§ 50. Mr. Neil Macleanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that machinery exists in the Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements for the settlement of disputes between the bank and, amongst other parties, its shareholders; and whether he, as representing a shareholding country, made application for the dispute over the withdrawal of the Czecho-Slovakian deposit by Germany, to be referred to the tribunal as provided by the Hague Agreement of January, 1930?.
§ Sir J. SimonArticle 56 of the Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements, to which the Hon. Member presumably refers, deals with disputes with regard to the interpretation or application of the Statutes of the bank. I would remind the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government are not shareholders in the bank.
§ Mr. MacleanIs it not the case that Mr. Norman and the other gentlemen who represent this country on the Board of the Bank for International Settlements are the nominees of this Government?
§ Sir J. SimonNo, Sir; that is a mistake. They are not nominees of the Government at all; they are members who are appointed under the constitution of the bank. The board has to include certain persons who are the heads of central banks. They are not nominated by the Government at all.
§ Mr. MacleanIs it not the case that the Government of this country was responsible, as one of the representatives, for the setting up of the Bank for International Settlements; and has it not been understood all along that the respective representatives are the representatives, if not of the Governments, of the countries that they are supposed to represent?
§ Sir J. SimonThe hon. Gentleman is really mistaken. The bank was set up in the year 1930, by the then Government, but nobody who has studied the matter has ever suggested that the members of the board are the representatives of the respective Governments or countries.
§ Mr. Macleanrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member has had a very full answer.
§ Mr. MacleanMay I put it to you, as a point of Order—
§ Mr. SpeakerQuestion No. 51.
§ Mr. MacleanThere have been seven or eight supplementaries put to other questions before now.
§ 51. Mr. Macleanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before deciding not to open negotiations with the other signatories of the International Convention of January, 1930, he informed himself of the present constitution of the Board of the Bank for International Settlements, and, in particular, whether it includes representatives of industry and commerce in addition to the representatives of banks; and, if so, will he inform the House from which countries such industrial and commercial representatives have been appointed?
§ Sir J. SimonI would refer the hon. Member to Section (2) of Article 28 of the Statutes of the bank. Of the eight directors at present serving under the provisions of this Section, the two additional members appointed by the Governors of the Bank of France and of the 210 Reichsbank respectively are specifically representative of industry or commerce. The other six may be representative of finance, industry or commerce, I understand that the Belgian and Italian directors are connected both with finance and industry, while the British, French, German and Japanese directors are principally connected with finance.
§ Mr. MacleanWhy is it that, in the case of this country, which is looked upon as being primarily a commercial nation, one at least of the representatives is not an industrial head, instead of both being bankers?
§ 54. Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the established practice of consultation between the Treasury and the Bank of England on matter of public interest, he will consult with the Bank of England as to the desirability of the Bank's representative on the Board of the Bank for International Settlements taking the same action as the French representative on the Board of the Bank for International Settlements, in relation to the transfer of Czech gold to the German Government?
§ Sir J. SimonI have already stated the principles which must govern the action of the Treasury. I have no doubt that in various ways contact is maintained among the members of the Board of the Bank for International Settlements drawn from this country and from France.
§ Mr. HendersonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made in the French Chamber last week by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs to the effect that the French representatives on the Board of the Bank for International Settlements have protested against the transfer of this gold; and does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the least that the British representatives could do would be to associate themselves with that protest?
§ Sir J. SimonThe statement I saw—I only saw it in a newspaper myself, but there may have been other reports— was, I think, to the effect that the French members of the Executive Committee had protested. There are no British members of the Executive Committee.
§ Mr. HendersonThe mere fact that the British representatives are not members 211 of the Executive Committee would not prevent them from associating themselves with the protest.
§ Mr. BrackenIs not the Chairman of the Bank for International Settlements a British representative?
§ Sir J. SimonNo, Sir; that again is a misunderstanding. The British individual to whom the hon. Member refers is, it is quite true, the Chairman of the Board, but that is quite distinct from being the President of the Bank. The President of the Bank is the executive officer who handles matters of this sort.
§ Mr. BrackenSurely he is subject to control by the Chairman of the Board?
§ Mr. Noel-BakerAs this is a violation of international law, will not His Majesty's Government ask the British representatives to associate themselves with the French representatives in their protest?
§ The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Noel-Baker:
§ 55. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he received information that the Bank for International Settlements had transferred £10,000,000 worth of Czech assets to the German Government?
§ Mr. MacleanBefore any answer is given, may I say that I put down a question in similar terms to this early last week, and it was refused at the Table on the ground that we had no jurisdiction in this matter?
§ Sir J. SimonThe information, which was as regards an amount of approximately £6,000,000, was received on 24th March.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerCan the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Prime Minister, at the end of May, said that this was a mare's nest?
§ Sir J. SimonI think this is a matter which has been explained a good many times. Briefly, the matter which appeared to be then referred to had to do with the stopping of Czech assets going from this country by legislation in this House, and not with this matter at all.
§ Mr. MacleanOn a point of Order. I wish to know why a question on the same 212 lines which I handed in last week was refused on the ground that the Government had nothing to do with that transaction at the bank, and now another similar question appears on the Paper.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt has been explained that the matter is not one for the Government.
§ Mr. MacleanMy point of Order is not concerned with the question of whether the Government had anything to do with it: I accept that explanation that the Government had nothing to do with it; but my point is that another question has appeared later, and I want to know why this discrimination has been made.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe two questions are different.
Mr. J. J. DavidsonWill you give consideration, Mr. Speaker, to the point of Order raised by my hon. Friend, with a view to avoiding a repetition in future?
§ Mr. SpeakerI always try to give consideration to points that are raised.
§ 57. Mr. G. Straussasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government are joining in the protest of the French Government to the Bank for International Settlements against the transfer of the Czech deposits to Germany without calling a full meeting of the board of that bank?
§ Sir J. SimonI am not aware that the French Government have taken the action suggested.
§ Mr. StraussHas the Chancellor seen the Reuter report on that?
§ Sir J. SimonI have seen a report in a newspaper. As I said in the answer to another question, the report was to the effect that it was not a case of the French Government taking action, but of the French administrators of the bank.
§ 58. Mr. Straussasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether subsequent to the approach of the French Ambassador any representations were made by His Majesty's Government to the Bank of England directors of the Bank for Inter national Settlements on the question of the Czech gold other than passing on the French Government's views; and whether any discussions were held on the matter?
§ Sir J. SimonAs I have already stated, the British directors were informed both 213 of the oral communication from the French Government and of the attitude of His Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. StraussCan we take it that it is the view of His Majesty's Government that no further action beyond that should be taken?