HC Deb 24 June 1958 vol 590 cc376-84

9.58 pm.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll)

I beg to move, That the Draft Furniture Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved. This Order is subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament and is made under the authority of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. It amends, for the first time, the Furniture Industry Development Council Order, 1948, which set up a Development Council for the furniture industry.

To enable the Council to meet its expenses, Article 6 of the 1948 Order gives the Council authority, with the approval of the Board of Trade, to impose levies on parsons manufacturing domestic furniture. Paragraph (3) of Article 6 provides that any charge shall be computed so as to yield as nearly as possible an equal sum in each period of 12 calendar months, but not so as to yield more than £75,000 in any period of three years.

Since the Council was set up nearly ten years ago its expenses have increased. The limit imposed by Parliament on the maximum amount of the levy, an average of £25,000 a year, is no longer sufficient to meet the cost of the work which the Council considers to be necessary and which the industry wishes to be done. The Council therefore asked the Board of Trade to seek parliamentary approval of an increase in the maximum amount of the levy which may be charged on the manufacturers.

The Board of Trade consulted organisations representative of the manufacturers and of the workpeople engaged in the industry. The trade unions recommended an increase in the maximum amount of the levy from £25,000 per annum to £33,000. The manufacturers have recommended an increase to £30,000 a year and that figure, as the highest common factor of the advice offered to the Board of Trade, has been included in the draft Order. The Amendment only increases the maximum amount of the levy which may be approved by the Board of Trade. The Furniture Development Council will continue to have to obtain the approval of the Board of Trade for any levy which it wishes to impose within the maximum amount.

In this Order we further propose that the maximum amount which may be charged shall be fixed for one year instead of for three years, as was provided for in 1948. This change, which is approved by the trade organisations concerned, will bring the conditions governing the levy into line with those which regulate the levy imposed by the only other Development Council, namely, the Cotton Board. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the Order.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

I only want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. He is requesting the House to agree to an increase in the amount of the levy that the Furniture Development Council may raise. I take it from this that it is the view of the Government that the Council is doing valuable and useful work in the industry. That appeared to be implied in what the hon. Gentleman said, but he did not say so explicitly, and we should like to have it clear that this is the view of the Government. It is certainly our view, though it may be that some of my hon. Friends who are particularly familiar with this industry may have more specific views as to which of its activities might be extended rather than others.

I will only add that I hope this is not the only form of assistance and encouragement to the furniture industry that the Government have in mind. If we were to consult those in the industry, I think they would say that from their point of view far more would be done to relieve it in its present rather depressed condition by some alleviation of the present restrictions on hire purchase than by an increase in this levy. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the restrictions on hire purchase are particularly stringent and were specially hard on the industry. Therefore, it is timely, at a moment when the Government are in certain respects easing up on their economic policy—as, for instance, in the Chancellor's decision to raise the initial allowances—that the furniture industry should at least inquire how long it is to be held in the particularly severe grip in which it has languished for over twelve months.

So I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, can we take it that the Government regard this Council as a valuable institution, and have they anything in mind, in addition to this very minor measure, to encourage and stimulate the industry?

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)

Whilst I wish to support my right hon. Friend in the questions he has put to the Parliamentary Secretary about relief for the furniture industry from the present excessive restrictions imposed on it by the Government, I would probably be out of order if I pursued that too far.

My right hon. Friend asked the Minister whether the Government thought the work done by the Council was valuable. I assume the answer must be "Yes" or they would not be continuing it in existence. I am certain the work it has done in the ten years of its existence has been of great value to the industry. It introduced the industry for the first time to the ideas of research, and there is no doubt that it has improved the products of the furniture industry, certainly among those firms who have taken the trouble to take advantage of its research work. When the Utility scheme was abolished, it would have been almost impossible to provide the public with any standards if it had not been for the work of the research department of the Furniture Development Council.

I am glad that, in addition to the levy, research work is being supported by a grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. One of the reasons for the increase in the income of the Council is that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research expects the industry to support its own research work, if the Government are going to support it as well. One of the reasons, apart from the increase in competition to which the industry is now subjected—and, incidentally, competition from abroad is increasing as well—is that this increased competition undoubtedly makes it necessary for the industry not only to increase its production efficiency but also to improve its standard of designs.

At present, there are increasing numbers of new materials, new types of timber and forms of construction and new types of finish which are used in the industry. Undoubtedly research is needed for their application, and the industry, especially smaller firms, needs guidance in the standards by which these new materials should be applied. Apart from the research work and the information work following from it—which I wish were supported by more firms—I wish that more firms were members of the Research and Information Committee of the Council than is reported in its annual report.

Of course, there is work on training, particularly in the fields of management and supervision, method study and costing. I believe that about 70 firms have introduced the Development Council costing scheme, which has raised the whole level of manufacture in the industry. Like myself, the Parliamentary Secretary is more used to working in metal, and problems of working in timber in some cases are much more difficult. The problems in the upholstery section are even greater. It is interesting to see that the Research Department of the Council has undertaken research into the upholstery section, and the confidence displayed by firms in the Council is shown by the grant by Dunlop of £1,000 a year for three years for research into furniture upholstery.

I am glad that the Government are continuing the life of the Council and giving it power to raise an increased levy which I am sure will be of great benefit to the industry in the very difficult times through which at present it is passing.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Victor Collins (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

I, too, am a strong supporter of the principle of development councils for industry. In fact, I remember that in the debate on the Bill which brought these councils into form in 1948 I was one of those who advocated that they should have stronger and more widespread powers in order to become more effective. It may be that because they have not those wide powers—this Council, in particular, operates on a very small budget—they are not nearly as effective as I should like to see them.

I should declare an interest in this matter, as I am one of the contributors to the £30,000. May I hasten to add that I do not begrudge in any way the increase asked for, which cannot rebut the increase in costs during the last ten years. A figure of £30,000 does not enable much research work to be done. I wish to add a few things to those suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in the way of directing the Minister's mind to whether the remit of this Council is sufficiently comprehensive, or whether steps are being taken to direct the minds of its members effectively along those lines upon which it can most assist the industry.

I am aware that it is in consultation both with employers and representatives of trade unions in these matters, but, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), it has confined itself almost exclusively to research. Although that research has in many ways assisted and benefited sections of the industry, particularly those sections and firms which have shown themselves willing and able to benefit from the results of research, I feel that the industry as a whole would be far more interested, shall I say, in finding ways, through the Development Council, of helping firms to be more effective as an industry and more able to assist their living as an industry, than perhaps in the antics of the lesser boll weevil.

I find it very sad that in those ten years since the Furniture Industry Development Council has been in operation the development in the industry has been more or less all one way—and all the wrong way—in so far as volume is concerned. For example, a very few years before 1948 the number of firms in the industry was over 4,000 and now it is fewer than 2,000. In recent years, the decline in employment and in the number of skilled craftsmen employed—craftsmen who cannot very well be replaced—is catastrophic. I do not know of any other industry in the country where there has been a similar decline in the employment of skilled craftsmen. I am not merely talking about those who are unemployed, but those who have been driven out of the industry because there is no effective employment for them.

I should have thought that the Board of Trade might well have directed the attention of the Council to avenues in which it might more effectively help the industry as a whole. As the Minister is well aware, the Economist Intelligence Unit recently conducted an invaluable survey of the industry, which, I am sure he will agree, gives an extremely full and comprehensive picture of the industry as it is today, the causes of its decline and suggestions for its improvement. That survey was not carried out by the Development Council. It was not financed by the Council, but by the Retail Furniture Federation, out of its our resources.

There is also the question of export markets. I am not suggesting that furniture is a commodity which lends itself readily to export. There is, of course, the difficulty of bulk and of packing, and the difficulty that most countries have indigenous industry suited to their particular civilisation or standards of living.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

I think that the hon. Member is going very wide of the Order.

Mr. Collins

I was suggesting, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that these were matters to which the Furniture Industry Development Council, through the Board of Trade, might direct its inquiries in order to secure the objective of development in the industry.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This Order deals with charges, the maximum permissible amount.

Mr. Collins

The Board of Trade, as I understand, is asking for powers through this Order to increase the amount of money available to the Furniture Industrial Development Council so that it may better carry on its work. I was suggesting to the Minister that these were some of the things on which it might spend money for the better development of the furniture industry. I hope that I shall be in order in suggesting that the Council might pursue research into the possibility of increasing the export market for furniture.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Order deals only with the amount of money to be raised.

Mr. Collins

Naturally, I will abide by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I should have thought that it would have been in order, when we are suggesting that more money should be made available to this Council, which has as its objective the development of the furniture industry, to say how that money should be spent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That was originally decided, and now we are asking for more money.

Mr. Jay

On a point of order. Presumably it is in order to discuss the purpose for which the Council wants the money and the way in which it might be spent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Yes, but I allowed a good deal of latitude before I stopped the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Collins

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will leave the point about exports.

I also suggest to the Minister that one of the difficulties which the industry is now experiencing is in connection with the dumping of furniture from Iron Curtain countries. These and other matters are points to which I at least feel that the attention of the Council ought to be directed.

I feel that the Council should be a strong and good force for the industry. It should be an example of what can be achieved and an example to other industries where the principle might be extended and developed. A great deal of good could be done. I hope that this money will be spent in defined ways of developing the industry and helping the manufacturers to get a living, as well as helping the skilled workers to obtain and keep employment in the industry in which they have their skill rather than being obliged to go to other industries.

I hope that the money will be spent in this way, that the Council will flourish and that the suggestions which I have made to the Minister will be noted in the right quarter.

Mr. Erroll

With the permission of the House, I should like to reply briefly to the points which have been made in this short but interesting debate. Replying to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), it is true that this Order increases the maximum total of the yield which may be raised, but it will not of itself necessarily increase the rate levied. That is a matter which is fixed from year to year.

It is fair to say that the Government approve of the Furniture Development Council. As the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said, we should not be putting the Order forward if we disapprove. On the other hand, it must be recognised that this is a Council which the industry as a whole supports, and if it wishes the Council to continue its activities we feel that the least we can do is to give the Council the necessary powers to raise the money which it requires for its activities.

Mr. Jay

Presumably the Government have a view of their own and consider that the work which the Council is doing is valuable.

Mr. Erroll

Most certainly. I do not want to appear to be too non-committal. The Government approve of the work which is being done. I took an opportunity not long ago to visit the Council's research laboratories in North London to satisfy myself about the work which they were doing. I confirm what was said by the hon. Member for Edmonton, that it is sometimes more complicated to work in wood than in metal.

The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) referred to rather useless research into wood pests, but I can assure him that that is valuable work to do if it affects the product—good domestic furniture. The hon. Member for Edmonton spoke of the need to improve standards of design and new materials. An important part of the Council's work is to make sure that the exciting new materials which are increasingly becoming available are made known, particularly to the smaller firms, who might otherwise not have an opportunity to keep abreast with all that is going on in this progressive world.

May I say in reply to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury that I have read the Economist survey with great interest. I do not think it matters in the least that it was not produced by the Council. I am pleased that a section of the furniture industry took the initiative to publish its own survey on the prospects of its industry.

The hon. Gentleman also made a number of points about work that the Furniture Development Council might undertake. I am sure that the Council will study his speech with great interest, and adopt his suggestions, where they are practicable. I hope that the House will now approve the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Draft Furniture Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.