§ 31. Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that, in the Burnley Salute the Soldier week, of the first £526,804 subscribed £200,000 was put up by the Burnley Building Society, £50,000 by each of four banks and £100,000 by the Borough Building Society; and whether he will see that comparable figures are obtained from all other Salute the Soldier weeks.
§ Sir J. AndersonIn reply to the part of the Question, the total raised in the Burnley "Salute the Soldier" Week was £1,150,696, of which small savings accounted for £237,823. I am aware that particulars were published locally of the subscriptions to which the hon. Member refers. In reply to the second part, I see no objection to the continuation of the present practice, under which local committees may publish particulars of this character if the disclosure assists the local savings campaign and the consent of the subscribers has been obtained: otherwise I am not prepared to modify the rule that the sources and amounts of individual subscriptions should be kept confidential.
§ Mr. StokesAm I to gather from the Chancellor's reply that where the subscriptions by the larger institutions form the major portion—a far greater proportion than the one quoted here—he will discourage their publication?
§ Sir J. AndersonNo, Sir, I do not discourage publication at all. I leave it to the local committee.
§ Mr. A. EdwardsWhat would be the position in the case of London recently when £10,000,000 more than the amount aimed at, was guaranteed before the week began? What was the purpose of all the "ballyhoo" and of spending £20,000 on all that nonsense in Trafalgar Square?
§ Sir J. AndersonAs I have explained again and again, these large contributions do serve a very useful purpose.
§ Mr. EdwardsThe Chancellor always gets away with that, but is all this extravagance and cost justified by this small amount, which is only 20 per cent, of the total?
§ Sir J. AndersonThat is a matter for debate but I absolutely disagree with the hon. Member.
§ Mr. StokesIs not the whole object of these things to prop up an outworn monetary system?