HC Deb 08 February 1939 vol 343 cc955-7
Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit misleading stamping or stencilling of manufactured goods. The purpose of this Bill, which is a short one, is to make it illegal to stamp as "Made in Great Britain" goods which may have had only a small process applied to them in this country. I remember that in the old days in the jute industry there was a great deal of feeling on the question of Calcutta goods being brought into this country, then sewn up and sent out as jute goods manufactured in Great Britain. Lately it has been brought to our notice very forcibly that in Lancashire the position is getting very serious. In 1931 there were brought into this country raw goods for refinishing and stamping to the extent of 4.37 million square yards. Of that total.06 million square yards came from Japan. But in 1937 the quantity had gone up to 20.98 million square yards, of which 18.72 million square yards were imported from Japan. Of these goods we find that in 1938 about 95 per cent. were re-exported, mostly to the Argentine. It seems to me most unfair that goods which are practically manufactured wholly in Japan should come in with grey cloth and have one or two processes applied to them here—cheap processes compared with the value of the goods—and should then go out to the Argentine with the stamping on them "Made in Great Britain."

Our Trade Agreement with the Argentine provides that a quota of British cotton goods can be sent to the Argentine in return for the great benefits which we give to the Argentine in the export of their goods. It seems to me wholly unfair that what should be made in this country is being made in Japan, and that simply because the Japanese have the right to stamp on them "Made in Great Britain" in the way I have indicated they should be able to take up part of this quota. What benefit are they getting? One benefit is that because the goods are said to be made in Great Britain they obtain the advantage of the exchange at the official rate. I believe that Japan has very small imports from the Argentine, but that this is a way in which she can get sterling payments. These 20,000,000 square yards would mean employment for about 1,000 people in Lancashire. Heaven knows, the people in Lancashire need employment very badly indeed, and anything we can do to help them it is our duty to do.

There is nothing wrong in Manchester merchants exporting goods to the Argentine with "Made in Great Britain" stamped on them. Actually all that the Argentine wants to know is whether the goods to be sold in Buenos Aires are made in the Argentine itself or whether they are foreign. There is another thing. The quota of British goods might be criticised. It is well known that the British goods are very much better than the Japanese goods, and that is a very important point to remember on this question of the quota. Take the case of the Colonies. None of these goods could be sent to the Colonies because the Colonies would insist upon having goods made entirely in Great Britain before there was stamped on them "Made in Great Britain."

I know that there are several slight objections to the Bill, but when it comes to be a question of the employment of our own people I think that tae difficulties might be quite easily overcome. The Americans used to have a Consul in this country and every single shipment from this country had to have a consular invoice showing exactly where the goods were made and more or less what they were made of. That was to help the Americans to know what they were getting. What we want to know is what is being sent out of the country. Are they British goods; are they giving employment to Britons or not? If these questions are taken into account it would be nothing for the Board of Trade to use their undoubted abilities in finding some method by which goods that are sent out from this country are made in this country if stamped as "Made in Great Britain." I am certain that what happens in the Argentine is that the merchants can get a good price, probably pretty near the British price, for the goods, because they have stamped on them "Made in Great Britain."

This is a very short Bill, and I think I have got the approval of it from Members of all parties in the House. I have spoken to several Members who have said that they thought it was a good Measure, and that it might help to give employment to people in this country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman, Mr. Clynes,

Industry. 12th December, 1938. 16th January, 1939.
Number. Per cent. Number. Per cent.
Building 287 20.6 375 27.0
Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing 1,810 32.3 2,002 35.8
General Engineering, etc. 146 5.5 131 4.9
Marine Engineering, etc. 374 8.8 317 7.4
Shipping Service 333 28.7 253 21.8
Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing Industries 99 10.0 168 17.0
Distributive Trades 677 15.9 726 17.0
Dock, Harbour, River, Canal, etc., Service 348 35.9 375 38.7
All other Industries and Services 1,910 22.5 1 965 23.1
Total, all Industries and Services 5,984 20.1 6,312 21.2

Note.—The figures given in the Table above are exclusive of unemployed insured persons within the agricultural scheme, numbering 59 and 55 at 12th December, 1938, and 16th January, 1939, respectively.