Skip to main content

Post-War Currency Policy

Volume 387: debated on Tuesday 16 March 1943

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

59.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the discussions now going on at the Treasury between His Majesty's Government and the representatives of the United Nations in Europe, in the presence of an observer of the United States of America on the subject of post-war currency, he will give an undertaking that the country will be in no way committed to any change or new system until this House has been fully informed and consulted?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) on Thursday last.

I do not happen to know that reply, but will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no commitment will be entered into without its first coming to this House? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply given to the Question last week by the Leader of the House?

I think my hon. Friend had better look at the reply to which I have referred.

62.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in, connection with the inter-Allied currency conversations, the Government have circulated any memorandum on the subject; and, if so, will a copy of such memorandum be placed in the Library of the House?

It is the intention of the Government in the fairly near future to publish as a White Paper the plan which has been put forward as a basis for discussion on post-war currency arrangements.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that most of what is known as the Keynes memorandum has leaked out in the Press already? Does he not think it proper that a memorandum of this kind should be circulated to Members of this House at least at the same time as it is circulated to the Press?

63.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that the Bank for International Settlements is not intended to play any part in the international post-war currency scheme which is at present under discussion in London by representatives of Allied Governments?

It would be premature to attempt to decide what functions will be performed by the Bank for International Settlements in the post-war world. It plays no part in the scheme which has been put forward as a basis for discussion.

Can the Chancellor give the House an assurance that no conversations, either direct or indirect, are going on with financial representatives of Nazi Germany?