§ Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELThere have recently been a large number of researches into our trade position in the Far East, and commissions have returned telling us some of the reasons why we are not able to sell our goods in competition with other nations in those markets. We have lost trade, and we are told that our goods are too dear. We are also told that one of the factors in the clearness of our goods are the Suez Canal transit dues. It is within the knowledge of the House that hon. Members and I myself also have raised questions about the Suez Canal dues and that we have received various answers from the Foreign Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department. Recently it has been disclosed that the Suez Canal dues amount to 14 per cent. of the gross value of the freights passing through the Canal. That is undoubtedly a handicap upon our goods in favour of Japanese and American goods; because, according to a pamphlet issued by the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association—I have not tested the figures—American goods from the Atlantic ports pass to Eastern markets through the Panama Canal under more advantageous terms than are enjoyed by goods going to the East from Britain and from Europe generally, which have to pass through the Suez Canal.
The company which dominates the Suez Canal is a French company. Representations about the dues have been made by our shipowners from time to time, and not only our shipowners but our manufacturing and exporting houses. We have received help from the British directors on the Board of the Suez Canal, who are not the representatives of His Majesty's Government hut directors representing British shipping and commerce generally on the Board. Recently a deputation of shipowners, and also a deputation of manufacturers represented by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, went to see one of the leading directors of the Suez Canal Company. He received them courteously and 2486 sympathetically and they placed before him their grievances. He said that he would represent their views to a directors' meeting of the Suez Canal Company which would take place on 11th May, and begged that nothing should be done until after that meeting. That meeting has taken place and we who represent British trade, if I may speak on behalf of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and as one who, when my colleagues were in office, was very much interested in trying to help export trade, regret to find that the Suez Canal Company have not seen their way to reduce the transit dues. Moreover, within the last few weeks the coffee growers of the Northern Province of Tanganyika have notified the Joint East African Board that the high dues charged by the Suez Canal were injuring the trade between East Africa and Great Britain and other European countries.
The Suez Canal question now divides itself into two, and I will deal as quickly as I can., because another hon. Member wishes to raise a matter, with certain points which I want to bring before the attention of the Government. In the first place, we want to know what the Government are doing, through their own official directors on the Board, to bring the representations of British shipowners and British exporters before the Suez Canal Company. It is well known that the British Government hold 44 per cent. of the shares in the company, but what is much more important, although it is a point which does not always attract adequate attention is that it is British traders who provide 56 per cent. of the traffic passing through the canal. We do not so much stress the point that we are the owners of 44 per cent. of the capital as that we are the canal's best customers, seeing that we provide 56 per cent. of the traffic. We say that on that account we are entitled to be heard. Shipping is doing badly, and so are the export trades, but the canal company are paying brilliant dividends. The Suez Canal dues affect our shipping much more than the Panama Canal dues affect that of Japan and the United States. Between 1920 and 1929 the Suez Canal dividend has been doubled, and during that period the dues have been reduced only by one-fifth.
2487 I am quite alive to the point, which may be made, that although the dividend is 500 or 600 francs those are paper francs and not gold francs. I hope the hon. Gentleman who replies will not draw my attention to the fact and say that I must not be deceived by thinking they are gold francs. I know quite well they are paper francs—and that their value is affected by the reduction of the value of the franc from 10d. to 2d. I have made investigations into an agreement made in 1883 with the Suez Canal Company, which provided that after a dividend of 25 per cent. has been paid the transit dues should be reduced to five francs gold. They are now 6.65 gold and the dividends are much more than 25 per cent., indeed nearly 50 per cent. It appears to me that this agreement has been broken. I have examined the accounts of the Suez Canal Company, and I find that from 1925–29 inclusive, only 30 per cent. of the revenue was required for working expenses, depreciation, and reserve, and no less than 70 per cent. was available for dividends. I do not consider that that is a fair distribution of the takings of the Canal, and it is not fair treatment to those British people who re the biggest customers. We have been told that repeated requests have been made to the company by responsible representatives of shipping and commerce to have their grievances considered. The Suez Canal Company not many weeks ago replied that the repeated requests render the Canal Company less inclined to reduce their charges. That is a tone and a language that British people do not permit to be used towards them. That is not language which the British will accept without a protest. They do not accept arrogant language. When British people have a grievance they place it before those who are responsible in courteous language. I am sure that the British people will not accept a reply couched in terms of that kind. Those grievances will be repeated both outside and in this House until they are redressed.
We are not singular in making those protests. I heard a statement made here by the Secretary of Stat" for Foreign Affairs a few days ago that no less than six of the great maritime Powers of Europe have protested unofficially to our 2488 Foreign Secretary asking him to assist them in getting their grievance remedied with regard to the high dues which are charged by the Suez Canal. It is said that the dues are being kept high in order to provide big dividends before the concession expires in 1968 or 1969 and extra money must be paid out as dividends to enable shareholders to cover the loss of the capital on the expiration of the concession. That argument has been blown sky high because we have heard this week from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the Suez Canal Company provides a sinking fund for amortising the capital when the concession lapses. I have put this matter as briefly as possible and I hope the representative of the Board of Trade will give me a reply.
On one or two occasions I have put questions about the stores and material" required for the Suez Canal Company. I know that they manage their affairs with great efficiency, and that the officers of the Company do their work extremely well. I know that they require a large amount of material for stores and that cement is one of the articles which they require. I was surprised to hear in answer to a question that not one single ounce of cement had been bought from this country by the Canal Company during the last few years. I want to know how it is that we do not get a better share of the orders of the company for materials. We do not base our plea for better treatment for orders from the Suez Canal Company solely on the ground that we own 44 per cent. of the shares. What I say is that we are the best customers of the Suez Canal Company, because 56 per cent. of the Canal traffic is provided by us. We ought to receive no less than two-thirds to three-quarters of the orders that are going We do not know what time is allowed by the company after issuing its specifications, to permit our people to prepare their tenders and get the goods delivered within the limits of time required by the Canal Company. I heard yesterday that the system is that the specifications are sent to such firms as those to whom the Suez Canal Company may -decide to apply. It sends round to firms in this country notification of its requirements. I do not know whether those notifications are sent on every occasion, nor whether 2489 they are even issued in the English language.
The time has come when all this will have to be altered. We have three able, active and conscientious directors representing the British Government on the Suez Canal Board and I think they should make it their business to obtain, well in advance, all possible information about the goods and materials that the Suez Canal is about to require. The present system consciously or unconsciously—I do not put it any higher than that it may be unconsciously—acts as a clog upon our people getting the orders which they ought to get from the Suez Canal Company. I think that the Department of Overseas Trade, acting through our commercial counsellors in Paris, or through the Foreign Office, should from time to time obtain the specifications from the French Board, and then if they are not in the English language, then the Department of Overseas Trade should have them translated forthwith into English and distributed among Chambers of Commerce, and in trade circles where the goods that are required are likely to be found, so that our people will have the opportunity of getting orders for the canal more easily than is at present the case.
To recapitulate: My first point is, that I hope that the Board of Trade will make a statement that firm representations are being laid before the French Directorate of the Suez Canal Company so as to ensure that the agreement of 1883 shall be respected. My second is, that we should take steps, through the Department of Overseas Trade or the Foreign Office, to obtain specifications, and see that they are delivered to us in good time in the English language, or in French to be translated, so that we can get a better share and our fair share of the orders for materials needed by the canal.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith)I have no reason to complain of the hon. Gentleman's raising this question to-day nor of the tone in which he has submitted it. There is no doubt whatever that this is a very important matter to the shipping interests and to the industries that have to export their goods to parts of the world that necessitate 2490 the ships passing through the Suez Canal. I am not in a position either to challenge or to accept the figure which he quoted of the proportion which the dues represent of the value of the freight. Perhaps, in the light of all the circumstances, there is very strong reason for taking the view that some concession should be made. The difficulty, of course, from the point of view of the Government, is that, while it is perfectly true that we hold 44 per cent. of the shares in the Suez Canal Company, we have not control of that company, nor have we representation on the board itself in proportion to our holding of shares, because the regulations governing the administration of the company limit the voting power of any single owner to 10 votes. I think the House will readily understand that under the constitution of this company the Government have no direct voice in its administration, nor can they go to the company with any authority to demand what might, perhaps, be felt to be desirable in the interests of shipowners and commerce generally.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what the Government had done in this matter, and I think I shall be able to show that, within the limits of our powers and opportunities, we have done everything possible to help in the direction in which he is asking us to move. This question was raised some time ago—and here I am afraid I must say that I am not certain that there is quite that unanimity among shipowners which might be helpful in a matter of this kind—by the Liverpool shipowners, who asked for some concession. When this became an issue, the Department at once communicated with the Chamber of Shipping, asking for their views on the matter as guidance in regard to whatever action the Government might deem it necessary to take. They were not, perhaps, quite so expeditious in replying as one might have hoped, but ultimately we received a communication from them which indicated that they were anxious that the matter should receive favourable consideration.
The House will, of course, understand that this is a matter affecting more Departments than the Board of Trade. The Treasury are interested in this subject, as the Department responsible for looking after the financial side, because, 2491 as regards the interest accruing on the shares that we hold, the question of income to the country is a matter of some importance. After consultation and full consideration of this matter, no difficulty was placed in the path of the ship owners so far as we were concerned, but, on the other hand, it was indicated to the British Government directors on the board that the Government were quite willing that they should support any reasonable proposal for reduction, in order to meet the difficulties of our ship owners and manufacturers of goods involved in this matter. That is as far as the Government can go. They can convey their wishes and desires and views of those who are responsible for the administration on the board itself.
Unfortunately, the board, when it met, came to a decision of an opposite nature, and I do not think there is any dubiety as to what that decision is, in view of the published communication from Lord Inchcape. Here you have the head of a very big and powerful shipping line, a gentleman who can speak with authority, and other gentlemen with him, acting as directors on that board. Lord Inehcape, in a letter to the "Times," indicated that the decision was adverse to any concession, and apparently, judging by the tone of his letter, he was arguing in a way more or less to justify chat decision, by pointing out, as hon. Members will probably be aware, other things that had taken place. It is difficult to see at the moment what more the Government can do in this matter. If our wishes, as indicated in the way I have stated, that the British Government directors should support any reasonable suggestion for reduction, are without effect, it is rather difficult for me to indicate the exact further steps that may be taken in regard to it.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELIs there not the Agreement of 1883? We ought to draw attention to the fact that its terms have not been fulfilled.
§ Mr. SMITHThat is true and it is a point which may, perhaps, warrant some examination but, until it has been examined closely in order to ascertain what the exact effects are and whether there is a case, as appears on the surface, it is difficult to say here exactly what any 2492 line of procedure will be that the Department may deem it necessary to take. It will be examined to ascertain whether anything of that kind is possible. When the dues on ships passing through the Panama Canal are less than in the case of the Suez Canal, and when we know that the cost of construction and the capital involved are vastly different, on the face of it that seems to be a matter calling for very careful consideration.
On the other point, I gave information in an answer during the week. The hon. Gentleman now asks that the matter shall be further considered in order to ascertain whether, in notifying the requirements of the board, if they are submitted in a foreign language, steps will be taken to facilitate the translation or the conveyance to those direcly concerned in some way which will facilitate their opportunities of trade or of obtaining some of these orders. Certainly I will look into the matter to ascertain what is the exact procedure and, if any steps can be taken to help any of our manufacturers to obtain orders, we will do whatever we can to help in that direction.
§ Mr. SAMUELWe have an excellent staff attached to the Department of Overseas Trade in Paris who could very well translate into English.