§ 3. Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade when, and in what form, a report and the relevant accounts of the operations of jute control will be published.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftThe annual accounts of the operations of the Jute Control are included in the volume of "Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets" published each year as a House of Commons Paper and are commented on in the Foreword to the Accounts. Those for the year 1953–54 were published in January last in House of Commons Paper 298.
§ Mr. NabarroIs my right hon. Friend aware that the sole report that is available for public scrutiny upon the affairs of Jute Control, which had a sales turnover last year of nearly £25 million, comprises only three lines and 35 words? Would my right hon. Friend, therefore, arrange for a more comprehensive report on the activities of this trading organisation to be made available to me?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftIf my hon. Friend has any particular points in mind about this control, I shall be very happy to answer them.
§ Mr. HoltWill the right hon. Gentleman see that the report is made available to the whole House and not just to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)?
§ 4. Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade why he now continues the operations of jute control with monopoly powers in respect of imported jute goods; and what steps he is taking to permit private trading interests to participate in imports of jute goods with a view to satisfying the needs of manufacturers who are end-users of fabricated and part fabricated jute goods and yarn.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on 15th February.
§ Mr. NabarroWhile recognising the need for a measure of protection for the Dundee jute manufacturing industry, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the end-users of jute manufactured goods, notably the carpet industry, are very dissatisfied with the present arrangement? Can he, therefore, say whether he hopes at an early date to arrange for private enterprise participation in the import of manufactured jute goods?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftI would not say that I defend this as a method of trading: it is a method which I took over. What I suspect is that if I try to tinker with it and amend it, it may be worse for all concerned.
§ Mr. StracheyIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whether he defends this method or not, it has proved extremely successful and has given very good results indeed in Dundee and throughout the country? Will he not now give us some better assurance that he is going to preserve it? Otherwise there will be very great apprehension in the City of Dundee.
§ 5. Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade with a view to winding up jute control, while retaining a measure of protection for United Kingdom jute manufacturing interests, what consideration he has given to the establishment of a statutory jute marketing board to deal with imports of jute goods, and affording representation on the board to private importers, jute manufacturers, consumers of jute goods, including carpet manufacturers, merchants, and Government representatives; and whether he will make a statement.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI do not consider that a statutory marketing board would offer much if any advantage over the present system as a means of safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry.
§ Mr. NabarroIs it not a fact that my right hon. Friend is the head of jute control and also the head of the Monopolies Commission? Would he not, therefore, refer this tight-ringed public monopoly, namely, jute control, to the Monopolies Commission for careful scrutiny and investigation? Will he have a look, with the aid of his right hand, at what his left hand is doing?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftIf I might answer the Question on the Paper, I doubt whether my hon. Friend's suggestion, which amounts to the introduction of legislation to set up a rather complex and cumbersome State monopoly here, would do much good. It might well harm our relations with India, would probably damage Dundee, and I think would bring no benefit whatever to the hon. Member's constituents.
Mr. H. WilsonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in some respects at any rate, the proposal of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) follows very closely what we on this side of the House have proposed for the cotton industry? Having had two additional weeks to study this question, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us whether he can find any significant differences which apply in the case of jute and which justify him carrying on this form of State trading but which do not apply in the case of the cotton industry?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftI thought I would turn down my hon. Friend's suggestion for reasons other than the reason that he happened to agree with the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson).
§ Mr. StracheyWould not the Minister explain to his hon. Friend that this is a non-profit-making organisation?
§ Mr. NabarroIt made £3 million profit last year.
§ Mr. StracheyIt may make profits for the public but it is a non-private profit-making organisation and has given very 2245 great benefits to the whole community. Would not the Minister explain to his hon. Friend that nothing that he can do to disturb it is likely to bring any benefit to anyone in this country?
§ Captain DuncanWould the Minister give a firm assurance that, in the exceptional circumstances of this trade, there will be no change in the system at present operating until an equally good system of protection is given to the jute industry of Dundee and Angus?
§ Mr. NabarroOn a point of order. In view of the character of these replies, I beg leave to give notice that I shall apply to you shortly, Mr. Speaker, for the allocation of one of your new Adjournment sessions to this subject.
§ 6 Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) which sections of the United Kingdom jute industry and how many representatives of the business community in the Dundee area have made representations to him concerning the continuation of Government control of imported jute goods;
(2) what estimate he has made of the effect the removal of control over the import of jute goods would have on the prosperity, efficiency, output and full employment in the United Kingdom jute industry;
(3) what consultations the United Kingdom jute industry had with his Department with regard to safeguarding its position in the national economy before undertaking its large-scale post-war re-equipment programme.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftUnless an alternative method of safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry can be worked out and introduced, the removal of control over the import of jute goods would have a serious effect on the prosperity, efficiency, output and employment of the industry. In view of the heavy concentration of the industry in Dundee and its distance from the main centers of population, there would be a danger of continuing large-scale unemployment. It is in view of this position that Ministers decided that the industry must be safeguarded, and I would refer the hon. 2246 Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on 15th February.
My Department is in frequent touch with responsible members of the industry and has from time to time received representations on the matters mentioned.
§ Mr. ThomsonWhile thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about the carpet trade is not very well-founded, and that the last annual report of the Federation of British Carpet Manufacturers makes no representations whatever for the removal of jute control but, in fact, in making some criticism of the quality of yarns, criticises equally the Indian yarns with the Dundee yarns?