HC Deb 01 May 1951 vol 487 cc1004-6
60. Mr. Osborne

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that imports in March were nearly £96 million in excess of exports and that with the February excess of £64 million and the January excess of £75 million constitute a trade deficit for the quarter of £235 million; and how much of this he estimates will be covered by increased exports; and how much he expects to be reflected in a lower standard of living.

Mr. Gaitskell

Yes, Sir. While these developments are not necessarily inconsistent with those foreshadowed in the Economic Survey, it is clear that the volume of our exports will have to be increased if our objectives are to be reached. On the prospects for the standard of living, I would refer the hon. Member to the Survey.

Mr. Osborne

Is not the Chancellor aware that our visible deficit is now running at the rate of £940 million a year and must that not eventually involve a very serious lowering of our standard of living?

Mr. Gaitskell

Perhaps the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the imports are valued c.i.f. and the exports f.o.b. That correction has to be made and allowance has to be made for invisible exports.

Mr. Osborne

Allowing for those corrections, does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that there is still an enormous adverse balance which we have to overcome unless there is to be a very heavy lowering of our standard of life?

Mr. Gaitskell

No, I certainly would not agree that there is an enormous adverse balance. There is a slight adverse balance on the first quarter, when the corrections I have mentioned are taken into account.

62. Mr. Osborne

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what considerations as to prices or to the volume imported he bases his calculation that imports are likely to be £3,200 million this year; and, in view of the importance of maintaining supplies to industry, if he will make a further statement.

Mr. Gaitskell

It was estimated that the volume of imports, excluding purchases for stockpiling, would be about five per cent. higher in 1951 than in 1950, and that import prices would on the average be about 30 per cent. higher. As the Economic Survey points out, both these estimates are inevitably very uncertain. The Government are fully aware of the importance of maintaining supplies to industry, and are taking all possible steps to this end, but I have no further statement to make at present.

Mr. Osborne

What degree of error has there been in estimating the prices of imports in view of the fact that the first quarter's imports are running at the rate of nearly £4,000 million a year as against the statement of the Chancellor of expected imports of only £3,200 million a year?

Mr. Gaitskell

I would advise the hon. Member not to draw too many conclusions from one quarter's imports. They are not so badly out of scale as he seems to imagine.

Mr. Osborne

Does the Chancellor expect the imports for the next three quarters to be at a lesser rate than those of the first quarter of this year.

Mr. Gaitskell

When the necessary corrections have been made, that is, C.I.F. and F.O.B., the rate of imports is about in line with what we said in the Survey it would be.