HC Deb 10 November 1948 vol 457 cc1681-96

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Shephard (Newark)

We move now from food to clothes, both of them subjects that have a great deal of interest for the nation. The President of the Board of Trade said, two or three weeks ago, that he intended to make a bonfire of a lot of controls, but it was not a very big bonfire. If only he had thrown in clothes rationing, and all the hundreds of millions of coupons, he would have had a blaze worthy of Guy Fawkes night. The right hon. Gentleman had already prepared the way, in September, by taking off coupons furnishing fabrics, boots and shoes, gloves, and one or two other hosiery articles. Many people expected that he would abolish clothes rationing when he made his announcement about the bonfire. The structure of the clothes rationing scheme still remains, however, despite the representations by the clothing and drapery trades.

I saw in the Press the other day that the right lion. Gentleman was about to conduct a quiz among employees at the Board of Trade to find out, I suppose, how many coupons they had left, and so on. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is in a real difficulty. During the war he could estimate what the production of clothing was, and he knew it could all be absorbed. Today, however, although he can still estimate what the production will be, he is not in a position to know what the consumer demand is or what the sales are likely to be. I suppose that that is really why he is having this quiz. I was under the impression, from what I saw in the paper recently, that Gallup Polls and quizzes were no longer reliable, and I do hope that the Minister will attach far more importance to the representations made by the trade than he will to the result of his quiz.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) raised this matter of clothes rationing in a Question a few days ago, the Minister replied that he would end clothes rationing as soon as supplies were sufficient to meet export demands and to leave a reasonable balance for home requirements. I think those were the words he used. That is fair enough. I am not going to argue about that at all. My contention is that we have reached that point, and that the home supplies of almost every article of clothing are now sufficient for the demand, and that no hardship would be suffered by any of the public if clothes rationing were abolished. Of course, I want to substantiate that argument; and I can do it only by producing figures from the Monthly Digest of Statistics.

Let us take first of all the wholesale stocks. According to the latest Digest, Table 151, the total stocks of men's, womens', and children's wear in percentages are 184 as against 100 in 1942. They are almost double. If we turn to supplies for the home market, we find—and I am quoting in millions—that in men's and youths' wear the supplies of pullovers and cardigans rose from 0.19 in 1944 to 0.50 this year; and that in women's and maids' jumpers and cardigans supplies rose from 0.50 in 1944 to 0.96 this year; and that supplies of women's and maids' vests increased in the same period from 1.32 to 1.94, and that supplies of knickers and pants went up from 1.63 to 2.24. In children's outerwear and underwear we see the same upward trend; supplies of outerwear rose from 1.38 in 1944 to 1.84 this year, and supplies of underwear from 2.24 to 2.89. And so on. Hon. Members can see for themselves the figures of stocks and supplies available to the home trade, and they can see how they have been steadily increasing.

I should like to point this out. I know that clothes rationing applies not only to clothing but to household goods. If we take the sale of wool blankets, of cotton blankets, sheets and towels, we find that in almost every case the supplies available for the home market have almost doubled since 1944. Of course, I admit—and it would be stupid not to—that there are still certain shortages. However, over the whole field the supplies are adequate. Surely, the Minister is not going to keep this clothes rationing scheme on until the supply of every article in it has more than met the demand? Obviously that would not be justified.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. Simmons.]

Mr. Shephard

That is the policy which the Minister is following out. He has admitted that as an article of clothing comes into sufficient supply to meet the demand he will take it off coupons, which rather suggests that he is going to keep the clothes rationing scheme on until the supply of every article is greater than the demand.

I submit that we have now reached the stage when there are sufficient clothes to give everyone his requirements, provided that he can afford to buy them. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted at a luncheon the other day that price was now the most important factor in the sale of goods. I understand, although I have no personal knowledge, that black market coupons which were in the region of 3s. each are now down to 1d. or 2d. each. That again is a very significant factor. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that unless he can prove that this system is still essential, we cannot afford to retain it in view of the waste of manpower involved.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking to the T.U.C. in August, said that we had no more manpower available to increase our production. We on these benches do not agree with him. We think that there is a lot of manpower in this country which is being wastefully used, and I believe that today the clothes rationing scheme is an outstanding example of that. I know of firms in the clothing trade where 10 per cent. of the clerical staff are employed solely in dealing with this coupon scheme. The Secretary of the National Association of Outfitters estimated that we were spending 10 million man-hours operating the clothes rationing scheme. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to give figures of the number of people engaged in his Department on this scheme—I dare say that they amount to a few hundreds —but on the most conservative reckoning there must be an enormous amount of labour tied up in factories, warehouses, shops and Government offices, and I think that the Minister must justify the retention of the scheme.

Let me give him the point of view of the trade and I say that the trade is in the best position to speak knowledgeably of this matter. On 1st November, a committee representing all the clothing and drapery trades submitted a memorandum to the President, and they stated in the most emphatic terms their conviction that clothes rationing could safely be abolished without any damage to the public interest at the end of the current rationing period. They also stated that during the last 18 months it had become clear that what now limits expenditure on clothes is the money in the pockets and not the coupons in the books. They claim that most of the population have more coupons in relation to the goods that they wish to purchase than money to pay for them. They went on to make what I thought was a most important statement. They said that the legalising of loose coupons or the use of loose coupons made it easy for anyone to transfer coupons to another person, and thereby defeated the whole object of the scheme which was to ensure a fair share to everyone; that while in 1941 the clothes rationing scheme was proper and necessary, its continuance today meant the misuse of manpower. Finally, they claimed that if the scheme were abandoned tomorrow there would be no rush to buy, and after a day or two shopping would become quite normal.

That is my case. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen very carefully to the claims put forward by the trade. I would emphasise that they really are in a position to know whether this scheme can be abandoned or not. They have faithfully carried it out since 1941; they have made no complaints; but they have come to the conclusion now that this scheme is redundant. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take his courage in both hands and declare to this House that this is the last period for clothes coupons, and that at the end of the period the scheme will be abandoned.

10.6 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson)

I should like to begin by referring to a point made by the hon. Gentleman when he said that, after it had been stated last week that a bonfire of controls was to take place some people expected that clothes rationing would be on that bonfire. I should say that when I made reference to the forthcoming quite modest little bonfire, I specifically said that there was no question of abolishing clothes rationing, or of anything of a similar kind being on that bonfire, so that if people expected that, I cannot plead guilty to having misled them.

I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has treated this subject. It is not quite so simple or straightforward as he suggested, nor are the arguments quite so much on one side as he suggested. However, I should like to thank him for the fact that, for once, this subject has tonight been treated quite free from any party issues. The hon. Gentleman has looked at it as a straight and most important problem. I quite agree with him about the intense desirability of getting rid of clothes rationing, for all the reasons he mentioned, as soon as is possible, but I should remind the House of the background against which this question of clothes rationing policy must be examined.

I am anxious, as I have said, to end rationing as soon as possible. It was a war-time expedient to provide fair shares of clothing at a time when our textile industries were being cut down in size, and when huge demands for textiles for the Services had to be fulfilled. Looking back, I do not think that any hon. Member on any side of the House tonight would say that the clothes rationing scheme had been unnecessary. I think we should agree that it has been pretty successful; and, like the hon. Gentleman, I should like to add my tribute to the way in which the trade has faithfully co-operated in the operation of the rationing scheme thoroughout. But it is, of course—and we fully regard it in this way—a temporary scheme, and we all want to get rid of it.

The question which we must ask ourselves tonight is whether this is the time to get rid of the scheme. Looking at the position in the shops at the moment—and I think the hon. Gentleman has been looking at the position in the shops—the hon. Gentleman might be tempted to think it was not surprising that retailers generally are pressing for the abolition of clothes rationing. The retailers say—and they are only saying what we on this side of the House and on this Front Bench, have been saying for some months—that it is money and not coupons which is holding back a very large proportion of the people from increasing their purchases at this time.

I think that is fairly generally true; but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that people are buying clothes, and buying them on a very considerable scale at the present moment. Trade in clothing shops at the moment is very brisk—much more brisk than it was a year ago, in spite of the degree of disinflation which has undoubtedly been making itself felt during the past few months. When the hon. Gentleman sees the figures for October —I have not seen them yet myself, but the first indications from the trade have been reported to me—he will find that in October, as in September, trade has been very much more brisk than a year ago. It is not true, therefore, that at present people simply are not buying.

It is a fact, as the hon. Gentleman said, that I have received a memorandum from certain sections of the trade pressing for the abolition of rationing. I stress the phrase, "certain sections of the trade," because several times the hon. Member used the phrase "the trade" as though the trade was united on this question. The hon. Gentleman knows the trade, and he ought to know by this time that the clothing trade is never united on anything. In fact, I was taken severely to task yesterday afternoon, in a discussion with the clothing industry about this most desirable development council which it should have, for using the phrase "clothing industry." It was made quite plain to me by certain people in that industry that, in fact, it was not one but several industries. Therefore, it is a little misleading, when we are talking about the distributive side, to talk of the trade as though it were a single unit and united even on this question of clothes rationing.

The trade, in fact, is very much divided on this matter of the immediate abolition of clothes rationing. I do not think it is unfair to say that it is more divided now than it was last May, when the pressure for the removal of clothes rationing really began. Leading figures in the trade have recently gone on record, in public statements and speeches, against the immediate removal of clothes rationing.

Let us now consider the main points which should be in our minds. Getting rid of rationing depends fundamentally on two things: the volume of production and the volume of exports. Since the end of the war textile production has increased, and that increase is continuing. It has been welcomed by hon. Members on all sides of the House. But, at the same time, we have had to build up our textile exports because, of course, as the House well knows—and we have debated this subject several times during the past year—textiles are goods which we can sell now to dollar-earning and dollar-saving markets, and we are looking to continued exports of textiles in the future to help us to pay our way; so that it is vital to hold and develop our markets as rapidly as possible at this present time. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the 1949 export target for the cotton industry, for instance, has been raised even higher than the 1948 figure.

The success of our export drive so far has been encouraging, apart from difficulties caused by import restrictions in some markets abroad on wool cloth and on clothing. Although production has increased, exports have increased still more than production, so we ire getting less of some kinds of cloth on the home market now than we were getting a year ago—considerably less, in fact. This is the main point which I want to stress.

The hon. Gentleman gave us some figures. Perhaps he will forgive me if I give one or two more figures to illustrate the point I am making. If we take supplies of woven non-wool—mainly cotton and rayon—cloth in May, June, July and August a year ago, the total supplies for the home market were 204 million square yards. In the same month of this year they were 178 million square yards—some 13 per cent. less. Supplies of cloth of this type to the home market, in fact, are at a very low level compared with the past two or three years. In the same period wool cloth supplies have fallen from 80 million to 68 million square yards, a reduction of some 15 per cent. Cloth supplies have been falling, and that means less garments for a time.

While this fall has been taking place in the supply of cloth for the home market, what has been happening to the position of the wholesale and retail distributors? I do not need to emphasise the fact of the very considerable time-lag between the production of cloth and the appearance of the garments in the shops. Supplies of finished clothing in the shops this year have been bigger than last year, a fact which is due to last year's relatively good cloth supplies and which I have recognised by making available additional coupons, by down-pointing certain goods, and, indeed, by removing certain goods from the ration altogether. Retailers' sales in terms of money have risen. At the same time retailers stocks increased very slightly in September.

All this, of course, makes part of this slightly misleading picture of plenty on the home front, which is presented to us by certain interests. But it is not enough merely to look at the stocks in the hands of retailers; we have to look at the pipelines behind them, the pipelines which feed the retailers with clothing. Here the picture is distinctly less rosy. If we take the volume of wholesalers' stocks, which in May reached the figure of 152, taking the average sales in July, 1947, as 100, it has fallen in the following way. It was 152 in May, at the time when there was great pressure for the removal of ration- ing and when I did make certain rationing changes; 142 at the end of June; 144 at the end of July; 131 at the end of August, and 116 at the end of September—a very marked fall in the volume of goods in the wholesalers' pipeline.

Mr. Shephard

From what is the right hon. Gentleman quoting? I gave certain figures of wholesale stocks which are quite different from the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given.

Mr. Wilson

I am sorry I cannot give the source of the figures, but I think they were supplied by the Wholesale Textile Association. I shall be glad to ascertain the exact source and let the hon. Member know.

Mr. Shephard

The only information which hon. Members have is that in the Monthly Digest of Statistics, which surely is authoritative.

Mr. Wilson

The figures I have quoted are in the possession of hon. Members and I should be glad to compare them with those given by the hon. Member and let him know the reason for the point he has made.

Mr. Jennings (Sheffield, Hallam)

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that if my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) is quoting from a monthly schedule of figures and he is quoting from another set of figures, it would have been better to make the figures public? Then, perhaps, this demand for de-rationing might not have been brought forward.

Mr. Wilson

I have just said that the figures are available to hon. Members. They are published in the Board of Trade Journal, from which I took them, and there is no question of misleading the House or the public by giving figures which are not available; these figures are available.

Mr. Shephard

This is a most important matter. My case has been based on rising stocks, and now the Minister is telling us that, according to his information from the Wholesale Textile Association, stocks have been dropping every month. If I may quote from the Monthly Digest of Statistics at the end of August, the last monthly figures published, the figure was 184. That was certainly a drop from the previous month when it was 195, but that 195 was the highest figure ever attained, and there had been a continuous increase until the end of August.

Mr. Wilson

I can certainly explain why the figures are different. The figures from the Monthly Digest used by the hon. Member, take as their base the period of 1942, whereas the figures I am using take as their base the period of 1947. Certainly there was a fall between July and August and a further fall in September, which I believe is not available in the Monthly Digest; whatever basis is used, my figures will be confirmed. From the figures which I have just given, I think the hon. Member will agree that the really significant fall was in the month of September. We have all been watching the month of September very carefully. That was the month in which the new coupons came into operation, and it was the first time that the new pointing values for many clothes were introduced. In the month of September, trade was very brisk and while retailers' stocks have risen very slightly, wholesalers' stocks have fallen very considerably indeed.

Mr. McCorquodale (Epsom)

Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman is the most eminent statistician of His Majesty's Government, cannot he make his influence felt so that statistics given by different Government Departments are on the same basis of comparison?

Mr. Wilson

I am touched by the right hon. Gentleman's kind remarks. Of course, I am at a disadvantage when figures are quoted from a well-known source and I have not the figures in front of me. As I have said, there are two reasons—one that 1947, instead of 1942, is the basis, and secondly, one set of figures are given in terms of volume and the other figures in terms of value. There was a significant falling off in stocks in September, which is of great importance to any consideration of this matter. The picture given—and I think confirmed by the trade—is one of increased purchases by the public, increased purchases by the retailers, and falling wholesale stocks and falling supplies of cloth in the garment industry. Therefore, in such a situation I do not think any of us would be justified in leaping to the conclusion that rationing has outlived its usefulness.

As I have said, the time cycle of production from spinning the yarn to retailing the cloth is long. It varies greatly for different kinds of clothing. It is essential therefore that our policy should be flexible. We have gone a good way in recent months. I know that to retailers who have large stocks it is irksome to collect coupons, and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about a loss of manpower which might otherwise be productive, if, of course, it did not get lost in some other section of the distributive trade. I do not know how far the hon. Gentleman would like us to direct that labour into more productive activity. I am confident that those retailers to whom I have referred, and who have co-operated so well, are going to see this thing through to the end. In the longer run the outlook is un-doubtedly encouraging. Production is improving. Production of cotton yarn is 14 per cent. above 1947. Rayon yarn and staple fibre output in September was a record for all time. Wool cloth production in September was the highest figure since the end of the war.

On the question of when rationing should end, the advice I get from the trade is very far from being unanimous. This committee representing the distributors is pressing me to abolish rationing at the end of February. They have sent me the memorandum referred to by the hon. Gentleman and this memorandum is being considered by the two advisory committees representing the manufacturers, on the one hand, and the distributors and housewives, on the other, which I set up following my statement in the House last May. I do not know what advice I shall get, but I shall consider it very seriously indeed, not only because of the width of interests covered in those committees but, because of the high quality of the persons on those committees.

Traders are not at the moment speaking with one voice on this matter. Distributors, whose stocks are good, are pressing for the abolition of rationing. Manufacturers, who are experiencing the fall in cloth supplies, are very much more guarded in their comments

. Perhaps if I give the House one illustration it might make this point a little clearer. Much of the pressure for coupon changes this year was based on the relatively heavy stocks of women's outerwear. Special coupon changes were made as well as new pointing arrangements, while certain things were taken off the ration altogether.

These changes were designed to shift these stocks and stocks of one or two other goods in abundant supply in the shops. I asked the trade to clear stocks by half-coupon and half-price sales, which they did to a large extent. By and large, these measures have been effective, but recently when I met an important section of the women's outerwear trade, the main point put to me had nothing to do with coupons at all. They were not pressing for further coupon concessions, but for me to increase supplies of cloth, especially utility cloth, for this section of the trade. The position in that particular trade has become much more difficult from the point of view of cloth supplies, and certainly some of those who not very long ago were pressing for the immediate derationing of clothing are being much more guarded at the present time.

I have given the House an outline of the position we have reached. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity, and I am sorry that I have not been able to give a clearer or more definite answer. As regards the future, the policy of the Government will continue to be—and I am sure everyone in the House will agree with it—to ensure the maximum exports we can possibly make available from textiles and from clothing. Whatever is done in the field of rationing policy, nothing must interfere with this aim of priority of exports. The home market will get the remainder, and the size of this remainder will depend on the level of production, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, on the degree of success which our exporters achieve. Exports must come first. After that, as soon as we can be sure that home supplies, present and prospective—those in the pipeline as well as those in the shops —are reasonably adequate to meet unrationed demand for clothing generally, then rationing will go, and no one will be more happy than myself to see the end of it.

Mr. Jennings

Will the President of the Board of Trade explain to me how it is, if there has been heavy buying over September and October, as he suggested, that retailers' stocks are still so heavy?

Mr. Wilson

Yes, Sir. I should have thought the answer was very obvious. The retailers who saw this heavy buying coming and who saw evidence of it during September were putting heavier demands on wholesalers than before, and that is why, during the period when buying by the public has increased so much, retailers' stocks, nevertheless, increased slightly more and the whole brunt was taken by the wholesalers' stocks.

Mr. Shephard

I would like the right hon. Gentleman, before he sits down, to clear up one point. I am very worried that he is intending to operate this system of clothes rationing until the supply of every article is equal to the demand. He has already, by his action a week or two ago, rather suggested those are the lines on which he is going to work. Does it mean—and I would like an answer to this because it is important —that he is going to take off the ration from time to time those articles of clothing which are in ample supply, and is he going to wait until every article is in ample supply before he abolishes the scheme?

Mr. Wilson

I will try to answer that. I think it is a fair question. I did announce some time ago that it was my policy as far as possible to take whole blocks right out of the ration field because that is the best way of saving manpower, rather than meeting the position by putting more coupons into the system. It is better to take out whole blocks, like shoes, for example, which have by and large a separate industry and distributive trade, in order to release coupon staffs in that particular industry. But certainly it is not my policy to keep on rationing in general until the very last vestige of shortage in the very last item of clothing is removed.

In fact, it would not be possible to do it. So long as we are leaving plenty of coupons in the hands of the public, if we were to have more and more items out of the field of rationing, then, towards the end, rationing would end itself, because people would have more coupons than there were goods in the shops to buy. So that there is no question of failure of policy in that direction. I would be the first to admit that at the present time there are certain items which are very short, even with the full rationing scheme. That is necessarily so, I think it will be admitted, when it is so essential to export large quantities of certain of these goods to dollar areas. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the answer that he wanted.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.