§ 2. Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade when his Department gave warning to the trade of the possibilities of a shortage of sulphur.
Mr. H. WilsonWarning of the shortage of sulphur for sulphuric acid manufacture was first given to the trade by my Department in April, 1949. No information was available as to a shortage of sulphur for purposes other than acid making until the allocation for the first quarter of this year was announced by the United States on 18th December last.
§ Mr. ShepherdIf the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the shortage as long ago as the first month he mentioned, why did he allow the Treasury to compel him to run down the stocks and put us in the present position?
Mr. WilsonThere was no question at all of the Treasury running down the stocks. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that dollars were made available for all the sulphur the trade felt it desirable to have, in so far as supplies were available in the United States.
§ Mr. AsshetonHas the right hon. Gentleman any further information to 1976 give the House about this very important matter?
Mr. WilsonNo, Sir. I am sorry that we have not received any further information from the United States since I spoke on Monday.
§ 8. Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement about the supply of sulphur to this country during the current year.
§ 11. Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any reply from the United States Government to his request for an allocation from their reserves of sulphur.
Mr. H. WilsonI am unable at present to add anything to the statement I made about the supplies and allocation of sulphur and sulphuric acid in the course of the debate on the Budget proposals on Monday last.
§ Colonel Crosthwaite-EyreFrom Monday's speech, is it to be assumed that the 19,000 tons received on account now form a charge against the second quarter and cannot be considered as an extra allocation for the first quarter? Second, can any further supplies or final allocation be considered probable until the Raw Materials Committee has finished its deliberations in Washington? If so, when does he expect to get the report of that Committee?
Mr. WilsonThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right: the 19,000 tons is in addition to whatever will be the final allocation for the second quarter and not the first quarter. I certainly hope that we shall receive an allocation before the Raw Materials Committee ends its deliberations and, as far as I know, they have not been considering the second quarter allocation.
§ Mr. A. LewisIf the President does not receive an allocation, can he say to what extent the re-armament programme will fall short of the target that the Prime Minister has announced for the next year?
§ Mr. Niall MacphersonCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether any supplies 1977 we have succeeded in obtaining from countries other than the United States of America are deducted from the supplies that the U.S.A. will send us?
§ Mr. EdelmanWill my right hon. Friend say to what extent the Sulphur Commodity Group is functioning, and who is the British representative of that group?
Mr. WilsonIt is functioning very actively at the present time, but, as I have said, we are not expecting it to produce any results in terms of the second quarter allocation, which is the subject of direct negotiation. Our representative is Mr. Fennelly, the Under-Secretary in charge of sulphur and chemical supplies at the Board of Trade.
§ Mr. KeelingCan the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any reluctance on the part of America to increase supplies of sulphur to this country is not due, and could not be due, to our having supplied sulphur to Communist countries?
Mr. WilsonIt could not be due to that because sulphur has been on strict export licensing since 18th October and none has been exported to those countries. In fact, none has been exported to those countries during the whole of 1950.