HC Deb 05 March 1946 vol 420 cc179-80
62. Mr. Keeling

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the recent heavy fall in ex-enemy bonds, which has reduced the value of British assets; whether he is aware that those who bought them at a time when the borrower was in alliance or friendly relation with this country have suffered loss; and whether he proposes to arrange for any compensation or payment to the holders.

Mr. Dalton

I am aware of the facts referred to. I cannot hold out hope of any arrangement on the lines proposed, but I intend to discuss the issues involved with representatives of the interested parties.

Mr. Keeling

Is the Chancellor aware that his attitude last week to the holders of these bonds is not only unfair to perfectly patriotic investors, but bad for British trade and harmful to the Government's financial reputation in America?

Mr. Dalton

The Question I was asked last week related not to foreign bonds in general but to Japanese bonds. [An Hon. Member: "What is the difference? "] The difference is that those who put money into Japanese bonds backed the wrong horse, and it was very lucky for this country that it was the wrong horse.

Major Bruce

Is the Chancellor aware that there are thousands of other people in this country who have suffered loss during the war, and whose claims are rather better, shall we say, than those put before us in this Question?

Mr. Oliver Stanley

Do the Chancellor's strictures apply also to investors who, at the request of the Socialist Government at the time, put their money into the Dawes and Young loans for the aid of Germany?

Mr. Dalton

No Government, either Labour or Tory, ever advised shareholders to buy Japanese bonds. It was on Japanese bonds that the Question was asked and it is on Japanese bonds I have given my answer. I have further added that I intend to see representatives of the interested parties before long, and it will not advance the interests of clients of hon. Gentlemen opposite if I — [Interruption.]

Mr. Stanley

On a point of Order. I submit respectfully that the last answer of the Chancellor contains an imputation. The general meaning of the word '' client "means there is a financial basis between the two parties, and I suggest he is imputing that hon. Members on this side of the House who asked these questions are— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

I must confess that it struck me when the Chancellor said that, but I have no doubt he will withdraw any imputation.

Mr. Dalton

It was not in my mind —

Mr. Kirkwood

Do not apologise.

Mr. Speaker

If the right hon. Gentleman is going to withdraw any imputation, I think the hon. Gentleman should allow him to do so.

Mr. Dalton

It was not in my mind to impute any such financial connection as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. If it should be thought that the word "client" imparts that connection, I withdraw it. I used the term "client" to indicate the persons who have moved hon. Gentlemen opposite to put Questions on the Paper

Mr. Stanley

Surely, it is an established practice in this House that we do not impute that Questions put down by hon. Members, or speeches made, are due to the influence of people outside?

Sir F. Sanderson

On a point of Order. In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, am I not in Order in pointing out to the Chancellor that I asked the advice of no one when I put my Question down? I put my Question down through my own initiative and because I realised it was in the interests of the British investing public and the country.

Mr. Keeling

I give notice that I shall raise on the Adjournment the Chancellor's imputations and also the general question of these bonds.