§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the names of the companies in which the Treasury has a financial interest, specifying the amount of the interest in each case and stating the annual profit or loss obtained on the taxpayers' account in each year since the holdings were acquired, and the present value of the shares?
§ Mr. McNEILLI would refer the hon. Member to the information given in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (Mr. A. M. Samuel) on the 25th April, 1923, of which I am sending him a copy. I will take steps to have the information as to the yield and present value of these holdings brought up to date, and will circulate it in due course.
501W
§ Mr. SPOORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the present position of British Celanese, Limited, what was the total amount of Government investment in this company, what is the present holding and the value of the shares, if the board of directors now contains any independent artificial silk manufacturing expert, and whether he is aware that, generally speaking, among artificial silk manufacturing concerns this is the only one not making profit?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been invested in or advanced or guaranteed to British Celanese, Limited, by the Treasury; what profits or losses have been made on the taxpayers' account or dividends declared since the Treasury first acquired any interest in the company; and how much artificial silk per day has been on the average produced?
§ Mr. McNEILLAs has been frequently explained, the Government in 1920 took £1,450,000 7½ per cent. cumulative participating preference shares of £1 as payment for the war indebtedness of the company, which was £1,450,000 advanced on debenture and mortgage. The present Government holding is £500,000 of these shares, which are at present quoted at 12s. 6d. each. No dividends have been declared. In addition the company owes the Government a sum of £50,000. I have no information as to the other questions asked.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in March, 1920, a prospectus was issued by the British Cellulose Company, with the approval of His Majesty's Government, stating that His Majesty's Government had agreed to take £1,450,000 preference shares and to appoint two directors, and also stating that it was possible, from knowledge of the capacity and plant of the company, to estimate on a conservative basis that an annual profit of £1,500,000 would be made, and that very substantial dividends would be declared, and that nine tons of silk per day would be produced; whether he is aware that on these representations the public subscribed £2,800,000; whether he will undertake, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that the State will 502W in future refrain from giving its approval and encouragement to appeals for public money which leave those who respond in the belief that the statements are capable of realisation the victims of financial loss; and whether the Government proposes, in this case, to compensate those who have put their faith in the statements approved by His Majesty's Government?
§ Mr. McNEILLDuring the War a sum of £1,450,000 was advanced by the Government to the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company on debenture or mortgage for extensions of buildings and plant for the purpose of manufacturing large quantities of cellulose acetate, which was urgently required for war purposes. In 1920 the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing (Parent) Company, Limited, issued 4,250,000 7½ per cent. cumulative participating preference shares of £1 each at par. Of these the Government took 1,450,000 fully paid shares in payment of the advances made by the Government on debenture to the company of a like amount, and this fact was clearly shown on the prospectus. The responsibility for the prospectus rested with the issuing house and not with the Government, who did no more than approve the terms in which the prospectus referred to the Government's acceptance of preference shares. As regards the concluding portion of the question, I am unable to agree that approval and encouragement was in fact given in this case to the appeal for public money, and the last part of the question does not therefore arise.