§ 34. Mr. George Jegerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Treasury approval was given to Montague L. Meyer Limited for the increase of their dividend from 16 per cent. to 20 per cent.
§ Mr. TaverneThis company was firmly committed to a total dividend of 20 per cent. in a public offer document issued before the Budget. Treasury approval was given in accordance with the ruling which the Chief Secretary explained to the House on 25th March.
§ Mr. JegerDoes not my hon. and learned Friend realise how difficult it will be to explain to low-paid workers why their wages must be restrained and increases denied to them at a time when millionaire firms with friends in high places — [Interruption.] — can increase their dividends by 25 per cent.
§ Mr. TaverneMy hon. Friend makes out a perfectly good case, which the Government have accepted, for dividend restraint. In this case, however, money was accepted from shareholders on the basis of an offer already made; and it would have been wrong in the circumstances not to have acted as we did.
§ Mr. Iain MacleodWhat conclusion does the Minister draw from the fact that this firm is doing very much better since the Prime Minister stopped advising it?
§ Mr. TaverneIf the right hon. Gentleman wishes to analyse the prosperity of the various firms which have been and are advised by hon. and right hon. Members, he would be engaging on a long, though no doubt interesting, task.
§ Mr. ShinwellWould my hon. and learned Friend repudiate the allegation that has been made that the decision to increase the dividend in this case was attributable to any influence exercised by anyone in Her Majesty's Government? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that that was a most offensive remark?
§ Mr. TaverneI am sure that not a single hon. Member would for a moment think that there was any possible explanation for what has occurred, apart from the one which I have given and which is perfectly satisfactory.