HC Deb 23 March 1953 vol 513 cc602-20

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

9.30 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton (Coventry, South)

In the early hours of 9th December I was able to raise this matter, which is of concern to all consumers, and particularly to women. I regard it as fortunate that tonight we are starting at a somewhat earlier hour because I hope it will give the Parliamentary Secretary more time to reply than he had on the last occasion. I said on 9th December, and I repeat now, that I believe all materials and all cloths made from materials should be labelled according to their fibre content. I see no reason for any reputable manufacturer not wishing for this to be done. The only reason would seem to be that manufacturers do not want to indicate what garments or materials are made of.

As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, this argument for the adequate labelling of consumer goods is backed by the majority of wholesalers, retailers, shopkeepers and the public. It would seem to us in this House that whenever a progressive or a new measure is suggested there is always what we call a certain vested interest which does not desire it to come about. I think the best description of the vested interest endeavouring to prevent the adequate labelling of consumer goods in this country might be called the "Keep 'em in the dark brigade." The Parliamentary Secretary will realise why I coined that phrase.

This "Keep 'em in the dark brigade" have now got their backs to the wall. I am sorry to say that many of them are fellow county men of mine; they are Yorkshiremen, and they do not intend to give way unless they have to. It is the opinion of most consumers in this country that the Government will have to show a firm hand, and, because of the intransigent attitude of certain manufacturers, will have to make it an instruction that consumer goods are to be adequately labelled.

By the term "Keep 'em in the dark brigade" I am referring to that section of the woollen industry which I named in- this House on 9th December; those cloth producers of the West Riding of Yorkshire who are bitterly opposed to the suggestion that cloth containing wool shall be labelled according to the fibre content. On 9th December I gave the Minister the names of many reputable organisations which object strongly to the proposals put forward by the manufacturers. It is not my intention to weary the House by reading out that list again. The names will be found in c. 206 of HANSARD for 9th December.

Following that debate, the "Drapers' Record" carried a leading article to which I wish to refer. I mention this because I think that at times the Parliamentary Secretary has inferred—and probably he himself believes—that I am misinformed, or not informed, upon this matter. I think he will accept the fact that the "Drapers' Record," which has a circulation of about 50,000 weekly, does speak for the drapery trade. The heading of its leading article, on 20th December, was, "Accurate labelling essential."

Before quoting from that article I wish to emphasise that I have not taken out one sentence which happens to be in agreement with what I said. The "Drapers' Record," either rightly or wrongly, agreed entirely with the case I put forward in that debate. I wish to read two paragraphs. In reference to the debate, the publication says: Reference was made also to the endeavour by some Yorkshire manufacturers for the legal interpretation of 'woollen' to denote merely a spinning process, which meant that some all-rayon fabrics might be described legally as 'woollen' or 'worsted.' To that many trade associations have protested, rightly contending that an article labelled as 'wool' should consist solely of that fibre, with a maximum tolerance of 10 per cent. for manufacturing and visible decoration. The "Drapers' Record" also said: Claim of the Yorkshire firms is absurd. One might as well contend that it would be lawful to describe as 'gold' any article made of a base metal that can be and is processed in the same way as gold. Consumers are entitled to know what they are buying. There must be no trade acceptance of blatant mis-descriptions which would encourage the fraudulent. I hope that as the Parliamentary Secretary was not able to accept it from me he will now accept that statement from the "Drapers' Record."

I do not know whether, looking back on his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that, perhaps because he was short of time, he gave no information and no answer to any of the questions which I raised. Before tonight's debate I gave him notice of the matters which I intended to raise. I hope that as we are not so short of time tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me an answer.

On 8th December he said that I was wrong …in thinking that there is objection on the part of the wool industry to labelling and indicating the wool content. Indeed, as I understand it, they have undertaken to do so. There are, however, I admit, differences of opinion which I hope are in course of being resolved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 212.] First, if the hon. and learned Gentleman was so informed, he was completely misinformed. I should like to know if since then he has become aware that the fundamental difference of opinion between the West Riding manufacturers and a majority of important trade associations lies in the point-blank refusal of the wool textile delegation to consider the labelling of mixture cloths with their fibre content in order of predominance by weight. Second, as the hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows, these differences are still very far from resolved. The bone of contention is one which he declared did not exist—the labelling according to fibre content of cloths containing wool.

Therefore, I would say that it was the Parliamentary Secretary who was wrong because he was misinformed on the last occasion. I hope that when he replies tonight he will be able to tell us what is the position now on the question of the labelling of cloths containing wool according to their fibre content. I believe I am correct in saying that, within the last fortnight, there has been a meeting to discuss this question, and I think I am also right in saying that it is almost 12 months since actual discussions with the wool manufacturers started. That is the first question which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will answer.

Might I also bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is not already aware of them, two suggestions or reasons advanced by the cloth manufacturers for not labelling their goods according to their fibre content? They have, as I have suggested to him, been driven to the position of having their backs to the wall, and these are the two reasons now advanced why it would be quite wrong or even impossible to label the goods according to the fibre content. The first one is that the merchants say that, in South Africa—I would be glad if I might have the Minister's attention, because it is most distracting to see him running backwards and forwards.

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

I apologise, but my Parliamentary Private Secretary is not here. I was listening carefully to everything the hon. Lady has been saying, because I hoped to be able more usefully to reply to her in that way.

Miss Burton

I hope so, because I remember that, on the last occasion, the argument was the same, but I got no answer.

Mr. Strauss

No doubt, the hon. Lady means that she did not get the answer she wanted. She got an answer, and the answer will be the same tonight and may be even shorter.

Miss Burton

That being so, at the risk of delaying the House, I need not hurry. It may even mean that the answer will be equally wrong, and I hope that the Minister has noted what I say.

If I may go on from there, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that the manufacturers are now trying to advance two further reasons why this labelling is not possible? First, they say that in South Africa the process of spinning can be denoted by the terms "woollen" or "worsted," and that that is all that is wanted here. What they forget to add is that, under that same legislation in South Africa, the terms "woollen" and "worsted" must be followed by a statement of the exact percentage of wool, together with the aggregate of other fibres present.

The next point on which I would invite the Parliamentary Secretary to comment is this statement of the manufacturers that it would not be possible to label goods according to the fibre content because, if we did, it would give gratuitous information to our competitors. If the Minister does not already know it, may I tell him that that statement is about 75 years out of date? Surely, he must be aware that today any competent testing house in Europe or America could tell the composition of a material within six hours. Obviously, that argument is no good.

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will answer two further questions. Are the Government prepared to advise the wool industry that, in considering the question of labelling cloths made by the industry, they would regard the description of fibre content as a first necessity? The reply to that question will be of great interest to the organisations which I mentioned on 9th December, and also to the trade.

The next question I want to ask is, if the Parliamentary Secretary had to go into a shop to buy a piece of material —I do not know whether he ever does— or if the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) were to go—

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

He would not be allowed in.

Miss Burton

Let us assume that he was allowed in and that he wanted to buy a piece of material. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, if the cloth that he was going to buy was made up of only two fibres, he would consider that those fibres should be labelled; in other words, if he is going to buy material which, for example, is 20 per cent. wool and 80 per cent. rayon, would he think that it should be so labelled, or would he prefer it just to be described as a mixture containing wool?

Of course, that last phrase is the phrase desired by the cloth manufacturers. It is quite dishonest to attempt to make the purchaser think that there is more wool in a material than these actually is. Descriptions like that are of no use to the purchaser, who is probably the woman who has to decide whether or not materials and clothes have to be washed or cleaned.

That brings me to the major point which I wish to raise tonight. One of the most obvious reasons for labelling is the problem of laundering and cleaning. Women all over the country, when buying new materials for dresses, ask whether they should be washed or cleaned. During the last two months I have had the opportunity of talking to various laundrymen who have told me that since the war they have had more complaints from consumers than ever arose before the war. They are of the opinion that this is due to two main reasons.

The first reason is that textiles and materials in general are much more expensive than they were before the war and that people are, therefore, much more concerned if they come back from the laundry spoiled. The second reason is that the introduction of the new synthetic fibres, particularly when used in conjunction with the traditional textiles, has led to mistakes in classification. I think it true to say that laundries generally try to exercise great care in classifying fabrics. When goods come to them to be washed or cleaned they endeavour to sort them out according to how they think they are made.

The introduction of these new synthetics, many of which are processed to resemble other fabrics, is likely to lead to mistakes. Unfortunately, there is no reason to suspect that the material is not a natural fibre until the damage is done. The industry want to eliminate this risk, which is bound to lead to dissatisfaction on the part of the consumers. Their main reason for taking an interest in this question of textile labelling is because they want—and they want the Parliamentary Secretary to help them—to facilitate the identification and classification of fabrics when received by the laundries.

Mr. Speaker

I have been following the hon. Lady with close attention, but I am a little doubtful whether what she is now proposing does not amount to statutory compulsion for the labelling of textiles, which labelling, I take it, does not exist at the present moment as otherwise she would not, presumably, have any complaints to raise tonight. I must warn the hon. Lady that to raise matters involving legislation is out of order in an Adjournment debate.

Miss Burton

I am not seeking legislation, Mr. Speaker, because I know that would be out of order. Perhaps I may explain that the suggestion is that the coding of textiles, a matter to which I am now coming, should be made through the British Standards Institution in order to help the public to wash their materials accordingly.

The point I wanted to make was that the customers as well as the launderers must be informed of the best way of laundering or cleaning materials. I do not know whether this could best be done by coding textiles and saying how washing or cleaning should be done, or by adequate labelling giving the fibre content. That is obviously for industry, the consumer, the laundry and the cleaning interests to decide. But I suggest that it must come and that it will come through the British Standards Institution. I want to impress upon the Minister that the matter is urgent.

The Institution of British Launderers, which I suppose has as large an experience as anybody of this matter, gave me various examples of cases in which clothes were ruined because of this absence of labelling. The labelling to which I am referring is the labelling suggested by the British Standards Institution, which would not involve legislation. The Institution of British Launderers gave, among many others, three obvious examples which might be helpful.

They said that in one case striped shirts had, as they termed it, "broken down" in the laundry. They said that these shirts had the appearance of being made of cotton, but they suffered a breakdown of the fibres in the stripes. On examination it was found that the stripes were made of silk, though that was not the appearance of them until the damage had been done. Adequate labelling of the garment would have prevented its being spoiled.

The second obvious example concerned synthetic fibres. The Institution of British Launderers said they have had garments made of a mixture of ordinary rayon with nylon, the effect in appearance being that of rayon. When these garments were pressed with a hot iron it was found that the nylon fused because the temperature was too hot for it. Until the damage was examined no one had any idea that nylon was included in the fabric. The last example concerned wool. The Institution said that one of their worst problems today arose from the small amount of wool which was used in association with large quantities of other fibres. The wool cannot be detected until the garment is laundered and then it is too late.

Shortly after the war, when these problems arising from the use of synthetic fabrics were appearing, discussions began between the Institution of British Launderers and the British Standards Institution. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that those discussions are continuing. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give the blessing of the Government to the British Standards Institution in labelling textiles, and to say that the Government regard it as urgent.

One could have a washing code established by the British Standards Institution. It has been suggested that it might be divided into four simple categories—"Do not wash," "Wash as silk," "Wash as rayon" and "Wash as wool." But as everyone will realise, the difficulty there is to find where the responsibility will lie, to find whether it will be the manufacturer, the finisher, the adapter or converter, who will be responsible. Because of that difficulty of allocating the responsibility I come back to the suggestion that we should have labelling according to fibre content. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to press the British Standards Institution to proceed more quickly towards reaching an agreement on the labelling of textiles.

I also ask the hon. Gentleman to give his blessing to a publicity campaign to be organised by the British Standards Institution so that the consumers may know something about the materials and the cloths that they buy. Surely he will agree that it is very important—and more important than ever today when materials are so expensive—that a woman should know whether to use hot or warm water for a garment, whether she should send it to the cleaners or to the laundry, whether she should use a hot iron or a medium iron, or whether she should iron the material damp or not iron it at all. These are very important matters.

I visited some of the large stores on Saturday. In one of them I found displayed a group of textiles in the middle of which was a placard which told everybody how the materials on that stand should be washed and ironed. All the materials had been given a washability certificate by a well-known firm. I suggest that that is possibly a step in the right direction. What are the Government going to do about this?

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

Nothing.

Miss Burton

The hon. Member says "Nothing," and I think that is the answer. All I am hoping is that all the shirts of the hon. Member fuse when they go to the laundry.

Mr. Nabarro

I said "Nothing" because I regard the whole of this speech as a gross infringement of human liberties.

Miss Burton

If hon. Members opposite like to have the liberty of having their clothes ruined at the laundry I shall not mind.

I have tried not to ask too many questions, but I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary, first, what has happened with regard to the labelling of woollen cloths according to the fibre content; secondly, whether the Government will advise the woollen industry that such a matter is of paramount importance; thirdly, if a material is made of two fibres, whether it could be labelled accordingly; and my last point concerned the laundering of woollen materials. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give an adequate answer, as he has plenty of time.

9.56 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)

I had no intention of speaking tonight, but the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) rather provoked me. She has had a marvellous run, because the debate started at 9.30; she has had 25 minutes on the Adjournment. I wonder whether she has ever worked in a laundry. I have one or two laundries in my constituency, and I wonder whether she can imagine the problem of the laundry employees.

Our wives send our laundry baskets to the laundry and then the employees have to sort them out. If the hon. Lady had her way they would then have to say, "This has to be washed that way, and this has to be washed this way; this has to be washed with Tide and that with Surf; this has got to be ironed this way and that has got to be ironed that way." Really, the arrangement would soon break down. If the hon. Lady's proposal were put into effect the cost of running a laundry would rise fantastically and, therefore, we should not send our shirts to the laundry. I do not know what my shirt is made of, but it has got lots of stripes in it. It has been to the laundry several times and still looks respectable.

With great respect, I think the hon. Lady has been talking a lot of nonsense, if her remarks have applied to the laundry side of the matter. She may have a case for saying that when things are sold in the shops they should be labelled in such a way that we know what we are buying. That is one issue. But the bulk of the hon. Lady's speech was devoted to people who work in laundries. If she thinks that any body could manage a laundry in the circumstance which she has described, I just do not understand how it could be done.

A laundry of any size receives every week many thousands of garments. If all the garments had to be sorted out into separate categories according to their labels, the increased cost of running a laundry would rise fantastically. Therefore, the cost of operating the laundry, which, ultimately, has to be borne by the customers, would rise very much. I know that the hon. Lady is a great expert on bananas and barrow boys, but she will put up the price of bananas—if bananas are equivalent to shirts—by a most fantastic extent. I do wish the hon. Lady, who speaks with such facility and gracious charm, would occasionally think of the economic consequences of the course which she urges upon Her Majesty's Government.

9.59 p.m.

Lieur.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) against the onslaught from hon. Members opposite. The issue she has raised tonight is of serious importance. I tried to raise it the other day because I felt, in association with large numbers of people, that this question of quality marking of clothing is of great public importance. It so happens that, unfortunately, the Wholesale Textile Association has rejected the quality marking scheme of the British Standards Institution.

Sir H. Williams

That is a very good thing.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton

The hon. Member says that is a very good thing. I beg leave to differ, because when the Government announced their intention—

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. R. Thompson.]

Lieut-Colonel Lipton

—to scrap the Utility Scheme, the public were induced to agree, on the pledge or prospect that manufacturers would voluntarily adopt the quality markings approved by the British Standards Institution.

What has happened? The Wholesale Textile Association, for one, have completely rejected the quality marking scheme of the British Standards Institution. When the President of the Board of Trade was challenged on this issue on 10th March he was somewhat evasive. Nevertheless, as a result of a barrage of questions he was finally induced to say: For my own part, I disagree with the views expressed by the Wholesale Textile Association. I think that theirs is a retrograde step, and I hope they may reconsider the matter." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1098.] It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say what effect that expression of opinion has had upon those who are in control of that association.

The matter does not end there. My hon. Friend mentioned the problems that arise from the mixture of rayon and wool. That is an important question. I have here a copy of the "Drapers' Record" of 21st February last, from which it appears that the Silk and Rayon Users' Association are opposed to draft standards for woven rayon. So we find ourselves in the peculiar situation that all the people concerned in the textile industry, whether they are concerned with wool, a mixture of wool and rayon, or woven rayon by itself, are opposed to any attempt on the part of the British Standards Institution to get them to agree to a sensible, voluntary scheme which will provide the public with some degree of protection. That degree of protection is no longer available to the consumers, although it was certainly available to them under the Utility Scheme which, in my view, was prematurely and hastily put on the scrap heap by the present Government.

I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the problem of setting up some kind of standard is by no means difficult or insoluble. I am in a position to quote what has happened in the case of Donegal tweed. The Government of Ireland have, by specification, laid down clear rules for the quality, construction and finishing of different types of Donegal tweed. It regulates the finished width, the fastness to light and the marking of the cloth, and that decision was arrived at because the manufacturers of Donegal tweed complained of the unfair competition, in British and American markets, from so-called Donegal tweeds.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

Order. I am not quite clear whether the matters upon which the hon. and gallant Member is touching would not require legislation.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton

I am not sure about that. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us.

Sir H. Williams

On a point of order. As it would be legislation of the Republic of Ireland and not of this country would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks be in order?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

I am obliged to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who has for once come to my assistance. He never does so in the normal course of events, but he may be feeling in a more benign mood tonight than on other occasions.

British manufacturers of so-called Donegal tweed are producing an article to which the manufacturers of the genuine Donegal tweed have, for a variety of reasons, taken strong exception, and that has led the Government of Ireland to take steps to protect their own manufacturers.

That is a form of competition to which the makers of the genuine article would not be subjected if there were some definite standards, voluntarily agreed, between the textile trades concerned and the British Standards Institution, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South suggests. My hon. Friend quoted a number of cases in support of her argument. Fundamentally, the demand which we make is that there should be some quality standard. In the present situation, the consumer gets a raw deal and the reputation of British textiles in world markets is not improved—and that has a damaging effect upon our export trade.

For those reasons, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will note that important public considerations are involved. I hope he will be able to give some assurance that such influence as the Board of Trade can exert upon manufacturers will continue to be exerted and that the President of the Board of Trade's statement, deploring the views expressed by the Wholesale Textile Association, will be followed up in a way which will produce a very much more satisfactory response from the textile trade than has hitherto been forthcoming.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

Whatever may have been the views of the Wholesale Textile Association, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will immediately resist the blandishments of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). She is a true Socialist, of course; she is a "Meddlesome Mattie," who wants to interfere in the business of every textile manufacturer of the country and who now wants to set herself up as the supreme management authority of the laundering businesses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) referred to the manifest difficulties of trying to deal, in laundering, with hundreds of different garments all of which had been neatly codified and put into pigeon holes. I think the hon. Lady will have learned at school something about permutations and combinations—and I am not talking about woollen combinations but about mathematical combinations.

If we consider the four principal ingredients which go into manufactured textile goods today—wool, cotton, rayon and nylon—and try to calculate all the permutations and combinations which could be created among those four basic materials for purposes of codification, I wager that the number would run into thousands upon thousands, for each one of which the unfortunate laundry, the Wholesale Textile Association, and all the other interested trading bodies would be required to make regulations and prescribe a minimum standard.

The whole proposal is grossly impracticable and I hope it will be resisted. As a true Conservative, I believe that discernment in this matter should be left to the purchasing and consuming public. The woman in the shop, buying a textile article, is the only true judge of the composition of that article, of its quality, and of a correct and fair price for it. In a free market, with open and competitive conditions, she should be the sole and final arbiter.

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not impose any more rules, regulations, Statutory Instruments or any other form of regimentation or control. I want to see a free market, with all these wretched restrictions, to which the country became accustomed in the war, swept away at the earliest possible moment.

10.10 p.m.

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

The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) referred to the Adjournment debate that she inaugurated in December last year. She said quite accurately that it was actually in the early hours of 9th December, but was part of the Sitting of 8th December. On that occasion I gave her an answer on the main points which she has raised tonight. I told her in that answer the points upon which I agreed with her and the points upon which I differed.

I agree that the answer was a very short one. She left me only a short time, about which I made no complaint because it still enabled me to say the essential things I wished to say. But she is quite wrong in thinking that there was any mistake or inaccurate statement in my answer. What I said was quite right according to my information and belief, and I shall make the same reply tonight.

I very often answer Adjournment debates initiated by the hon. Lady, and, on many grounds, it is a very agreeable occupation. My only regret is that it seems to give rise to other Adjournment debates in which her hon. Friends attack what she has said. I had such an Adjournment debate the other day, on 10th March, when the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling), supported by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), raised an Adjournment debate for the precise purpose of saying how wrong the hon. Lady had been in everything she had said about the wool textile trade of Yorkshire.

Miss Burton

I did not refer to that because I had no desire to quarrel with my hon. Friends in front of the Government. May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that that Adjournment debate arose out of a Question which I put? I am still quite convinced that the Question I put was correct, and I have told my hon. Friends so.

Mr. Strauss

I have no doubt about it. I have never known the hon. Lady not to think she was correct. I accept what she says absolutely. No Member of the House is more convinced than she of her correctness.

What I said was that when she speaks on the wool textile trade those Members who represent wool textile constituencies come to the House to point out what nonsense she speaks. My suggestion to the hon. Lady and to her hon. Friends is that they should attend the same debate so that they can answer each other, because it is a little unsatisfactory when the hon. Lady makes those remarks about the wool textile trade and we then have to have another debate in which those Members who sit for the West Riding of Yorkshire come to the House to correct her.

They are quite right, because what does the hon. Lady say about this wool textile trade? She has referred to it as the "keep it dark brigade," as "vested interests." I thought I had written down all the remarks she had made about it. This is one of the greatest industries of this country providing us with exports of enormous value, a most reputable industry, and I cannot make out why she thinks she is serving any useful national purpose in making these constant attacks upon it.

I mentioned on the last occasion the points on which I agreed with her. I agree with her, as does my right hon. Friend, on an important point, and that is the importance which she attaches to standards of quality. I think she is quite right. I also pointed out those things on which I differed from her. I refused to intervene in the discussions which were taking place in the British Standards Institution. I thought it important to avoid expressing any opinion on any of the matters about which conflicting views were held and on which the Government hoped that agreement would be reached. That is still my attitude tonight.

Both courtesy and inclination urge me to give to the hon. Lady as much information as I can, but determination to serve the public interest and to help the British Standards Institution, or at least to avoid making its task more difficult, prevent me from telling her much. I will not repeat everything I said on the last occasion, but perhaps I may say a little about what has happened since. The question she raises is about the labelling of wool textiles to show their wool content. That may be slightly different from what she said, namely, to show their fibre content.

Let me perhaps indicate where the main difference—I do not want to call it a dispute, because I think it is a matter which can be resolved—has arisen. What the Wool Textile Delegation undertook about a year ago was to seek the voluntary labelling of wool cloths to indicate their wool content. On the British Standards Institution committee, the representatives of the retailers want the labelling to indicate not only the wool content of the fabrics but also the content of other fibres in order of predominance by weight.

On that point there is a difference. It has been the aim of the British Standards Institution to bridge that gap and to work out an agreed solution. A special meeting of the British Standards Institution technical committee concerned was held, as the hon. Lady I think knows, on 11th March of this year. At that meeting it was agreed to refer the remaining difficulties to a small sub-committee, which is to meet soon. It was further agreed— and I beg the House to note this—that the proceedings of the technical committee and of the new sub-committee should be kept strictly confidential. The British Standards Institution is confident that given good will the differences can be resolved, and I believe that Government intervention would do harm.

At one point in her speech the hon. Lady asked me to help the British Standards Institution. I can give her the assurance that in their view I am helping them by letting them get on with their job and by advising this House to do likewise. I should not be helping them if I answered a series of questions by the hon. Lady, giving my personal view on some of the matters on which there are differences of opinion so far unresolved. The British Standards Institution is very much more expert on these matters than, I suppose, any other body in the country.

I do not suppose I shall convince the hon. Lady, but I can only say, in perfect good faith, that in my opinion she is not advancing the cause she wishes to serve by constantly giving a contentious version of one side in possible differences, when all concerned are arguing out these very matters in the appropriate committee of the British Standards Institution, and have asked that all their deliberations should be treated as strictly confidential.

The hon. Lady then went on to mention a matter on which I confess that, having had the experience, that I expect almost everybody has had at some time in their life of having some garment ruined by wrong treatment, I felt rather more sympathy with what she said. Undoubtedly, it would be very advantageous if the purchaser of an article and the laundry to which he or she sent the garment knew what was the appropriate way in which it should be washed, and what were the methods that should be avoided. Here, again, I think that the British Standards Institution may be able to help. They held a conference in 1950 on the possibility of preparing an identification code system for textile articles as a guide to washing and ironing whether at home or in the laundry.

A technical committee was set up representing the textile interests, the dyers, the cleaners and the consumers and a draft was prepared. The draft was not based on the disclosure of fabric content but, as I think the hon. Lady quoted, on the laundry treatment required which was to be indicated by a label.

Difficulties have been encountered and there are differences of opinion chiefly, I think, among the various sections of the laundry and cleaning trades. Nevertheless, the matter is being pursued in accordance with the normal procedure of the British Standards Institution. I think that is the most hopeful course if the result which the hon. Lady would welcome is to be produced.

I think that it was the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut-Colonel Lipton) who mentioned the recent announcement made by the Wholesale Textile Association. I think that he was right in drawing attention in this connection to the answer given 'recently by my right hon. Friend in this House. But he omitted to quote—I make no complaint of this—the main answer, which is important.

What the Wholesale Textile Association have done is to direct disapproval not against standard specifications, but against marking schemes. That will not prevent the British Standards Institution going on with its work of preparing standards. I will quote from my right hon. Friend's original answer to two Questions, one put by the hon. and gallant Member himself: I assume that the hon. Members have in mind the adoption by the Council of the Wholesale Textile Association of a report by one of their sub-committees to the effect that the use of a "Kite Mark" or any other general mark on textiles is unnecessary and undesirable. That, of course, in no way prevents the British Standards Institution, of which the W.T.A. is an active member, from continuing its work on the preparation of British Standards in accordance with its normal procedure. I have always made it clear that the adoption of such standards is voluntary. Similarly, any "Kite Mark" scheme for goods reaching such standards must itself be first worked out and then applied on a voluntary basis. No action on my part is required. A statement of progress was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on 5th February."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1097.] I am sure that, if the hon. and gallant Member will refer to that answer, he will see that although perhaps progress on these standards has been slower than he would wish, it has been by no means negligible, and further advances, which it would not be right for me to mention now because I do not want to act as a prophet, will be made. What I am eager to secure is that we shall give the best chances possible for such advance. I believe that if we are constantly interfering or seeking to interfere with the efforts of the British Standards Institution to get on with its job, we shall really not be helping it.

There are hon. Members in the House, representing the textile areas in Lancashire and Yorkshire, who know the immense difficulties of this subject. It is a matter in which progress should be sought, but it is not a matter in which we are likely to get quick advances if the expert body which is devoting its mind to the subject is constantly criticised by the suggestion that it is being slow, that it is not getting on with it and that it is guilty of the appalling misconduct of considering two sides of a controversial question. We shall not help at all by that method. On the other hand, if we leave the British Standards Institution to get on with its job, I believe we shall have more success.

Her Majesty's Government do not believe that any of the criticisms made against the British Standards Institution are justified. Further, I deplore, as contrary to the national interest, the suggestion that one of the greatest industries in this country, the wool textile trade of the West Riding, can be described as the "keep-it-dark brigade." A statement of that sort is not merely unjust, but is capable of injuring the national interest.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'Clock.