§ 2.40 p.m.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government—
- (a) what was the value of textile machinery of a character not manufactured in this country imported in 1965 free of duty; and
- (b) on what grounds the free entry was abolished.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN)My Lords, during 1965 remission of duty was recommended on textile machinery valued at £10.3 million on the grounds that similar machinery was not procurable from domestic sources. Duty remission has been suspended because, after reexamining the matter and considering the arguments put forward by the various economic development committees, Her 1174 Majesty's Government concluded that the scheme was no longer in the national interest.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, arising out of that reply may I ask the noble Lord two supplementary questions? First, is it not apparent from the large volume of machinery that was imported that it is required to keep the industry efficient and up to date, and would he not ask his colleagues in the appropriate Ministry to reconsider the matter? Secondly, can he refute the reports which are circulating that this decision to abolish free entry was taken without consultation, which was to be expected, with the Confederation of British Industry, the "little Neddy" for the wool textile industry, or the central employer organisation, the Wool Textile Delegation?
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, the decision to abolish the remission of duty is a decision taken on balance of advantage to the economy as a whole. It is realised that it may represent some disadvantage to the industry using this machinery, but great difficulties have been experienced in the operation of the duty remission procedure. It was becoming increasingly expensive and was causing friction between manufacturers of the machinery and the industry itself. On the second question, I am unable now to say precisely whether consultations took place with the C.B.I. or the wool textile industry. What I can inform your Lordships is that full discussions took place with the national economic development committee concerned, and the views of the other "little Neddies" were taken into account.
§ LORD JESSELMy Lords, while I agree with every word uttered by the Minister in his reply to my noble friend, may I ask whether he is aware that remission of duty on imported machinery has not been allowed to any other manufacturing company in the world?
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, I was not aware of that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the information.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, from the reply which the noble Lord has given it is to be understood that the reports that those bodies which I mentioned were not consulted are correct. Secondly, does the 1175 noble Lord not appreciate that the value of the machinery imported itself indicates the necessity for this industry to be up to date and to get prototypes not manufactured in this country?
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken. I was quite clear in my answer to his first supplementary question. I do not know the position with regard to consultations with the C.B.I. or the wool textile industry. If the noble Lord wishes to know the answer, I will get it for him. On the other point, I have already said that the decision taken was on balance, and it seemed to be on balance to industry as a whole. It is recognised that this could be some disadvantage to the wool industry itself.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. In view of strained relations with the C.B.I. that have developed in connection with other matters, can the noble Lord give an assurance that in future there will be full consultation?
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, the noble Lord is rather pressing on this matter. The inference from his question is that consultation did not take place on this occasion. May I reiterate that I do not know whether consultation did take place, but I will find out for him.