HC Deb 06 August 1925 vol 187 cc1547-8
62. Mr. TAYLOR

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Russian exports and re-exports for the first three months of the current year exceeded Russian imports by £2,528,347; and whether, under the changed circumstances, his Department can now see its way to extend the benefits of the Trade Facilities Acts to Russian British trade?

Mr. SAMUEL

I do not know from what source the hon. Member has obtained his information, but the official returns of the Soviet Government for the first quarter of the year show that, instead of exports exceeding imports, the aggregate value of exports and re-exports from Russia to all destinations amounted in round figures to 65 million roubles, while imports into Russia for the same period amounted to 74 million roubles. The imports, therefore, exceeded the exports and re-exports by 9 million 1913 roubles, which is equivalent to something under one million pounds. The facts as stated in the question seem to be upside down.

As regards the second part of his question, I assume the hon. Member refers to the Export Credits Scheme, and I have nothing to add to the answer given by the Prime Minister on the 1st April to the hon. Member for the Western Isles.

Mr. TAYLOR

Is it not a fact that Russian imports into Great Britain during the first three months of this year were about £5,250,000, and their purchases about £7,000,000? Is that a fact or is it not?

Mr. SAMUEL

That is not the question which the hon. Member previously asked me. If he will put that particular question down, I will, of course, look into the matter, and try to provide the information.

Mr. TAYLOR

Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman disputes the accuracy of the figures in the question? I think it is the hon. Gentleman who has misunderstood the question.

Mr. SAMUEL

It is possible I have misunderstood the hon. Member. But so far as I have been able to trace, I cannot see how the hon. Member has got to these figures. I have worked out the figures, and, as I have said, the hon. Member's deduction from the figures in the question seems to be upside down.