HC Deb 06 August 1940 vol 363 cc34-6
53. Mr. De la Bère

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the cash and investments of over £2,000,000 held by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, Limited, shown in their last balance-sheet, as distinct from the mortgage loans and advances to agriculturists; and whether he will now consider taking steps to reorganise the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, Limited?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams)

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is aware that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation has investments of about £2,000,000, but he does not regard this as a reason for seeking powers to reorganise the corporation.

Mr. De la Bère

Are the Government aware of the urgent necessity for administrative reform in this undertaking, and, indeed, in all undertakings dealing with agricultural credits; and is he not aware that the only benefit of this particular corporation is to debenture holders and that the small farmer derives no benefit because of the high rate of interest? It is no use giving that stereotyped form of answer.

Mr. Craven-Ellis

How is it that this corporation pays a dividend which it would not be able to pay but for the Government subsidy?

Mr. Williams

It may be that there is an unfortunate history about the £2,000,000 investment referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), but Section 32 of the 1939 Agricultural Development Act was designed to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis).

Mr. Craven-Ellis

Will the Government give instructions that dividends must not be paid out of Government subsidies?

Mr. Williams

The Government of 1939 decided not only that they should allow dividends to be paid to debenture holders, but guaranteed £60,000 per annum for 20 years for maintaining those dividends. I presume that my hon. Friend would support that.

Sir Irving Albery

Is not my hon. Friend making a mistake in referring to dividends to shareholders? Does he not mean interest?

Mr. Williams

As regards any difference, I am subject to my hon. Friend's correction.

Mr. de Rothschild

As my hon. Friend has now changed his views, will he now use his influence with the Minister to have the policy reversed?

Mr. Williams

It is not a fact that I took another view on this subject in 1939. I stand in 1940 where I stood then.

Mr. De la Bère

Would it be possible to get a move on? Never mind where the hon. Gentleman stands now.