§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will define the criteria which the Treasury uses to decide the number of years which may be cited for comparison by a public company to satisfy the Treasury that it is conforming to the Treasury's proposed ceiling on dividends.
240Wtion for England, Scotland and Wales is available was as follows:
§ Mr. DiamondI would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 23rd May.—[Vol. 765, c.131–2.]
§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he takes to inform companies which are requested to dishonour published dividend forecasts because of the Government's proposed ceiling on distributions that these requests, and the proposed ceiling, have no legal authority.
§ Mr. DiamondThe Government have made it quite clear on several occasions that the present dividend restraint scheme is voluntary. The Confederation of British Industry has likewise informed its members that that is the case.
§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the 3–7 per cent. increase in total distributions by the Bankers Investment Trust, the 6–6 increase by the English and International Trust, the 7–1 increase by Gilman (Holdings) and the 8 per cent. 241W increase by Young and Company's Brewery are in conformity with the ceiling on dividend distributions; if he will publish the actuarial calculations on which his decision is based; and if he will give an undertaking in each case that he will not interfere with such distributions.
§ Mr. DiamondBankers Investment Trust and English and International Trust are investment trusts. The dividend increase by Gilman (Holdings) was welcome in the context of securing maximum remittances from overseas. The Treasury are in communication with Young and Company's Brewery.