§ 11.10 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith)I beg to move,
That the Draft Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Revocation) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th May, be approved.I shall seek very shortly to commend this Motion to the House. To those not conversant with the facts of this case, or to less reflective hon. Members, if indeed there are less reflective hon. Members, it might seem something of a superficial paradox to be revoking an export promotion Order at a time when the Government are very properly keen to expand the export trade. I should like to assure the House that there is no paradox and no inconsistency in the matter. We are asking the House to approve the revocation of this Order, because the expenditure under the levy is not yielding practical results in the export market.The fact that we are doing so in no way derogates from the importance which the Government attach to the export trade both generally and in the lace industry. Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, provides for compulsory levies on industries to finance voluntary bodies for scientific research and promotion of export trade. There are four such bodies, two each in the lace and wool industries, concerned respectively with scientific research and export promotion. The lace levy applies to only one part of the industry, the lace furnishing section, which consists of about fifty firms, some in Nottingham and the rest in the Irvine Valley in Scotland. They produce lace curtains, napery and so on to a total value of about £6 million per annum.
The levy was imposed in 1951 for a period up to the end of 1956 and raised about £15,000 a year. It is levied on the manufacturers on a formula which has been revised from time to time, and these revisions are incorporated in the amending Order which it is also sought to revoke. Under the 1951 Order, the levy would lapse in any case after the final collection in January of next year, 648 1957, and all that the Order does—and it is a narrow point as the House will see—is to shorten that period by one year to bring the levy to an end after the 1956 collection, instead of after the collection in January, 1957.
May I say a word about the attitude of the industry? This action is in fact being taken to meet the wishes of the industry which is paying the levy. At a meeting in October last, attended by 75 per cent. of the firms paying the levy, the Board of Trade was unanimously asked to take the step we are now taking. Of course we have had the statutory consultations with the two trade unions concerned, and it is right that I should read to the House what their attitude is on this matter.
The Scottish Lace and Textile Workers' Union said that as it did not contribute to the levy
the best we can do is remain neutral".The Amalgamated Society of Operative Lace Makers and Auxiliary Workers said:The existing levy is far too small to have any appreciable effect and should either be dropped altogether or, with the aid of public funds, increased tremendously.The Act does not in fact provide for the support of these voluntary bodies by public funds, tremendous or otherwise, so in fact it is right to say that there is no trade union demand for the continuance of the levy in a permissible statutory form.The effect of the levy shortly has been this: £62,000 has been spent since 1951—£37,000 in Canada and £21,000 in Australia, which are the two markets where this export promotion has mainly occurred. The Canadian expenditure of £37,000, in dollars, amounts to 7 per cent. of the value of lace furnishing exports to Canada during the relevant period. So it is not surprising that the industry says that the campaign has proved ineffective in Canada, and that our Trade Commissioners confirm that the impact there was negligible.
In Australia the position was different but equally conclusive. Australia is probably the best market in the world for these goods, but as the House will appreciate the position is much affected by the recent import restrictions there. The result is that the demand for lace furnishings is in any event in excess of 649 the permitted quota. That being so, any increase in the export of lace furnishings to Australia can only be achieved at the expense of other British exports. As the campaign cannot increase the overall level of exports to Australia it is unwise to spend money to increase one form of export at the expense of another.
I want the House to realise that this is not the case of an industry with a bad export record. It has a fine record, exporting one-third of its production, mainly to these Commonwealth markets. That record has been achieved without significant help from the levy. Therefore we feel that it is right to accept the judgment of the industry, and the evidence of the facts and figures, that this expenditure is not sufficiently rewarding to be justified. Individual firms in the industry will continue their efforts to promote exports. We wish them well, and we expect the whole of the industry to continue, and where possible to intensify, its efforts in the export market.
§ Mr. James Harrison (Nottingham, North)Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there has recently been any increase in unemployment in the lace furnishing industry in Scotland and Nottingham?
§ Mr. Walker-SmithI am not aware of any appreciable increase. Certainly it was not a point taken up by the trade unions that revocation of the Order would be material in that regard.
§ 11.18 p.m.
§ Mr. A. G. Bottomley (Rochester and Chatham)This Order reflects the fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Order arises, as the Minister said, from the Industrial Organisation and Development Act introduced by the Labour Government. The purpose of the Act was primarily to establish development councils for various industries. It was hoped by that means to make industry much more efficient, to get improvement in production and distribution; and it was hoped that through co-ordination the different groups of private industry would be better equipped to carry out research. It was hoped that they would be better able to collect vital statistics, to discuss and improve organisation, to engage in personnel training, and to boost exports.
650 In industries where one could not have a development council provision was made for levies of the kind which we are discussing, for particular purposes. It is now intended to revoke this levy. During the Third Reading of the Bill, hon. Members opposite, who were then in opposition, opposed levies. They did not vote against the proposal, but their main speaker suggested that it was something which they did not like. So we are not surprised that tonight the Government reflects the views expressed at that time. This Order of 21st June, 1951, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), whose illness we regret, has been in operation since. It was subsequently amended by the Government. When it was previously discussed, it was said to be primarily to finance the promotion of the export industry.
The Minister has said that the trade unions have been consulted. That is true; "consulted" is the right word. To say that they have not offered opposition is perhaps also true, but it would be wrong to give the impression that they want to see this levy go. The view of the Scottish trade union is that there is unemployment in the industry and they could not care less about the levy; they are seeking the work and are more concerned about getting work of one kind or another, and I gather their representations have been that the levy is the employers' responsibility; they have told the Minister they are not going to say anything more. But one of the other unions feels that the export drive is not being conducted as efficiently as it should be and suggest that more should be done.
No comment has been made about another union. I do not know whether the Transport and General Workers' Union has made representations to the Department or whether it has been consulted. All I can say on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends is that we think that, at this time of all times, when the Government as a whole are calling for increased exports, this revocation Order is psychologically wrong. We also think that it is wrong in principle, and I shall advise my hon. Friend to vote against it.
§ 11.22 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux (Nottingham, Central)I should like to support this Motion. I know that the lace furnishing industry will be grateful 651 for the intention to revoke this Order. I would emphasise that that does not indicate a defeatist attitude about exports on the part of the industry. Indeed, very much the reverse. As my hon. Friend said, it has a wonderful record of exports. Between 35 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the manufacture goes in exports. The fact is simply that this organisation is at present not giving any help on exports; the industry does not see any possibility of it doing it in the near future, and there does not seem any very great advantage in expending £15,000 a year for nothing at all.
When this organisation was first formed, two-thirds of the £15,000 raised in the levy each year went in trying to boost our exports in Canada to earn dollars, and the remaining £5,000 in Australia. In Canada we were subject to very intense competition from then on by the Americans, mainly in very highly coloured magazines so popular in Canada. To compete, we should have had to do so in those magazines, and we just had nothing like the amount of dollars necessary with which to do it. We therefore switched the ratio round and put £10,000 into Australia and £5,000 into Canada. The Australians first countered, in 1951, with one quota
§ restriction, and then came along in 1954, when we switched the ratio, with another very crippling one, which was the reason for the trouble there. There are many reasons, with which I will not detain the House at this hour, which made it quite impossible for the industry to switch that sales promotion from those two principal places, Canada and Australia, to anywhere else.
§ The desire to have this Order revoked does not in any sense mean that the machine holders will not go on trying to boost their exports when and where they can. If there were any future opportunity when such a scheme as this could be put into operation, they would be the first to advocate it. I do not think anybody need worry that an industry with such a particularly fine export record cannot be trusted to boost exports as far as it reasonably can. When all is said and done, the important point is that the Government are not paying any of this £15,000 levy; every single penny comes from the machine holders, and as they are paying the whole of the piper's wages I think they are entitled to say when he should stop playing.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 86.
653| Division No. 245.] | AYES | [11.25 p.m. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Errington, Sir Eric | Kirk, P. M. |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Finlay, Graeme | Lagden, G. W. |
| Ashton, H. | Fisher, Nigel | Leavey, J. A. |
| Atkins, H. E. | Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Gibson-Watt, D. | Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) |
| Balniel, Lord | Gough, C. F. H. | Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Gower, H. R. | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) |
| Barter, John | Graham, Sir Fergus | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Grant, W. (Woodside) | Macdonald, Sir Peter |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich) | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Green, A. | McLaughlin, Mrs. P. |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Gresham Cooke, R. | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John |
| Bidgood, J. C. | Grimond, J. | McLean, Neil (Inverness) |
| Biggs-Davison, J. A. | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Maddan, Martin |
| Boothby, Sir Robert | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Markham, Major Sir Frank |
| Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | Marples, A. E. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Mathew, R. |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Maude, Angus |
| Brooman-White, R. C. | Hirst, Geoffrey | Mawby, R. L. |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Holland-Martin, C. J. | Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Hornby, R. P. | Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) | Nabarro, G. D. N. |
| Crouch, R. F. | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. | Nairn, D. L. S. |
| Dance, J. C. G. | Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) | Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA. | Irving, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. |
| Doughty, C. J. A. | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) |
| Drayson, G. B. | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Page, R. G. |
| du Cann, E. D. L. | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) |
| Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. | Kaberry, D. | Partridge, E. |
| Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Keegan, D. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. |
| Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. | Kerby, Capt. H. B. | Pitt, Miss E. M. |
| Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Kerr, H. W. | Profumo, J. D. |
| Kimball, M. | ||
| Raikes, Sir Victor | Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'g'tn, S.) | Walker-Smith, D. C. |
| Ramsden, J. E. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S) | Wall, Major Patrick |
| Redmayne, M. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Ridsdale, J. E. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Rippon, A. G. F. | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) | Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border) |
| Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.) | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Roper, Sir Harold | Tilney, John (Wavertree) | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Sharples, R. C. | Touche, Sir Gordon | |
| Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) | Vane, W. M. F. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES. |
| Smithers, Peter (Winchester) | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. | Mr. Gerald Wills and Mr. Bryan. |
| NOES | ||
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Healey, Denis | Pearson, A. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Herbison, Miss M. | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Hewitson, Capt. M. | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) |
| Balfour, A. | Holmes, Horace | Probert, A. R. |
| Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) | Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Boardman, H. | Hoy, J. H. | Pryde, D. J. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Randall, H. E. |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) | Hunter, A. E. | Redhead, E. C. |
| Bowles, F. G. | Janner, B. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Boyd, T. C. | Jeger, George (Goole) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Smith, Ellis, (Stoke, S.) |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Jones, T. W. (Merion[...]th) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Burke, W. A. | Kenyon, C. | Steele, T. |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | King, Dr. H. M. | Thornton, E. |
| Coldrick, W. | Lawson, G. M. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) | Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Usborne, H. C. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Lindgren, G. S. | Warbey, W. N. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | MacColl, J. E. | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) |
| Fernyhough, E. | McInnes, J. | Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Finch, H. J. | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Forman, J. C. | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mahon, Simon | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| Gibson, C. W. | Mitchison, G. R. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Monslow, W. | |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Oram, A. E. | |
| Hannan, W. | Oswald, T. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Paget, R. T. | Mr. Wilkins and Mr Deer. |
| Hayman, F. H. | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) |
Question put and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That the Draft Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Revocation) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th May, be approved.