substantially on the same terms as the agreement of July, 1930, but the resumption of payments is deferred until the 1st of January, 1934. As this new- agreement covers the interests of the British bondholders, and 479 was not signed until after the Committee representing the latter in London had been consulted and had signified their approval, the second part of the question does not therefore arise.
§ Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELDoes the hon. Gentleman realise that agreements of this kind have been broken and varied now for a period of 18 years and that not one single farthing has reached British subjects as a result?