HC Deb 12 May 1958 vol 588 cc176-86

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

11.0 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

I feel that, first, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should apologise to you and the House for inflicting myself upon you for the second time in one day.

The problem of the imports of gloves from Hong Kong is one which dates from 1952. It has as a background the tragic spectacle of many thousands of refugees in a very small Colony on the opposite side of the globe—a Colony on which we have only the most tenuous of holds. I do not think that anyone, either in the gloving industry or speaking on its behalf, wishes to minimise the problems which face the Government in Hong Kong, and I do not think that it would be right for anyone in my position to fail to express his deep sympathy with and understanding of the problems which exist there.

Because of the tremendous influx of refugees, the labour costs are so low that we in this country cannot hope to compete with them. The problem has arisen only during the past five or six years. In 1956, imports of gloves from Hong Kong reached a peak of 1,628,884 dozen pairs. It is true that the figure fell slightly in 1957, but the entire output in this country of both leather and fabric gloves has been dropping since 1955, and knitted gloves have taken the most severe blow of all.

I ask my hon. Friend and the Government to recall a fact which they seem to find only too easy to overlook—that this is an old craft industry. If it is dealt a death blow, if it finds itself facing a severe decline, it will not be easy for anyone to resuscitate the skill upon which it depends. I remind my hon. Friend that there are many small firms in this industry and that it depends in large part for the work which is done upon out-workers, whose unemployment is never registered with the Ministry of Labour. Over the six years a great many approaches have been made to the Board of Trade. I have accompanied deputations from the industry, which have been received with the utmost courtesy by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), when he was President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low), when he was Minister of State, Board of Trade.

I thought that the needs and problems of the industry were well understood by the Government. The industry had been given to understand—and I think it largely accepted, although with a good deal of disquiet—that in the Government's view the right of free entry of goods from a Colony was an unassailable principle which in no circumstances were the Government prepared to qualify in any way.

I do not want in any way to disguise the disappointment with which in the circumstances I heard the comparatively casual announcement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 3rd April. All he had to say was: I am aware of the difficulties of the glove industry, because it has factories in my constituency. The facts are that the imports from Hong Kong were less last year than the year before and we have not thought it right to extend this kind of arrangement to made-up goods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1958; Vol. 585, c. 1367.] The arrangement mentioned was a new suggestion, rather surprising to us, that the Board of Trade was considering the possibility of some form of voluntary limitation on imports of cotton cloth from Hong Kong.

That assailed the principle upon which the Government had rested for so long. I am bound to say that I took it ill that in making that announcement my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did not appear to be aware of the fact—until reminded of it—that his announcement would naturally cause a good deal of disappointment to people engaged in the gloving industry, who, faced with many difficulties over the years, had over those years pressed for just such an arrangement to be applied to their industry.

I do not wish to press the point too hard tonight, but I ask my hon. Friend to give serious consideration to the problems of this small industry, which does not cry, alas, with such a loud voice as that possessed by the greater textile industry of Lancashire. However, I ask him to give it his careful attention and to remind his right hon. Friend that there are those in the House who consider it right and, indeed, their duty to stand up in their places and speak out on behalf of an industry which has been very hard pressed over the years and which, despite possible good will from the Government, has not been able to get any help from that quarter.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn (Stalybridge and Hyde)

I support the plea of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) because I have a constituency interest. In fact, imports from Hong Kong deal my constituency a double blow. Mine is a textile constituency as well as having one or two glove factories. I cross swords with the hon. Member when he says that the glove industry cannot speak with as loud a voice as can the cotton industry, because although the cotton industry may have been making its plea for a long time, it has so far met with very little success.

One of our complaints of the Government is that they have been very dilatory in trying to deal with this very serious problem, and I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some comfort to the glove industry and, at the same time, be able to mention what is happening to the cotton industry.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison (Maldon)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for raising this problem of the glove industry. I know that he has been that industry's standard bearer in the House for a long time and I hope that he will continue to carry that standard.

There is a very big glove exporting and manufacturing business in my constituency and it is because of that and the problem that the imports of Hong Kong gloves have caused that I intervene briefly in the debate.

I do not think that any of us wants to stop Hong Kong having a fair share of the market, because it has a tremendous refugee problem, and the way in which it has tackled it is something af which it has a right to be proud, but we must expect fair trading practices from it. I have seen examples of packages being almost exact copies of those which a firm in my constituency produces. This firm, which has a worldwide reputation, has suffered because of it. Everything in the packages that I am thinking of was identical, except that the gloves had the word "Piccadilly" on them, whereas those made by the firm in my constituency bore the work "Pink-hams". The printing and everything else was identical. I hope that my hon. Friend and the Government will watch this matter very carefully.

Secondly, I hope that the Government will ensure that all gloves which come into this country as having been made in Hong Kong have, in fact, been made there, and have not been floated down the river or come across from Japan to be marketed from Hong Kong. I do not think that any of us is prepared to give concessions to manufacturers in those two markets.

Thirdly, I would make a plea for some form of temporary limitation, such as Sir Frank Lee is endeavouring to negotiate out there at present, because with labour as cheap as it is in these Colonies gloves can be landed in this country at about 43s. per dozen pairs—and that includes the complete labour content which the British manufacturer has to put in. I hope that my hon. Friend will look very sympathetically at the possibility of some temporary limitation of imports to this country from Hong Kong.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I have one or two words to add to the opinions which have already been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is important to recognise that this matter is not confined to one area. I felt it my duty to say that what I have been pressing for for some time is still of importance to a small industry in Leicester. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about the necessity of keeping a small industry of this sort alive. It is of considerable importance to the company concerned.

It is true that there is not much of a knitted glove industry in Leicester, but the fact remains that it is not right to say, "Yes, that is all very well, but you need not worry. Nobody will be unemployed, because there are other industries in the town." That is no answer to give in respect of an industry of this nature. It is not fair to say that there is no unemployment. It may be that the same number of people are employed, but many are employed part-time, and it is this kind of industry that is losing ground.

The people who want to maintain the industry in Leicester are those who, for many years, have endeavoured to keep on the map something which is very well made, and an industry which requires a considerable amount of training. I hope that the Minister will consider the pleas which have been made to him and do something effective to protect the industry.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)

I am very glad to have this opportunity of speaking extremely shortly on this most important subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on raising this matter, and upon his pertinacity and the consistently fair way in which he has led the defence on behalf of the people in the West Country who have traditionally earned their living and found employment in this important industry.

Those who get their living in this industry wish to be reasonable in this matter. They absolutely understand that most important questions of Commonwealth and world trade are involved in this matter, but they feel that the principle by which we should judge our trade is that the British manufacturer should get the first place, with the Empire producer coming second, and letting the foreigner be third.

This matter goes wider than gloves. Shirts also come into this story, and it not only affects Hong Kong, but also products from other countries like Italy. We do, therefore, hope for some reassurance because I can tell my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that this is a matter viewed with increasing concern by those of us who have factories and outworkers in our constituencies, people who are not having an easy time at present.

11.16 p.m.

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

The House would, I am sure, like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on having secured the Adjournment tonight and of having given the opportunity of allowing a number of other hon. Members to participate in this short debate on the prospects for this small, but very important, United Kingdom industry.

I should say at the outset that the glove industry is fortunate in having in him such an excellent spokesman, and I should like him to know that in the Board of Trade we study most carefully what he has to say in this matter both in this Chamber and elsewhere. Of course, I do not want other hon. Members to think that we listen only to my hon. Friend; we listen to what all hon. Gentleman have to tell us about this industry, and particularly when they have interests in their own constituencies.

I would like to say straight away that I am sorry that my hon. Friend did, however, imply that the President of the Board of Trade seemed to be casual in his approach to the industry's problems. I assure him that nothing is farther from the truth. My right hon. Friend the President pays very close attention to the fortunes of this industry and considers most carefully, for example, the questions which would undoubtedly arise when he made the announcement to which my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil referred.

The President of the Board of Trade recognised full well that the glove industry would say that what was good for the cotton industry was also good for the glove industry. My hon. Friend interpreted my right hon. Friend's remarks as careless and offhand, but I do want to assure the House that there was nothing farther from my right hon. Friend's mind. He certainly did not wish to appear that he had given a reply which was casual or offhand in any way at all.

In view of the importance of this subject, I think that I should spend a couple of minutes by describing the factual background. It is important to trace its history in recent times if we are to understand its present problems. There is no doubt that imports from Hong Kong represent a real problem for the industry in this country, but the impact of these imports is probably as much due to change in taste, and, therefore, in the pattern of demand, as to their volume.

Before the war, gloves were traditionally an important United Kingdom import. The bulk of imports was in leather and fabric gloves, with imports of knitted gloves running at about half of the United Kingdom production. In those days, virtually all "fashion' gloves were of leather and, therefore, demand could absorb both the high quantity of imports, and the home production of leather gloves. In those days, fabric gloves were stigmatised as rather cheap and nasty, and although they filled a gap at the lower end of the trade they did not displace high quality United Kingdom production of leather gloves.

Since the war, improvements in the construction of gloving fabrics and increased attention to styling and finish have brought fabric gloves into the high fashion range. Their relative cheapness compared with leather gloves has added to their popularity, and these factors, combined with a reduction of imports as a result of import controls, and the disorganisation of the glove industry in the pre-war exporting countries, led in the immediate post-war years to the development of what is virtually a new industry in Britain—the fabric glove industry.

Since the same techniques are used for the making of fabric gloves as for leather gloves, production has tended to be undertaken by the leather glove manufacturers or in leather glove areas where trained workers are available, Production of fabric gloves grew from 13 million pairs in 1949 to a peak of over 24 million pairs in 1955, against a prewar figure of over 5 million pairs. Since 1955, it has declined, but it is still running at the high rate of over 19 million pairs.

The demand for knitted gloves has also increased. Apart from the traditional wool and string types, the newer synthetic fibres have led to a fashion in what are called knitted nylon and stretch nylon gloves. In the early post-war years the United Kingdom production of this sort of gloves increased to about 9.78 million pairs in 1950 against about 7 million pairs pre-war, and to 11 million in 1951, but fell back to 9.5 million pairs in 1952. Since then it has steadily declined.

That is why I wanted to give this factual background, to show where production is running well and where it has declined. It is now running at a little under pre-war level for knitted gloves. Imports of knitted gloves from Hong Kong, on the other hand, steadily increased from 1953, 3 million pairs, to 1956, 13.3 million pairs, although there has been a slight fall last year to 11.73 million pairs.

Leather glove production, on the other hand, has remained fairly constant since the war at about, or slightly above, the pre-war level. For the first time, in 1957, there was an appreciable drop from 17.85 million pairs in 1956 to 15.81 million pairs. Imports in total and from Hong Kong are still negligible and the leather glove manufacturers cannot argue that they are directly affected by imports from Hong Kong.

Briefly, the position is one of changing pattern of imports and production. United Kingdom total production at 41.5 million pairs is considerably above the pre-war level, although it has fallen sharply from the post-war peak of 50.45 million pairs in 1955. The actual level of imports at 25.35 million pairs is only slightly up, on the pre-war figure of 24.5 million pairs.

The industry has undoubtedly had its promising post-war expansion checked by imports from Hong Kong. The knitted glove sector may be faced with greater difficulties than the rest of the industry, although the 1957 figures suggest that these imports are no longer on the increase. In that knitted glove production is fairly specialist, and has no affinities with other glove making techniques, there may have to be some cutting back if imports continue at their present level. Nevertheless, we are far from a position where the industry is faced with destruction as a result of Hong Kong competition.

Several hon. Members suggested that gloves should receive the same treatment as cotton in regard to imports from Hong Kong. The situation as I have tried to point out is not as serious in the glove industry as in the cotton industry. Indeed, the two situations are very far from being similar. The cotton industry is faced with severe competition from India and Pakistan, as well as from Hong Kong, on a very big scale. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has emphasised that the Government have regarded cotton—and quite rightly—as a unique case, and he made it clear that Sir Frank Lee's talks in Hong Kong were confined to cotton Cloth; that cotton presented entirely special problems, and that Her Majesty's Government did not intend to sponsor similar arrangements in respect of other exports from Hong Kong, nor, indeed, in respect of made up goods.

I must emphasise that the cotton discussions that took place last week were between the industries of the countries concerned, and that the British Government have said only that they would be prepared to co-operate in the operation of a voluntary agreement arrived at between the industries concerned. I do not think that the glove industry should entertain any hope of similar arrangements coming into being in respect of glove imports. Whether the United Kingdom glove industry should endeavour to reach some agreement with Hong Kong exporters is a matter for the industry itself to decide.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) referred to gloves coming from Hong Kong which might be of either Japanese or Chinese origin. He referred to gloves coming down the river, or from across the ocean. Some United Kingdom manufacturers have alleged that gloves made in Japan or made of Japanese fabrics are being imparted into the United Kingdom from Hong Kong. Inquiries that we have made have produced no evidence to support such claims.

Her Majesty's Customs and Excise already exercise a very strict control in determining whether goods satisfy the conditions of Imperial Preference. The first requirement is that goods shall have been manufactured in the Commonwealth. They must also have a specified Commonwealth content of 25 per cent. by value.

The real test is to examine the figures. Figues for imports of gloves into Hong Kong from Japan bear out the contention that it is unlikely that Japanese gloves are being passed off as of Hong Kong origin. In 1957, imports of gloves of all types, except rubber, into Hong Kong from Japan were only about 10,000 dozen pairs. Imports into Hong Kong of Chinese gloves amounted to only about 53,000 dozen pairs in 1957. But imports of gloves into the United Kingdom from Hong Kong in that year amounted to about 1½ million dozen pairs. So, even if the gloves sent into Hong Kong from China and Japan were then sent to this country, they would not account for more than about 3 per cent. of the total quantity of gloves from Hong Kong. I think, therefore, that there is no justification for alleging that large quantities of Japanese and Chinese gloves are coming here via Hong Kong.

With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon about design, the change of the name from "Pinkhams" to "Piccadilly" is a significant one, and without looking at the case more closely I would not like to say whether or not there has been an infringement. However, British registration of designs is effective in Hong Kong, and where there is any evidence the authorities there make strenuous efforts to stop the practice. If my hon. Friend will give me details, I will be very glad to look into the matter on his behalf.

In this short reply I cannot outline the whole of the United Kingdom's commercial policy, which would be necessary if I were to do full justice to the strength of the Government's case for maintaining matters as they stand at present.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.