HC Deb 28 July 1958 vol 592 cc1076-8

9.33 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan)

I beg to move, That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 14) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 1120), dated 8th July, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved. I think that it may be for the convenience of the House to discuss this and the following Order, also relating to siloxanes, together.

The Orders deal with siloxanes and mixtures containing 50 per cent. or more by weight of siloxanes. These goods are at present imported duty free.

Siloxanes are compounds of silicon and oxygen and are usually known as silicones. They have special characteristics of resistance to heat and cold, water repellant and non-adhesive properties and certain other chemical properties as well. They are used to make products which are widely and increasingly used in the rubber, plastics, polish, paint, textile and other industries. This is a post-war development in which the U.S.A. led the way. In this country, production on a commercial scale did not begin until 1953. The combined effect of these two Orders now before the House is to restore the tariff position as it was before 1947, when these goods were exempted from duty.

This exemption was given to facilitate the use by United Kingdom industries of these new products then available from the U.S.A., but which were not at that time being produced in this country. There are now two producers in this country. As the range of siloxane products here expanded after 1953, imports from the U.S.A. were steadily reduced; but the U.S.A. remains potentially a serious competitor. The most serious competition facing United Kingdom manufacturers has been from France and, less seriously, from Germany. The original application which was put in was for a higher rate of duty than that conceded.

This application was given careful consideration and rejected. It was felt, however, that on grounds of equity there was a case for the reimposition of the duty at the rates which applied before 1947, in view of the fact that it was removed to facilitate imports at a time when there was no United Kingdom production. To reimpose it is reasonable, seeing that there is now a United Kingdom industry able to supply our requirements for most of the siloxane products for which there is a commercial demand. There are no G.A.T.T. bindings with which the rates of duty now imposed conflict and these duties have not required reference to G.A.T.T. for a waiver under the no-new-preference rule because, as I have explained, they merely restore the 1947 duty position.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Since the Government are here imposing some additional import duties on a material of industry, can the Minister tell the House—as he did not tell us in his speech—what steps were taken to give an opportunity to any consumers of these products, or other interested parties, to make representations, either against them or about them, to the Government?

Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)

Before the Minister of State replies, may I ask another question? Will he tell the House since, apparently, the two firms which started manufacturing this product in this country have done so successfully without any tariff, what new fact now prevents them continuing to expand and possibly other firms to start making the product unless a tariff is now put on?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan

In reply to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), this application was received from one of the two manufacturers. Leaving out the American imports, which have been controlled by the scarcity of dollars, there has been a continuing increase of imports, both from France and Germany. These companies, it was felt, were entitled to the flat 10 per cent. duty which is applied to all products. As I tried to explain, we have reverted to the status quo as it was before 1947 when these goods were liable to duty. That is the only difference. We have restored the status quo. That was after examination of the full position, which included the fact that these companies would not have been able to stand up to the competition from the Continent to which I have referred.

In reply to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), the public announcement of this matter was made on 8th March, 1957.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 14) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 1120), dated 8th July 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

Additional Import Duties (No. 4) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 1121), dated 8th July 1958 [copy laid before the House 11th July], approved.—[Mr. Vaughan-Morgan.]