HC Deb 03 March 1953 vol 512 cc329-44

11.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss)

I beg to move, That the Draft Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment No.2) Order, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved. I should like at the outset to declare an interest. As I informed the House on a previous occasion, I hold some stock in one cotton company. By this Motion we are seeking the approval of the House for an amended Order under Section 8(1) of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. The Cotton Board was established as a Development Council by the Cotton Industry Development Council Order, 1948. That Order was amended by an Order which came into force on 1st January last year, and this Order further amends it.

The chief purpose of the present Order is to increase from £300,000 a year to £450,000, the maximum amount of the levy which the Cotton Board can, with the approval of the Board of Trade, impose. This will make it possible for the Cotton Board to increase, by the amount of the additional levy, their contribution to the British Cotton Industry Research Association—better known as the Shirley Institute—in the exercise of their function of promoting research.

The opportunity has also been taken to make a number of minor amendments, desired by those concerned, relating to the administration and collection of the levy. The most important of these amendments extends the liability to levy to certain minor finishing activities, for example the dyeing of raw cotton, which were not previously liable. The Board of Trade have consulted the appropriate organisations as required by the Act—the trade unions and all the employers' organisations representing the various sections of the industry. All the bodies consulted consent to the making of this Order, most of them strongly supporting it.

The Shirley Institute is a research station which has not merely a national but an international reputation. It has strong claims to be regarded as the best textile research station in the world. I think that all Lancashire Members are familiar with its work, and many have had, as I have, the interesting and stimulating experience of being shown round the Institute by Dr. Toy and the able and enthusiastic men who run it. I think that in the 30 years or so of its existence it has, through the development of improved techniques and discoveries, made a notable contribution to the progress and reputation of this great industry. It has devised methods of quality control at all stages of processing from raw cotton to the finished product and has devised machinery which has increased productivity.

I think that the House will generally agree that the Institute will be more important than ever in the intensely competitive conditions now facing us. I am glad that all sections of the industry consent to this Order, which will enable the Cotton Board to give the Institute the money that it needs. I am sure that the House will appreciate the wisdom of the industry in asking for this Order, and I commend it to the House.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes (Ashton-under-Lyme)

This Order does nothing more than allow the cotton industry to subscribe its own money towards its own research association so that that can be properly run. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the Institute enjoys a tremendous reputation in every textile country in the world, and I also agree with him in the sentiments he expressed about the levy. The voluntary system was running down, and the Institute was getting behind with its finances. In fact, during the three years up to this monh, it had drawn some £85,000 from reserve, and that sort of thing could not go on without harmful effect on the work of the Institute.

The special sub-committee set up in 1951 did a good job of work, and all hon. Members realised when the last amending Order came up for consideration that there would have to be an alteration in the terms of the amount of the levy. The committee asked for permission to increase the amount of the levy from £300,000 to £450,000 and I think that was very wise; because the statutory method of raising the money is undoubtedly the best. It is the most certain way of getting the money; it is the fairest way, because everybody pays, and it is the best way in bad times. It is all very well in good times for people to subscribe money, especially when it is liable for Income Tax; but when times are bad, that is not so good a method. The way suggested in the Order enables the levy to be put into operation, and otherwise there would have to be two levies, and duplication as a result.

The new levy, I understand, is contingent upon re-organisation of the Council. I understand, too, that all the trade associations are now entitled to nominate representatives to the Council, and the trades unions are also similarly entitled. Thus, they will be spending their own money, and the Institute will not be able to spend against the wishes of the subscribers. I should like to say that I think it most creditable that, at a time of depression, the Lancashire cotton industry had such confidence in its own research association to decide to ask for this increase in the levy.

For a long time it has been Government policy that industries running their own trade associations should eventually stand on their own feet as far as finance is concerned; but it might be as well to see the incidence of the amount of money needed in relation to the amount of grant that the research association is able to count on from the Government. Up to 1952 the first £70,000 attracted a £30,000 grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Above £70,000 they had a £ for £ grant up to £50,000.

In the five-year period that was entered on 1st April, 1952, it was different. The first £180,000 attracted a £50,000 grant and above £180,000 there was a £ for £ grant up to £30,000; so gradually the industry is standing on its own feet as far as its research is concerned. It was different again in the last three years, because the first £220,000 attracted a £50,000 grant and above £220,000 there was a £ for £ grant up to £40,000. For this Institute an income in the region of £345,000 is needed.

While I am on this point, I should like to pay a tribute to the research association and the work that has been done under Dr. Toy. I am sure he is a proud man today, because this is the first time in the history of the association that its income is assured. He has worked and laboured for many years to this end, and I am sure that everyone wishes him well in the years that lie ahead.

I should sound this warning to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade: sometimes we think that everything that goes on under the name of research is good. At the present time, with the enthusiasm that has existed in industry for the setting up and backing of research associations, it seems to me that some duplication in the work done in the technological field may be creeping in. If I were him. I should look very closely at this question, especially in connection with some of the newer organisations. I can well understand that separate research associations may, without much difficulty and cost, be able to carry out research into fundamental questions with regard to the materials they use; but when it comes to the technological development on top of that fundamental research it is rather a different matter, and it is going to involve the country in duplication and tremendous expense.

Mr. Speaker

I dislike interrupting the hon. Member, but the question of technological research and possible duplication is not comprised within the terms of this amending Order.

Mr. Edward Shackleton (Preston, South)

On a point of order. We are considering whether we should authorise the spending of this money. I suggest that we should turn our attention to the question of economy and all possibilities of economy, which must include the consideration of overlapping and duplication.

Mr. Speaker

It is perfectly true that these matters can be alluded to; but as I understand this Order, it merely extends the amount of money which can be subscribed in the levy and makes a few incidental alterations. It is quite reasonable for hon. Members to make remarks alluding to the subject of research as a background to any criticisms they may have with regard to this Order; but it must not go too far.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

Further to that point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think you are being misled, in the same way as I was, by the Explanatory Note, which I agree refers only to the single factor of the increase in the levy upon the firms taking part in the industry; but in point of fact, as the Parliamentary Secretary made clear, many amendments are contained in this Order. Most of them are admittedly small in their implications, but some bring in new processes. The new definition of processed animal fibre brings in a whole category of additional factors. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this Order is bringing up to date a whole series of minor amendments with regard to cotton research and the cotton industry.

Mr. Speaker

I appreciate that. I was merely pointing out that I do not think this amending Order, which relates to a levy and the raising of funds, entitles us to go into the matter of technological research at great length. I leave it to the House; I have told hon. Members my view.

Mr. Rhodes

I will not labour the point, Mr. Speaker. I have got it in, and that is enough. I am certain that what I have had to say in the matter will be noticed, because it is an important factor regarding research in the future.

Another point is liaison between research associations of this type. New fibres are being used by the old textile industries. If research associations do work which is applicable to their own fibres only, a tremendous amount of money will be wasted, and research associations of all textile industries will, before long, be coming to the House under Section 9, or under the Section under which this Order has been introduced. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he might look at the mixture of fibres. Several towns in Yorkshire depend for their living on the recovery of fibres from waste. At one time only a small amount of technical skill was needed to dissociate cotton from wool. Now, many fibres are being mixed with wool and cotton—nylon, terylene and rayon, for instance. Unless there is liaison between research associations to enable joint tackling of this problem, a good deal of private and public money will be wasted.

The Shirley Institute has a building fund. Of that fund, if my memory is right, it has used about £250,000 on its building programme since 1950. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the money is going to be used for the purpose for which it was subscribed. If it is, can he tell us when it will be used, and for what particular branch of research? The majority of people welcome this Order, which gives the research association an opportunity to stand on its own feet financially. It is a reward for the painstaking years of hard work of those running the association.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

The statutory levy has now reached the high figure of nearly £500,000 yearly, and I do not think we can let this Order go without making one short comment. As the Parliamentary Secretary said when introducing the Order, this levy commands the respect and the agreement of the trade associations; but I do not think it right that it should be thought that it is unanimously welcomed by all the people engaged in the cotton textile business. I think that trade associations in this matter have sometimes given a false impression of the unanimity of their members. Certainly in the case of the steel industry that was the case not so very long ago.

There are, of course, always in any industry one or two lone wolves who do not belong to their trade association, who do not want to belong to their trade association, who do not want to belong to the Cotton Board and who do not want to pay their levy. They may be right; they may be wrong; but it is only fair that their voice should sometimes be heard.

After all, the argument against them is that they take advantage of these excellent services, such as the Shirley Institute, and, therefore, why should they not pay for them? That argument has a very familiar ring. It is the classic argument for the closed shop, and I do think we want to be very careful in assuming that, because often the big boys in any association in any industry agree to something, it necessarily follows that all the people engaged are of the same mind.

With that warning, with that slight note of criticism, I nevertheless should like to welcome this Order because the work that is done by the Cotton Board, particularly by the Shirley Institute, is, of course, so valuable, and so well thought of throughout Lancashire, throughout England, and throughout the world.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton (Preston, South)

I think that perhaps the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) was misled by the briefness of the introductory explanation of this Order, and I think it is a pity that the Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us a bit more regarding the financial side of the activities of the Shirley Institute. I would point out that this is, of course, not the actual levy. It is the limit of the levy. It is only a small point.

I really think that the hon. Gentleman's argument about the closed shop was rather irrelevant to our discussion. The same argument, that one can receive benefit from community activities but opt out of contributing to them, can apply equally well to the taxpayer. To suggest that in the textile industry trade associations are dominated by perhaps one or two big boys is only to display a certain lack of knowledge of the textile industry, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so.

This, after all, is a development that has been going on for a long number of years, since the days when the Cotton Board was set up before the war, and the Shirley Institute has been financed co-operatively, and I am quite sure its contributions to the welfare of the textile industry, and generally, therefore, to the welfare of the community, are recognised—as, indeed, the hon. Gentleman generously recognised them later in his speech—and that they simply must be supported. This is the way which Parliament has approved. I would stress that this is a statutory way. It has been established and discussed and agreed upon by Parliament, and I think we should not dispute that particular principle.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a number of questions. I hope that I shall not go out of order. It is not often we get an opportunity in this House of discussing the work of the research associations. In this Order it is proposed to increase the maximum levy which the Cotton Board may impose from £300,000 to £450,000 a year, and I think we ought to know precisely what their income is at the moment and what it is to be.

My hon. Friend did give some figures, but I must confess that I had some difficulty in following the figures of the actual D.S.I.R. grants. This is a matter of great importance, because we do know that a number of research associations are seriously embarrassed by the shortage of finance following rising costs. Sometimes to continue the development of some new and important project, which they have to go on with, they have to economise on another section of their work.

I am sure this House will agree it is important that we should turn a great deal of attention to examining the research associations. It is an important form of Government patronage and expenditure, and it is possible there is a lot of waste in the Shirley Institute or elsewhere which can be wiped out. I do not know; but at least we should have the basic figures. It is unquestionably true that research is being handicapped in this country by the failure of the Government to increase the D.S.I.R. grants overall to match rising costs. Sometimes, the percentage cut may be far in excess of the pure monetary differential involved, and the actual size of the cut in activities which may result. Has the Shirley Institute suffered in this particular way, and how far has it been handicapped? I should like to take up an aspect of the matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who suggested it was part of the object of Governments that trade associations, and I think he meant research associations, too, should stand on their own feet. I am not sure if he meant that, financially, they should be independent of Government grants. If he did, I could not disagree more strongly. I believe there is an extraordinarily happy marriage between Government support and industrial backing in the idea of the research associations. It is a principle to which the overwhelming majority of hon. Members fully subscribe.

I hope we can have some figures on the subject of D.S.I.R. grants. Has the Shirley Institute made any application or tentative suggestions to D.S.I.R. for any larger grant to meet their needs? It is satisfactory that the cotton industry has been so clearly alert to their needs. It is encouraging, at a time of relative slump in the cotton industry, too, that it is prepared to go on spending money on absolutely essential development work.

There is a certain contradiction in policies which spring from the conditions of the partial slump, which we are glad to recognise has improved in certain respects. Some of the work—I hope I am in order in discussing the work of the Shirley Institute—has been concerned with questions of productivity. It is going to be extremely difficult to make full use of these inquiries into O.H.P. and so on, if there are conditions in which employers and workers are so concerned over the future that they will be resistant to the introduction of new ideas.

None the less, I am glad they are prepared to carry on with this work. We have, one way and another, to increase our productivity and get our costs down. I suggest that if the Shirley Institute is to carry out fundamental research into new machinery and the engineering side, there is a strong case for the Government providing proper incentives to the cotton firms to introduce new machinery. The work they are doing in testing raw cotton for the Empire Cotton Association and the Raw Cotton Commission is, I take it, paid for, since these particular undertakings are not themselves eligible under this or previous Orders for membership. They are certainly not defined as being members of the cotton industry for the purposes of the Cotton Board. In this connection, I hope that if the Government are getting any ideas about reopening the Liverpool Cotton Exchange they will not forget the desirability of the continuation of this work, which is typical of the work which benefits the industry as a whole.

You have been very tolerant, Mr. Speaker, but I do consider that these points are relevant to the decision the House must take on whether we should approve this extension. It is a thing we should not enter into lightly. I agree with the hon. Member for Darwen that it is a matter in which the House are freely and gaily passing what is almost a form of taxation, and it requires to be examined very closely; it is, in fact, an extension of taxation to a new section of the industry. In conclusion, I am sure all hon. Members welcome this Order, which will be recognised as a sign of the energy of and faith in Lancashire; a faith which will enable them to overcome their difficulties.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton (Farnworth)

I welcome this Order. I confirm what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that this Order commands the support of all sections of the cotton textile industry. I think I am entitled to express the views of the trade unions in the cotton textile industry, who enthusiastically support this Order. The Cotton Board is a unifying organisation within the cotton textile industry, and in the difficult times we are entering it is more important than ever to have a unifying organisation in what is accepted as an over-sectionalised horizontal structure.

In difficult times it is extremely difficult to get agreement in a horizontally structuralised industry, and the Cotton Board provides an opportunity to do so. This Order provides adequate finance for the Cotton Board. One of the primary functions of the Cotton Board is to encourage research in the cotton textile industry, and this Order will enable the Cotton Board to make adequate grants to the Shirley Institute to continue the extraordinarily valuable work it has done for the industry.

I support the contention of the Parliamentary Secretary that in all sections of the cotton textile industry throughout the world technologists and scientists are of opinion that the Shirley Institute is the finest of its kind in the world, and the long-term interests of our industry, and of British industry as a whole, are to a very large extent tied up with the quality of our research and the speed of its application. This Order will enable the Shirley Institute to carry on in security the fine work it has done, and I have pleasure in supporting this Order.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

I am very glad to have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on this matter, because we always listen to him with great attention as a very real expert upon the industry, and it is a pleasure to have heard what he said. I have not very much to add, because I find myself in very substantial agreement with what was said by both my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth—and, indeed, with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), although I do disagree with him on one sentence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South made reference. I think it would be a very good thing indeed if some Government contribution continued.

Mr. Rhodes

May I explain? What I said was that past Governments had made it quite clear that it should progress towards standing on its own feet in research. I did not say that there should be no Government contribution. Indeed, I am in favour of it, even on an increasing scale if expansion continues.

Mr. Hale

This only goes to show there is another split in the Labour Party healed.

The Parliamentary Secretary has always been personally courteous to me. I want to be courteous to him, and I hope what I am about to say will not be taken in bad part. But the House has not been given up to now a single figure to justify passing this Order. We are all agreed it is an excellent Institute. Most of us agree that the more money wisely spent on research the better for the industry. Most of us would welcome an expansion of research, but we have not been told either what is going to be spent, how the expansion has gone and what progress has been made, and there are no figures to show how the money was spent last year.

It is all very well, but the House is the custodian of expenditure. We have just as much responsibility, even where we authorise a levy on other people, to consider whether it is properly spent, and it means a comparatively small increase of grant from the public purse. I have tried in the limited time available to find some accounts which would give me this information. In these circumstances the date of the introduction of this Order is singularly unfortunate, because I find that the annual report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which contains three pages of exceedingly interesting and informative phrases on the Shirley Institute, was presented to Parliament in March, 1952. In other words, all the information is in respect of the year ending September, 1951, and has no very special relevance to the present situation. Indeed, one passage states: An outstanding event of the year at the Shirley Institute has been the progress made on the first block of the new buildings referred to in the last report. This block, which is expected to be ready for occupation early in 1952, will house the whole of the Physics Division, and there will also be an administrative wing. The second new block, not yet started, is intended to house the Chemical Processing Division, the Engineering Shop and Drawing Office, and the Silk Department. I hope that we shall be told that substantial progress has been made, and that that is one of the reasons extra money has been required. The Cotton Board is so very good in the main about circulating information. The documents they send out giving general information about their work on research are exceedingly helpful, but the information they give on accounts is fairly lamentable and singularly inadequate.

The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research only gives a collective figure of £1,600,000 paid to a vast number of research organisations, and the only other accounts I have been able to find are those in manuscript form in the Library of the Cotton Board for the year ending March, 1952. Again, they show a lump sum amount of £128,000 under the heading of grants to research organisations. In the previous year the amount was £83,000, and there is no indication where any of that goes. I must confess to some ignorance in this matter. I do not know whether the British Cotton Association come in under this.

Mr. Rhodes

No.

Mr. Hale

I am very much obliged. I should have thought that there should be some liaison between the British Cotton Association and the Shirley Institute. Indeed, most of the work of the Shirley Institute lies in testing the suitability of cotton fibres and of new types of fibre in order to find out for what purpose they can be used and in receiving samples from the Commonwealth of the fibre being grown and submitting it to tests.

Mr. Rhodes

The British Cotton Growing Association is a commercial institution. What my hon. Friend really means is the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, which is a purely research organisation having its stations in most of the cotton-growing countries in the Empire.

Mr. Hale

It is very nice of my hon. Friend to tell me what I mean, but he is in error. I meant the British Cotton Growing Association, the 47th Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of which I have obtained from the Library and which refers in considerable detail to their experiments in growing cotton in Uganda and elsewhere and in producing new kinds of material.

Mr. Speaker

Again we seem to be straying wide of the Order before the House.

Mr. Hale

I do not want to detain the House, Mr. Speaker, but I would remind you that the principal job of the Shirley Institute is the testing of the varieties of fibre and reporting on them. Now I come to the second main job of the Shirley Institute. The report refers to the development of a great variety of new machines and of new scientific processes, including the testing of the rheological quality of the paste used in prints and the constructing of a new bath which would enable the computation with scientific accuracy of the amount of a solution being taken out and applied. On what basis are those machines supplied to the industry and by whom are they made?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that can possibly come within the Order. It is a question of raising the amount of the levy and details as to the application of the money could not be in order.

Mr. Hale

With respect, Mr. Speaker, the House has to make a plain decision whether it is to allow another £150,000 to be raised for the Institute. My point is this: Is this Institute making commercial profits which will supplement the £150,000 or are we giving processes free to the industry, or upon what terms? Surely we are entitled to ask on what basis the Institute is being conducted before we decide that it is the sort of Institute which should have this money? With great respect, I sugest that with that explanation it brings the point within the Order we are discussing. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can give us this information. Subject to that, I have no complaint to make.

I venture to suggest that sometimes in this House, with so much work to get through and so many matters to discuss, we get a little careless about the question of keeping a watchful eye on Government expenditure. It is not sufficient to say that this is a good Institute and therefore let us give it the money. We ought to be told for what the money is required, what the reserves are, what drawing on reserves for building there has been, what remains now, how much the grant will be supplemented from the profits, and how it is expected to be applied in the course of the next 12 months.

With respect, none of that information have we had, nor have my personal researches been able to vouchsafe to me any full information upon this matter. I think we are entitled to know. It is not a technical point. The very people upon whom this levy is being made are entitled to be able to read in their local Press tomorrow or the next day the full details which justify the making of the levy and, if the facts are not given, there is every reason for dissatisfaction. Subject to the information being adequately given, I personally am prepared to give my blessing to this Order.

12 midnight.

Mr. H. Strauss

In courtesy to the hon. Members who have spoken, I should like to say a few words. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) mentioned the reconstitution of the Council. That will be part and parcel of the new arrangements. He also expressed his fear of duplication among research institutions. I would remind him that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has a committee, consisting of representatives of the various textile research associations, which was set up specifically to prevent overlapping.

The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), who welcomed the Order but very ingeniously spoke on a number of matters which were not strictly within the Order, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) both said that I had given no particulars of the finances of the Shirley Institute. That is true, but I do not think that it would be either in order or desirable for me to do so. Opportunities are, of course, given to the subscribing members of the Shirley Institute, and I have no doubt that both hon. Members will be able to see those reports.

There are, of course, three main sources of income. There is what the Institute gets from the Cotton Board, which the Order we are now discussing will enable to be increased. There is what it receives from members' subscriptions, and there is the grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. But I think that the hon. Member for Oldham, West—although I admire and appreciate his desire to inform himself in detail of the finances of the Shirley Institute—will agree that the purpose of this Order is to enable the Cotton Board to raise a levy. The Board of Trade can satisfy themselves, as the Department of Scientific Research satisfies itself, that the money will be well used by the Shirley Institute and that there will be no waste. Beyond that, the details of expenditure by the Shirley Institute are not included in any way in this Order and I do not think that it would be possible for me, even if I had all the material, to give the information that the hon. Member for Oldham, West desires. That information is properly given to the members of the Institute.

I welcome very much the support of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), who speaks with great knowledge of this industry. I think that on all sides of the House this Order is welcomed, and I hope that the House is ready to come to a conclusion.

Mr. Shackleton

In the absence of some of the watchdogs below the Gangway on the Government side, I should like to say that I am really appalled that the Parliamentary Secretary suggests that the House is not entitled to know the details of the expenditure, even in broad outline, when we are being called upon to approve that expenditure. That expenditure cannot be incurred unless the House passes this Order. Furthermore, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Board of Trade were responsible for approving the expenditure anyway. Surely this is a matter in which the Minister is responsible to Parliament and, as such, he should give the House this sort of information.

Mr. Strauss

By leave of the House, may I just deal with that point? I am sure that it is my duty to satisfy the House that we ought to authorise the Cotton Board to raise this additional levy. But it will be for the Cotton Board and others who advance money to the Shirley Institute to satisfy themselves as to the finances of the Institute. Mr. Speaker has already indicated that it would not be in order for me, under the Order which I am now commending to the House, to deal with expenditure by the Shirley Institute.

Resolved, That the Draft Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment No.2) Order, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.