Showing 27 results

Ministry of Economic Warfare.—Responds to Pethick-Lawrence’s comments on his appointment to the Privy Council and his radio broadcast (see 1/196). Has advised Kingsley Wood that Boots ought to be exempted from the purchase tax.

Treasury Chambers.—Explains why he has not reduced the tax on bedding.

Treasury Chambers.—Thanks him for his help with the Finance Bill.

Treasury Chambers.—Will forward Pethick-Lawrence’s letter (see 3/318) and his book A Levy on Capital to the Chancellor (Wood), who is out of London for a few days.

Broomhill Bank, Tunbridge Wells.—Acknowledges the receipt of his letter (see 3/318). Will read his book (A Levy on Capital).

Treasury Chambers.—The Chancellor (Wood) has read A Levy on Capital (see 3/319), and will return it at the first opportunity.

Treasury Chambers.—Thanks him for his letter (congratulating him on his broadcast; see 3/320).

Treasury Chambers.—Pethick-Lawrence’s suggestions about old-age pensions (see 3/322) are being examined.

Treasury Chambers.—Asks Pethick-Lawrence to put down a question in the Commons in order that an error made by the Chancellor (Wood) may be publicly corrected (see 3/323).

Treasury Chambers.—Clarifies details of the figure he quoted, originally in error, based on the formula in the Clearing Union paper.

Treasury Chambers.—Gives details of the savings made to date in the ‘Wings for Victory’ weeks.

Treasury Chambers.—A regulation is to be made to extend the period for which the Treasury can authorise increases in the fiduciary note issue over the statutory amount.

Treasury Chambers.—Acknowledges the receipt of his letter to the Chancellor (Wood) about ‘pay-as-you-go’ tax (see 3/325).

Treasury Chambers.—Has been on holiday. Will be glad to discuss Pethick-Lawrence’s remarks on ‘pay-as-you-go’ when Parliament reassembles.

Treasury Chambers.—Will discuss the US currency proposals with him when Parliament reassembles.

Refers to Wood’s letter (3/304), and emphasises the need ‘to smooth over difficulties during these present anxious days’. Hopes their talk yesterday will lead to a lessening of tension. Sends a copy of his book A Levy on Capital.

Asks for the return of Pethick-Lawrence’s book A Levy on Capital, which was lent to Sir Kingsley Wood last year.

Commends his radio broadcast.

Ask him to consider the financial difficulties of various classes of old people who feel the burden of income tax particularly heavily.

Suggests small concessions which might be made with regard to old-age pensions.

(Question:) What is the theoretical aggregate of the quotas as defined in the clearing union plan, on the assumption that all the United Nations came into the scheme?

(Answer:) The aggregate amounts to 25,000,000,000 dollars, not pounds.

(The note is a carbon copy of a typed original.)

(Question:) Asks for a statement of the exchange rate fixed for the occupied territory of Italy.

(Reply:) States the rate of exchange for the lira in the parts of Italy occupied by Allied forces, and refers to the difficulties in assessing the relevant factors at their proper value.

(The note is a carbon copy of a typed original.)

Offers suggestions about ‘pay-as-you-go’ tax.

12 Buckingham Palace Mansions, Victoria, S.W.1.—Returns thanks for sympathy (on the death of her husband).

Proposes various measures in connection with the War Savings Bill.

—————

Transcript

21st. August. 1940.

Dear Clem,

I had a talk with Kingsley yesterday about the War Savings Bill, and as you probably know we are proposing at the Party Meeting to-day to appoint a small committee to go into this.

As you will remember, this question arose out of the talks that we had with the Policy Committee of the T.U.C. regarding the Keynes plan and the T.U.C. rightly maintained that before they could possibly associate themselves with the recommendation to the workers to save during the war, they must be assured that such savings would not be used when the war was over either by the employers or by the State to reduce the position of the workers.

It is therefore essential in my mind, that it should be new savings and not transferred capital that should form the basis of the Government promise, and any proposal to transform the Bill into a general disregard of all savings, including pre-war, would entirely fail to meet the case though possibly some arrangement might be come to with regard to holdings converted up till last week’s debate.

On the other hand, I am quite sure that the real gravamen of the heat developed in the Labour ranks, is due to our old enemy the Household Means Test, which so long as it remains, will be a constant irritant.

I therefore suggested to Kingsley, that he should seriously consider some gesture with regard to this vital matter and I would like you and he and Arthur to put your heads together to see whether something of this kind could not be done. I am turning over the matter in my own mind. I do not believe that it necessarily need cost a very great deal if it were done on reasonable lines.

I know of course, that the Labour Party have maintained that there ought to be no Means Test of any kind at any rate for Unemployment Assistance, but I do not think that this can be defended either for Unemployment Assistance or for Old Age Pensions. On the other hand, it is humiliating that a member of the household of the applicant should have to undergo a detailed examination of all his resources including savings before the grant to the old person or unemployed living with him, is considered. After the holiday is over, this matter must be faced and dealt with.

I hope you will get something of a change while Parliament is not sitting.

Yours sincerely,
[blank]

Rt. Hon. C. R. Attlee, M.P.,
House of Commons,
S.W.1.

P.S. In turning out my papers & clearing my desk I came across the enclosed which came a few days back. I cannot help feeling it is a most valuable suggestion

—————

The postscript is handwritten.