HC Deb 19 March 1940 vol 358 cc1803-6
49. Captain W. T. Shaw

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority the Bank of England were empowered, on 7th March, to call upon those who have pre-war dollar loans in America, to repay the loans by selling forthwith securities lodged as collateral, when those securities are not included in the lists requisitioned under the Treasury Order M., 17th February, 1940?

Sir J. Simon

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley) on 7th March.

Captain Shaw

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of his answer, he will consider a request from the Bank of England? I have here a letter from the Bank of England which says—[Interruption.]

51. Mr. Loftus

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the new regulations securing the surrender of the payments for exports are confined to a limited number of commodities and for certain destinations only; and whether, to secure the maximum of foreign exchange for war purposes, he will extend these new regulations over the whole of the export trade of the country?

58. Miss Wilkinson

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that, except for a few specified commodities, exporters from Britain are under no supervision to ensure the return of the proceeds of their exports to this country, any steps will be taken in the near future to prevent such exporters leaving the whole or part of the sale price of their goods in a foreign country?

Sir J. Simon

It was thought desirable that the regulation referred to should be made applicable in the first instance to a list of commodities and currencies, in regard to which the maximum amounts of the foreign currencies most required could be obtained without excessive administrative complications. The question will be kept constantly under review as experience of the working of the regulation is gained. I must, however, again point out that the obligation to offer for sale to the Treasury all American and Canadian dollars, French, Belgian and Swiss francs, Norwegian and Swedish crowns, Argentine pesos and Amsterdam and Java guilders, received for exports, applies to all commodities. The necessary steps are being and will continue to be taken, through the censorship and otherwise, to see that this obligation is strictly complied with.

Mr. Loftus

Can my right hon. Friend give me any indication as to the percentage of exports covered by the new regulations?

Sir J. Simon

I am afraid I cannot, without notice.

Miss Wilkinson

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that the list he has referred to includes only these commodities, he is bringing any pressure to bear on the Board of Trade to give licences for exports only where he is certain that the currency thus secured will come back to this country?

Sir J. Simon

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady has appreciated—perhaps she has—that the new regulation to which she has referred is supplementary to the main regulations on this subject, and in framing it we have had regard to the need for not obstructing exports more than is necessary.

Miss Wilkinson

I do not think that the Chancellor has appreciated my point, which is that valuable raw materials may be given by licence for export for which this country does not receive a proper return in currency from those particular countries.

Sir J. Simon

I want to secure the results which the hon. Lady has indicated, and I think one of the most valuable methods of doing so is through the censorship of mail to and from this country.

57. Miss Wilkinson

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will define the nature and limit of the penalties for evading the exchange restrictions; and whether, in view of the fact that in the only case upon which the Government prosecuted a fine of £100 was imposed, which was only a small percentage of the amount involved, he will consider strengthening the penalties so that they are a real deterrent to wealthy operators?

Sir J. Simon

The hon. Member will find the penalties prescribed in Regulation 92 of the Defence Regulations. They are, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £100, or imprisonment up to three months, or both; on indictment, a fine not exceeding £500 or imprisonment up to two years, or both. These penalties appear adequate to provide a real deterrent but the question of providing for heavier penalties would be considered, if this should appear necessary.

Miss Wilkinson

In view of the large sums that are involved, are not these amounts quite laughably inadequate? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Bank of England are not regarding the banking position from the point of view that the keeping of London as the exchange market of the world is more important than the exchange restrictions?

Sir J. Simon

I do not think so. The amounts are contained in the Defence Regulations, and without discussing whether £500 is a large fine, I should think that two years' imprisonment is a heavy penalty.

59. Miss Wilkinson

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that appreciation of unspecified currencies, including the lira and the yen, in terms of sterling, as a result of the fall in sterling in New York during the last few days is raising the cost of imports and is likely to cause a rise in prices, he will take steps to restore the unofficial rate of sterling to its previous level by means of a stronger enforcement of exchange restrictions?

Sir J. Simon

The exchange restrictions are, and will continue to be, enforced rigorously, but I question whether this necessarily has the effect which the hon. Member suggests.