asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has sent to the letter recently received from the Principal of the Leathersellers' College admitting that he had made a mistake and that the gauntlets of the gloves submitted to him by his Department for expert examination were of sheepskin and not of hide.

The letter has been acknowledged.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the industry concerned is watching this matter with very great interest? Is he now informing the House that it is still the considered opinion of his Department that where gloves are advertised as being made wholly of hide, and where the experts of the industry and the experts of the Government agree that the gauntlets are made of sheepskin, there is no material false description?

On the particular case and on the desirability of prosecution I have nothing to add to previous answers, the last of which was given on 17th June.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary telling the House that, under the Merchandise Marks Act as it is at present, it is not a false description to misdescribe the quality of goods?

I am not saying anything of the kind.

Is this not a clear case of Doctor Sheepskin and Mr. Hyde?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now reached a decision concerning the initiation of a prosecution against the manufacturers of Argyll double knitting wool labelled as containing wool and nylon.

Yes, Sir. The Board of Trade have commenced proceedings in this case.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Merchandise Marks Acts have now been shown to be inadequate for the initiation of prosecutions in so far as false trade descriptions are concerned; and whether he will consider such amendment as may be necessary.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." The second part therefore does not arise.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to consider receiving a deputation from the trade associations if they consider that such amendment is necessary?

I shall certainly consider any request made to me by any hon. Member on the subject of a deputation, but I would not like to commit myself until I have seen the request.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions for offences against the Merchandise Marks Acts have been brought by his Department in the last 12 months to the most recent convenient date: and with what result.

Three, Sir, in the year ending 5th July, 1954. One case now awaits trial. Convictions were obtained in the other two.

Is not this a case of the Board being in labour and producing a splinter? Would the Minister consider the wholly unsatisfactory situation arising from the administration of this Act, which means that the Board of Trade lays down the standard, the Board of Trade has to decide whether the standard has been infringed and the Board of Trade brings the case? Would it not be better to hand this matter over to the Director of Public Prosecutions and have an independent public investigation of the many cases which are being brought of breaches of this Act?

The hon. Member is wrong in his facts. Anyone can prosecute under the Act. As regards his implication that there are fewer prosecutions under the present Administration, I may point out that there were only two in the whole period of office of the late Government.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the negotiations for a major relaxation of strategic controls on East-West trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can yet make a statement on the relaxation of restrictions on East-West trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make a statement about the changes to be made in the strategic controls on exports to Eastern Europe following the meetings of the Consultative Committee in Paris.

Not yet, Sir.

As the three months' period in which we were promised a statement is now up, might the House now be informed what special obstacles there are to getting agreement about this matter? Will the Minister now declare what his policy is?

These discussions are taking rather longer than we had hoped when we started, and no one is sorrier about that than we are. I assure the hon. Gentleman that any delay is certainly not due to inertia or lack of energy on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

Since Question No. 19 was put down before it was known that the President of the Board of Trade was going to America, will the Minister of State communicate with his right hon. Friend and say—and I am sure that he will be speaking for both sides of this House—that there is a widespread view in this country that these discussions should now be confined to restricting genuine munitions and items closely connected with munitions and should not be related, as the Americans want to relate them, to imposing an economic stranglehold on the Soviet Union?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows the policy of the Government, and that we are endeavouring to bring about a substantial shortening of the list.

In view of the many authoritative statements that other European countries are sending goods to Russia which are forbidden to this country, will the Minister tell us what inquiries he has made into these disturbing reports, and with what results?

I should be glad, if the hon. Gentleman knows of such cases, if he would let me know. Any representations that have been made to us have been looked into, with the result, as I said the other day in the House, that we had no evidence that that was happening.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have been myself informed by the Russian authorities that we are virtually the only country that is honouring this list and that it is perfectly simple to get these goods from other countries? Is he aware that the Soviet Minister for Foreign Trade has said in the last few days—he actually said it to myself—that orders have been placed or arrangements had been made for buying at the official rates of exchange £100 million of goods from this country, if the licences were forthcoming?

I was not aware of either of those points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but again, if he has any evidence, I should be glad if he would pass it on.

May I ask whether ball-bearings and sparking plugs are included in the list?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking of controls on trade with Eastern Europe or with China—

China.

On China the list of prohibited goods has been published. I am afraid I have not all the details.

Can the Minister assure the House that the President of the Board of Trade, in his mission to the United States, is not to by-pass the work of the Consultative Committee in Paris?

I am glad to give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Canada, and the steps which he has taken to facilitate an expansion of trade between Canada and the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend regrets that, owing to his visit to Washington this week, he is unable to take this opportunity himself to say something to the House about his visit to Canada. My right hon. Friend, in his series of public speeches in Canada and in his many private discussions with representatives of the Canadian Government and Canadian industry, emphasised that United Kingdom purchases from the dollar countries in general, and from Canada in particular, will be able to increase if Canada buys more from the United Kingdom; and that the United Kingdom is now offering goods competitive in price, in quality, in delivery and in after-sales service, in nearly the entire range of Canadian imports. Everywhere my right hon. Friend found a desire on the part of Canadians to buy more from this country.

Can the Minister now give the percentage of liberalisation of trade with Canada?

No, I cannot. I think that I said to the hon. Gentleman the other day that if he put down a Question to that effect I would try to give him the information for which he asked.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the reorganisation of his Department which will become necessary on the transfer to him of functions hitherto performed by the Ministry of Supply; what consultations he is having with the Minister of Supply to enable staff from that Department to be transferred; and what estimate he has made of the additional number required.

I am afraid I cannot add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply gave the hon. Gentleman yesterday.

Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he cannot add anything to that? The staff in the Department are fully seized that changes are in progress at the present time and have expressed some alarm. They want to know whether the Minister can give an assurance that when work is transferred the staff engaged on that work will accompany it. Can the right hon. Gentleman at least say that if there is any proposed transfer at all the staff will be adequately consulted?

The question which the hon. Member has raised as to the effect of any such change on staff is obviously important. I should like to repeat that no decision has yet been reached. If and when a decision is reached, I have no doubt whatever that proper consultations will take place.

Will the Minister make quite sure that before final decisions are taken there will be this staff consultation to which he has referred?

I am quite sure that the proper treatment of staff will be taken into consideration before a decision is reached.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there are now machines standing idle in the glove factories of Leicester as the result of competition from Hong Kong; and what steps he is now prepared to take to enable the glove industry to continue in Leicester and elsewhere.

I am aware that some glove knitting machinery in Leicester is at present standing idle, but I do not know how much of this is due to competition from Hong Kong. I have no reason to suppose that the existence of the glove industry is seriously threatened.

Will the Minister make further inquiries about this? Is he aware that in Hong Kong the workers are receiving about one-eighth of what the workers in Leicester get? Further, is he aware that these gloves are being imported now at about 20s. a dozen whereas they were 36s. a dozen in 1953? Is he also aware that the trade in Leicester is very deeply concerned about this and that quite a number of people have had to go to other employment?

I should be very interested in any evidence that can be sent to me either by the hon. Member or by the trade, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that Hong Kong is a Colony within the Commonwealth and I really cannot hold out any hopes that it will be possible to put restrictions on imports from Hong Kong.

Would the Minister say whether he is of the opinion that, with the liberalisation of East-West trade, there will not be still stronger competition with this country?

I think that we must wait and see how the situation develops.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have now been taken to maintain the level of film production after the middle of August in the light of the decision of the National Film Finance Corporation to appoint a receiver for the British Lion Film Corporation.

The receiver and manager is providing distribution guarantees pending the formation of the new company which, as already announced, will continue the distribution functions hitherto performed by the British Lion Film Corporation.

What about production? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his assurances about the maintenance of film production have already been falsified, because films have been cancelled? What are the Government doing to maintain film production there, and what is to happen when the present production programme expires?

I am informed that the receiver decided not to proceed in one case, but that was due to factors which might in any event have deferred production of the film concerned.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary now in a position—because this is getting very urgent—to say whether the new company being established, or the receiver in the interim, is in a position to finance production as apart from the provision of distribution guarantees?

No. I cannot add to my answer. I think that, as far as the effect of the appointment of the receiver and manager is concerned, the steps he is taking should prevent any loss of production.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange henceforward to allow free competition in the importing of Polish bilberries.

Negotiations with Poland for a Trade and Financial Agreement for 1954 and subsequent years are still not complete, and I cannot therefore say what final arrangements will be possible for the import of bilberries.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take in view of the report of Mr. E. Milner Holland on his investigation into the affairs of the Savoy Hotel Limited.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the Report of the investigation conducted by Mr. Milner Holland, he proposes to take any action against the directors of the Savoy Hotel Company;

My right hon. Friend would like to take this opportunity of thanking Mr. Milner Holland for his admirably clear Report. The House will agree that it deals most fully with the issues placed before him. Since the Report states that the directors acted in good faith, my right hon. Friend does not propose to take any action against them. Mr. Milner Holland, after careful consideration, has expressed the view that their use of their powers was invalid. My right hon. Friend has no reason to apprehend that, in the face of this opinion, other directors will seek to carry out any similar transaction, but, if they did, it should be possible to get a decision from the courts. As at present advised, my right hon. Friend does not consider that any amendment of the Companies Act is required, but he is keeping the matter under consideration.

Is the Minister aware that it is difficult to regard this Report as very satisfactory? It does not reflect much credit upon the directors, it gives no comfort to the shareholders, and leaves the law on the subject in a very uncertain and unsatisfactory condition.

If the hon. Member examines the very clear conclusions, I think he will find that the Report elucidates the matter very much. I think that it clarifies the law, as far as the law can be clarified without a judicial decision.

As the Parliamentary Secretary says that the Report is completely clear, will he tell us what, in the view of his Department, "invalid" means, since I understand the normal meaning of the word to be "not being in force, ineffective"? Clearly it was most effective, whatever else it was. Secondly, will the hon. and learned Gentleman take into account that there have been grave expressions of concern about the uncertainty of company law both here and in a leading article in "The Times"? Does he not really think that he ought to clear the matter up either by a test case or by amendment?

I appreciate that until there is a decision by the courts there must be an element of uncertainty, but, in view of this closely reasoned Report, I think there is no reason to apprehend other directors taking similar action. If they did, I think it extremely probable that the matter would be tested in the courts. On the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary, I am not going to attempt to improve on the language of the distinguished lawyer concerned.

Why should it be left to litigation to decide an important point of this kind when it can be simply and effectively disposed of by legislation which would clarify the matter without any doubt?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to draft the legislation, he would find that it was by no means so simple.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to make obligatory the publication of the identity of the individuals or corporation responsible for guaranteeing the purchase of stock at prices considered by the appropriate authority to indicate abnormal circumstances.

No, Sir.

How can the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Department regard with equanimity the purchase of stock by individuals or corporations at the price of 62s. 6d. when the current price of the same stock is 39s. 3d.? Does not he know who guaranteed this purchase? Is it not a fact that it was Barclays Bank? Is the public interest well served by this sort of anonymity?

I was not quite certain what the hon. Member had in mind in asking this Question.

Neither have I.

If he is referring to what might have been material in the inquiry which was recently conducted into the affairs of the Savoy Hotel, it would have been open to the Inspector to look into this matter, had he thought it relevant. If the hon. Member desires to ask any Question about the borrowing of money or other financial assistance in this case, that Question should be addressed to the Treasury.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to introduce legislation to make it an offence for secretaries of companies to publish as unanimous decisions of boards of directors, unless it is demonstrable that all directors, notifiable under the articles of the company, had in fact been notified of the time and place of the meeting where such decisions were taken.

No, Sir. I do not think that such legislation is necessary.

Is it not a fact that at least one director of the Savoy Group—and probably two—was not informed of the Hoard meeting, that decisions were taken which should properly have been considered by the board and the shareholders as a whole, and that had that action been taken this rather unsavoury business would have come to light and received publicity?

In this case the Inspector has found that the mistake was not deliberate. If mistakes of this sort are not made innocently, the criminal law is not without resources as things are, and, in addition, those responsible might find themselves liable to civil proceedings.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent attack made by Mr. Sam Eckman, an American national, on the British film industry, he will not reappoint Mr. Eckman to the Cinematograph Films Council.

I cannot yet say who will be appointed to the Cinematograph Films Council when the terms of office of the present members expire, but my right hon. Friend would not regard a representative of one section of the film industry as unsuitable solely on the ground that he had criticised another section.

Is not the Minister aware that Mr. Eckman attacked the Eady Fund and said that the film industry ought not to contribute any more to it from the remission of taxation which they have recently been given; that he has come into full conflict with the British Film Producers' Association representing the producers, and that in any case he represents an American film company? Would it not be a good idea to have only British subjects on the British Film Council?

I am aware that Mr. Eckman has published a controversial article on the merits of which I am expressing no view whatever. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to Section 41 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, from which it will be seen that it is the duty of my right hon. Friend to appoint representatives from various sections of the industry.

Has not the gentleman in question brought to his duties an expert knowledge of the film industry and a great friendship for this country?

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to lay a White Paper showing the action taken in Development Areas since 1948.

There has been no decision to lay a White Paper on this subject, but my right hon. Friend is considering the matter.

As the Minister has been considering the matter for two years now, will he bear in mind that, when the Distribution of Industry Act was passed in 1945, an undertaking was given to lay a White Paper in three years, which I did, and it was understood that there would be subsequent White Papers laid every three years thereafter?

I do not think that was quite the understanding, but let me say that I appreciate the very good reasons why the right hon. Gentleman laid the White Paper in 1948. If he will refer to the Foreword of that White Paper, he will see that the occasion for the laying of that White Paper was expressly said to be the statutory review under Section 7 of the Act three years after the Act came into operation. There has been no subsequent statutory review, nor will there be, under the Act.

But if the first White Paper was laid only three years after the Act, is there not a case for another White Paper, as it is six years since the first White Paper was laid?

That question presupposes a general merit in the laying of White Papers. There are many statutes which prescribe annual reports and so forth, but there is nothing like that in this case. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman's desire for a White Paper has been noted and is under consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made regarding the two North-Eastern Trading Estate Company's factories in Sunderland which are still vacant.

A surrender of the lease of Price's Tailors Ltd. has now been arranged and we have recently brought the factory to the notice of several more possible tenants. Fordham and Co. Ltd. are themselves seeking a tenant for their factory, which we are also bringing to the notice of suitable applicants for factory space.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am very glad that he has at last taken the advice which was previously tendered to him? Is he further aware that there is now a possibility of a third factory closing and that the special difficulties of Sunderland merit the particular attention of the Board of Trade?

As to the special difficulties of Sunderland, I am sure the hon. Member will welcome the fact that the building of a new factory on the Pallion estate has started. But, on the problem generally, I am sure that he will better serve the interests which I believe he has in mind if he will have a talk with me on the whole matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the recent announcement of Messrs. Courtaulds Limited to build a new rayon staple fibre unit on the Humber to produce 100 million pounds weight annually, what assurances he has given to this firm that they will be granted import licences for the extra amount of chemical pulp that will be required; and what is the import duty on this raw material.

None, Sir; but I have no doubt that any application will be considered as sympathetically as our balance of payments position at the time permits. There is no duty on imports of wood pulp.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now lift all licensing restrictions on the importation of chemical pulp to the paper industry.

I regret that our balance of payments position does not yet allow us to dispense with the quantitative restrictions on imports of chemical or other types of pulp for paper making.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the general level of tariffs for British manufactured carpets and rugs entering respectively, India and Pakistan; also the tariffs upon Indian and Pakistani manufactured carpets entering the United Kingdom; whether reciprocity exists; what representations he has received in this regard; and what action he is contemplating, or taking.

In India and Pakistan the duties on United Kingdom woollen carpets and rugs are 31¼ per cent, ad valorem and 45 per cent. ad valorem, respectively. No Customs duty is charged in the United Kingdom on Indian and Pakistani carpets except on those containing silk. My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations from the industry and has no action in mind at present.

My right hon. Friend said a couple of weeks ago that conversations were being considered with the Indian Government about the inequalities which exist upon tariffs in the textile industry. When those conversations are conducted, will my right hon. Friend have special regard to the manifest inequality which exists in the case of carpets, which so seriously affects the industry in Kidderminster?

I do not think that I said the other day quite what my hon. Friend says I said. As to the position generally, we must remember that these tariffs are the result of trade agreements made with India in 1939 and with Pakistan in 1951, and it is right that we should consider the results of such trade agreements as a whole, and not one individual item.

Is it not a fact that both those agreements are favourable to the United Kingdom, and, in those circumstances, should we not be very careful before we consider taking further action?

I agree, in general, with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that both agreements are pretty favourable to this country.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the question of jute carpets which are in a particularly difficult position? Could they not be put in the same category as hessian in the matter of protection?

I will consider what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I am afraid that I cannot give him an answer now. I am not quite familiar with that point.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in increasing tariffs in December, 1953, and May, 1954, upon fruit and other horticultural products is being negatived by increases in export subsidies by the foreign countries of origin of horticultural products; and what further action he is now taking to protect the home horticultural producer.

As I told my hon. Friend on 29th June, we are aware that there are elements of export subsidy in a number of horticultural imports into this country. I have received no evidence, however, that the increased tariffs recently introduced for certain horticultural produce have been negatived by increased export subsidies in foreign supplying countries. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will let me know.

Is it not a fact that the export subsidies to which my right hon. Friend referred are, in themselves, a contravention of G.A.T.T. and, as the United Kingdom is a contributor to G.A.T.T., what action does my right hon. Friend propose to take to see that the other contributors abide by the terms of that agreement?—unless he is prepared to scrap the agreement altogether, which many of us believe ought to be done.

I did say that it is an over-simplification to assert that all export subsidies are against the provisions of G.A.T.T. It depends on the particular export subsidy. I have said that the Government do not like export subsidies and, when G.A.T.T. comes up for review, no doubt that will be one of the questions which will be considered.

Whether or not the Government like these subsidies, is not the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) right when he says that if export subsidies are not applied equally to home consumption in these countries they are a direct contravention of G.A.T.T.? In those circumstances, without waiting for a review of G.A.T.T., will not the right hon. Gentleman enter into discussions with those countries in order to find out whether they are acting in breach of the Agreement?

These G.A.T.T. matters are extremely complicated, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but where we have a clear case of a provision of G.A.T.T. not being adhered to we consider what steps we can usefully take.

Is it not a fact that we are unable to take any effective measures against this sort of thing so long as the restrictive clauses in G.A.T.T. continue to operate?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of fruit and vegetables this year is higher than ever and is becoming absolutely prohibitive to the housewife? Will he say when all this plotting is going to cease, and when some help is going to be extended to the housewife?

That question falls outside the scope of the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will request the Monopolies Commission to investigate and report on the whisky industry in view of the fact that one group of distillers provide more than one-third of the total output of whisky for this country.

My right hon. Friend will bear this in mind when he selects further matters for reference to the Monopolies Commission.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that this matter will not be subject to the censorship of the 1922 Committee?

Can my hon. and learned Friend explain how a group which controls only one-third of the output of the industry can possibly be considered to be a monopoly?

That, curiously enough, is possible under the Statute.

Assuming the Minister's decision to be favourable, namely, that this matter will be investigated by the Monopolies Commission, whatever may be the facts with regard to the home trade, will he bear in mind the fact that export whisky, especially to dollar areas, is virtually a monopoly and that, as a consequence, the Americans pay only one dollar 10 cents now as compared with one dollar before the war? That is about 8s. Is it not time that this matter was put right and the distillers put in order?

That is a little wide of the Question, but, if the matter does go to the Monopolies Commission, that Commission can hardly remain ignorant of the views of the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, through the Monopolies Commission or otherwise, he will inquire into the costs and methods of motor car distribution.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend prefers to await the outcome of the general inquiry under Section 15 of the Monopolies Act, on which the Commission is now engaged.

Is not the public being fleeced by the exorbitant distribution margin of 20 per cent. on the price of cars? Is it not time that the Minister did something about distributors' and dealers' profits and inquired what is being done to earn them?

Since many of the matters connected with the industry are covered by the inquiry which is now taking place, it would be desirable to await the result of that inquiry before making another into this trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the cessation of hostilities in Korea, he will restrict the list of commodities prohibited for export to China to the categories indicated in the United Nations resolution of May, 1951.

The list is already restricted to these categories.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that German trade is going ahead by leaps and bounds? In 1953 it was nine times what it was in 1952. Now that the Korean war is over, why do we continue to hamstring ourselves in the face of intense German competition?

I have no reason to suppose that the Germans are not adhering to the list which has been agreed in accordance with the United Nations resolution of 1951 about trade with China.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give an undertaking to inquire what is happening about German export trade to China? If we are not careful we shall wake up to find ourselves in a hopeless position.

I shall certainly look into the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of so-called strategic items which cannot be shipped to China are being shipped to Poland and other East European countries, and that railway and other transport facilities enable them to be shipped straight to China? Does not this fact make a farce of the whole system of special Chinese strategic controls?

We are aware that the embargo lists in the case of Eastern Europe and China are different.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now permit the export of tinplate to China.

Any relaxation of the controls on exports to China must depend on developments in the Far East. The export of tinplate is already permitted if it is for the packing of food to be shipped to the United Kingdom.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very considerable orders are available to British firms which, if we do not accept them, will go to Continental competitors? What is he going to do about it?

I cannot accept the assumption made by the hon. Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no restriction whatever upon the export to China of tinplate, among other things, from Switzerland or Sweden, and that Swiss trade with China is now twice as great as British trade?

I am aware that neither of those countries is a member of the Consultative Group.

If the right hon. Gentleman's policy is preventing British exports from going to China and she is getting the goods from somewhere else, what is the object of it? It is lunacy.

As I have said on several previous occasions, I am always glad to receive any evidence from any hon. Member on this subject. Many allegations are made but very little evidence comes to us.

What is done about this evidence? How many cases is it necessary to send to the Board of Trade? I have sent cases, but nothing has been done about them.

Will the hon. Member send the cases straight to me in future? If he will do that I shall consider them personally.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade why the export to China of small generators for mobile cinema units has been banned on strategic grounds.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade why the export to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of extruded plastic tubing is prohibited.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade why the export from the United Kingdom to China of acetic acid and acetone is prohibited.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the strategic considerations which have impelled him to restrict the export of generators to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade why the export of light industrial motor-trucks to China is prohibited by his Department, but the export of saloon cars permitted.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the principle upon which the export of small fishing craft to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is permitted and to China is prohibited.

With the hon. Members' permission, I will answer these Questions together.

On a point of order. I do not give the right hon. Member permission to answer my Question No. 44 with Question No. 33, which is quite a different one.

We can tell whether the answer will or will not cover both Questions only when we hear it.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Minister asked for permission, and I certainly want my Question answered separately.

It will be a waste of the time of the House if the same answer is given twice.

One Question deals with China and one with the U.S.S.R. Is it within the competence of the right hon. Gentleman to say, "I shall put the whole world together and answer 45 Questions at the same time"?

We must wait until we have heard the answer.

The answer to these Questions is as follows:

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question has nothing whatever to do with the U.S.S.R.? It is about small generators for mobile cinemas, small generators that can be used only for mobile cinemas and nothing else. If the right hon. Gentleman wants it, I can supply him with evidence to that effect from the firm of manufacturers. Will he be kind enough to answer just that Question?

The decision on the embargo of small generators to China was reached as a result of discussions between all the countries concerned. On interpretation of the United Nations resolution, in the opinion of those countries, small generators are of military value.

Is it not very interesting that while generators are being ordered no cinema units are being ordered? Does that not throw doubt on the veracity of the orderers?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the firm, which, incidentally, is not far from the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), has supplied full technical details to the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply, and that his technical advisers have accepted its evidence? If that is so, why is he denying permission to export these things?

I am afraid that there is no question whatever of our unilaterally altering the China list.

Oh.

Would the right hon. Gentleman now answer Question No. 44, which he has not dealt with in his reply? He has said that as far as China is concerned there are military considerations. Why, then, does he allow the export of generators to Russia? Since he does, will he tell us why he does not allow more to go?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given. I have said that discussions are proceeding, and it would be inopportune, in my opinion, to discuss particular items on the list.

Could the Minister help the House to this extent? My hon. Friend's Question No. 33 refers to small generators for mobile cinema units. There is a dispute about the facts. Could the Minister give an illustration of the military purposes for which these small generators could be used?

I am no engineering expert, but I really should not find it difficult to believe that small generators that can be removed from one equipment and put into another could be items of considerable military value.

Is the Minister aware that while we are refusing permission to export acetone and acetic acid, Western Germany is free to export such goods to China? Is he not further aware that we have no monopoly in the production of plastic materials? What is the reason for including plastic devices in the security list?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman is the same; the countries concerned have found that these items may be of military value.

Is it not the position that small generators can be exported to the U.S.S.R., and that the Russians, if they want to, can send them to China? If so, is not the whole thing nonsense? Are we really in the position, under a Government who were going to set businessmen free, that to exchange a tintack for an egg we have to consult Washington, Paris, Brussels and Bonn?

We really cannot think of a matter in which consultation seems to be more important.

Is it possible for the Minister to tell us why the proceedings of the Consultative Committee are continually held up? He has given me an assurance that it is not we who hold them up. Which Government is it?

Answer.

I think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are not being suite reasonable about this matter. These discussions are between no fewer than 15 countries, and are about very difficult matters indeed, and I do not think it is surprising that they lasted a little longer than we expected when we started them.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is giving a different answer today from the answer given by his officials to the firm concerned to which I have referred, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will circulate to all manufacturers and exporters of plastics, a list of the plastic products whose export to Eastern Europe and to China, respectively, is prohibited.

I am sure that it will be much more useful that intending exporters should inquire of the Board of Trade whether their particular product may be exported.

Is the Minister aware that would-be exporters are getting conflicting advice when applying to the Board of Trade? Would it not be simpler to let every manufacturer know exactly where he stands?

I think I have said before that these inquiries are extremely difficult. No list will cover them completely. The most satisfactory way is to inquire into each case as it comes along and for the manufacturer to tell us exactly the specifications of what he wants to export. Then we can give him an answer. If the hon. Gentleman can give me any information about cases in which conflicting advice has been given, I shall be glad if he will let me have it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number and value of orders for machine tools whose licensing for export to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is at present under consideration by his Department; and the number and value of those licences which were under consideration on 21st May, 1954, which have since been granted.

At present 150 applications for licences to the value of £26,726,685 are under consideration. Since 21st May, 16 licences have been issued to the value of £464,444. Applications for licences do not necessarily correspond to orders.

Does the right hon. Gentleman first of all realise that these applications for licences exceed the total in any one year of exports of machine tools to the whole world, and, secondly, that those orders are now being supplied by Switzerland and Sweden who place no restrictions whatsoever on the export of machine tools to the Soviet Union? Does he not think this nonsense should be stopped?

With regard to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary Question. I do agree that these are very important orders indeed. We do not want to keep them in suspense one day longer than we need.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to answer the other two parts of my supplementary question?

As regards the second part, relating to Switzerland and Sweden, I have no specific information of what the hon. and learned Gentleman states.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those commodities whose export to Eastern Europe and China is prohibited from the United Kingdom but is permitted from the British zone of Western Germany.

There is no difference between the list of prohibitions enforced by Her Majesty's Government and that enforced by the Federal German Government.

Oh.

But surely the Minister is aware that, if not from the British Zone, at least from the American Zone acetone and acetic acid, for example, are being exported every day to China, and that when the Minister was enforcing the ban on antibiotic drugs to China orders amounting to millions of pounds were fulfilled by Western Germany? I think photostat copies of the correspondence showing those orders were sent to the Board of Trade. Did he not trouble to look at them?

I have no evidence of any difference in treatment of exports from Western Germany as between the British Zone and the American Zone.

Will the Minister tell us what he calls "evidence"?

The hon. Member should look it up.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that polyvinyl-chloride, used for the manufacture of all plastic materials, is being exported from Eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia to Western Europe; and whether he will remove the prohibition on British firms exporting this product to Eastern Europe and to China.

Yes, Sir, the Soviet Zone of Germany and Czechoslovakia probably export this commodity to Western Europe. Equally there is no restriction in the United Kingdom on its exports to Eastern Europe. As regards China, there is no present intention of changing existing policy.

If there are no restrictions on the export of polyvinyl-chloride and its products, can the Minister explain why firms in Norfolk and elsewhere have been writing to his Department for some considerable time to try to get licences and to get information and have not been able to obtain this information? Is he aware that this is perhaps the predominant basic material of most plastic products and a matter of considerable importance?

As for the first part of the question, I was not aware that firms had been unable to obtain information; as for the second part, I agree that this is a basic material for plastics.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what quotas for the export of diesel generators of 750 kilowatts and above to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have been agreed upon by the Consultative Group Co-ordination Committee for export from the United Kingdom, France, Western Germany and Belgium, respectively.

As the hon. Member knows, it has not been the practice to make public information of this kind. I do not think the present moment a good one to consider a change in this policy.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 5th July he told my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) that these figures had been arrived at by the agreement of the Consultative Group Coordination Committee as between the various nations concerned? Is it a fact that all the other Continental nations can be told what the allocations are but that we cannot be told, and is there any reason on earth why we should not be told whether this country is being reasonably treated or unfairly treated in these discussions?

I do not think I can add anything to what I have said on this and several other occasions—I cannot think that this is a good moment to change our present policy.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and value of licences to import grapes from Bulgaria refused and granted, respectively, by his Department in the last 12 months to the nearest convenient date; and the number and value of licences to import this product from Spain refused and granted, respectively, during the same period.

No licences to import grapes from Bulgaria were issued in the last 12 months. In the first half of 1954, 97 licences to a value of £59,891 were issued for Spanish non-hothouse grapes. Details of refusals of licences are not readily available.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there is this attitude towards Bulgaria in view of the fact that we in this country have no particular cause to love Spain? Is it not a very good thing to try to engage in trade with such countries as Bulgaria, to create an atmosphere in which other settlements may be possible?

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in general that we want to engage in trade of that kind, but we are not yet in a position in which we can free grapes completely from import restrictions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if, before seeking a revision of the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, he will discuss with Commonwealth Governments the effect on their exports to the United Kingdom of imports of fruit from the United States of America under the Mutual Security Act;

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will take steps, by negotiation, to bring into line United Kingdom and United States treatment of imports which receive a subsidy from the Government of the exporting country;

Our objectives in the G.A.T.T. review will not be finally determined until after we have completed an examination of the provisions of the agreement which is currently in progress and until there has been full consultation with Commonwealth Governments on the lines agreed at the meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Sydney. The general issues raised in these Questions, including the use of export subsidies, will certainly be considered in the preliminary review, and, I should expect, in the consultations with Commonwealth Governments, and I will see that the points raised by my hon. Friends are borne in mind.

While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to give particular attention to the problems of Australia and South Africa in this connection, because very great concern is being felt in those Dominions?

I am sure that all those important matters will be taken into consideration.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not allow preferences to be frustrated by dumping or subsidies, that he will make this crystal clear at G.A.T.T. and that he will claim the same power to act independently and immediately as that which other Powers exercise?

I have already promised that the point raised by my hon. Friend will be borne in mind.

While recognising that it is in keeping with the policy of the late Government to consult the Commonwealth Governments before decisions are taken, will the Minister of State when at G.A.T.T. draw attention to the fact that the Mutual Security Act replaced Marshall Aid?

I will remember that point.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what regulations there are discriminating against the import of tomatoes and tomato products from Europe into the United Kingdom, as between the various producing countries; in respect of what countries licences are normally granted; in respect of what countries licences are normally refused, and for what reasons; and, in particular, to what amount licences have been granted in the last 12 months, to the nearest convenient date, for the import of tomatoes and tomato products from Bulgaria, and to what amount they have been refused.

Fresh tomatoes and tomato products from Western Europe are admissible under open general licence. Specific licences for canned and bottled tomatoes are issued under a single quota covering imports from any of the countries in this group. As to Eastern Europe specific licences are required for the import of any of these goods. We are prepared to consider applications from any country for imports of tomato puree; the import of other products from particular countries are licensed in accordance with quotas established under trade agreements. No licences for Bulgarian tomatoes and tomato products have been issued in the 12 months to the end of June and I regret that information about the refusals of licences is not available.

Would the Minister inform the House how many applications for these imports he has received from Bulgaria during those 12 months?

No, I am afraid I cannot do that. I have said that none was given and I said in the answer that unfortunately we have no record of the number of refusals.

Why?

Is the Minister's Department so ill-organised that it does not keep a record of the people who apply for licences? Would it not be quite simple to look through the applications and to see which were accepted and which were refused?