EXPORT TARGETS

HC Deb 19 April 1948 vol 449 cc1544-84

8.58 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison

May I entice a reluctant House back from the educational heights of Sheffield and the gas nationalisation problem of Smethwick to the wider issues which we were discussing when the interruption of our proceedings took place?

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that there is an attitude persisting in certain sections of the United States that the shipping trade of this country—one of our most important invisible exports —should be limited to our pre-war activity. I would urge him that such an attitude should be resisted. The United States, in their generosity, are determined to give such aid as will enable us to get on to our economic feet again, but it is quite illogical for them to say that we in Britain must get on our own feet and to tell us in what way and in what trades we are to do it. It must be clear that the chances of this country for ultimate recovery lie along our developing those trades and services which history has shown we well know how to operate. If any country takes the attitude of encouraging, us to get on to our feet again and denies us the right to get on to our feet in the industries we well know, then, although we may be in a weak economic position at the present time in that matter we are in an immensely strong logical position in resisting it.

The shipping industry is one of the trades of the country which is bedevilled by restrictionist practices. Therefore, I welcome the working party which has been set up to go into all that is delaying shipping, as instanced by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), and to report. I hope that the working party will report fully and let the country and the House know exactly what it is, without fear or favour for any particular political conception, that has gone wrong. They will find that certain ports and channels need widening and berths need deepening, and in many cases mechanical appliances need modernisation. They will find also that there is much restrictionism in trade union rules and regulations, which, if they can be alleviated or abolished, would do a great deal to put the shipping industry into a much more prosperous condition. Some of the things going on there are, in the present economic difficulties from which we are suffering, not only intolerable but unpatriotic. For example, a ship can be turned round in the port of Antwerp twice as quickly as it can in Britain. I do not need to emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman or to the House just what an important part it plays in the shipping industry to have a vessel dispatched, loaded and discharged quickly in the port at which it calls.

I will give an instance of what is going on. If a gang working in the hold of any vessel is one man short all work stops until another man is found to replace him, but pay goes on. There might be the exaggerated instance of a vessel with 10 gangs working in it and each gang, being one man short, cannot get on with its work because a man cannot be transferred from one gang to another. That sort of thing is quite intolerable. If one gang was able to be split up and passed over to other gangs working, perhaps, at the same sort of cargo in the same ship, it would at least be possible to get nine-tenths of that ship handled in the case I have outlined. No one would be worse off, certainly not the men who are working, and the country would indeed be much better off. There are great restrictions, for example, in the working of week-end overtime. Those restrictions, which were not imposed with the same severity before the war, should again be examined and alleviated.

I have heard of a port where mechanical trucks, for the loading and discharge of vessels, have been bought and are still lying in store unused because the union are unwilling to accept the implied reduction in labour which those very mechanical trucks were bought in order to bring about. The working party will find many other and more complicated instances, but I will not go into them tonight. I hope that they will come out quite openly with all these circumstances which are, in fact, interfering with the recovery of shipping as we knew it before the war.

I beg the Government to look into the matter of taxation on new vessels which are being built or purchased to carry on the shipping trades of the country. Even in pre-war days on a small proportion of the timber traffic, for example, in the Baltic was carried in British vessels, and the same situation is again obtaining now. I understand that the Minister of Transport is anxious that Britain should take a higher and larger share of the timber carrying trade, but what makes it so difficult for British owners to carry out such a trade successfully is that Scandinavian competitors are treated very much more generously in the matter of the initial depreciation, which they are allowed by their Governments to write off before paying taxation, on vessels of this kind. The chances, therefore, of the British owners being able to build up a reserve fund, out of which he can replace a vessel when once its life is done, are so much poorer than those of the Scandinavian owners that the British owner is reluctant to build the vessels which are so urgently required for that trade.

Mention was made—I think by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) —of the cruise of the "Mauretania." Apart altogether from the immediate financial advantage of vessels of that kind, the prestige of this country goes up enormously when these magnificent vessels, which are built in this country, make their calls at foreign ports. All of us shine, in the eyes of the Americans, to a certain extent in the reflected glories of the "Queen Elizabeth" and the "Queen Mary", and whenever these majestic and magnificent vessels sail into the port of New York British prestige goes up quite a few points. The same can be said of the reconditioned P. and O. liners, which are really ambassadors of the prestige of this country, when they call at Port Said, or Bombay, or Colombo. When the first British vessel put into Hong Kong not so long ago, spick-and-span after reconditioning, it was an occasion almost for national rejoicing.

I have spoken of invisible exports and the question of insurance on a previous occasion and I do not wish to recapitulate what I have already said about the difficulty to which, in some countries, British insurance is being subjected. I notice from the OFFICIAL REPORT, that one hon. Member then asked me how the Government were going to be able to oppose the measures which these foreign countries were instituting and advocating. An ejaculation of that kind from an hon. Member seems to me to show the depth of feebleness to which very many hon. Members opposite have allowed themselves to sink. We have not forgotten the interjection and remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the holding of Japanese bonds. Are we so enfeebled that we are unable to say "boo" to the Argentine or Egyptian goose? Such a state of affairs is quite intolerable in a country which remains the biggest selling market in the world for those very countries which are striving to prejudice us.

The Government are not reluctant to penalise small interests in this country whose votes do not count for much. We recall the remarks of the former Minister of Fuel and Power about the tinker's cuss. Those are the remarks of a bully and a bully as a general rule lacks courage. Is it that the Government lack the courage to stand up for British interests when they are assailed by foreign countries who are introducing prejudicial interests against them? If we have reached that stage it is a poor outlook for the future óf Great Britain.

9.7 P.m.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Ma1ton)

Earlier in this Debate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) said he found it difficult to understand how, when steel had had a record production in the early part of this year, the targets based on steel were being cut. I tried to understand the explanation given by the Secretary for Overseas Trade but without any great success. He talked of the cut in the export target for agricultural machinery. It may be that I have misunderstood what he said, but I took a note of it at the time. I understood him to say that the reason for the cut was that steel was required for factories, mines and textile plant.

The President of the Board of Trade in a Press announcement—I wish he had made the announcement on the Floor of the House when we would have cleared the matter up more satisfactorily—said he had made these cuts to assure the home market of a full programme of equipment. I hope that when he replies to the Debate, he will make that abundantly clear. If these cuts in our exports of agricultural machinery are going to mean that the home market is to have more machinery, I, for one, welcome the Government's decision, and their conversion from a policy of austerity at home.

I should also like him to clear up the position which was created by answers recently in the House to two Questions. On 26th January it was stated that the allocations of steel for agricultural machinery in the first six mouths of 1948 would be twice the allocation for 1947. That would presumably mean that the production of agricultural machinery in the first six months of 1948 would be round about £43 million. We do not know yet what will be the allocation of steel for agricultural machinery in the latter half of 1948. I should like it to be made quite clear that, although there has been a very large cut from £57 million to £25 million —a cut of £32 million worth of agricultural machinery for exports—the steel allocated for agricultural machinery is not going to be varied at all.

The other question which I should like to bring up to date, if any renovation is required, is that which was answered on 15th December, 1947. It was then stated that the expendiure by British farmers on agricultural machinery was, in 1946, £27 million to £30 million; in 1947, £35 million to £40 million, and in the present year was to be £50 million. I hope that I am right in saying that if the £32 million of agricultural machinery destined for export is now to be reserved for home agriculture, the expenditure on British agriculture should be much higher than that figure of £50 million. It has always been my belief, shared I know by many hon. Members on this side of the House, that the best way of tackling the adverse balance of payments is to increase largely our food production at home. For that we must have the tools for the job.

We may remember that in August last year the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government had decided that the programme—speaking about steel tractors and implements—of agricultural extension must be carried out and that instructions had been issued accordingly to the Departments responsible. In November, we learned from the Paymaster-General that steel for agricultural machinery was not on the Prime Minister's list of essential priorities for steel. I hope that that position will be cleared up, and that the result will be to our satisfaction.

There are two other short points which I wish to raise, in order that we may have an explanation from the Government. My constituents and those of other hon. Members are suffering great austerity for the sake of exports. Sometimes we think that some of the austerity is unjustifiable. This year there has been a cut in the clothing ration—clothes and footwear. There has also been a severe cut in the sweet ration. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has been increased.] There has been a temporary increase of one ounce for one month. I hope that hon. Members will take comfort from that 250 tons of sugar that the Minister of Food told us about this afternoon, when he has three million tons of sugar to play with.

Perhaps I may come back to clothing and footwear. Last year our chief export market for clothing and footwear was in Eire. That became the largest export market for clothing and footwear, taking £5 million worth. I have not had great experience of the Irish Government's loyalty to Britain during the recent war, so I do not think that the clothing and footwear can be a great gift to Ireland for the action she took during the war. Clearly this export of £5 million worth of clothing and footwear does not relieve the dollar situation. Eire has an adverse balance with us of some £22,500,000 a year. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how he justifies the policy of keeping clothes rationed to the people of this country while allowing large exports of clothing and footwear to Ireland, so enabling the Eire Government to take off all clothes rationing. The position now is that those who have the money to go to Ireland can buy without coupons all the clothing, boots and shoes that they require and, after a somewhat costly interview with die Customs inspectors on their return journey, they come home well provided with goods. I should have thought that the right policy for this Government would have been to deflect from Eire to the home market that £5 million worth of clothing and footwear and increase the clothing ration.

My last point is again on clothing. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he refuses to allow fully fashioned lisle stockings to be produced for the home market. Women constituents of mine used to spend in the shops 4s. 6d. for a pair of fully fashioned lisle stockings. Now the right hon. Gentleman says austerity denies that and all fully fashioned lisle stockings must be exported. At the same time he imports from Czechoslovakia stockings for them to buy which cost 10s. 6d. a pair in the shops. I see from one of the recent trade and navigation returns that we are spending LI million on these stockings. I cannot conceive that such a policy is economical or indeed just. If we want to try to prevent inflation we should allow fully fashioned lisle stockings at 4s. 6d. a pair to be circulated in the home market and should not afford, in our grim austerity, the luxury of these 10s. 6d. a pair stockings from Czechoslovakia. Those are my three points, and I hope I shall get a full and clear reply about agricultural machinery.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, East)

I wish to add a word or two about agricultural machinery. Talking from my experience in my own concern, I should have thought that if there was one part of our export trade where we could rapidly expand our export, it was in the realm of agricultural machinery. We have unsatisfied demands in large quantities from nearly every country in the world for the agricultural machines which we make. We could double, quadruple and perhaps multiply ten times our present exports if only two things could be obtained. The first thing is the necessary currency in the countries which want to import our goods. Perhaps that is a little off the theme of the Debate, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware of it. Certainly, we are constantly hearing from unhappy, disappointed potential buyers in the countries on the Continent that, while they would like to purchase hundreds of our machines, they have not the currency with which to do it. That is a very serious matter.

The second thing which prevents our increasing greatly our export trade is the lack of steel. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that though the total quantity of steel appears to be increasing, there is a most unsatisfactory unbalance in its production. For example, ordinary articles such as nuts, bolts, and washers, which are made in enormous quantities for agricultural machinery, are almost unobtainable at the present time. In the last week we have had to purchase a quantity of bolts and nuts, not for the bolts which we did not want, but in order to get the nuts. It is quite ridiculous, and is a gross waste of our material; and in the whole realm of steel supply there is something completely out of balance.

I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade is aware of this. Would he undertake to look into this matter? It is not good enough to talk about steel production by and large; it must be translated into terms of the articles made of steel that go to the manufacture of goods for our export trade. The re-rollers of bright steel are in an extraordinarily bad situation. We know one, who used to supply us, who is closing some of his mills altogether for lack of black bars. Surely that is a serious matter at the present time? For example, in the case of strip steel that used to be obtained before the war in great quantities, we are now having to buy plate, send it out to be guillotined or flame-cut it ourselves into strip. It is a gross waste of time and material, yet these strips have to be obtained and that is the only way in which it can be done.

I do not want to develop this further but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman as a serious defect in our present steel organisation. The export trade of this country, at any rate the small section with which I am acquainted, is being seriously handicapped because of the lack of proper balance. If it is the Government's policy to take control of great sections of industry like this one, to order the various departments about and tell them what is their business, I suppose we must accept that, but if they take upon themselves that responsibility, they ought to do it properly. The criticism we make on this side of the House is that they take these great powers against the wishes of a great many of us, and abuse the authority and power they have. Until they can prove to us that they are using adequately and effectively the powers Parliament have granted to them, they are not entitled to exercise those powers. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking to make an inquiry into the complaints I have made and I can assure him that if he does, he will find that things are not at all in a happy position.

9.23 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

In the few observations I have to make I would like to say that the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Overseas Trade are, within the limits of the present situation, making a substantial contribution to the facilities for the development and extension of our export trade. I am glad to begin by paying that compliment because it is not often that we on this side of the House can pay compliments to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, but in this case the new President of the Board of Trade, with all his fascinating qualities, is at present getting into contact with the whole of the machinery of this country and helping it to expand and intensify our competitive powers in overseas markets.

I would like to ask him a question which I have asked in this House frequently. What is he doing to co-ordinate and vitalise the work of our commercial secretariats and consular services overseas in the direction of helping in every possible respect the expansion of our export trade? In days gone by the commercial secretariats and the consular services made a very modest contribution, if any at all, to the expansion of the export trade of this country. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary for Overseas Trade to give special attention to the possibilities which lie in the way of our overseas organisation comprised of the commercial secretariats and the consular services. Particularly in the case of the South American republics, a little give and take of a gentler quality from time to time would help us to a better understanding and ease the difficulties which arise in the South American market. As the President knows, I have a good deal to do with trade with the Latin-American countries. Sometimes complaints are made which might be dealt with in a more friendly way than frequently happens.

I ask particularly that attention should be directed to the possibilities of trade throughout the Colonial Empire. There is a strong desire manifest everywhere in the Colonial Empire for British commodities, but there is no means of making the qualities and character of those goods known to the people of the Colonial Empire. I hope the Secretary of State for the Colonies will do everything possible to expand our trade in the Colonial Empire. I wish to emphasise that in foreign countries, the Dominions and the Colonial Empire we have an immensely valuable opportunity for the expansion of our export trade, and we should make proper use of it. I hope the President of the Board of Trade, of whose work I am constantly saying good things when speaking in the country, will do what he can in this direction, as I know his intentions are good.

9.26 p.m.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

I wish to say a word on this important subject. I am particularly interested in the aspect which presents itself to me in my capacity in the manufacturing side of the export trade. No one would doubt the intentions of the Government, but I find a fearfulness up and down the country that raw materials will not be made available, and the tendency is to overbuy and overstock. In the business with which I am concerned, which does an overseas business of more than £1 million a year, we find our stocks are something like four times as great as they were four years ago. We are offered a lot of copper, rather more than we want, but we take it because we feel we might need it in 18 months' time. That kind of thing is happening not only in industry, but in the domestic sphere.

One of the main causes of difficulty is that everyone, from the housewife with her cupboard to the merchant with his wholesale stores, is overstocked. Every housewife has a cupboard of which she would have been proud four or five years ago, and the manufacturer tends to overstock with goods which he will not require for three, six, or twelve months. This building up of stores everywhere has caused an elaborate over-stocking, financial as well as in goods, and a holding up of production. That is the striking factor which impresses me as a result of Government planning. Everyone tends to be overstocked and this not only holds up capital, but also holds up production and limits the amount of goods available for other manufacturers in other industries.

I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) in his appeal for Empire development. It seems astonishing after three years of war when this country stood most high in the councils and opinions of every nation of the world, including our enemies, that we should now be in a third, fourth, or fifth place. The Government have done little to mobilise good will which, after all is part of the background of good business not only in our Empire but in every country of the world. Why has this not been done? I visit Australia, Ceylon, the United States and Canada, and I find everywhere a passionate desire to trade and to do business with our country. I find also substantial difficulties and barriers erected against us. How is it that we, the unique people of the world, who as regards our language share a third of the world, are more handicapped and impeded than the people of Holland, the people of Sweden, the people of almost every other country. How has this astonishing thing happened? His Majesty's Government are not Empire minded. They are not British minded. They are animated by some obscure policies which I cannot understand.

This wealth of good will, which was ours for the asking, and which was ours so overwhelmingly three years ago, is being dissipated and lost and is disappearing altogether. There have been many suggestions that we should have conferences. Indeed, conferences dealing with Western Europe, the U.S.S.R. and America have materialised. We have still to learn of a great conference of the English speaking people of our Commonwealth who want to trade with us, have traded with us and are our traditional friends. Where is this mobilisation of that good will and purchasing power? I do not see it in the policy of the Government. The Empire and Commonwealth would like to see it, but there is evidence of reluctance and hanging back which should not be manifested by the Government in these days of trouble and difficulty.

In this connection there is the importance, which was mentioned by the Secretary of Overseas, of the tourist movement. I believe in selling easily to the customer who does not ask one to send him the goods but who comes here and buys them. That is the tourist movement, which is easy money. Have we made the most of this tourist movement? I represent a constituency which has made a distinguished move forward in this direction. In Edinburgh we had a great international festival last year and we are running one this year, but is there any like or comparable movement by the Government throughout the United Kingdom to attract visitors? There are tepid suggestions in one way and another—the publication of a leaflet here and there—but where is this great passionate advertising which should be done throughout the world to invite visitors to come and see the most remarkable island in all human history, this island which has been denigrated for a generation by some of those who sit on the benches of His Majesty's Government.

How many will want to come to this island and see it three years after the war, with its dramatic history, its great story, its great place in human affairs? Are not these great assets of ours of any moment? They are one of our invisible exports. We could bring here, not the well-to-do, important though they may be from the spending point of view, but the millions of the world, who have money to spend and desire to spend it visiting our shores. I come from a country with a great romantic history, but those who belong to England and Wales also belong to countries with great romantic histories.

What is being done to mobilise those millions of money? Where is our shipping? Would we not be better engaged bringing people to our country, using our ships for passenger purposes rather than sending goods to export markets which are closed against us or which have decided they have already more than they want? Is there any conception on the part of the Government of the remarkable, lovely, unique character of Great Britain in the eyes of the world? If there is, I do not see it in anything of the Government's I have read or which I have heard from their speeches.

I put these three considerations to the Minister: Are we not tending, because of the unsatisfactory character of Government planning to overstock in every department of industry, to spend money on goods which we cannot immediately use because of the inadequacy, the irregularity or uncertainty of planning? Are we looking at this larger world of the English-speaking people who are by nature and inclination our friends? What are we doing to develop and expand our trade with them? My next point is that this is the show place of the world. There is no part of the world which has anything to show quite as remarkable as has our country. Are these advantages, despite these dire trials of ours, being fully exploited and developed? I am gravely doubtful, but I hope to be reassured.

9.35 P.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford)

The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade announced the individual export target figures for a wide range of industries, 24 hours, I believe, after he had spoken in the Budget Debate in this House, and this rather unusual timing would at least justify a Debate in this House on these individual target figures. Quite apart from this, the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has been abundantly justified by the quality of the expert opinions elicited by this new Debate. We have had expert speeches from both sides of the House.

Governments come and go. Some do less harm than others, but the selling of British manufactures overseas will remain for a very long time far more in the hands of experts than in the hands of any Government. Not long ago the Secretary for Overseas Trade said something about Government plans to send 100 million yards of cotton goods to Canada. I hope it will not be forgotten, if that happy event does happen, that it will be the manufacturers and workers who will produce the goods and the British merchants who will sell the goods to the Canadian merchants. That is why the speeches of experts tonight have a particular value, for all Governments need expert advice, and no Government need it more than a Government of planners whose danger always is to lose sight of the difficulties about which the expert knows. The expert also knows that if he makes a mistake about his trade he will rapidly go bankrupt in the world as it is today.

The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) raised a number of points in regard to trade treaties to which I hope we shall have some answer, and the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton) also raised a number of other important and expert points, as did the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). May I say in regard to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that I believe with him that the expansion of British agriculture is the one single biggest contribution which we can make to aid our adverse trade balance. It is ironical that even if all the Government's plans in relation to agriculture are realised, production next year will be no more than it was when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) handed over authority to the present Administration. It would be fair to say, although he is not in his place, that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) also made a number of interesting points. I have just come back from the Middle East, and I know from first-hand experience how much he personally is doing to push British exports in that particular part of the world.

We are engaged tonight in considering new target figures and I hope it will not introduce too great a note of controversy into this Debate if I say that I, in common with a number of my hon. Friends, approach these figures with a certain amount of cynicism. All previous calculations of the present Government have gone wrong. I do not intend to go into the figures in great detail, but as a warning, in case we are over optimistic, I would remind the House of one or two facts. The imports last year, which we had hoped would be in the realm of 80 to 85 per cent. of the 1938 figures to provide essential raw materials and other things, only reached a figure of 75 per cent. But owing to what was an apparently unanticipated rise in the cost, the actual cost was —124 million more than was forecast last year. As for exports, instead of reaching 140 per cent. on 1938 as we had hoped, they reached about 120 per cent., and our deficit last year was not, as we were told it would be, £350 million, but £675 million. On Government expenditure abroad, the calculations of the Government were £36 million out; our invisible earnings were £90 million out, and errors over manpower ranged from 30 per cent. in one industry to no less than 1,900 per cent. in another key industry.

We ought to be a little chary of accepting these estimates as being something which will really be attained. Generally, as a result of the faulty forecasting last year, the gold and dollar drain on our resources was no less than 50 per cent. greater than our overall deficit and was, as the House and the country know only too well, over £1,000 million in that one year. Can we be sure that these estimates will be more realistic? We have now had three months of the current year. We have had some indication of the shape of things to come. In the White Paper we were told that we might have to expect to lose £220 million of gold and dollars in the first six months, but now, after only three months have gone by, £150 million have already gone.

We have just had the March trading figures. It is good news for everybody that last month we exported £120 million worth of goods, but it is not so often realised—though the Government know it very well in their secret counsels—that the visible adverse balance for last March was £58 million, the largest figure for an adverse balance since August to September of 1947. I am afraid that that shows that the estimates in one important particular in the Economic Survey have gone wrong. It was the Economic Survey which this House discussed only last week.

There were small deficits in January and February and so, taken with the March figures, our total adverse balance for the first quarter of 1948 is £126 million. The White Paper told us that the deficit on our balance of payments visible trading account for the first six months would be £87 million. Already, after three months, it is £126 million. That means that if the White Paper estimates which we discussed last week are to be realised, the next period of a few months must produce for us a surplus of £40 million. It is very difficult to reconcile these alarming figures with the recent statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, generally speaking, imports into this country in the first three months have not been more than was anticipated, for if they were anticipated at that figure, it makes curious the forecast of the White Paper.

Therefore, we might be forgiven if we have a certain measure of lack of confidence about the figures which were given to the House and to the country a few days ago. The Secretary for Overseas Trade in his explanation of the changes in individual target—in so far as he did give an explanation—did not add very much to the knowledge of the House. We were told that these changes in individual targets were made necessary because the first estimates were made under some misapprehension. That was the statement of the President of the Board of Trade to a Press conference. I think that it is fair to quote it in that way. There was some misapprehension as to the supply of certain key raw materials. It was said that there was going to be less steel available for the period than it had been hoped would be available. As a result of that, certain exports involving the use of steel had been cut down and textile exports were being stepped up instead. The balance, in so far as it is possible for the loss of steel exports, is to be made up by certain increases in textile exports.

I want to say a word or two about the steel trade, but before I do so I should like to make one or two broad suggestions as to the sort of handicaps under which all industries are now labouring under the present Administration, handicaps that are going to make it exceedingly difficult for almost every one of the industries in the individual target list to achieve their targets. The first handicap, as it seems to us, is the attempt of the present Government to plan the whole of the productive and economic life of the country from Whitehall, and not only to plan it but to run it. The muddle in the steel allocations, the absurd situation in the brickfields—and no one knows that more than I because, in my own constituency, large numbers of men who are now being put off work were told only a few months ago to expand production—the argument used by my hon. Friend for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) about the failure of a planned economy also to give planned markets—all these suggest the major difficulty under which British exporters and the workers in the export trades are bound to suffer.

The second difficulty seems to me to apply particularly to one great visible export, that of steel, and one invisible export, that of insurance. It is the uncertainty as to the Government's intentions which industries they propose to try to nationalise next. Since the hon. Gentleman, earlier on, paid tribute to the value of insurance receipts in this country, I hoped the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of saying that the insurance companies are not going to have their businesses interfered with by this Government or any later Socialist Government that might come about in the far future.

As for steel, I think it is straining the credulity of anyone rather far for us to have to listen to the constant encomiums now passed by Ministers on the steel trade, a trade that is surpassing its target, while, on the other hand, we all know very well that, in the centre of Government, at No. 10, Downing Street, a bitter battle is at this moment being waged whether to nationalise steel or not. We know perfectly well that the Minister of Health is the chief protagonist of the nationalisation of steel. It may well be that, after his failure to deal successfully with the doctors, he may be all the more anxious to achieve a triumph in regard to steel. It was that particular right hon. Gentleman who, at the last Election, called exports "a Tory will-o'-the-wisp," but now he has to sit alongside Ministers who say every day "Export or die." It is a curious irony that the main threat to our great steel industry should come from someone who expressed himself like that as recently as the last Election.

The reason given for the lowering of certain targets, particularly steel, by the President of the Board of Trade does make the position of the steel trade a little clearer. At the time of the White Paper, the impression was conveyed to some people that, in some way or other, the steel trade had not come up to expectations and had not produced what was expected of it, but the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman at his Press conference for the lowering of the September target for exports, apart from the saturation of certain overseas markets, was that less steel would be available for use in the engineering trade than would be required to meet the original targets. The right hon. Gentleman added—I think these are his words— Some of the original targets were unreliable in the light of steel supplies likely to be available in 1948. This, as "The Times" pointed out, does shift the emphasis, which, in the Survey, was put on the serious shortage of steel, to where it should belong—on the targets and not the steel industry itself. Before I leave the steel industry, I should like to join with my hon. Friends to express surprise that there is no planned increase in industrial output this year when the steel industry has surpassed all its targets with such brilliant results. I hope we shall hear something as to the reason for that rather curious fact.

The last of the broad thoughts which I would like to give to the House concerns the difficulty of all industries to export the required amount, and of all the workers in those industries to give the extra 10 per cent. for which they are asked, so long as taxation is so high and adding so much to our export costs. As has appeared in the House recently, the national income is now some £9,000 million, and of that income £3,500 million, or some 40 per cent., is taken directly by the Government in taxation, and quite apart from that fact the average citizen has also to pay a great deal of money in rates and other local charges. We are always being asked to compare 1948 with 1938, and if that is a fair comparison for export recovery, it is also a fair comparison for Government expenditure. Government expenditure for 1937–38 was £833 million. This year it is £3,250 million, involving as it does a heavy charge on all our exports and a very serious disincentive to the man who does not think it worth his while—this applies to all levels—to work a little harder in order to give a great deal more money to the State.

While on the subject of the cost of exports consequent on Government policy, I hope the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) will be remembered. We have had no budget as yet, but the probable loss on the Coal Board's activities last year was some £20 million, and we may find ourselves faced with an uneconomic price for export coal which will handicap all our export activities, and will also, of course, add enormously to our costs at home.

We believe all these difficulties will remain so long as we have the present Government in power wedded to these theories which are wholly out of place in the fierce competitive world with which we are dealing. But we have got this Government; I recognise that fact. It is a sorry thought of which nobody in the country can be ignorant for long. How are we to get over these difficulties, even with the considerable handicaps under which we live? Of course, we can do a great deal more to increase our invisible exports, and I hope that the Government will listen to the pleas made on this side of the House and to any particular arguments for the restoration, for example, of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange and the other money-making organisations which were casually swept away by the Government after the intoxication of the General Election.

A great deal also can be done by bilateral agreements, and I hope in this connection, as I have said before, that the pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen will be considered. But even with these various measures, which are only palliatives, the great problem will remain unsolved. The restoration of British trade and our recovery of an export position in the world commensurate with our needs will put upon our people an impossible strain so long as we try to have at one and the same time Socialism in this country and 19th century multilateral trading in the world as a whole. To many of us the answer to our particular problem was given by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in the Budget Debate last week. He crystallised in a single paragraph what many of us feel should be the main direction of British export and economic policy. He said: ..in the creation, by mutual co-operation, of trading areas large enough to enable us to exist in the modern world; in reciprocal trade agreements—not necessarily bilateral—and payments agreements which themselves provide the finance of international trade; and in the radical reorganisation and integration of the economy of Western Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April. 1948; Vol 449, c. 852.] He went on, as every hon. Member who heard him will remember, to ridicule the idea of a whole host of highly complicated industrial economic States plunging simultaneously into a world Customs Union.

It is this thought which brings me to the last part of what I wish to say. It is a fact that the publication of the individual target export figures came almost simultaneously with the Blue Book on the Havana Conference which has been taking place, with the representatives of some 50 nations, to discover how to restore world multilateral trade. To those of us who believe that multilateral world trade demands a settled political world, this attempt to restore something in the present unsettled conditions which cannot have a place in the world as it is today is a tragic error. When it is accompanied by a demand to break up our system of Imperial Preferences, it makes the error all the greater. At a time when we need a large trading unit more than ever before, at a time when we have the makings of this unit in the British Empire, attempts are being made at Havana and elsewhere to make a breach in this Imperial organisation. I hope the Government will ponder before they take any very drastic steps. These proposals cannot become part of the international trading law of the world until at least half of the States approve of them, unless one year has elapsed, when I think the vote of some 20 States can give that international binding authority.

Perhaps I may be forgiven if for one moment I give a brief recapitulation of the economic trade at the close of the last century and in the century through which we are now passing. In the seventies of the last century we exported two-thirds of all the manufactured goods of the world. By the time the first world war broke out, that figure had fallen to one-third. By the time the second Labour Government went out—this was not their fault; it is merely historical dating—it had fallen 'to one-fifth, and of this one-fifth, one-half was to territories protected by Imperial Preference. In the year before the last war started, 1938, 32 per cent. of all our manufactured exports went to the British Empire—32 per cent.—but only eight per cent. went to the rest of the world. This eight per cent. is the measure of our competitive position even before this last world war. It was to the protected markets of the British Empire that even then we had to look—and that was in a world, though full of chaos, which was certainly quite tranquil compared with a world with which we are dealing today.

It appears to us to be madness to break this up, particularly now that the concert of Europe is over. We have not looked at the Havana recommendations—personally I had them only 24 hours ago. I see in this all the old language and alarming phrases which we got to know at the Geneva Conference and through the Charter of that time. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the phrases, I think —the reduction of tariffs, the reduction or elimination of Imperial Preferences, and in another part of this Havana Charter it is proposed that there shall be no increase whatever in Dominion preferences.

At the present time we have in the British Empire undeveloped territories, crying out for capital construction and for consumer goods. The trade per head of the population of this country in the year before the war was £30. In India it was 19s. In the Colonies it was £11. There is here an immense field for fruitful enterprise.

Mr. Stokes

The hon. Member says they are crying out for consumer goods. Will he tell us precisely where?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

In East and West Africa there is a crying need, and particularly the report of the groundnut scheme indicates that, where we are trying to provide new sources for food supply.

Mr. Stokes

But surely that is very limited?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

It could be expanded enormously. I believe it will turn out to be one of the most fruitful sources of export. It will be argued in defence of the Havana proposals that they spring from the Atlantic Charter and from Article 7 of the Mutual Aid Agreement, but I want once more to remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford, at a time of enormous danger in our affairs, safeguarded the position of Imperial Preference by including in the Atlantic Charter the words "without prejudice to existing obligations."

I should like to close by asking two or three questions of the right hon. Gentleman relating to the Havana Charter, because they are relevant to our capacity to meet our export target. Is it a fact that the British Colonies will be able to give the Mother Country, and the Mother Country give in return, preference in the Colonial Empire, so long as they share a common quota in the International Monetary Fund? Secondly, is it a fact that if we agree to the Havana Charter we shall not be able to give any new preference to any single Dominions, nor will the Dominions be able to give us any preferences or give them to each other? I believe that is true. We would welcome some statement on that from the right hon. Gentleman.

A rather significant event happened some weeks ago, which has some bearing on this particular matter, on which there has been a number of confusing accounts. Sir Earle Page came back from West Africa and said in Australia that African Colonies were not allowed to import goods from the British Dominions which Europe could supply. There were partial answers to that, and finally an answer was given by a Government spokesman who said that the Colonies were free to import essential goods from wherever they liked, and most of the Australian and New Zealand exports, for example, foodstuffs, were essential goods. He added as to non-essential goods: The Colonial Government are not able to provide hard currencies for their purchases, and His Majesty's Government's international obligations prevent them from putting less restrictions on imports from the Dominions than they put on imports from, say, the United States of America. But—and this must be very difficult for our friends in the Dominions to accept—the spokesman added: They are, however, free to impose less restrictions on imports from the United Kingdom and other Colonies and war shattered European countries. Perhaps reasons like this are the reasons for the removal of the subsidy on im- ports of Irish linen into Australia referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton). If the Mother Country shows that we are breaking up Imperial Preference, we cannot blame the Dominions for doing the same. I feel that in this we have an immense responsibility and that this House should read some of the Debates that took place in the British Dominions. Only a few weeks ago Mr. Menzies said: Why should the U.S.A., which has a preference among its own States, going to the length of complete international free trade, and which has at all times maintained the right to grant preferences to countries like Cuba, say to the countries of the British Empire that it they are to enter into Imperial trade in the full sense of the term there must be no discriminatory treatment. The purpose of this policy seems to be to enable the U.S.A. to sell more, yet the problem is not how it shall sell more but that it shall buy more. Until that happens the dollar problem will not be solved. One of the leading Members of the Liberal Party in Australia used these words, which are very humiliating: Imperial Preference has been bargained away not by us but principally by Great Britain. He added: It is also true that such preferences as remain could be bargained away, and I believe that if this agreement be implemented they unquestionably will be bargained away. I think that it would be a sorry day for this country if we agreed, without proper discussion in this House, to any hasty decision arrived at by our representatives or delegates at Havana. It would be a crying tragedy if the one great sea trading community in the world which has survived unchallenged the war—the one great trading community united by the sea—should be broken up by the present Government.

At a time when we are encouraging other groups of nations to get together and co-ordinate their economics, it would be a great tragedy if we should start by disrupting our Empire. I am confident that, if the export figures which the right hon. Gentleman has announced—and which we all hope will be attained—are to be attained, it will be best done by further measures of Imperial co-operation and by turning to a united Empire and a united Western Europe, with the Colonies of Western Europe included, and attempting to build up from that large beginning a trading organisation of the world.

10.6 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson)

Like the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) I would like also, as did my hon. Friend, to express our thanks to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) for raising this subject today. The result of his having done so has been to provoke an extremely useful Debate and one in which, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, we have heard experts in all parts of the House making a contribution to this extremely important subject of export targets.

I was a little surprised when I saw the terms of the Amendment which the hon. Member had put down. He expresses alarm at the revision of targets and concern at the lack of definite plans for their achievement. After we have heard as much as we did last Monday from Opposition speakers, throwing away the whole idea of having targets or planning of any kind, it is a welcome sight to see the hon. Gentleman expressing concern and alarm about these targets, and especially his concern at the lack of definite plans. I welcome this enthusiasm on his part, even if other of his hon. Friends do not share it, for plans and for planning.

The Opposition position rather reminds me of a small boy some time ago before the nationalisation of the railways. He was standing on Wigan Station and, on asking whether the 3.30 train had yet come in, he was told that the 1.15 had not arrived. He then told the ticket collector that he thought that was very bad and asked why they had a time table if they could not keep to it. The ticket collector replied, "We have to have a time table because if we did not you would never know how late the trains were and you would have nowt to grumble at." I can think of better reasons than that for giving the Opposition something to grumble at when objectives are not achieved.

It is certainly true that the hon. Gentleman's concern about the possibilities that we should fail to achieve these plans has led to an extremely interesting and useful Debate. I would like first of all to deal with one or two points he raised which were left by my hon. Friend for me to deal with. One matter about which he talked was the coal industry. Like him, I entirely agree—as anyone in this House must agree—that the fact that coal exports have restarted is one of the most important things that have happened in our export trade this year. I must remind him again that, if between the two wars our coal mines had made the same increase and improvement in their technical efficiency that other Continental coalfields had made, we could have exported last year 100 million tons of coal, even after meeting all the needs of home industry and of the domestic consumer. I need not remind him what that would have meant, whether in terms of foreign exchange, bilateral bargaining power, or the reconstruction of Europe.

The hon. Gentleman went into some statistical flights in coal matters and, as he knows, I, too, have indulged in coal statistics a little in the past. He calculated —as far as I can see, rightly—that, at the rate of output of 4¼ million tons for 52 weeks in the year, it would be possible to achieve an output of 221 million tons. He then said that that surely ought to lead to some change in the target, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to allow the miners a holiday.

Mr. Hollis

The Minister of Fuel and Power said that, although the weekly production was at present 4¼ million tons, he hoped it would go up to 4,600,000 tons. I allowed for the holidays and, even allowing for that, I was asking why he could not get the 221 million tons.

Mr. Wilson

He did say that, and I entirely agree, but he will realise, as we all do, that the production of coal is a very seasonal thing and that at certain times of the year, particularly in the early part of the year, absenteeism resulting from sickness and sometimes transport difficulties arise. I would not like, nor am I sure would he like, the impression to go out to the miners that we are thinking of the coal production on a purely 52 week basis.

The hon. Member for Devizes made several points in regard to the steel industry, and it is right that I should deal with them because the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) also referred to that industry as did a number of other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Devizes referred to what he called a miscalculation on the part of the Government, and there seems to have been some profitless discussion as to whether there is or is not a shortage of steel, and whether it is or it is not right that the steel industry is doing all that it might do. I should like to make one or two points as I see them.

In the first place, there is an acute shortage of steel, and, secondly, it is a fact that production at the present time is proceeding at a high level. As I said in a broadcast yesterday, the steel industry is doing a magnificent job. It is also equally true to say that the shortage of steel at the present time is due partly to the difficulty of importing certain types of semi-finished steel and scrap and also to the total inadequacy of steel capacity in this country, which is a thing for which the Government bears no responsibility whatsoever. It has been suggested that the Government made a serious miscalculation on this question last Autumn. The other clay I said at a Press conference that the amount of steel available to the engineering industry has turned out to be not so great as it was hoped it would be for a number of reasons. One of them is the very big increase in production in many of the steel using industries, because as is well known the mining, textile and farm machinery, which are far and away above the prewar figures, have taken more steel than was expected.

It is a fact that last autumn we felt—and rightly felt—that we must put our whole concentration on the export trade because of the serious foreign exchange position. It is also a fact that it has not been possible to cut every steel user as much as we then thought it might be possible. The hon. Member for Devizes asked whether the steel industry would be better run by the people at present in charge or by the members of a Government who calculated their figures wrongly. I should like to disillusion him about that. There is no question of the Government giving different answers to the steel industry. Let me remind him that the Government were under strong pressure from the summer of 1945 onwards to loosen or to remove a number of the controls on the consumption of steel, because at that time in the industry there was fear of serious redundancy and that there would not be enough work to keep the industry going full out.

As late as 1946 leading steel makers were going round the country touting for orders of all kinds because their calculations as to the steel supply and demand were far out indeed. I could not accept either what the hon. Member for Devizes said or, indeed, what was said by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) about the tendency under rationing and control conditions to pile up unnecessary stocks. I would remind them that if there were a free market and if there were an expectation—as there might be in certain conditions—of a serious price increase—as would undoubted happen in a free market—the tendency to accumulate stocks ahead of that increase would be more serious than anything that happens under a control or rationing system.

I would like to say a word about textiles. The point of the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite was our policy of reaching a manpower target in the textile industry. I agree with him and with what the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said last year. This is now a key issue in our Economic Survey for 1948. Let us take the cotton industry, where the target for manpower is 325,000 by the end of this year. That is a very high figure. The present target is in the region of 275,000. We are tackling this problem. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has been taking charge of this matter and doing a very fine job in a number of directions.

Our first aim is to get Lancashire labour back into the mills. Whatever we may try to do by bringing in people from other countries, our main aim is to get Lancashire labour back. The cotton industry has a rather bad history, so any attempt to persuade people to come back into the mills means that we have to answer some very awkward questions. We have tried as well as we can in present circumstances to answer those questions and to give the pledges that the people need before they will come back. There is a drive to improve welfare amenities in the industry and the Ministry of Labour inspectorate has been very greatly strengthened to look into any points in this connection which may be raised. The mill people themselves have made a very fine effort to get the welfare amenities of the industry up to the standard to which they should conform. This is a difficult time in which to do it, because of shortages. In spite of the steel shortage, steel has been made available for this desirable purpose. Although the process takes time we may say that welfare conditions in the cotton industry are far better than they have ever been before in its whole history.

Another question which comes up every time as hon. Members opposite who have been in contact with this matter are aware, concerns nurseries. If we are to get Lancashire people back into the Lancashire mills it will to a very large extent mean getting Lancashire women back into the mills. That matter raises the question of nurseries, nursery schools, and nursery clubs. The Ministry of Health have just started a special drive among local welfare authorities for the provision of nurseries. They are pressing forward on this matter at the present moment. The Ministry of Education has been pressing local education authorities not only to make schools available for the purpose but also to provide supervision outside school hours and during periods of school holiday.

I want to stress all these things. These are not jobs which the Government can do; they are for local communities and particularly local authorities. Employers have done some very useful work. The Ministry of Works have made 100 huts available for the purpose of privately-run day nurseries in the factories. At present there are 56 day nurseries in operation by private firms. Another 36 projects are being considered and worked out. Local authorities have 47 nurseries, and more are being planned. We estimate that if there were enough nursery accommodation available in Lancashire, something like 10,000 women or perhaps even more, would come into the mills this year. I am sure that the House will recognise the difficulty of getting nursery accommodation for them.

Another thing we are doing to get labour back—it is a thing we do not like doing—is to try to damp down activities in some of the competing industries in the cotton towns. We were all glad when it was possible to get into Lancashire some other industries to prevent there being an undue dependence on cotton, but at the present time it is necessary to damp down one or two of the industries, particularly in these years of great shortage, and to enable labour to transfer from those industries into the mills. We are having a big drive for part-time workers and evening shifts. An agreement was recently signed between the two sides of the industry for evening shifts in the weaving sheds. Over 4,300 are so employed and now there are 4,500 on organised systematic part-time work on the spinning side.

We are hoping to get this year what we did not get in the past year, that is, a substantial number of new school leavers coming into the mills. Obviously with the raising of the school-leaving age we could not get them in during the last year, but now that year has come to an end and there is a growing confidence on the part of Lancashire people in the cotton industry, we have great hopes that far more juveniles than usual will enter the mills. As another measure, we have by administrative action suspended the calling up for six months of men employed on productive processes in the industry. We have plans for new recruits for the industry whether from this country or outside, and here our big problem is again accommodation. Our present plans for hostels will provide accommodation for something like 9,000 by the end of the year, and we are also working out schemes for assisted travel.

On the question of foreign workers, I have not much to add to what my right hon. Friend has already told the House. With representatives of both sides of the industry, my right hon. Friend has recently been in Germany and Austria attempting to recruit workers. It is not an easy thing about which to persuade any industry, and I want to pay tribute to the helpful attitude of the people of Lancashire and especially to the very hearty and hospitable welcome the Lancashire housewives have given to the foreign workers who have come here.

As has been said, this problem is not only a question of manpower, but of getting more production with the available labour. At present a ballot on overtime is taking place. The Committee will not want me to say anything about that. We are pressing ahead, as the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) reminded us, with the redeployment of labour in the cotton industry and we are to have discussions about this with both sides of the industry in the very near future. This matter is so much a question of confidence. We cannot easily get workers in this or any other industry with a similar history to give up their practices and habits unless we give them confidence that the industry will not go back to the conditions of unemployment and short time which they remember were for so long a part of their working lives.

It is only 10 years since there were 142,000 unemployed in the Lancashire cotton industry. That is more than half the present labour force, and it was 36 per cent. of the then labour force. Fifteen per cent. of them were working on short time, and there was an enormous amount of unrecorded unemployment, such as workers working two looms, which did not get into the unemployment or short time figures. The men and women of Lancashire remember the wages they were getting in those days. The Ministry of Labour census for 1938 shows that men were getting less than 51s. a week and women less than 31s. 6d. These are things which the industry does not easily forget, and they are in people's minds when we appeal to them to go back into the mills and put aside any practices they have restricting output.

Another thing in the minds of the Lancashire people is the fear of Japanese competition, and that is why I welcome the initiative taken by the Cotton Board in the discussions with the United States textile industry. It was at my request that Sir Raymond Streat went over to the United States to discuss this question with the American industry, and the two industries have now had serious and important discussions. They have agreed on a joint report which is at present under consideration by us. It is too early to say what our reaction to it will be, but naturally I can say that a report which is the work of two industries in these two countries obviously must carry great weight with any Government or Governments that have to consider it.

I do not think there is anything more important that anyone can do in the cotton industry today—and I am appealing to hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House because they have offered to come forward and take part in this recruitment for the production drive—there is nothing more important than to give Lancashire confidence that it will-not go back to the old days of unemployment and short time, and in that I agree with what the hon. Member for Ipswich. (Mr. Stokes) said.

The other point to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was emigration. I think he followed the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in referring to the tendency of people to want to leave this country. We know the facts of this, and again I want to suggest that the House should get this matter into proper perspective. Nearly every time one opens certain newspapers, one finds that a lot is made of the apparent desire of people to leave this country under conditions of a Socialist Government. I went to Australia in 1926 and there were a large number of people on my boat, mostly from Scotland, trying to flee from a Government which was certainly not a Socialist Government, to find a new life in Australia. May I say that the number of people who have left this country monthly since the end of the war is under half the monthly number of people who left this country as emigrants after the lest war—[An HON. MEMBER: "Shipping."]—when the shortage of shipping was no less great than it is now. These figures are never published because they are not news.

I would like now to turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence), who referred principally to the textile targets. He commented on the increase in the cotton target and the difficulties of selling cottons abroad in many markets. I entirely agree, but I would remind him that there is a ready market for British cottons in Canada, where there are no restrictions, and, provided our people can sell at a reasonable price, there should be no difficulty this year in attaining the high target to which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford referred. Like him I agree that if and when that target is reached, as we trust it will be, it will be a fine piece of team work by the workers, the managements and the merchants concerned with cotton exports.

On the increase in the woollen target to which the hon. Gentleman referred, he seemed a little more doubtful than I was about the swing in world fashion changes in wool. I would only tell him that that was the unanimous view of the woollen export group which I met to discuss this a week ago. when this point was made strongly. Differentiating between woollen and worsted goods, I would remind him that although we have increased the woollen target, we have not increased the woollen target for piece goods because of the difficulties to which he referred, the import restrictions abroad. The increases are in tops and yarns, where there is a ready demand abroad.

Mr. Spence

Would the right hon. Gentleman give the exact figures? He will agree, I am sure, that tops and spinning are a bottleneck. Would he give the figures of the monthly sterling value of tops and yarns which he expects to export?

Mr. Wilson

I have given figures to the Press but I have not them with me. However, I would tell the hon. Member that the yarn figure is doubled while the tops figure is increased considerably. entirely agree that it would be false economy to be exporting these things if it meant denying the essential raw materials to our own manufacturers, and the new export target in tops—a section of the industry where, as he knows, there has been a substantial increase in production recently—has been fixed so that it will still provide sufficient tops for the home manufacturers. We will certainly keep that question closely under review.

The hon. Member referred to the question of regulations and controls in utility cloth, meaning that there are two lines of manufacture and two standards of workmanship involved, Of course, he knows that we are trying to simplify all controls and regulations, particularly in the textile industry. If there is anything of value that we can do, we will do it. Discussions are going on with the industry at the present time to simplify them further, while still maintaining the essential object of the national policy I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish us to abolish utility clothing at the present time. That is a thing about which the country would feel extremely irate if we were to suggest it, He suggested that utility represents a very low standard. I agree that it is different from some of the export lines, but it is of very much higher quality than much of the clothing produced for our people before the war.

The hon. Gentleman referred to import restrictions abroad—and I think this is probably the most important point raised in the whole Debate. In my remarks a week ago I drew attention to this and said that I thought it was the biggest handicap that our exporters were facing this year. We are well aware of it. I am sure the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting, though he said the Government were casual in our trade agreements, that import restrictions were not affecting this Government's activities materially The trade agreements are necessary weapons that we must have to fight import restrictions. The restrictions are imposed by countries in serious balance of payments difficulties, and I agree with the hon. Member and other hon. Members that they are very much tighter and more damaging to our trade now than they were before the war.

I agree that we need in the long term to trade on a multilateral basis, and negotiations on every separate parcel or type of goods that we sell abroad are not our objective. Unless we have bilateral agreements in present conditions, not only could we not get our raw materials, but we would have no weapons available in this country to force open these markets. One hon. Member said that the Government are afraid to say "Boo!" to an Egyptian. We can say "Boo!" as much as we like to the Egyptians, but it does not open markets to British textiles. There is only one way, and that is by these bilateral agreements. I would like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been critical on this, but who have, on the whole, been very fair and reasonable about it, how they think free enterprise could have done anything to open these markets to British goods.

The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen spoke of the failure to push certain agreements to their logical conclusion. He referred to the agreements with Denmark and Argentina. I said last week that was not happy with part of the Argentina agreement, but I did think that Sir Clive Baillieu had done a very fine job in the face of very real difficulties and we are most grateful to the Federation of British Industries for releasing him for this purpose. I do not think anyone would wish to criticise the agreement he brought home, but all of us would have liked to see a far higher percentage of imports that could be paid for by British exports, particularly exports of traditional lines, many representing inessential goods. We are still holding discussions with the Argentine Government about this £10 million.

Major Haughton

Is it true that Mr. Miranda is coming to this country? What steps are being taken by the Board of Trade to meet him and formalise this agreement for £10 million?

Mr. Wilson

I would not like to say whether Mr. Miranda is coming or not, but I can tell the hon. Member that one of the difficulties that we have had in pushing this agreement to its logical conclusion has been the illness of Mr. Miranda during the last two or three weeks. If he does come, he will get a ready welcome in this country, and we shall be able to discuss with him not only this point, but also one which I have particularly in mind, namely, our desire to push the figure for British exports to a much higher level than fro million. We are in discussion with the Danish Government in a similar way. As I said last week, the Swedish Agreement has already led to considerable raising of import restrictions on British goods. There are to be further discussions between ourselves and the Swedes next month, which I hope will lead to a considerable loosening of these restrictions, if not an open general licence for British goods.

Another hon. Member referred to the new developments in rayon in Northern Ireland, of which I have had full details. I discussed the matter with the Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland last week. Like him, I considered the developments most encouraging, and, like him, I hope that we are going to get over the difficulties which the hon. Member mentioned.

Several hon. Members raised the question of agricultural machinery. The question was whether the cut in steel to that industry falls on the home market, and also whether the cut in exports means that the home market will get more. The point is, I think, that there is not sufficient steel for all the needs of the agricultural machinery industry. We have made a cut in the export programme to ensure that any cut which has to be made falls upon the export side, and not on the home side. The same is true in the case of textiles. There, again, shortage of production will fall upon the export programme, and not upon the home programme.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the point I raised about the answer given on 22nd January?

Mr. Wilson

I would like to, but to do so I would have to go into details of steel allocation. As I am only talking about export targets, perhaps the hon. Member would put down a Question on the subject. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) raised the question of new entrants to industry and the denial of supplies to new entrants. I dealt with this last week pretty fully, and I invite him to look at what I then said. I hate this kind of thing, and if I could get a different system to control scarce raw materials I would do so.

The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr Stokes) made some comments about German scrap and machine tools. I would like to look into the points which he raised, and would be glad to discuss them with him. With regard to prices for capital goods, I agree with what he said. But we must leave this to the manufacturers. We do not fix prices for capital goods. We must leave it to the manufacturers, in present conditions, to get what they can, subject to any protection in the matter of keeping their markets. We do not want them to try to fleece the foreigner. That would lose markets, and we would suffer in the long term for what we had done in the short term.

Mr. Stokes

May I have an answer to my question regarding steel?

Mr. Wilson

The hon. Member wanted to know why, when steel output is at a higher level than in the autumn, there is still not enough steel to meet the engineering industry's export target. I thought I had dealt with that fairly fully. I will go back to it, and say the answer is that it is partly due to the fact that certain other users of steel have increased more than we anticipated, though we are very glad to see that they have; and secondly, that certain users of steel whom we hoped we might be able to cut, we have not been able to cut as much as we had hoped.

Mr. Stokes

Is it due to armaments?

Mr. Wilson

No, it has nothing to do with armaments. I can assure the hon. Member on that. The hon. Member for Howdenshire (Mr. Odey) is an expert in the leather industry. I would prefer not to go into this very technical subject now, but I will look into the matter, and I will be glad to go into it with him another time. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Maclay) referred to shipping. I am in no sense competent to speak on that, but due note will be taken of what he said. He referred also to the need for a steadier supply of materials, and there again I must refer him to what I said last week. No removal of controls or alteration in the rationing system could possibly assist this matter, where there is a shortage of raw materials and shortage of capacity at home. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), like several other hon. Members, referred to "other invisible exports," and asked what it includes. Well, I can tell him it is mainly accounted for by oil. This is the balance of a number of items not appearing in the trade accounts, and the freight and tanker hire, for some reason or other, is shown under this item, and not under shipping. I do not know what hon. Members opposite want to do; whether they want to debate matters affecting the National Coal Board, or go on with the general Debate.

Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint)

No, go on; it is too late.

Mr. Wilson

A large number of important points have been raised, and I do not want to be accused of running away; although I think I have covered most of them. I could mention the speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton); he referred to agricultural machinery, and I have already spoken about that. I would like to emphasise that, with all the shortage of steel, the production of farm machinery and similar equipment is considerably above what the figures were for prewar, and, as he knows, coming as he does from an agricultural constituency, the standard of equipment on our farms is far better than it was before the war. But we should like more production both for the home market as well as for export, and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) is quite right when he says that there is a ready domand for our agricultural machinery overseas.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton spoke about sugar. I think, from what he said, that he must have been reading the main leader in yesterday's "Sunday Express," and I would say that criticism of the kind comes ill from the party which has pressed us on this side to increase our invisible exports. I say that because the increase in sugar refining in this country has proved a valuable invisible export. We are capturing new markets for refined sugar, and I must assure him that these exports are not taken from what 'would be available for United Kingdom consumption. In fact, the sugar is bought separately out of the proceeds of the refined sugar which we sell, and his laudable desire for an increase in his sweet ration—in which I support him—would not, I am sure, damp his enthusiasm for the development of such a healthy earner of hard currency.

Then textiles and clothing were discussed. I know what many hon. Members have in mind, particularly those who represent agricultural constituencies, and what they feel about Eire, but I am sure that they do not want us to impose a detailed system of export licences to make certain that these goods do not go to countries where we do not want to see them go. Reference has been made to lisle stockings from Czechoslovakia. Our traditional exporters are sending more goods to Czechoslovakia than we are getting from her, and it is senseless for us to bring into this country relatively unnecessary goods. I do not want to make any reference to Czechoslovakia in a political sense, but that is the position; we bring in these goods while exporting similar things to other countries, and if we can export them to countries where we gain dollars, it is worth doing although, on the face of it, it looks crazy.

Mr. Turton

I think the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. We are exporting fully-fashioned lisle stockings worth 4s. 6d. a pair in the shops and are importing similar stockings worth 10s. 6d.

Mr. Wilson

Those of the 4s. type which are exported get 4s. worth of dollars or represent goods worth 4s. worth of dollars. I am sorry about the high price in Czechslovakia. They have some strange ideas about what is a fair selling price and we have made it clear that if there is to be any continuation of such trade, they must bring their prices down.

I thank the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) for his very kind remarks. He referred to the question of our commercial secretariats abroad. We are very much alive to this question and the help they can give to our exporters. I am always ready and anxious to hear the hon. Gentleman's views, or those of any other hon. Members, about how we might improve the services given through these secretariats and how we can bring to the notice of the British exporters the services which are standing ready to help them if they would only come and get them.

The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) made a point about tourism. I would like to remind him that all transport services to this country this year are fully booked up, both ships and planes. I agree about the importance of tourism, but I do not think it would make any difference this year.

Sir W. Darling

What about a few liberty ships?

Mr. Wilson

Finally the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said that it seemed a little strange that I did not give these targets in the House before last Monday's Debate. The figures were far too detailed to give in the House. I gave the information in response to questions by individual pressmen. I am sure that if I had published the figures before last Monday, the same point might have been raised. In fact, they were not ready, but I announced them in broad terms on Monday and gave the details later.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the March figures for imports and exports, and said it was not realised that the import deficit was higher last September. I am sure he is not trying to accuse me of concealment because the facts were first given in my speech on Monday. He referred to Havana. I will not follow him in going into this in any detail, but I will repeat the pledge which has been given that the House will have a full opportunity of debating it before any commitments are accepted by His Majesty's Government in relation to the acceptance of the Charter. I may add that I do not contemplate coming to the House for its views on the Charter for some considerable time until we have some idea of what other countries are going to do about it.

Mr. Maclay

I realise that the House will have an opportunity to discuss the Charter before it is approved, but would it not be desirable that we should have some discussion reasonably soon and not only have the thing brought to us for final decision?

Mr. Wilson

I think the hon. Gentleman will remember that the Charter which has emerged from Havana is very similar to that which came from Geneva. I think our Debate on the Geneva Charter has probably covered most points, but that is in any case a point which -should be addressed to the Lord President of the Council.

Reference was made to Imperial Preference. I would remind the House that there were no serious inroads made at Geneva into Imperial Preference and nothing has happened since Geneva which in any way destroys or weakens our Imperial trading links. I agree that we should on all occasions study the speeches made in Imperial Parliaments, and I would ask the hon. Member to look at that made by Mr. Walter Nash—a very good friend of this country—and see what he said about the fact that neither his Government nor this Government have weakened the Imperial links, nor would they do so. The hon. Member indulged in some flights of fancy about discussions which he thought were going on at Number 10, Downing Street, about steel nationalisation. His Majesty's Government's intentions on this matter have been made perfectly clear and it is no good indulging in wishful thinking in this matter.

The only other point on which I wish to comment is his reference to brickfields in his constituency and men being turned off. He seemed to think this represented a serious lack of planning on the part of this Government. I ask the hon. Member to cast his memory back and ask himself whether men were not turned away from the brickfields in far easier circumstances than today—and that at a time when actual conditions for building were very much easier because timber was available, whereas today we cannot afford to increase house building.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The whole point was that actually some brickfields were opened expressly at the Government's request and at considerable expense to the owners, in order to produce bricks which a few months later were not necessary and could not be paid for.

Mr. Wilson

I do not want to go into an argument about the question of bricks, about which I had some experience when I was at the Ministry of Works and on which I spent a lot of time, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think that some troubles of his constituents are not at all related to private enterprise, when he knows—and if he does not, he should know—of the activities of brickmakers in other parts to protect themselves against the relatively efficient production of his area. That has led in the past, and would lead even under a different Government, to some private restrictions being placed upon brick production in that brickfield. I would remind him that the present difficulties in regard to construction are largely caused by shortages of either steel or of timber. Of course the important thing was that these men were turned off before when there was a glut of bricks, at a time when there was plenty of timber in the world, plenty of ships for bringing that timber in, and plenty of seamen tramping the streets of Liverpool who would have been only too glad of the opportunity of going to get it.

That is the note I would like to end on, because although, as has been made perfectly plain on all sides, our problems in reaching our present targets in 1948 are truly immense, and though they do represent an enormous job for our industries, our workpeople, our managements and our technicians, it is true at least that these are all problems and difficulties arising from having to pay for a second world war in one generation. In appealing to our people to go all out for increased production we can assure them that we are never again going back to a state of affairs where people will be turned off at a time when there are adequate resources available and a serious job of work to be done.

Mr. Hollis

I beg to ask leave to with draw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

1. CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1947–48
1. CLASS I
c1584
1. HOUSE OF COMMONS 80 words