SUPPLY.

HC Deb 30 May 1940 vol 361 cc708-46

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed: That a sum, not exceeding £297,034, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I was making a passing reference to the part which exports must play in economic warfare. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare present, and I take this opportunity of offering him my congratulations on his appointment. In the matter of economic warfare, I believe there is considerable concern as to whether our export trade is organised on lines which make it capable of meeting German competition. The object of the export trade in this case is to get into markets which Germany now holds or in which Germany is competing with us. If we are to compete with Germany, considering the organisation which Germany has, it is essential that we should have an efficient organisation, and that we should have somebody who is able to go to these markets and clinch the bargain there and then. Consequently, I hope there is a very close relationship between the Department of Economic Warfare, the Board of Trade and the Export Council in dealing with this matter.

The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in speaking in some detail on the possibilities of expanding the export trade, referred to the fact that some of the industries which in the past have helped so materially and considerably in maintaining and developing our export trade cannot now play the part which they used to play because the goods which they produce are required to meet the needs of the country at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the general metal group. It is interesting to note that in 1938 no less than 38 per cent. of our total exports were from the general metal and engineering industries of the country. At the present time, those industries are very heavily engaged in producing goods for the Services, and consequently, they cannot now play their normal part in the export trade. The second largest exporting industry, about which I do not propose to say anything, although I think some of my hon. Friends may speak about it, is the cotton industry, which in 1938 represented no less than 24 per cent. of the total export trade. I was glad to hear that there has been a considerable expansion in the cotton export trade, and I hope that industry will be able to play its part in this very important and serious time.

The third industry which has played a very important part in the export trade is one to which I want to devote my remaining remarks; it is the coal export trade. I am glad to see present the Secretary for Mines. It is my privilege to pay him the tribute which he so richly deserves on his promotion. All those who are his colleagues in the House, and particularly those who are his colleagues in the mining group, look upon his appointment as one of the best appointments made in the formation of the new Government. He brings to his task a wide and deep knowledge of mining problems, and he has the strength of character that is required to do such a job as he is undertaking at this time. We wish him every possible success. I assure him, on behalf of my colleagues, particularly my mining colleagues and my colleagues from Wales, that we wish him all success in his great task. The industry which he is now seeking to organise has a very important part to play.

The President of the Board of Trade gave us some figures of the export trade. The figures that we get officially relate to the value of exports and not to the quantity of exports, and therefore, we are somewhat handicapped in dealing with the matter. I appreciate the reasons for not giving the figures of quantity, although I echo the hope expressed by the hon. Member for South Croydon that the time will come soon when the President of the Board of Trade may be able to give us more information than is given at present. We are at some disadvantage in trying to estimate the part which the coal export trade is now playing, since the only figures we have are those of the value. In the first four months of 1940, the value of coal exports, as indicated by the Board of Trade statistical summary, was £12,250,000, which is just over £1,000,000 more than in the first four months of 1939. One might, therefore, assume that there has been an increase in the export trade in coal during the first four months of this year, compared with the first four months of last year, but all these figures of the value of exports have to be related to changes in the price level. Consequently, my estimate is that this increase of £1,000,000 in the value of coal exports during the first four months of this year indicates not an increase in coal exports, but probably a reduction, if account be taken of the increased price level. In the first four months of 1940, instead of playing an increasing part in the great task which the country has in increasing the export trade, the coal industry has probably played a smaller part.

The Secretary for Mines has only just started on his job, and in these days we seek to avoid wasteful controversy, but I want to make this remark. Eight months have passed since the beginning of the war and in many spheres of Government those eight months have been very woefully wasted. I feel that all my friends from the mining industry will agree with me when I say that they have been woefully wasted in the mining industry. In the early days of the war, the then Secretary for Mines met hon. Members for mining constituencies and told them of the plans which the Department had prepared and of which the War Cabinet had approved. He said that the Government required that the production of coal should be increased by 30,000,000 tons a year above the level of previous years, meaning that it was to be raised from 240,000,000 tons to 270,000,000. He said that he wanted the full co-operation of the industry in the task of reaching that increased output. I can say that he received from all parts of the industry the fullest possible co-operation, but the fact of the matter is that little or nothing was done during that period to carry out such a programme. It is only during the last month or two, and particularly during the last week or two, that a real beginning has been made in facing the problem. In view of the considerations put forward by the President of the Board of Trade and the fact that a number of commodities which we have exported in the past are now being diverted to home production, it is obvious that if we are to increase exports it is essential that we should increase coal exports. Therefore, I express the hope that now this job will be really tackled. Before concluding I want to put forward one or two considerations on this matter which I know the Secretary for Mines will bear in mind.

The Chairman

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member unnecessarily, but I must remind the Committee that the Mines Vote is not on the Paper to-day and is not under discussion. I realise that all that the hon. Member has been saying related to exports, but I put it to the Committee that the discussion must not be carried into details of matters coming under the Mines Vote.

Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)

Further to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, may I point out that it will be extremely difficult for hon. Members who wish to speak to make a distinction between what is needed in re-organising the coal trade and the export aspect of the coal trade, because both relate to the same industry. It seems to me that it will be difficult to make any intelligent observations on the coal export trade unless we are permitted to discuss the organisation of the coal trade as a whole.

The Chairman

Perhaps the hon. Member will not find the difficulties as great as he expects.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I intended to speak solely on the problem of the export side of the mining industry. I understand that the Export Council which has been set up has supervision over the coal export trade, and that the coal industry is represented on it. I want to put to the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines one or two considerations which I consider to be very important. If the export trade is to play its full part in the great effort of the nation, it is obvious that often, particularly in the matter of economic warfare, exports will have to be disposed of at uneconomic prices. I want to ask a question which applies particularly to the mining industry. If that is to be done, who is to carry the burden of that effort? I speak with considerable knowledge of what has taken place in past years. The export trade of this country has had to meet the organised and subsidies competition of Germany and other countries. It has had to meet that competition but of its own resources, and the consequence has been that the export areas of the country have paid a terrible price in maintaining the export trade.

The export trade in an industry such as mining is isolated in certain areas, such as South Wales, Northumberland and Durham, where the pits are close to the coast. During the last 50 or 60 years, there has been a division of areas, some concentrating on exports and some concentrating on the home market; and the export districts have carried a tremendous burden. If the export trade is to play its part and if, in doing so, it is to make a sacrifice on prices, are arrangements now being made for that burden to be carried by the whole of the industry or the whole of the nation? I urge that the burden should not be thrown upon those men who are immediately engaged in that part of the trade concerned with exports. That is very important. For years the men engaged in the export trade have paid in unemployment, low wages and bad conditions for carrying on and maintaining our export trade. We realise the price we have paid in coming to the rescue of the export trade when it was fighting for its life. We now have to make extra efforts to maintain and expand that export trade which is so essential to the success of the nation's effort.

A further point which I want to make, particularly in regard to the coal export trade, is that wherever we gain new markets every effort should be made to consolidate the gain. I hope that, as far as possible, we shall strain every nerve to avoid the sort of expansion of the export trade which will be a boomerang at the end of the war. We have had that before in the coal industry and in other trades. In the last war senseless things were done. Prices were raised to senseless levels, and in some markets the price was 15 guineas a ton. We paid for that in the end, and in the last analysis the men paid terribly for it.

I hope that this great drive to win new export markets will be more efficiently organised than the effort which was made in the last war, that it will be centrally controlled and directed, and that full consideration will be given, as regards prices and terms of agreement, whether in the form of barter or in any other form, to the necessity of consolidating every position that we gain. I hope that we shall not allow the export districts to suffer again, as they suffered at the end of the last war. Exports can play a great part in economic warfare, but we must at all times have in mind the necessity for consolidating our gains. I also ask that the men who are engaged in the export industries should be given a square deal now. Is it not possible for the War Cabinet to say to these men, "If you put your backs into this job now, if you do your best to help in the expansion of the export trade, we will give you an undertaking that at the end of the war you will not be allowed to suffer the things which you suffered at the end of the last War? If that undertaking were given, I am sure that the men engaged in those industries would be ready to play their full part in helping this great national drive.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Higgs (Birmingham, West)

I also wish to congratulate the Minister on the very excellent speech which he made in opening this Debate. The subsidisation of export goods by other countries has gone, but we have still competition to meet. We have still the United States, Italy and Japan competing against us, and our greatest difficulty with regard to export at the present moment is the fixing of prices on large contracts. It is impossible under normal conditions to execute these contracts under from three to six months. To-day, owing to the demand on the industries concerned—and unfortunately the export industries clash with the munitions industry—it may be one or two years before we can execute the orders, and it is impossible to quote fixed prices. To set against that, there is the deterioration of the exchange, but, unfortunately, our exchange has not deteriorated as greatly in relation to the countries to which we export as in relation to those countries from which we import.

The Government, undoubtedly, must help those who are willing to help themselves, but I find, generally, that exporters are not normal unless they complain about the Government. Within the last 12 months, the Federation of British Industries, an organisation of which I happen to be a member, and for which I have a very great respect, issued a pamphlet on the difficulties of the export trade. It was a pamphlet of from four to six pages, and there was not one suggestion in it of what the exporter could do to increase exports. It was a criticism of the Government all the way through. It is up to the exporter to do his share, when the Government do their share. The export problem is definitely divided into two sections, namely, that in which the Government can assist and that which the industry itself can do. Payment is often the deciding factor as to whether an exporter will or will not take on a particular contract. One of the Government's functions is to assist the exporter to get his money. We have the Export Credit facilities arrangement, and I consider that that department of the Government's activities is not sufficiently well known. The Export Credits Department is responsible for only 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of our exports. I feel convinced that if the Department of Overseas Trade made this branch of its work and these facilities better known, more exports would be achieved. Six months ago the Department of Overseas Trade sent round a letter. They were very surprised to find that certain firms did not know of the existence of a Department of Overseas Trade. Therein, I suggest, the Government are at fault for not having let traders know of the existence of that Department and the facilities which it offers to exporting houses.

Tariffs, trade agreements and barter agreements are other problems with which the Government have to deal. The war has, undoubtedly, cemented more firmly together the Commonwealth of Nations. Cannot we take advantage of this fact at this time, in order to get some reduction of tariffs as between the various nations which form the Commonwealth? Some time ago it was suggested that an effort should be made to institute free trade between this country and New Zealand. Nothing came of the suggestion. Probably it went rather too far, but surely it would be possible to do something at present with regard to tariff barriers which would considerably facilitate overseas trade. We have the greatest bartering power in the world for our overseas trade. Before the war, the United Kingdom took all the world export of eggs and cheese. It took nearly all the mutton, bacon, ham and pork exports, and three-quarters of the world export of beef. When one firm is doing business with another, one of the most important factors to be taken into consideration is that of contra-business, and if we have contra-business with those other nations, we are in a position to make better arrangements for our exports than those nations which are not doing such business. The reply may be made that a number of those opportunities have now gone, where various nations have been conquered by Germany. On the other hand, there is a lot of trade left, and it is to a great extent our own fault if we are not getting it.

I have had the experience of interviewing our various trade commissioners throughout the world. I agree that they are very efficient, but they are not, I think, as efficient as those of other countries. I have always thought when I have visited foreign countries that the United States and Germany—particularly Germany—had greater Government organisations overseas than we had. They are able to provide information, and they seem to be more efficient. I think we should improve our administration very considerably in this respect. Our overseas trade seems to be carried on by men who emigrated from this country 30 years ago. They are the people who are now selling goods on our behalf, whereas the competing nations are sending out men to these countries now, and that is what we have to do too. Above all, we should encourage employers themselves to go out to these countries. It is the man who carries the bag who actually sells the goods. All the shouting in this country and the forming of groups and so forth may be very good, but that will not sell the goods. It is the man on the spot in the oversea country who does the actual business.

Another suggestion that I make is that we should, when conditions permit, encourage the education of foreign students in this country. The United States, Italy, Germany, Japan have all been doing this intensively for the last few years, but we have fallen back in this respect. We failed to take advantage of the opportunities when they existed. I have had a report from the British Chamber of Commerce in Brazil which shows that in that country during the years from 1932 to 1938, Germany increased her trade 5½ times; Japan increased her trade seven times; the United States increased her trade 60 per cent., and Great Britain increased her trade 7 per cent. The point is that we are not supplying the goods which that country wants, and very often our prices are not right and we have not the right selling organisation. We want to impress people in those countries, but the mere fact of getting those people interested will not sell the goods, unless we send the right people over there to interview them. The problem is exactly the same as that of selling at home. Personal contact is necessary. The merchant has played a very important part in developing our overseas trade, but the problem to-day is not one of selling shoes and socks and electric lamps and so forth. The problem is one of selling shoe-making machinery, knitting machinery, lamp-making machinery and so forth. That is the sort of thing we have to sell—the machinery to make the commodity, rather than the commodity itself.

Mr. Tomlinson (Farnworth)

That is what was said in Lancashire 25 years ago.

Mr. Higgs

Unfortunately, we are not at the present moment manufacturing those particular machines as efficiently as other nations. In 1938, there was a decline in our overseas trade, but there was an increase in the case of two industries—the vehicles industry and the electricity industry. If those two industries can compete, then other industries can compete equally well, if we have the will to do so. Self-help is the thing that is necessary, and if we look for trouble we are bound to find it. The export trade will not be built up and maintained by talking at home. When people talk of exporting to foreign countries and to the Dominions, it should be remembered that there is no earthly good, for instance, in appointing an agent in Toronto to work also in Montreal. On the map, the two cities may appear comparatively close, but they are totally different. That shows the necessity for some person going out to the country and becoming conversant with the conditions there before agents are appointed. We have also the case of Montevideo and Buenos Aires. Those two cities are 120 miles apart, yet it is usual with firms to appoint an agent in Buenos Aires to work also in Montevideo. They are entirely different cities in different nations. Those methods will never work. That kind of thing must be taken into account before we can develop our overseas trade in the manner which is so necessary.

Selling goods overseas often costs less than selling goods at home. We have to remember that at the present moment, with taxation as high as it is, travelling expenses are a charge upon industry. Here is an excellent opportunity of which firms who are anxious to develop their overseas trade can take advantage, by allowing the Government to foot the bill. It is, however, essential to supply the goods which the importing country wants. I came across a case about 12 months ago—it was before the war—which showed that the Germans were then exporting egg-cups to India. They had got the trade, and the only reason why they got the trade was because they had found that the Indian egg is slightly smaller than the ordinary egg in these countries. They then made a cup of smaller size for that particular trade. A little thing like that may often be a deciding factor. Whatever speeches may be made here, unless we actually do the job we shall not develop export trade as other nations are doing. Germany is adapting her products to suit the various markets of the world, and we must do the same. This country exports hardly any road-making machinery, agricultural machinery, air-conditioning plant, optical measuring instruments, dental equipment, wireless sets or articles of that kind. The difficulty with the manufacturer at the present moment is that of delivery. The Air Ministry comes along and worries him to deliver; the Ministry of Supply worries him to deliver. Then he gets his export order, and no one worries him about it, with the natural result that the export order falls into the background. To-day the export of certain commodities is easier than it has been for a considerable time, because of the shortage of German supplies which are now cut off from the markets of the world. It is the Government's job to help manufacturers and to give them permission and assistance to export certain percentages of their products. They must help the small firms and encourage and inspire the larger firms. My concluding remark is that, whatever practical assistance the Government can give, it is the manufacturer himself, if he has the will and the desire, who can do far more to help our export trade.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Richards (Wrexham)

I should like to pay my tribute to the President of the Board of Trade for the very clear way in which he made his statement to the House. I was very glad that, amongst other things, he visualised the importance of foreign trade in relation to the life of this nation. We must all remember that. Foreign trade is of essential importance for the existence of this nation and is a permanent factor in its life. What we must do is to improve the position as far as we can. I cannot help feeling that there is a great deal of apathy in this country on this question because we are wedded to the idea of the in- evitability of victory. We all believe that victory is inevitable because of our considerable superiority over our enemy in the economic field, but victory in this field, as in other fields, will not come without a great deal of organisation. Our economic resources must be mobilised and deployed in the same way as are our military resources.

It is rather interesting to contrast our attitude towards this question with that of our enemy. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) the formidable character of our enemy, both in the economic, and in the military field. Our enemy has a different economic philosophy which has now become well known—it is the philosophy of economic self-sufficiency, or autarchy, as the name is sometimes used. The Germans argue that it should be the ideal of every nation to be self-sufficient, and the quarrel they have with us is that we have restricted their activities to the extent that they do not feel they are self-sufficient. Their claim is for elbow room by which they hope to attain economic self-sufficiency. I will not enter into the question of how much elbow room will satisfy Germany, although, as I have said, that is clearly their object in the economic field. No great nation, their leader has said, is either free, independent or sovereign so long as it is dependent on the foreigner from the economic standpoint. That means they must have recourse to goods indispensable to their life. Our attitude is very different from that of the Germans. We have always relied upon inter-dependence—I do not think anybody has ever preached the doctrine of complete economic independence so far as this country is concerned. We have always believed in economic inter-dependence, and, as a result, we have been able to use our resources, as a great industrial nation, to the fullest extent and become one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade is well aware of the traditional approach to this very important question. We want to encourage our dependence upon other people so that we can encourage their dependence for trade purposes upon ourselves. Only an industrial nation, I think, can become a wealthy nation, and that we should keep clearly in mind. We have been able to exploit our own resources, and, incidentally, in doing so we have exploited the resources of other nations. The only way we have done that is by our trade. That is very interesting in view of what has been said about making this country self-sufficient in food. We all agree that that is impossible. Despite the admirable attempt which has been made to increase our food production, no one has ever suggested that we could be self-sufficient. For example, together with Ireland we produced 10,000,000 quarters of wheat in 1938, whereas we needed 28,000,000 quarters, which is about three times as many quarters as we can grow in this country. The position in France is very different. We are able to import food cheaply, not because the returns per acre in other countries, Canada, or the Argentine, are as good as in this country—in Canada, for example, 13 bushels per acre are produced as against 37 in this country—but because they can produce wheat at a cheaper cost. We are very wise in importing as much food as we can from these countries. It must also be remembered that they are very anxious to import our own commodities and, therefore, from the economic point of view, we should be in a very strong position. It is better to import commodities which can be produced more cheaply in other countries than to try to produce them ourselves.

Another point is that we have no alternative at the present time. We are in a worse position than in 1914–18, when we had a considerable amount of American securities. We had about £3,000,000,000 or £4,000,000,000 at that time, but a great many of our securities were disposed of in paying for the raw material we required in those fateful years. We were left with about £1,000,000,000. Another point to be remembered is that before 1914 we exported a great deal of capital. It is estimated that we exported something like £180,000,000 a year compared with a figure of about £30,000,000 at the present time. Consequently we have no means of paying for those things we require, and we are driven to the only alternative which remains, and that is to export. Exports are vital to the life of this nation because we can no longer obtain credits in the United States. By the Neutrality Act America has now a cash and carry basis upon which it does its business. To import those things so necessary for victory we must, to an increasing extent, rely upon our exports.

The question which arises is, where are we to export? That question should be analysed from the standpoint of the future as well as from the standpoint of the present. We have driven the Germans off the sea, and the corollary should be to drive them out of the markets of the world. Obviously, they cannot export because they have not the means of communicating between their country and the world, and we should make a dead set upon Germany's trade with a view to securing it, not only for the present, but for the future. If we analyse German trade we find that out of a total export of £262,000,000, three-fifths went to the neighbouring countries of Germany. We cannot very easily get at those countries at the present time; but some £105,000,000 was exported to various countries outside the immediate sphere and influence of Germany. To the Mediterranean she exported £20,000,000; £17,000,000 to this country; £7,000,000 to the United States; £29,000,000 to Central America and £12,000,000 to Asia.

That seems to me to point to an interesting opportunity for British trade to expand. I do not know that we can do very much at present in the Mediterranean, but we ought to be able to do a great deal among the South American Republics, which formerly took a total of £29,000,000 from Germany. These South American countries are finding themselves for a second time in a quandary on account of a European war. German traders were gradually and effectively pushing their way into their markets before the late war. Then the war broke the economic connection between them and Germany, with the result that other competitors got in, particularly America. At the outbreak of the present war Germany was gradually regaining its trade, and for a second time the economic connection between the South American countries and Germany has been broken. I believe that they are finding themselves in a very sorry position. For example, the Argentine had made a barter agreement with Germany before the war to be supplied with railway engines and to supply meat in return. Now the engines are not available, and the Argentine has the meat on its hands. In another case there was an arrangement for electrical machinery on a considerable scale to be delivered in exchange for meat and wool. Now the machinery has not been delivered, and for the second time within a quarter of a century the South American republics find themselves in considerable difficulty because they want these things in order to develop their country.

It is a splendid opportunity for British merchants to step in and take the trade from the Germans. Our keenest rivals will, of course, be the Americans, who are next door and claim to have some economic right over these people. The exports from these countries, however, are not exactly the things that the Americans want. They do not want the meat and the wool, and they particularly do not want the coffee and other commodities. Consequently, there is a difficulty in their trading together, because America has an overflow of the commodities that the South American countries have to offer. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he might, although the Board of Trade may have done it already, carefully analyse the trend of German trade before the war and see whether we cannot step in and take that trade as a permanent thing for ourselves.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Levy (Elland)

I want to deal with a constituency point, but before doing so I want to offer my tribute to the President of the Board of Trade for his speech. I remember his saying on one occasion that he felt a little nervous in facing a critical House of Commons. He was particularly nervous, I thought, one day when he addressed a Committee upstairs. When I listened to the verbal testimonials and the bouquets that have been handed to him to-day I thought he must have felt that he was in a mutual admiration society rather than in the House of Commons. I am sure, however, that they were all very well deserved.

Mr. Bevan

The right hon. Gentleman has not expressed his admiration for us at all.

Mr. Levy

Not up to the moment. While we are congratulating one another, may I say that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) made a very lucid, forceful and interesting speech? When my right hon. Friend was addressing the Committee upstairs on the export trade, I called his attention to an interesting point which concerns my constituency. They are large exporters of textiles, and I think it would be true to say that having regard to the Excess Profits Tax and so on, the Government are 75 per cent. sleeping financial partners—sleeping, that is, in so far as they are not active except in dealing with finance. The merchants or manufacturers in this trade have to go out and find their own custom and obtain their own orders. I have yet to hear that the Government have obtained any orders for the export trade which they have passed on to any of the manufacturers in my constituency.

One firm to which I called my right hon. Friend's attention is a large export manufacturing concern which deals mostly with the Middle East. There for many months, owing to exchange difficulties, the procedure with regard to payments was by means of two sets of clearing houses, one in the Middle East and one in this country, which dealt with a barter exchange. This firm sent to the Middle East, as they have done twice a year for the last 50 or 60 years, and obtained an order in Sofia worth £60,000. A question arose about payment. By the Export Credit facilities, the firm could ensure under certain sets of conditions up to 75 per cent., or even 90 per cent. There was a difficulty, however. Having obtained the order, the manufacturer goes home and has to enter into commitments for the raw material with which to carry out the order, and he has to pay wages during the manufacture. If he does not ship the order because of any international difficulty, the goods, which are of a specialised character, become a total loss on his hands, because there is no other market for them. If he ships them, he has to insure up to 75 per cent., subject to getting payment on the barter basis the other side. If he manufactures the goods at a profit, and is able to ship them and to get payment, he will get only 25 per cent. of the profits, because the Government are a sleeping partner to the tune of 75 per cent. Why should the manufacturer face a 100 per cent. risk for a 25 per cent. profit while the Government take no risk for a 75 per cent. profit?

The hon. Member for South Croydon talked of delay. I have been in touch with the Board of Trade about this problem for months, and it was not until my right hon. Friend came to his present position and his attention was called to it that action seems to have been taken. As I understood him, an insurance arrangement has now been come to and will be brought into operation to-morrow. I would like to know how it will operate. If a manufacturer takes an order, is he to be supplied with any money to enable him to meet his commitments in the purchase of raw material, or will he not get any money advanced until shipment? I feel sure that, if my right hon. Friend will explain the procedure as lucidly as he is able to do and the exporting industries thoroughly understand it, it will be a stimulus to the export trade. The firm to which I referred came back with a full order book from Turkey, but, owing to the international situation and the fact that they could not afford to enter into commitments for raw material, they were unable to complete the orders. The export textile trade in my constituency is practically stopped—and properly stopped, because no managing director or chairman of a company can afford to pay such a risk with his shareholders' money. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up, to be as clear and concise as possible—and nobody can be clearer or more concise—so that the general public will be fully aware of the Export Credit facilities and so that manufacturers can go out and take orders from different parts of the world as we desire them to do.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)

The House in these days is usually very empty and extraordinarily listless. Our reason, of course, is that our anxieties are elsewhere. There is another reason to which the Committee will have to pay some attention. We are speaking under great limitations and restraint and are unable to be as frank as is necessary in these grave times. If our discussions are to be intelligent, and if we are to give to the nation the services of which hon. Members are capable, we shall have to ask for private Sessions much more frequently in order that we may be able to talk more frankly. There are many things that lots of us want to say, and we cannot say them. It is no use our saying them to Ministers, because they very often relate to general policy. I do not want to trail my coat before the Chair, but I should like to point out that in these days we are rather more exempt from the limitations of debate than formerly. The General Powers Act has conferred upon the Government powers so wide that I submit, with all respect, that the Chair is estopped from saying that we cannot discuss certain matters. Hon. Members who have been worried about Supply days need not be worried at all, because they can be days of general discussion.

The point that I am making is that it is impossible for us to have discussions such as we ought to have, surveying the whole range of industry, unless we can do so with comparative freedom. The Government have been in office for two weeks and like my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) I felicitate them upon the way in which they have set about their task. The personnel has been improved enormously. But the main case we had against the other Government was not merely that they were a poor lot themselves, but that they were adopting a very poor policy. I would rather have a bad man with a good policy than a good man with a bad policy. Many of my hon. Friends have crossed the Floor, but that is no good to us unless their principles have crossed with them. We do not want the principles of those on the opposite side to cross over to here.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

I thought we were discussing the policy of the Board of Trade and not principles crossing the Floor of the House.

Mr. Bevan

The hon. Member has always discussed trade without any principles at all. I am anxious to introduce a few principles into the discussion.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)

I think we had better discuss export trade rather than principles.

Mr. Bevan

If it were possible to discuss export trade without any principles at all, I should be delighted to hear the speech. It is necessary for us to discuss upon what principles the export trade is to be organised, because otherwise we shall be talking more foolishness than usual. We ought to ask the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines how they envisage their tasks, because the case against the Government for the last eight months has been not merely that they themselves have been deficient in personal qualifications for the job but have set about it in the wrong way.

It is no use our deceiving ourselves: the position of the enemy has enormously improved. It is impossible for Germany to occupy Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Belgium, Holland, Norway and Denmark without bringing under the control of the Nazis a much greater economic organisation than they had before. In many respects the Germans have been considerably advantaged by their recent conquests, and we may as well admit it. Germany has been financing herself and supplying herself, like an old medieval army, by loot, to a very large extent, and when she comes to stabilise and consolidate her conquests—I hope only temporary—she will have at her disposal raw materials which she did not have before and be able to withhold from us raw materials to which we formerly had access. We shall need to put forth immense exertion and energy if we are to win, as win we shall, but we shall not win if we do not put forth that energy. It is no use, when talking about the disasters which have befallen, to say that we had disasters in the last war and yet we won, as though disasters provide the blue prints of victory. Disaster was never a recipe for victory.

I do not think there is any lack of machinery at the disposal of the President of the Board of Trade. He has so many boards and committees, consultative and otherwise, that they are like a barbed-wire entanglement about the Department, as they are about all the other Government Departments. They remind me of the old Western town in America. When you went down the main street it looked most impressive, but most of the buildings had false fronts, and if you looked behind them, there was nothing there. A great deal of what the Government have been doing in the last eight or nine months has been simply building up an impressive facade, empty gesticulation, with no principle of action involved.

One of the defects under which we suffer in comparison with our opponents is that the House of Commons is discussing trade and economic organisation when they are not the responsibility of this House but are the personal private responsibility of hon. Members who sit opposite. A great many of the homilies which we hear on these occasions should be directed not to hon. Members here, who have no power here to deal with these matters, but to hon. Members who are in charge of businesses. I suggest that if we are to win the war, we shall have to adopt unorthodox, experimental and imaginative methods. It is no use boggling over the swallowing of our prejudices and principles, because we shall have to do it. Consider the organisation of the coal export trade. I shall speak with great frankness, because I think it is our duty to do so, provided we can do it without giving away information. My hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines is engaged in a great production drive, because we cannot increase coal exports unless we can provide sufficient coal for home needs and export as well. We had experience of that in the last war. So far the Government have not the economic control which they had in the last war—nothing like it. They have general powers, but if those general powers are to be used only for control, and not as instruments of direct action, very often they will fail. The Government will find themselves involved in a morass of conscious or, more often still, unconscious sabotage by the interests that should be marshalled into line.

That is true of no industry more than of the coal industry. In the last war, although the mining industry was under strict Government control, mineowners in many cases deliberately sabotaged the production of coal by leaving good seams undeveloped and exploiting less productive seams, and there is no guarantee that they will not do it again. The personnel of the coal industry owes its first allegiance to the coal industry. If we have only control of the industry, then when the war is over the industry will go back to the coal owners. The managerial and administrative staffs will pay much more attention to the point of view of the coal owner who can dismiss them than to the point of view of the State, which is far away. We shall have in industries which are brought under control a divided allegiance, and divided allegiance is never good anywhere.

How are we to do this job properly? The only way to get this basic industry properly organised, first from the point of view of the production of coal, and then from the point of view of its distribution and export, is to bring the mining industry at once not merely under State control but under State ownership. I am not advancing that view because it is part of the political creed with which we on this side are associated, but because we shall not get the maximum effort out of this nation unless we adopt methods of that kind, that is to say, unless we have direct action and not indirect action such as is involved in the work of these innumerable boards and consultative committees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly has pointed out, the organisation of the export of coal is fraught with almost insurmountable difficulties. So long as the burden of maintaining the export of coal falls unequally upon different parts of the country, and unequally upon different coalowners in the same part of the country, we are creating unnecessary difficulties in organising it.

Why not cut through the jungle by bold action? The Government have the power, and I am certain that the people outside, who have lost a great many of their prejudices in the last few months and will lose many more in the months to come, will not tolerate seeing the utilisation of our coal resources handicapped through the failure of the Government to use the power which has been given to them. The Government are using their power against labour, and we expect it to be used against property, but we shall not expect it to be used against property merely because it is desirable to nationalise property. They should consider the matter empirically. They should bring under State ownership at once those basic industries which produce a simple, standardised product and can be easily organised, and discuss the compensation to be paid for them after the war is over.

Sir William Wayland (Canterbury)

And we should get less coal.

Mr. Bevan

My hon. Friend is now speaking out of the depth of his prejudice and not of his knowledge.

Sir W. Wayland

Out of my experience.

Mr. Bevan

We do know what we are talking about. If you bring personal acquisitiveness into conflict with State interests, you will not have carried out effectively—

Sir W. Wayland

You will never get the same energy put in by civil servants as you get from the coalowners.

Mr. Bevan

Is that the point of view which is going to dominate the policy? That is the limping, halting, muddled view which has brought the country to its present pass. It is the reliance upon outworn theories of that kind which has brought us to this position, which is so bad that we dare not discuss it. Hon. Members opposite will have to answer to the people before very long for what they have done in this matter. I wish it were now. We cannot deny ourselves the right of bringing these matters to the notice of the Committee merely because our representatives are in the Government. We believe that an intelligent, scientific and economic organisation of our resources is bound up with the adoption of principles of that kind. You have, on the Government Front Bench, Liberals, Socialists, Conservatives of various shades and Independents; and, frankly, the Government must decide what their motif is to be, what melody they are going to play. It is no good bringing a hockey team, an Association football team and a cricket team together and asking them to play water polo. The Government have to decide in what direction they will go.

I submit to the Committee that the only way in which the Government can do this job effectively is by bringing under their immediate and direct authority a sort of vertebra of the country, around which we can subsequently clothe the living flesh of dynamic action; but you will not be able to do that if you use the antiquated methods of the last war. I sometimes think—although one does not like to say these things—that it is almost a pity that we won that war because to-day we have almost an imitation of what happened in the last war. Our enemy has imitated nothing of what happened in the last war because he lost it, and one of the advantages he has is that he is bringing to all his problems a modern mind and is adopting modern methods, combined with imaginative drive. I do not know what the rest of my hon. Friends are thinking, but I believe that increasing pressure will be brought to bear upon the Government by us, and by overriding necessity, that they shall use the powers they have to bring about an effective economic organisation.

I should like to say one thing more before I sit down. Not only in the production but in the sale and distribution of coal something will have to be done. We cannot face another winter with the monstrous price exactions that are now going on, such as 80s. a ton. It is an outrage on our great cities and is wastage of labour. Our people are being bled by parasites who are peddling coal everywhere. The time has come to use the powers with which this House has endowed the Government, not only in order that they might have a club in their hand when discussing matters with business men, but in order to be able to bring the club down on the heads of those who have proved their incapacity in the past to organise these things, with the aim of letting the State handle them direct. The Government can thus prove to the country that they are prepared to let nothing stand in the way of pursuing the common aim, and of bringing fresh heart to our people.

6.34 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed (Bucks, Aylesbury)

I rise to put only one point before the President of the Board of Trade. I have ventured to put it before, and I would not repeat it now but for the fact that on the earlier occasion we did not have the advantage of his presence among us. I think I am the only man in this House who represents that person of paramount importance, the overseas buyer. Nearly all Members of this House are linked with production or with selling, but I spent a good part of my life as an overseas buyer of goods costing many hundreds of thousands of pounds, including electrical, transportation and hydraulic machinery. When the overseas buyer has to decide where he shall place his order, what is the dominating factor? It is price. Members of this Committee will make a fatal mistake if they think that the great engineering and other trades of this country have a monopoly of quality. We have very severe and efficient competitors in those trades. Sentiment may come in to a certain extent, but, after all, we like to put our orders in the places from which we came and with those with whom we have been associated in the businesses with which we grew up. After all is said and done, the determining factor, except in a very limited field, will always be price, and I would in all earnestness ask hon. Gentlemen opposite who have so much at stake in this matter to consider the influence of their proposal on the prices of the articles which they and we have to sell against very fierce competition throughout many other parts of the world.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) very briefly touched on a matter in what I may call a fresh-air speech, and I venture to reinforce it in passing. The point is, what is to be the influence of Government action in enormous purchases of munitions upon the prices of the manufactured products of our export trade, which we have to sell in the open market against competitors such as I have been up against in my own trade? We have to consider also the effect of the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax on those prices. In theory, not a Member of this Committee does not welcome the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax, but it can be the most disastrous and expensive procedure in the history of industry and economics unless it is carefully watched. That necessary but costly business of the production of munitions may have a reflex action upon the other branches of industry which have to go out into competitive export markets. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to keep those considerations before his mind, amid his many other important preoccupations in the policy which he pursues in the general direction of our industry and trade.

6.38 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

I apologise to the Committee for the condition of my voice, but I would not like this Debate to conclude without taking the opportunity to pay a tribute to the wonderful work which the President of the Board of Trade has done since he undertook his present office. The organisation of the Export Council, and the way in which he has carried out the organisation of the various groups, constitutes a new economic outlook in the life of this nation. Having something to do with the industry and export trade of this country, I would like to say that we feel, throughout the whole industrial and commercial community, that we now have at the Board of Trade somebody with a constructive purpose devoted to the expansion of our trade, and with a more enlightened view of the possibilities and the responsibilities of that trade than—I say with the greatest respect—any of his predecessors. We live in very difficult times. The speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), whose enthusiasm and fervour we all admire because of the energy he displays everywhere and which he brings from the mountains of Wales, was, I thought, a little unkind to my hon. Friend who has just taken charge of the Mines Department. We have the greatest confidence in the efficiency and the capacity of the new Secretary for Mines to deal with its problems.

Mr. Bevan

I am entitled to say that, so far from making strictures upon my hon. Friend, I most unusually paid him compliments. Moreover, if there were strictures, I fancy he would rather have my strictures than the hon. Gentleman's plaudits.

Sir P. Hannon

I leave that to the Minister himself to decide, but I thought the gist of the speech of the hon. Member was that much more energy and enthusiasm should be put into the production of coal, both for home consumption and export. I am content to leave the development of that great enterprise in the hands of the Secretary for Mines. The export trade of this country is in a very difficult position, but the figures given this afternoon by the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) indicate that we have maintained our position despite very great competition. However, there is a little more to be done. We are, at this moment, appropriating throughout the country raw material for articles produced for home consumption which should be still more restricted and retained, in the first place, for munitions and, secondly, for export. I am concerned with various enterprises in engineering, and I would ask the President of the Board of Trade that not one pound of steel in these embarrassing days should be devoted to any article of production for the home market if it can be employed in providing munitions of war or in making goods for the export trade. Why are we appropriating steel in these days for the making of pots, pans and things of this kind?

Mr. Ellis Smith

And cinemas.

Sir P. Hannon

Why should raw materials be appropriated for anything except the provision of munitions of war to support our splendid Fighting Services or for the export trade? I hope that, in the exercise of the power which he now enjoys in that post, and in the fulfilment of the vision which he has brought to bear in that office, the President of the Board of Trade will keep that consideration before his mind. I spent a couple of nights last week in the works in which we make munitions of war, and I would ask the Committee to realise that midnight work does not contribute very much to healthy exposition during the afternoon in this Committee. I apologise to the Committee that I am not able to speak in the way that I should have liked to have addressed them. I am satisfied that the President of the Board of Trade enjoys the full confidence of the industrial community of this country. Every trade organisation with which I am in any way associated has the fullest regard for his broad, generous and sympathetic outlook in the development of trade. He can have with him, in the exercise of his responsibilities, and in taking advantage of the opportunities presented to him, the heartfelt sympathy and support of the whole industrial community.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson (Lancaster, Farnworth)

I have listened this afternoon to various expositions on economics, and I think I may pride myself on knowing little or nothing about it, but it seems strange, in discussing a subject like this, with something at the back of our minds upon which we are all intent, that people should be concerned particularly about retaining the privileges which have been theirs in the past, and with seeking to safeguard interests which, in comparison with those we have in mind and are seeking to further, are as nothing. Yet time and again in the speeches which have been made this afternoon I detected a feeling that whatever must be done at this time in order to improve export trade and to win the war, we must somehow seek to retain those things upon which we rely for the privileges which we have enjoyed in the past. That feeling was particularly noticeable in two or three instances. It may be that it is just the outcome of human nature, and it may be that it is the effect of having enjoyed privileges for so long, but when the suggestion was made, as it was made not more than a few moments ago, that you could never get from a civil servant the service which you get from the individual who is inspired by the motive of making profits, then all I have to say is that if that is the opinion of the people in this Committee and if it represents the opinion of the people in this country, it is an utter impossibility to win the war. Make no mistake about that. Unless public service is the most vital object at the moment, then not only are we wasting our time but our lads are wasting their lives. That is the thing which has to get behind the minds of business people in this country just as we are trying to get it behind the minds of the workers.

This problem, as I see it, can be described as it was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). In reading his speech, if you put "cotton" instead of "coal" you have what I want to say, except that the circumstances are slightly different. In the main it is the way in which cotton is taken, handled and utilised which will determine whether or not you will get out of the effort that everybody seems to be wanting to make, the result which is most desired. Let us take what is happening at the present time. I was pleased to hear the President of the Board of Trade speak this afternoon. I do not need to pay him a compliment. The drive which he has put into his work is a sufficient compliment for a man who wants to do his job. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will refuse, as he said he would, to allow these Boards and Committees to clutter up the essential work, because that is the danger as I see it.

Take what is happening with regard to cotton. I am glad that during the last six months there has been some attempt to bring some order into the cotton industry. For many years this was our greatest exporting industry. Now it has to play perhaps the most important part in this drive which is to take place, and therefore we must face the situation that, it is not enough just to appoint a Cotton Controller, give him a committee and leave him to his own devices. We must do something more than that, for we must recognise that there are competing interests in the cotton industry, just as in the coal industry. I do not say they find it difficult to reconcile their public duty with their private needs, but at the back of the minds of the majority of business men either in this Committee or anywhere else there is the instinct of self-preservation, and they see the necessity for retaining the entity which they may have built up and which is under their name. What is the outcome? You have the public interests competing with the private interests of the individual, to the detriment of the latter in the long run, because unless public interest is served private interest will disappear in the holocaust which follows.

I may not know much about economics but I do know something about plain, sensible, honest facts. I am rather like the man who was offered a job and the committee who were offering him the job said: "We will pay you a salary of £500 a year and it will be payable quarterly." This man, who was more used to every-day methods of doing business, said, "That is no use to me." They said, "What do you want, then?" He said, "How much is it a week?" When an hon. Member said that the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax might be the most ruinous thing to industry it left me cold, because I do not follow that suggestion for a moment. What is it in terms of common sense?—not in terms of text-book economics, nor in terms of the City of London. The problem is this: We have to increase our export trade in order to maintain our economic life. I do not know what the figure is but let us say it is £120,000,000 a year. That means £10,000,000 a month. What are the products by which that can be obtained? Take coal and cotton. I am not interested in many things other than cotton because I have lived by it. What is the amount by which cotton must increase its output in order to give that quota of £120,000,000 which is necessary? That is the problem so far as cotton is concerned.

Apply that test to every industry and then you have the problem in so many different compartments. What is your available raw cotton, from America, Egypt and India? In order to bring what you want in the shape of export trade what is the amount of raw cotton that is needed? Have you the shipping available? What is the percentage of shipping available to bring the cotton and what proportion of cotton is to be used for the Services, home trade and export? It is the export that matters in this Debate. Having decided what the proportions are, then it must be definitely laid down that only so many bales of cotton can be used for one purpose or for another purpose. It is not a bit of good the Cotton Controller coming along in February and saying, "There is going to be a restriction," and at the end of March saying, "We can take the restriction off. The month that has been devoted to refusing home trade has given an impetus to foreign trade, and therefore we can take off the restriction and we can allow cotton to go freely again." That is not organisation. That is the sort of thing which might happen in the back kitchen of a home where they have not been taught mathematics. That is not organisation for a people who are up against a machine like the machine created in Germany. You cannot fight a war of this description, against people who are so well organised, with an organisation so slip-shod as that. You cannot afford to waste a bale of cotton lest your calculations are thrown out of balance.

It is said that you can control it by price. You cannot control anything by price. The problem is: There are so many bales of cotton; how are they to be used? There are 700 or 800 different firms in Lancashire, all competing with the desire to use the raw cotton. From what I know of the Lancashire manufacturer, they are all wanting to do their best for the country, but they are all brought up in such a way that while they are doing their best for the country they are going to do the best for themselves, and I do not blame them for that. I know something of what they have gone through in the last 20 years. I am blaming the organisation which we have established, which is allowing them to compete in this great struggle and with this sort of problem in the export market.

What is the problem in my own little village? It is a sort of miniature of the whole of Lancashire. If you can imagine five mills in a little village, then you have a picture of the whole county. The more you bring it down to simple proportions of that kind the better you can see the problem. The people were poor, and, like all others, they responded to the appeal to work an extra 7½ hours, from 48 to 55½ hours. They have gone back to six o'clock, after saying they would never do so. Under normal circumstances they never would because of their past experiences. That is going on in four mills out of five. In the other mill they are signing on at the employment exchange because of lack of materials. That is not organisation; that is confusion. These people come to me and say, "What is the sense in it?" There is no sense in it, and there is no order in it. The reason is that, running through the whole of the cotton industry, you have that principle which has been expounded from the other side this afternoon. We cannot win this war by that method, and we must win the war.

The Lancashire manufacturers, individualistic and keen as anybody on private enterprise though they are, would welcome the strong hand of an individual who would say, "You have so many skips of weft in the cellar in your place. You will not use it three weeks hence; it has to come out now and go into the place where it is needed." The bottle-necks which were released in the munitions department have to be released in the cotton industry and then we shall be on the way to solving the problem. The export problem needs tackling as vigorously as any other problem and it can be tackled only on that line. Private interests cannot be allowed to stand in the way of public interests, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will say to the Cotton Controller: "It is not enough to lay down regulations. You must enforce them to the extent of applying them to the individual."

6.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George)

I have taken part probably on most occasions in discussions on this Vote, but it is the first time that I have taken part in one from this side of the House. I do not think it will make much difference to me now, because I do not remember saying anything in recent years that I need worry about to-day. Most of the dis- cussions that we used to have before this year were concentrated to a very large extent on doing what we could to try and repair the damage that had resulted from the last war, and many of us thought—indeed, many of us still think—that far more drastic steps should have been taken than were taken. Now we are at war again, and it may well be that some people would think that discussion on export trade might be a little out of place under the circumstances obtaining at the moment. I could not agree with that suggestion, because if the war had continued as it started, as a war of very little action, it might well have been that the Board of Trade would have been the most important Department of all from the point of view of the war effort.

But even now that comparative inaction has changed to what, unfortunately, can only be described as the most violent action, it still remains true that the trade of this country must play a very important part in order that we may obtain the supplies which are vital if we are to succeed in the struggle upon which we are now engaged. I hope that hon. Members will extend a good deal of indulgence to me to-day, since most of this Debate has been concerned with exports, and, unfortunately, the Secretary for Overseas Trade has not yet been able to obtain an import licence into Parliament. If it has anything to do with me, he will get it very quickly.

As has always happened on the occasion of this Vote, we have had, not only an interesting, but, I think, a most useful, discussion. Many suggestions have been made from all sides of the Committee which I can assure hon. Members will receive most careful attention. Most hon. Members, quite rightly, have been extremely complimentary to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that there had been no compliments coming from this side. I might repair that omission now, and say that all the speeches that I have heard were worthy of the greatest praise. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale told us that he did not think much of the policy of the Government. He compared it to one of those false fronts that one sees in Western towns in America. I do not think he could substantiate such a statement in reference to the Board of Trade. He said that he would rather have a bad man with a good policy than a good man with a bad policy; but would he not prefer a good man with a good policy?

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

Your trumpeter must be dead.

Major Lloyd George

I was not referring to myself at the moment, though I may come in for a bit of praise at the tail end. I was referring to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) raised a good many points with which I should like to deal; but, as he is not here now, perhaps I had better reply first to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who made some very interesting points, particularly with regard to coal. He pointed out that the rise in coal exports was merely a rise in value. I do not dispute that, but I ask him to remember that that took place at a most difficult period for this country. In the first place, there was a very great diversion of coal to the needs of munitions production in this country; and, in the second place, two months out of that four months which the hon. Member took were the most severe period of winter, I suppose, that this country has seen for over 50 years. In the circumstances, I do not think that the figures for the first four months of this year are anything that we need to be ashamed of. He then referred to the possibility of our having to sell our coal at uneconomic prices for export purposes; and said, if that was the case, how would the burden be borne? I do not think there is any need to discuss that question until it arises. At present, there is no lack of export markets for coal from this country, and no question of our not getting a fair price.

Mr. Bevan

Is there not a natural reluctance, on the part of those who might supply new markets, to push coal into these markets, where they have not the advantages that they had in the old markets?

Major Lloyd George

That is a question for the Ministry of Economic Warfare; but, in any case, there is no reason for this particular question to be discussed at present.

Mr. J. Griffiths

In that connection I was referring to the fact that where our coal exports are competing with those of Germany, we might find it desirable to undercut Germany's. If we had to do that, I wanted the burden to be a national one, and not to be placed on the people actually engaged in the coal trade.

Major Lloyd George

That is a question for the Ministry of Economic Warfare.

Mr. Griffiths

Is the hon. and gallant Member going to deal with the general point which I raised, as to whether the central Export Council has general and co-ordinating powers, executive powers, over these groups, or whether it is merely a clearing house?

Major Lloyd George

It is not a clearing house; it has full executive powers.

Mr. E. Smith (Stoke)

Is it using them?

Major Lloyd George

Every indication goes to show that it is working very well. The hon. Member for South Croydon started off with a very interesting speculation—I am not sure whether it was an arithmetical calculation. He said that one out of every 100,000 born in this country finished up on this front bench, and that one in 5,000,000 made his maiden speech from this Box. I wish he could have told us the proportion who spoke from that Box opposite after having previously sat on this side, without any change having occurred in the composition of Parliament. It would be very difficult to calculate. The hon. Member made a very interesting speech. The limitation Order, he said, led to panic buying, but I do not think there is any evidence of panic buying as a result of that Order. I should take it as a very serious reflection on myself if there had been, because it was my broadcast which followed the issuing of the Order. The response throughout the country to the appeal which I made at that time has been very good. There was indeed a certain amount of extra buying, but I understand that the biggest amount was in respect of silk stockings, which an organ of the Press had said were to come under the Order, but which in fact were not included. Such buying did not matter much as far as the Order was concerned. The hon. Member then asked how, if he were walking down Victoria Street and saw a shirt in a shop window, he would help our export trade by not buying that shirt. I assume that, if he did not buy it, the shirt would remain in stock, and, therefore, the retailer would not have to replace it from the wholesaler; the wholesaler would not have to replace it from the manufacturer; the shirt would remain to be purchased by another member of the public, and another shirt would be released for export.

Mr. Bevan

Do you mean to say that the hon. Member did not understand that?

Major Lloyd George

He put the proposition. He then mentioned the question of a fuller giving-out of information about our Trade Returns. It would be definitely against the national interest, to publish detailed particulars of our overseas trade, but information can often be given after consultation with the Department concerned to people anxious to get information for export purposes, and the export groups are given the fullest information that it is possible to give in all the circumstances. I reget that when he made reference to two cases, he made an attack on civil servants. It is Ministers who should be attacked, as we are here to answer for ourselves; and I am sorry he did that, as he must admit that the civil servants are extremely overworked at the present time with the enormous expansions taking place in the Departments.

Sir H. Williams

I go much further and say that the bulk of the overtime is unnecessary and due to methods of circumlocution, which ought to be avoided.

Major Lloyd George

That may be, but the hon. Gentleman chose two instances which, I assume, were an example of how the industry of this country is being held up by these delays to which he referred. I have had inquiries made into these instances. The first one, relating to an umbrella company, is, he said himself, a small matter, but is important because it is small. When the original application was made, I understand that it was suggested to the firm that the best way of getting their requirements quickly met was by joining one of these export groups. Application for recognition of the Umbrella Components War Export Group was made on 1st May. Particulars of the group's requirements of steel were sent to the Board of Trade on 2nd May, and an allocation of steel was made to the group on 8th May, which met their export requirements in full. I do not think that that can be considered as undue delay.

Sir H. Williams

My hon. and gallant Friend has overlooked the fact that I wrote to the Department of Overseas Trade about 20th February and that I did not receive the information about this organisation until two months later.

Major Lloyd George

I think my hon. Friend will agree that, rather than have a multiplicity of small firms, it is better to have larger groups to deal with. Certainly there was no delay with regard to the allocation of steel once the application had been made by that particular group; the time taken was not more than a week. In the other case, that relating to waste hair, I understand that my hon. Friend received a letter from my right hon. Friend only a day or two ago. As far as I can see from that letter, the matter was first referred to the Board of Trade by the Ministry of Supply. Inquiries were made of the firm as to the increase of export trade that might be expected as a result of the allocation of steel. On receiving satisfactory replies to these inquiries, the Board wrote to the firm on 9th May emphasising the shortage of steel and suggesting that steps should be taken to try and find some substitute if possible. Application forms were also sent to them asking that they should be filled in as soon as possible. Nothing has been heard from them since 15th May, when they said that they were in touch with the engineers and would forward the information as soon as they were able. I do not think that there is a matter of undue delay.

Sir H. Williams

I explained in the course of my speech that the people who are building the factory are not the company concerned, but the South Wales and Monmouthshire Trading Estate, which belongs to the Government. All the delay is in the Ministry of Supply, and not due to this company, which comes within the Special Area. The company is not concerned directly.

Major Lloyd George

That does not alter the facts of the case. My hon. Friend's point is one of delay, and the question as to whom the trading estate belongs to does not make the slightest difference. The whole point was that things were being held up in Government Departments, presumably in this Department; that is what was suggested. I am speaking for the Board of Trade, and the facts I have in front of me show that there was no delay that could possibly be avoided.

The next question to which my hon. Friend referred was the balance of payments. He wanted to know to what extent the balance of payments had been improved by enemy action in certain countries which were former customers of ours. I will give the figures for 1938, since, being normal trade figures, they are more appropriate. On this basis, the adverse balance of payments against us in these countries which are now affected by enemy occupation is something in the neighbourhood of £75,000,000.

Most of the speeches that we have heard to-day have been of a helpful character, and I say again that my right hon. Friend has every reason to be satisfied with what he has been able to accomplish in a very short time. Most members who have spoken have been in agreement upon that matter with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs), who seemed to think that exporters were not normal if they did not complain. He said that every exporter should rely upon himself, as that was the only way to get trade, and in the next breath he suggested that everything must depend upon the Government; surely the proper way is to get a combination of the two.

Several points have been raised with regard to coal, which would be more appropriate on the Vote for the Mines Department.

Mr. J. Griffiths

The Export Council deal with exports generally, and if coal exports are isolated and dealt with by the Mines Department, surely that shows a big flaw in dealing with the export trade. The export policy of the Mines Department must be co-ordinated with the general export policy of this country.

Mr. Bevan

I want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to realise that, if the Vote for the Mines Department is put down, it will not be sufficient for him to say that generally questions of policy such as we have raised lie within these narrow and administrative limits, because our case is that the general lines of policy must be put right if its administration is to be intelligent.

Major Lloyd George

The Mines Department's policy is fully co-ordinated with the Government's general export policy, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that Lord Hyndley, who is Adviser to the Mines Department, is also a member of the Export Council.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I assume that Lord Hyndley's appointment to the Export Council was as a representative of the coal mining industry and that coal export policy was, therefore, actually co-ordinated and directed by this body we have discussed to-day?

Major Lloyd George

That is so. However, I would return to the point that in the circumstances of the day it has been a really remarkable achievement to put the exports of the country where they are at this time. Increase has been rapid, especially for the months of March and April, the value of exports in April being the highest in any month since1930. If you take the volume for that period, it is just under 2 per cent. less than it was before the war. It is true that we have to face the fact that some of our markets have been taken away, but that enables us to have more material with which to tackle the markets that remain.

With regard to the question of priorities, I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend said, that the liaison arrangements which the Board of Trade have with the Ministry of Supply with regard to raw materials enable us to ensure that, where necessary, export trade requirements take precedence over less important raw material requirements. Roughly speaking, Service requirements come first, export requirements second, and home requirements third.

I hope I have dealt with the specific points which have been raised. I would like to say, in conclusion, that during the last discussion on this Vote the then President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley) said that some people used to talk about "Business as usual" during the last war. He suggested that that was not a very sound doctrine; certainly it was not sound doctrine in the circumstances tinder which we were living last year, when expenditure on armaments was £600,000,000. If it was not wise doctrine last year, it is still less wise to-day, but it does not follow that you should say, "No business at all." I would say that the first necessity at this moment is to provide everything we can provide for the security of our country. That, everyone agrees, is the first demand on our industry and our raw materials. The next thing is that we should export goods and raw materials to enable us to pay for the materials which we have to import. But not only do we want to do that; we also want to export for the purpose of maintaining and increasing our hold on our present markets.

One of the major causes of the depression which followed the last war—and it is almost a platitude to say so—was the loss of much of the export trade of this country. As my right hon. Friend said to-day, without exports this country cannot live. Every effort is being made, and has been made since the start of the war, to safeguard this country against the repetition of what happened at the end of the last war. Unfortunately, owing to causes which are completely outside our control—shipping and so forth—we have to maintain and increase our export markets at the expense of the home market, because that is the only place where it is possible for us to cut down. But once the position and the necessity have been pointed out, I am sure there will be no complaint. I personally hope and believe that whatever sacrifices the home consumer has to make to-day, he will get his reward when peace comes again in a real recovery of our export trade built up on the foundations which are being laid to-day.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

There is a very important aspect of the matter which I have not had time to put to you, Sir Dennis, and which might arise. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken always speaks most agreeably and lucidly, and I do not quarrel with anything he said nor with the fact that he did not say many other things. But the Ministry of Mines is a Department of the Board of Trade, and the fact that it has been traditional to put the Ministry of Mines Vote down in order to discuss the administration of the Department does not, I submit, and shall submit more formally on a subsequent occasion, prevent us from asking, either on the Ministry of Mines Vote or the Board of Trade Vote, why the Government do not exercise the general powers which were conferred on them by Parliament. We were stopped from discussing any matters which involved legislation, and although my hon. and gallant Friend has not been able to reply for purely traditional and conventional reasons to observations which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) we give notice now that we shall not permit, subject to your Ruling, any limitations whatsoever to be imposed on the Debate when we come to discuss the Ministry of Mines Vote.

Mr. E. Smith

May I put this point to the hon. and gallant Gentleman? The concluding part of his case was, I thought, theoretically sound, but having had some concrete examples of the way in which the machine is not operating efficiently to enable that theory to be translated into action, I should like to ask him whether he is satisfied that the machinery which the Board has is functioning efficiently to enable it to carry out its theoretical case.

Major Lloyd George

Certainly; the machine is working with great efficiency.

Mr. Tomlinson

I am interested in this particular aspect of the subject. I am not finding fault with the machine but with the output, and I am anxious that that which is clogging the machine should be cleared away. How is it possible by a system of priorities to achieve what the Government and Parliament desire when the material which is dealt with affects 700 or 800 different firms? Will the Minister consider taking some further powers to control the work of the machine, which is not now functioning?

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.