BOARD OF TRADE (Hansard, 7 March 1947)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher)
I am very anxious that these sums of money shall be as fully explained as possible to the Committee, and I hope that when the Committee has heard the explanation, it will be ready to give us the permission which we are seeking. I do not propose at this stage to go into intricate details on every matter which appears under the various subheads, but I assure the Committee that there is no desire to hide anything, and if I do not go into details on any one of these items, I shall be only too pleased to do what I can if hon. Members will indicate what they want to know.
The first item is the grant to the British Tourist and Holidays Board. This is a grant-in-aid to a Board which has recently been set up. The Government's decision was announced in another place on 10th December last. This Board has 884 been constituted with a view to encouraging the tourist industry in this country. I am certain that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will agree that if we can secure a greater tourist industry, it will be to the benefit of Great Britain. This sum of £7,500, which could not be estimated before, since the Board had not been set up, is a grant-in-aid of the preliminary expenses of that Board.
The second item is a similar one. It is a grant-in-aid to the Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland, generally known as the Travel Association. The Supplementary Estimate arises simply because, when the original grant was voted to the Travel Association, it was stated on behalf of the Government that, in so far as the Travel Association was able to attract to itself funds from other sources, the Government would be prepared to make an additional contribution on a pound to pound basis, and the funds having been attracted from other sources, the contribution required from the Government on a pound to pound basis is the sum of £35,000 which appears here as the additional sum required.
I then come to capital expenditure in connection with trading services. This covers a number of services, and unless hon. Members desire information on specific items, I do not propose to go into details in the case of each one of these services. There are such things as the building during wartime of factories in the Dominions in order that this country might receive supplies of materials which otherwise it would not be able to obtain. Having reached the end of the war, in many cases the factories have ceased to have any useful purpose, and they are now being handed back to the original owners of the factories, and the plant has been dismantled. We had agreed during wartime to share the consequent cost with the Dominion Governments. A part of the sum of £179,000 which appears in the Supplementary Estimate represents our share of that cost. There are other items included. We have in this country a number of Government plants for the procuration of sulphuric acid. It is necessary to transport sulphuric acid, and as we did not have the tank wagons in the country for such transport, they had to be made, and part of the £179,000 is the result of that service 885 There is, then, a sum of £116,000 in connection with the recovery of salvage. I think all hon. Members are agreed on the necessity in these days of salvaging as much useful material as we can. In this case the £116,000 represents the cost of a subsidy of 10s. a ton paid to local authorities in respect of kitchen waste collection. It was deemed necessary, in view of the shortage of feeding stuffs, to do everything possible to step up the production of pig food, which is a product of kitchen waste salvage; and therefore, a subsidy of 10s. a ton was paid to local authorities to encourage them to press ahead with their collection of this salvage, and the additional sum shown in the Supplementary Estimate is the result. The next item is, of course, a most important one, and I do not apologise to the Committee for spending a little time on it. It involves a sum of £6,500,000, and I think it is only right that I should go into some detail on such a large Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Seollan
With regard to the recovery of salvage, was the 6d. a cwt. paid for waste food?

§ Mr. Belcher
It is kitchen waste—what is generally known by housewives as the pig bin, the thing which is in the streets into which they put green stuffs and anything that is left over from the dinner table, if there is anything left over from the dinner table. I come to the important item of £6,500,000 in respect of the cotton and wool utility cloth rebates. The subsidies on utility cloths, cotton and wool, were introduced during the war as part of the then Government's price stabilisation policy, and it was originally estimated that the subsidies would cost £8 million during the current year. The Supplementary Estimate of £6,500,000 brings that £8 million to a total of £14,500,000. As far as utility cotton cloth and household textiles are concerned, it was estimated that the subsidy would cost £4,750,000 during the current year. This subsidy was introduced in order to offset an increase in the price of raw cotton, and it has been increased since that time on a number of occasions in order to stabilise the price of the resultant goods and to offset increased labour costs in the manufacture of yarn and cloth. The Supplementary Estimate of £2 million arises from the increase in the cost of raw cotton of about 6d. per 886 lb. which took effect on 21st October, 1946. My hon. Friend who was then Secretary of Overseas Trade told the House on 31st October that the Treasury would have to pay some £2 million more by way of subsidy on utility cloth up to the end of the current financial year because of the increase in the price of raw cotton.
2.30 p.m.
The subsidy on utility wool, which was originally estimated to cost £3,250,000, was introduced in order to offset a wage increase in the heavy clothing industry and thus prevent a rise in the price of heavy outer wear. It was increased in June last year, in order to offset part of a further wage increase in the heavy clothing industry. On the second occasion two-fifths of the increase was offset by subsidy, two-fifths was reflected in an increased selling price, and one-fifth was carried by the manufacturers themselves. As I told the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 1st July last, the new rates of rebate would increase the subsidy by about £4,500,000 during the current financial year. The payment of subsidy on cloth sold by retail as well as on cloth sold to makers-up resulted in a fall in the price of the cloth sold by retail, and this fall was sufficient to offset the increase in the price of men's suits and overcoats and thus keep the cost of living index steady. It has since been decided that the subsidy on utility wool cloth should be further increased in order to offset the increased costs of the cloth manufacturers. So far as we can see, however, the revised estimate of £7,750,000 should be sufficient to cover any expenditure under this head during the current financial year. I hope that despite the large amount hon. Members will be impressed by the importance of holding steady these prices of very essential goods, in order that we shall not contribute to a rise in the cost of living reflected in the cost of living index.
The next item is a token item in respect of assistance to the cotton spinning industry. Hon. Members will remember that my right hon. Friend recently announced to the cotton spinning industry the Government's desire to assist, and their intention of making a financial contribution if the industry is prepared to take steps with a view to bringing it more up to date. In so far as the cotton spinners are pre- 887 pared to go in for new machinery, it is the Government's intention to give them assistance as to 25 per cent. of the cost. This item appears here as a token because, in the absence so far of any agreement between the two sides of the industry as to the proposal, it is most unlikely, probably altogether impossible, that during the current financial year the Government will be called upon to make any contribution at all. We would however like to have the assent of this Committee to the expenditure of such money when it becomes necessary, and that is the reason for the appearance in this Estimate of the sum of £10.
There is a further item of £10 in regard to imported furniture. This is a very interesting one. It is really an accounting item. Furniture is imported from abroad and is purchased by individual furniture manufacturers or distributors in this country. Those people are members of an import association which imports the furniture under bulk contracts arranged by the association with the foreign supplier with the agreement of the Board of Trade, and the actual contracts are between the furniture import association as buyers and the foreign suppliers as sellers. This association is a non-profit making body, and has no assets of its own. It therefore cannot enter into any contractual undertakings until it has received from its members binding promises to buy all the furniture for which it contracts. It would of course be unreasonable to expect the individual member firms to make a firm promise to buy the furniture until they have seen it, and there is therefore a difficulty. The association has no funds, or insufficient funds, and cannot buy the furniture until its members are prepared to give a binding promise to accept it, while the members, not having seen the furniture, are not prepared to give binding promises to accept. His Majesty's Government therefore come into the picture and place their credit behind the furniture import association.
In fact, of course, the demand for furniture in this country at the present moment is so great that there is not the slightest possibility that any sum of money put behind the furniture import association by the Government will be lost. It is quite certain whatever furniture can be imported from foreign countries at the present time will find 888 ready buyers. The only liability with which the Government are faced is for storage charges which may be incurred if the furniture comes to this country before the individual members of the import association are prepared to buy it. To meet those storage charges the furniture import association levies its membership for the Government, and a net loss to the Government could only arise if the cost of storing the furniture exceeded the proceeds of that levy. The association have agreed that the size of the levy shall be increased on future contracts if such a situation arises, and therefore in fact the whole transaction for which public funds are needed will be a self-balancing one. The money is there if it is required, but in fact there is every reason to believe, indeed it is quite certain that there will be no cost to the Exchequer in respect of any of these arrangements.
Then may I turn to the anticipated deficiencies in appropriations in aid. I have not dealt with the anticipated savings, because I take it that the desire of the Committee would be to enquire into the deficiencies rather than the savings.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That is what I decide, not what the Committee decides.

§ Mr. Belcher
I was not touching the savings in any way, so it is just as well. A word on the deficiencies; I am advised that there were—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss appropriations in aid either.

§ Mr. Belcher
I have done my best to explain these various items under the various headings amounting to £6,837,520, which, with the deductions that have to be made, leave us with a total Supplementary Estimate of £3,134,000. Subject to what any hon. Member may wish to ask about any of these items, I hope the Committee will see fit to agree to give the Board of Trade this Supplementary Estimate.

§ Captain Crookshank
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) is unable to be here this afternoon, so I should like to let the Parliamentary Secretary know that he will probably want to raise on the Report stage questions on Subheads J and O. I myself should like to make one comment on 889 Subhead O. It seems to be most extraordinary and I do not believe that it is in Order. I do not know whether I should call your attention, Mr. Beaumont, to it, but Subhead O is something the equal of which I have never seen before. It says that none of this money is likely to be required this year. Here is the whole explanation as given in the Vote: Legislation on the subject will be introduced in due course. It is not expected that any expenditure will be incurred during the current financial year but token provision is included in this Estimate in order to obtain Parliamentary approval in principle for the grants in question. That seems extraordinary. The ordinary practice when there are financial commitments involved in a Bill is that they are shown in the Bill, and thereafter they go into the Estimates for the year Here when I see these words: It is not expected that any expendiure will be incurred during the current financial year … I cannot understand this at all. In any case, I think the Board of Trade have reversed the various rulings and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, and the Parliamentary Secretary will also find that he is transgressing every canon laid down by this House.

§ Mr. Scollan
If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman reads on he will find the explanation.

§ Captain Crookshank
Obviously the hon. Gentleman does not understand our financial procedure, because this is quite unheard of, and most irregular. While I will not comment any further on the matter, I ask the Board of Trade before the Report stage to have the matter investigated and if necessary to have this removed. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for the explanation he has given, but there are certain points which hon. Members would want explained. I think the description of imported furniture under Subhead P was remarkably strange. The hon. Gentleman was able to put up a great story—I do not mean anything uncomplimentary by that because I am sure he was telling the truth —and painted a picture of how this furniture importing organisation was buying furniture overseas, how individual firms bought the furniture from the organisation which had no assets and how it was necessary in those circumstances for His 890 Majesty's Government to support this organisation financially. It sounded very interesting, but I was wondering why on earth the furniture firms who have bought furniture in the ordinary way for many years, if they prefer to have an organisation of this kind, could not finance it properly. Why should His Majesty's Government go into the affair at all? The hon. Gentleman did not tell us, but perhaps he will.
Finally I should like to ask why such a large increase is necessary in the provision made for the recovery of salvage. The increase is £116,000 on an Estimate of £266,000, which is a high proportion compared with nil in 1945, unless, of course, everything was done in this direction in 1945 under a Vote of Credit. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put me right on that. If this were self-supporting in 1945, why is it that it is not so now when everyone is scraping to save as much feedingstuffs as possible? It was self-supporting when the local authorities did it; why is it not so now? I recall the time when Lord Morrison used to interest the House in speeches during the war, about the remarkable achievement of his own local authority in this respect. I think hon. Members were so impressed that they went to see how it was done. and they took samples of the feedingstuffs away with them—not of course for their own use. That lasted during the war up to and including 1945. Now when the need is all the greater, I cannot see why it is necessary for the taxpayer to subsidise this at all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to explain that in the course of his reply. I leave to my hon. Friends for the time other questions which I could raise, but again I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot may be raising some points on the Report stage and he will certainly want to know a great deal more about the procedure under Subhead O.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)
I should like to ask for your guidance. Mr. Beaumont. The point has already been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). It refers to Subhead O, the second part of which reads: Legislation on this subject will be introduced in due course. It is not expected that any expenditure will be incurred during the 891 current financial year but token provision is included in this Estimate in order to obtain Parliamentary approval in principle for the grants in question."
I should like to ask whether if we do approve of this Vote that wording is tantamount to a Second Reading of a Bill. I would also ask whether the inclusion of those words does not imply that this Committee is usurping some of the functions of the House itself, and giving approval to a principle, in advance of legislation on the subject. If this Vote is out of Order we are placed in an extremely awkward position. If this Committee allows this Vote to pass, would it by giving approval to the Vote as a whole, be out of order itself?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The matter is one for the Board of Trade to defend. Even if this is in a statement from the Board of Trade it does not affect the procedure of the Committee.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)
I should like to raise one or two points on Subheads A7 and H6. First, may I say how glad I am that those connected with the tourist and hotel trade have shown such willingness to help and to contribute to the pound for pound scheme, which the Board of Trade have promised to support. As far as Subhead A7, British Tourist and Holidays Board, is concerned, I feel we should hear a little more about the activities of this Board and what they are going to do. I was very pleased when I heard that the Board was to be formed, and on page 20 of these Supplementary Estimates I see that the sum of £7,500 is granted in respect of preliminary expenses. That means obviously that the Board will spend considerable sums of money in the future, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the Board is going to fulfil any real useful function unless his own Department and other Government Departments give some encouragement to the caterers and hoteliers in this country to enable them to do the job of work which the Tourist and Holidays Board have obviously in mind.
The formation of this Board is to encourage tourist traffic from abroad with the hope that this tourist traffic will produce dollars and other currencies for this country, which will be useful to us as in 892 visible exports. The Tourist and Holiday Board will be very little use indeed, unless we make certain that in Britain we have the hotel and catering facilities which visitors from abroad require to make them comfortable and to make them welcome. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in view of the amounts that are being given to the Tourist and Holiday Board, steps are being taken to see that the hotels in this country are given facilities to enable them to give the service which visitors from abroad will expect.

§ Mr. Guy (Poplar, South)
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade a question arising from what has been said by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor). Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me what remuneration or salary the chairman of the Board will receive?

§ Mr. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)
I have several points which I would like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. First, concerning 1.3.—capital expenditure in connection with trading services. I am anxious to know more about the cost of conversion of rail wagons to sulphuric acid tank wagons. Why could not the Board of Trade secure provision of tank wagons, and why could not the railway companies have constructed the wagons, and have kept them for themselves, in view of the prospect of the nationalisation of the railways? I would also like to know what the fate of these wagons is to be. Will they be transferred to the Transport Commission, or remain the property of the Board of Trade?
As regards J—cotton and wool utility cloth rebates—we, on this side of the Committee, have no quarrel with the general principle of subsidy of cloth, but it is to me rather striking that no allowance has been made for the increased consumption of utility cloth, if it is as desirable as the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated. Obviously, the increased consumption of utility cloth would mean that a larger sum of money would have to be Voted in order to meet the subsidy on a greater output of cloth. I think that the value of these utility fabrics is somewhat exaggerated in the mind of the Board of Trade. A lot of cheap cloth will be sold at high prices, which will be disguised by reason of the very large subsidy. If they 893 were really popular, surely the subsidy ought to be very much greater. How much utility cloth is being exported? Under these exports, we are in fact exporting the subsidy as well, and exporting taxpayers money, unless the subsidy is withdrawn in respect to all utility cloth exported. I paid as much attention as I could to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I did not notice whether he indicated that the £6,500,000 was in respect of cotton utility cloth, and the separate amount—

§ Mr. Erroll
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary nods his head, so I will not pursue the matter. I would turn to item P—imported furniture. This Imports Association strikes me as an extraordinary organisation. How did we import furniture before the war? We managed quite well then without this cumbersome non-profit making body. It seems to be quite unnecessary to have it now. Why has this furniture selling organisation in this country no funds of its own? Surely they ought to be able to raise funds of their own to finance this purpose without having to apply to the Board of Trade. I am also disappointed to notice that this Association is to deal with foreign manufacturers rather than with Empire and Colonial manufacturers. It seems to be part of the policy of the Government to send its buyers into territories where the currencies are hard.

§ Mr. Belcher
There is no intention on our part to send buyers into hard currency foreign countries. The intention is to send buyers where the furniture can be bought whether the places are within the British Empire or outside.

§ Mr. Erroll
Naturally, I am delighted to have that reassurance. But it is disappointing to know that he had made no provision at all for sending representatives of the Imports Association to the West African Colonies where there is a growing furniture industry. In answer to a Parliamentary Question he said he would not sanction imports of furniture from West Africa. The West African natives are developing the manufacture of furniture as a useful secondary industry, and are anxious to have the support of the British domestic market. If we are to pass this Vote, we ought to have an assurance that essential imports from within the British Empire can be exploited to the full. It 894 is not only the import of timber from West Africa. Why should we not make use of the growing body of skilled labour available in West Africa to supplement our own diminishing force. With regard to furniture, I would like to learn the views of the trade as to this Furniture Imports Association and whether the smaller firms are wholeheartedly behind it.

§ Mr. Anthony Nutting (Melton)
With regard to imported furniture, the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was not intended to send his buyers into specifically hard currency countries but I do not think that is a proper answer to that point, and I would like to press the matter further. I think that we must have a definite answer as to whether the Government are making every possible effort to get imported furniture from the soft currency countries. It has been said in the economic White Paper, I think, that we shall probably have to go short of furniture in this country if we are to get our priorities for manufacture listed in the right order. Everyone agrees that furniture cannot possibly take first priority in manufacture or in our dollar imports. But the furniture shortage is desperately hard on people, especially young people getting married and trying to set up homes which it is practically impossible for them to do, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree. I am certain that they have been inundated with correspondence from their constituents about the difficulty of obtaining furniture. I hope that the Government will make every endeavour to get furniture from the soft currency countries if they can. I would press for an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary on this point and in particular on the point raised by my hon. Friend about the West African market.
I would also like to say a word on A7 with regard to the Tourist Board. I am by no means an expert in the matter of the Tourist Board and I do not know whether the figure of £7,500 is enough for the purposes which the Board has in mind. I notice that it is only a preliminary Estimate, and I hope that it will lay the foundations for a real effort to bring tourists to this country and obtain valuable dollars.
There are two further points I would urge on the Government. I think that we 895 should act quickly. The holiday season will be upon us very soon. Visitors will be coming in from abroad in very large numbers fairly quickly. I hope that the Government will act, if only in this matter, quickly for once in their lives.
Secondly, as to the facilities on arrival in this country from abroad I hope that the Government will relax some of the many tiresome and irritating restrictions with which foreigners and others—British nationals as well—have to conform on arrival in this country. I am told that even our American allies still have to report to the police the day after their arrival here.

§ The Chairman (Major Milner)
That is a question which is getting far beyond the Supplementary Estimates.

§ Mr. Nutting
I bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, but I hope that these few words of advice may be conveyed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Secretary.
Finally, I urge that this money should be devoted to a campaign, if I may so call it, to "brighten up Britain." I have done an enormous amount of travelling during the last few months and I can say that this country is not what we should like it to be in the way of an attraction to any type of visitor, whether foreign or British—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nationalise it."] I hope the Government will try to improve the facilities, for instance, in the railway hotels now that they are to enter the hotel business, and that they will generally devote the money to brightening up the country in order to attract the dollars we require.

§ Major Haughton (Antrim)
The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that he would be prepared to elaborate any of the figures about which we require more information. I would like him to help me about the sum of £179,000 which combines several items, one of which is capital losses on flax factories in Australia and New Zealand. That is combined with the conversion of rail wagons to sulphuric acid tank wagons and miscellaneous schemes. I am particularly interested in the policy behind this "wiping the slate," as was done in October last year in connection with these flax factories, because a very great capital 896 expenditure is involved and we should take into consideration what was accomplished. During the whole of the war years these flax factories in Australia produced only 6,820 tons of flax and those in New Zealand 7,46o tons, against 97,000 tons produced in Northern Ireland and 21,500 tons in Eire. In two wars in has been found that flax is an essential munition, and on both occasions very considerable capital expenditure was involved in setting up flax factories, and it seems wrong when linen is one of the biggest collectors of American dollars that these factories should be wiped out in this way without some clear indication of the policy behind this cancellation of capital losses.
In the first place, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade: what was the exact amount of that £179,000 which was written off in connection with these flax factories? The second question is: what is the policy of the Government in connection with flax production in the Colonies and in the United Kingdom? In England and Scotland there has been a very great expenditure on flax factories, and it seems wrong that they should just be, eliminated.

§ The Chairman
It would not be permissible for the Parliamentary Secretary to give information on a question of policy at this stage and to deal with matters affecting the United Kingdom which do not arise on this particular Estimate.

§ Major Haughton
I beg your pardon, Major Milner. I will confine myself to the single question as to what part of the £179,000 was written off as capital loss, and in asking the question I am not saying one derogatory word about the efforts made in Australia and New Zealand to accomplish flax production, because it is very much appreciated and I know full well the tremendous task.

§ Brigadier Low
I want to speak about A.7 and H.6 and to follow what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). The announcement of the establishment of the British Tourist and Holidays Board was made in another place, as the hon. Gentleman told us, on 10th December, but what he did not tell us was that the Government made the decision, and announced the decision some time in July last year, to set up such a board as this. It is clear from the 897 statement under the heading that this is a grant in respect of preliminary expenses, that the Board has not yet got into a going state. That is despite the fact that the Government spokesman in another place, on 10th December, said there would be no delay in setting up this Board. I emphasise that there is a great need for some machinery to help the tourist and holiday industry. The object of the Board is to develop the tourist and holiday industry, both from the point of view of tourists from abroad, and from the point of view—which is just as important to the export trade of this country —of giving holidays to our own working people. It is really time, the Government having decided that this Board is the best way of getting that machinery working, that the Board was set up, and started working.
In another place, the Government spokesman was asked if he would consider issuing a White Paper setting out in clear terms the problems with which the Board would be faced, and the way in which those problems would be tackled. His statement was very vague as to the committees into which the Board would divide for carrying out its duties. That was on 10th December, and the Government spokesman promised to consider the request for a White Paper. Is it not time that we had a clear statement of what is going on in connection with the Board? Difficulties with which hotels and boarding houses which cater for tourist and holiday traffic are faced are enormous. The hon. Gentleman may think that as a result of his hard work in the inter-Departmental Committee over which the Board of Trade have full control—being placed in charge of that Committee by the Prime Minister's Order—that this has already resulted in a substantial alleviation of those difficulties, but great difficulties still remain. It would not be in Order for me to go into those difficulties but, as a Member representing one of the constituencies with which this Board will be most concerned, I would stress that something must be done, and done quickly.

§ Mr. Scollan
A fair portion of my constituency is devoted to the industry of furniture making. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind that one ship load of timber from West Africa would represent more furniture 898 than 15 ships could carry to this country as ready made furniture. Obviously, we have to conserve shipping space. Let us bring the timber into this country, and encourage industry here.

§ Sir J. Mellor
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crokshank) indicated that it was the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) to refer particularly to Subhead J on the Report stage. Therefore, as Debate on this most important matter will probably arise then more conveniently, I will limit myself to referring to the matter in brief terms on this occasion. But I wish to make my protest against the additional £6,500,000 of the taxpayers' money being poured out in what is described as being in pursuance of the general cost of living stabilisation policy under which, if raw cotton rises in price, it has to be offset at the taxpayers' expense. If. there is an increase in wages in the industry, again that must be paid for by the taxpayer. It seems to me that it is quite wrong and extremely dangerous. Clothes are not cheap as a result of these subsidies. It merely means that they are paid for partly by the purchaser and partly by the taxpayer. They are rising in price constantly, and the burden upon the taxpayer rises also. This is creating a very dangerous form of inflation. I look forward very much to the Debate being developed in a much fuller way on the Report stage. Therefore, I propose to leave the matter for the moment.

§ Mr. Erroll
I apologise for rising a second time. I had hoped that other hon. Members of the Committee would make reference to the important Vote under Subhead 0 apart from the constitutional Parliamentary side of the matter. I wish to refer to the whole principle of this provision and to ask whether it is really what is wanted by the cotton spinning industry.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman is referring to a token Vote of £10 on a matter which will require legislation. Therefore, I do not think it can be discussed.

§ Mr. Erroll
With the greatest respect, the purpose of the token grant is to obtain Parliamentary approval for the principle. Surely, it is in Order to make some brief reference to a purpose of that kind?

§ The Chairman
I do not think so.

§ Captain Crookshank
This was a point which I raised with your predecessor in the Chair, Major Milner. It puts us all into a very awkward position, because, according to what this says, it would commit us in principle to something which we have not discussed. I wish the Financial Secretary to the Treasury were here, as he ought to be on Supplementary Estimates. Unfortunately, he is not present. I thought perhaps I would ease the Committee if I did this. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has now arrived. I thought it would help if I told the Parliamentary Secretary that if, after the discussion that we had on this Estimate, he would take it back to the Board of Trade and omit Sub-head 0, which does not appear to be necessary at all, and the Estimate was re-submitted in an amended form, I could say on behalf of my hon. Friends that we would let it go through the Committee stage without discussion, leaving over to the Report stage the point to which I have already called attention. I cannot help but think that this has slipped in by inadvertence on the part of someone.

§ The Chairman
I do not think a Vote of this nature commits or prejudices the House in further consideration of the matter. Obviously, on the face of it, it is a matter for legislation. There will be a Second Reading and that will be the time when the House can debate it. I hope on a token Vote of £10 on a Supplementary Estimate we should not pursue the matter.

§ Captain Crookshank
I do not know whether you, Major Milner, are the right person to ask. What is the point of this? It says that it is not expected that any of this money will be spent. It seems to me that the point of introducing this is either that the Government wish to get the principle adopted by a token Estimate, or that they require the money, because they are going to spend it. We are told first that we do not want the money, because we do not intend to spend it, and then we are told that it is required for the principle. That is where I think some mistake has occurred. However, I am glad that the Financial Secretary is here to help us.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, no one better, 900 that this kind of thing is common form. He once occupied the position which I now have the honour to hold, Legislation is projected and, as and when it comes before the House, it will be either accepted or rejected. In the meantime, there is a certain amount of preliminary work to be done, and what is done here is, firstly, to appraise Parliament of that fact, and, secondly, to give authority for that preliminary work to be undertaken. The amount is only £10, it is common form and formal, and the matter will not reach any advanced stage until the House of Commons has given its sanction both to the principle and to the expenditure of the money.

§ Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)
I find myself in very great difficulties here, because you, Major Milner, have ruled, and, in your absence, Mr. Beaumont ruled also, that we were only allowed to discuss anything that was something to be expended during this year. It is stated here quite specifically that this money is not expected to be expended, 'and it would seem, in the terms of your Ruling and that of Mr. Beaumont, that we have no right to discuss it. I would like your Ruling on that point.

§ Wing-Commander Roland Robinson (Blackpool, South)
May I take the point put by my right hon. and gallant Friend a little further? The money will not be expended, but provision is included in the Estimate in order to obtain Parliamentary approval in principle to the grant in question. Therefore, it does seem to me that we should discuss this matter if we are giving approval to the whole principle.

§ The Chairman
That question is really one for the Minister to explain. It is not competent for us to discuss the whole question now. The Committee is given this token Estimate, in accordance with practice, as an indication of what is going on, but it does not, in any way, in my view, limit the authority of the House, because the House would not be committed until legislation has been passed. This is in accordance with long standing practice.

§ Captain Crookshank
Why is it necessary to bring this into the Supplementary Estimate at all? If some money was 901 going to be expended this year, it would be all right, but the Estimate says specifically that it is not. It may be that some of it may be needed before the passage of that legislation, but, in that case, it would come in the main Estimate for which a Vote on Account is taken and has been taken. I do not see any kind of reason for including the item in the Supplementary Estimate when we are definitely told that it will not be spent.

§ Mr. Scollan
I take it from the answer we have been given, that the sum involved is the sum that will be necessary to be spent on the drawing up of the legislation.

. Members
No, no.

§ Mr. Belcher
I cannot help feeling, with great respect to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, that he has made rather a lot of this procedure—more than was necessary. As the Financial Secretary has stated, this is common form. There are any number of precedents which I could give to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and I am prepared on Report stage to bring them out and justify the action taken in this case. May I point out that we have not said that there will not be any expenditure in the present financial year? We say that is not expected that there will be, which is a very different thing, and if it became apparent that some expenditure would re necessary, it would be wrong, if we had not made any provision for it. Whatever we do here, of course, does not prejudice any legislation which may be brought before the House at any future time.

§ Mr. Erroll
I sat down, Major Milner, only because you ruled me out of Order, but the subject has been developed further since then. The Financial Secretary said that this £10 token Estimate was necessary as authority for preliminary work. I do not agree with the preliminary work at all, and I wish to discuss this authority, because I believe the preliminary work is wrong in some respects. With the greatest respect, Major Milner, perhaps I may be allowed to develop this technical point briefly?

§ The Chairman
I think we must get on. The hon. Member has spoken at least three times, and the Parliamentary Secretary must be given an opportunity to reply 902 to other matters. If time permits, we might consider it later.

§ Mr. Nutting
Further to that point of Order, Major Milner. We are asked in this Estimate to give Parliamentary approval in principle. If either the House of Commons, or a Committee of the House, is to do its job, if it is to give Parliamentary approval to anything, surely it must discuss it in advance, and surely, therefore, it must be discussed in this Committee?

§ The Chairman
The matter has been debated now for some time and I suggest that it might be dealt with on Report, when the matter has been looked into, as has been suggested.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
On that point, was not my hon. Friend in possession of the Committee, and speaking to it, when interrupted on a point of Order, by you, Major Milner?

§ The Chairman
It is such a long time ago, that I am afraid that my recollection does not go back to that.

§ Mr. Erroll
I think that is correct, and, therefore, may I be allowed to finish my remarks briefly, Major Milner, because that would enable the Parliamentary Secretary to reply on substantial matters, knowing the feelings of at least one person on this side of the Committee? If I might have a few seconds, I can complete the point.

§ Mr. Erroll
What this scheme envisages is, in fact, a horizontal combination of the cotton industry which is already agreed by most people to be over stratified at present. It also envisages the grouping of small concerns with bigger concerns. It is not at all an attractive proposition to the efficient smaller concerns, who do not want to be tied to the big ones.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member cannot continue. It is clear that if there had been any substance in the matter, it would have come under this item, but this is a question of mechanical equipment in connection with legislation which is projected and which the House will have an opportunity of debating later, and it does not deal with the question raised by the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Erroll
The whole problem of mechanical equipment is in connection with buildings. The buildings are scattered at present because the mills are scattered, and until you have new buildings, you cannot have mechanical equipment. That was how I was trying to develop my point.

§ The Chairman
I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue on those lines. There will be further opportunities, and he must leave the Parliamentary Secretary time to reply.

§ Brigadier Low
May I raise a point of Order before the Parliamentary Secretary speaks, Major Milner, in connection with the Ruling you have just given on the phrase: It is not expected that any expenditure will be incurred during the current financial year I was ruled out of Order by your predecessor when I raised a matter of the same kind, and when there was some doubt as to whether the expenditure would be incurred. Because I could not say I was quite certain that the expenditure would be incurred, I was ruled out of Order, although I went so far as to say that thought it would be incurred, on all the information I had been given. May I have your Ruling?

§ The Chairman
I should give precisely the same Ruling. The hon. and gallant Member would be completely out of Order now.

§ Mr. Belcher
If I may repeat the assurance which I gave to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), I am quite prepared to produce such precedents as there are for the procedure which has just been the subject of discussion. I should have thought that my assurance that this matter will be dealt with seriously on Report would be quite sufficient for him. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) is not able to be present. I shall look forward to hearing at a later stage what he has to say about the matters which have been indicated to me.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman and several Members in all parts of the Committee referred to this question of imported furniture. I was somewhat surprised to hear the view expressed that that 904 organisation which exists, that an import association of constituent individual members working closely with the Government, is something unusual and unwieldy. I regard it myself as a first class example of co-operation between the Government, on the one side, and of industry and the private entrepreneurs on the other side, pooling their efforts, the Government using their financial power to assist these private individual firms, working through their own trade association, to make the best possible bargains in every part of the world where we are able to buy furniture and other requirements. This policy is a Government policy, and it is also a trade policy, and I can give the assurance to the Committee that the manufacturers, the members of the furniture industry with whom I come in contact, are fully alive to the value of the co-operation which is going on at the present time.
I am only too well aware of the difference at the present moment between those who are anxious to supply the people in this country with the furniture which they need, and those who are anxious to supply them with the furniture which can be produced in this country. Whatever may be the views of the manufacturers, my own mind is quite clear on the subject. It is the duty of the Government to provide, as quickly as possible, as much of the right quality furniture to as many people as we can who require it, and to help the furniture industry with the overriding necessity of providing people with the furniture they need. The policy of the Government is to import as much of the timber, the hard wood and plywood, required to make the furniture—as much as we possibly can get, and if, over and above that, we can acquire furniture, made up, or in parts ready to assemble, we regard it as our duty so to do, and I have said so on more than one occasion to manufacturers and members of the furniture industry. I am still quite clear in my mind that the right policy is to import as much as we can towards providing the consumer with what he needs.
The. hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) spoke about the Tourist Board. He said it could not perform a useful function unless Government Departments, and particularly the Board of Trade, were prepared to assist. With what he said about the necessity for something to be done about tourism in this country, 905 I am in wholehearted agreement. Of course, there are yet many features of the holiday trade in this country which are not as attractive as they might be. We have had seven years, of course, during which it has not been possible to concentrate very much on such things. I am satisfied that there is some need for some stimulus for the holiday trade of this country, both because of the foreign currency it might be expected to attract, and so as to provide opportunities for our people to have a decent holiday at least once a year.
So far as co-operation between Government Departments and the Board of Trade and the Tourist Board is concerned, I will give the categorical assurance that one of the reasons for setting up this Board is to canalise the needs and aspirations of the tourist industry, so that Government Departments can be made aware in the strongest possible way of the needs of that particular industry. I forget the exact occasion, but some weeks ago the House was advised of steps which had been taken by the Board to make available to the hotel and restaurant industry certain stores which are vitally essential to them.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
They are hopelessly inadequate.

§ Mr. Belcher
They are hopelessly inadequate at present because the things are simply not there; but as soon as they are available, it is our intention to do all we can to assist that particular industry.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
Is it the intention to see that priority is given to hotels in regard to fuel?

§ Mr. Belcher
If we take fuel away from essential industries, we might just as well not have any hotels.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
Which is the Board of Trade going to do?

§ Mr. Belcher
I suggest that this question is completely out of Order and has nothing to do with the grant of £7,500 to the Tourist Board. I am sure that the allocation of fuel cannot conceivably come into this.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
The point is that the money will be entirely wasted. Unless something is to be done by the Board of Trade to see that essential supplies are 906 available, we are doubtful whether this money is being rightly voted.

§ Mr. Belcher
It is not for me to say whether it is in Order or out of Order to discuss fuel allocation under this grant in aid. But I can say that I do not feel disposed to regard fuel allocation as coming within my purview on this occasion, but if the hon. Member has any point he wishes to raise, I shall be glad to deal with it at some other time. There was an interesting question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton) regarding expenditure on Australian flax factories. He asked a question as to the precise percentage—

§ Mr. Guy
On a point of Order. I have not had an answer to my question.

§ Brigadier Low
That happens to us every day.

§ Mr. Belcher
Will my hon. Friend, at least, let me come to the end of my speech before he decides whether or not I have answered his question? The exact amount involved out of this £179,000 is £70,000. That represents the share of His Majesty's Government in the loss incurred by the Australian, New Zealand and British Governments in the disposal of the factories set up, in somewhat artificial conditions, during the war to produce the flax we needed at that time. I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar (Mr. Guy). He asked about the salaries of the—

§ Mr. Guy
I asked what is the remuneration of the chairman of the Tourist Board.

§ Mr. Belcher
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I was about to answer him when he interrupted me. The answer is that I do not know the salary. Hon. Members opposite will appreciate my frankness. The Tourist Board is under a section of the Board of Trade for which I do not normally have responsibility. I hope, therefore, that I may be forgiven for not knowing the answer to a day-to-day question of this kind. There is no desire on my part to run away from the question. Had my hon. Friend given me warning that he was going to ask it, I would have secured the reply, but there has not been the time to do that under the circumstances.
907 May I come back to the timber question, and answer my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan)? I have already said that it is our policy to bring into this country the maximum amount of timber and, over and above that, to bring in furniture as well, if possible. West Africa is a potential large supplier of valuable hardwoods for the furniture industry, and I can give a categorical assurance that we are doing everything in our power to import, from West Africa, the maximum amount of hardwoods that can be obtained. If, over and above that, it is possible to import furniture I do not see any reason why we should not get it.

§ Mr. Nutting
Can the hon. Gentleman give a similar categorical assurance that every effort is being made by the Government to buy either timber or furniture from any soft currency sources that can be tapped?

§ Mr. Belcher
The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that at present we are buying timber from more than 40 different countries, and that we have agents searching the world for furniture, if it can be obtained at the right price and if it is of the right kind. But, unfortunately, a soft currency country is not always a furniture producing country. There are many soft currency countries in the world where it is impossible to buy furniture. It would be stupid to send our agents to buy furniture only in hard currency countries, and the policy of the Government is to spend as little as possible in hard currency countries, and spend what we have to spend, if possible, in soft currency countries.

§ Mr. Nutting
But I do need an assurance, because the Government are very stupid.

§ Mr. Belcher
If the hon. Gentleman will give me any examples of the kind of thing to which he has referred, I will apologise if I am wrong. It is not true that His Majesty's Government are buying furniture only in hard currency countries. I have attempted to answer various points which have been raised, and although it may be that there are some things in connection with this Estimate which Members may feel have not been explained fully, I would remind them that there is another stage, and ask them to allow us to have this Vote now.

§ Brigadier Low
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a specific question which was asked of a Government spokesman in another place about three months ago. Will the Government produce a White Paper on the British Tourist and Holidays Board and its functions, or will they make a full statement on some other occasion?

§ Mr. Belcher
I am not prepared to say whether the Government will produce a White Paper, but we have no desire to withhold from the House what is happening in regard to the tourist industry. If the hon. and gallant Member requires information on this subject the road is clear. He has only to put a Question to the Secretary for Overseas Trade, or my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and he will be given the information which he is seeking. I am glad to have these assurances from the other side of the Committee, that there is keen interest in the tourist industry and support for the Tourist Board.

§ Wing-Commander Robinson
While we sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary in that this question of the Tourist Board and the holiday industry is not necessarily his function, it was contained in the top two items in this Estimate. I think it is lacking in courtesy to the Committee that the Secretary for Overseas Trade was not here to explain these items, and I make my protest about his absence.

§ Mr. Belcher
I would like to know in what way I have not satisfied hon. Members opposite about the first two items.

§ Captain Crookshank
It is the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. Guy) who is not satisfied.

§ Mr. Belcher
My hon. Friend behind me is not the one who is complaining. I am not ill-acquainted with the functions of the Tourist Board, and I am certain that any questions which have been addressed from the opposite benches have been adequately answered. I feel sure enough of myself to say that. It is true that I have been unable to say precisely what is the salary of the chairman of the Tourist Board, but I am not ashamed of that, and I do not think I can be accused of ignorance, because it is a matter of day to day administrative detail. I am, however, prepared to get the information, and pass it on.

§ Wing-Commander Robinson
I was not in any way attributing ignorance to the hon. Gentleman. As he said that it was not his function in his Department to look after this matter, I simply pointed out that we ought to have had the Secretary for Overseas Trade here to deal with it.

§ Sir J. Barlow
I. have not been here for the earlier part of this Debate, but I do not believe that the Minister made any reference to the large figure of £6½ million, for cotton and utility cloth rebates. That figure is nearly as large as the original Estimate. It would seem that enough has not been provided in the past, and that the losses presumably on the cotton and cloth which the Government have bought have been larger than expected. A substantial part of utility cloth is made of cotton waste of various sorts. It was decided that the Government should buy this cotton waste, and the prices at the different stages of manufacture were settled. Immediately afterwards, when it could be done without subsidy from the Government, part of the waste which came from India immediately went up in price. That coming from America remained stationary and, so far as I know, requires no subsidy. It would appear that the Government's buying of waste cotton has not been done nearly so efficiently, as Indian merchants have put up their prices against them, whereas private buying shows a considerable saving to the Government.