§ 53. Mr. Parkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the need for reduced spending by the public, he will review the circumstances of the decision by Messrs. Handley Page, the aircraft firm, to pay a dividend of 44.8 per cent., less tax, or 7 per cent, more than in the previous year, with a view to taking action in the national interest?
§ Sir K. WoodThe hon. Member no doubt has in mind the hope I expressed when the Dividend Limitation Bill was withdrawn that directors of companies 601 would act in general conformity with the provisions embodied in that Bill, subject, of course, to such deviations from its main provisions as were contemplated or admissible in special cases. While I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, I have no reason to suppose that my request has not generally been complied with. I shall, however, continue to watch the position.
§ Captain BellengerHow can the right hon. Gentleman maintain that his request has been complied with when the dividend in this case has been considerably increased?
§ Sir K. WoodI do not think my hon. Friend heard my reply. I said that generally my request had been complied with.
§ Mr. ShinwellHas it been complied with in this particular case, and, if not, what action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take?
§ Sir K. WoodI am, of course, aware of this particular case, because I remember speaking about it some little time ago. This may well be a case where, under the terms of the Bill, special application could have been made to the Capital Issues Committee.
§ Mr. ManderDoes not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a great mistake was made in withdrawing the Limitation of Dividends Bill?
§ Sir K. WoodNo, Sir. I have stated that I think my request has been generally complied with.
§ Mr. GranvilleIs this specific case the result of the monopoly system in aircraft production?