HC Deb 17 June 1959 vol 607 cc605-8
Sir D. Eccles

I beg to move, in page 6, line 34. at the end to insert: (6) Anything which before the passing of this Act has been done by or on behalf of the independent members of the Cotton Board or any of them in or with a view to the preparation of a reorganisation scheme, and in particular any consultation undertaken in that behalf with any such bodies as are referred to in subsection (1) of section one of this Act, shall be as effective for the purposes of this Act as it had been done after the commencement of this Act and the members in question had been acting as members of the committee provided for by this section; and this subsection shall apply in relation to any person designated by the Board of Trade for appointment under subsection (1) of this section as an independent Member of the Cotton Board as it applies in relation to such a member. I ask the help of the Committee, because the preliminary talks have gone more rapidly than we expected. I explained on a previous Amendment, and will not repeat the whole story, that we are caught in the time-table by the Summer Recess. If, and it is only a hope, we could get the spinners, weavers and doublers to bring forward their schemes in time for Parliament to consider them before we rise, very great benefits would result to the cotton industry. We cannot do that unless almost all the work on these schemes is done before the Bill receives the Royal Assent, if Parliament agrees to it. Therefore, I feel that I ought to ask the Committee to help me by including in the Bill this subsection which would have the effect of saying that the work which Mr. Burney, the Chief Executive, and the independent members of the Cotton Board are now doing would be held to be valid when the reorganisation schemes came forward.

I would also like to be able to get on with the appointment of two new members of the Board, one of whom is to be a trade unionist of standing, as an Amendment which has not been called has referred to him. If in the middle of July we are able to come to the House with three reorganisation schemes—

Mr. Rhodes

What kind of timing is the right hon. Gentleman thinking about? Supposing the Bill goes through the Report stage and Third Reading next week, and then passes through the other place and receives the Royal Assent, will all our further consideration of it he put into the last week of July, when we have not time to do it? I visualise that our examination of the schemes will be minute, and if the sections of the industry which are putting forward these schemes should, inadvertently or by design, put forward schemes which are not good enough for the hon. Members of this House, I can assure the President of the Board of Trade that hon. Members on both sides will come together on that and throw them out. Can we have some idea of the sort of timetable that is envisaged? Are we to be landed in the last week of July, with everyone dashing away, so that the schemes can go through easily? Would it not be better to leave the matter over until after the election?

Sir D. Eccles

I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and we wish to give the House adequate time to look at these schemes.

Mr. Rhodes

This is only an enabling Bill.

Sir D. Eccles

What the hon. Gentleman says is quite correct. I have asked—and I do not know whether it will be possible—that at the end of the first week in July the schemes should be ready. I think there are still a number of things to be decided. It would be a great and real benefit to catch this tide which is now running in Lancashire. When a lot of people are holding back and not making the arrangements they could make, if one asked them to await whenever it would be—the middle of November, I suppose—before the schemes could be approved, we should have lost valuable time. We want to take advantage of the three-year period of stability of imports from Asia, and, every month, those three years are running out. There is a compelling reason for trying to do this job, if we can, by the end of next month, but I give an assurance that we are going to have a look at the schemes, and not just receive them one day and ask for their approval the next.

Mr. Jay

I should be more enthusiastic about the President's proposals if he had accepted some of our substantial Amendments earlier in the discussion today, particularly those relating to the provision of additional industry and alternative employment in these areas. If we thought that the tide now running in Lancashire would bring new work to Lancashire, as well as contract the old, we should feel more benevolent about it.

Nevertheless, I agree that if we are to have the Bill, and if these schemes are going forward, there is something to be said for the accelerated timetable that the President is now proposing. I would only point out that what he is suggesting now is retrospective legislation. We on this side have never taken a doctrinaire or dogmatic view about retrospective legislation. The fact is that it is sometimes sensible and sometimes not, and the President is hereby proposing a reasonably sensible form of retrospective legislation, which confirms our view in that respect.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Mr. Hale

Do we take the new Clauses before you report the Bill, as amended, Sir Charles, because there is still the second new Clause which should have been moved formally? I only want to move it "on the nod". Aged and decrepit as I am, I am probably wrong again, but it was discussed, and I was told I could move it.

The Chairman

I think the hon. Member is wrong, because the paving Amendment for it was negatived.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale

It is a new Clause, Sir Charles. Surely it cannot have a paver?

The Chairman

Yes, it does need one.

Mr. Hale

I submit, with respect, Sir Charles, that it is a completely independent new Clause. It does not depend upon any kerbstones or anything of that sort. I do not want to press the point, but as you were wrong on one occasion, it would be rather sporting of you to say that I am right on this.

The Chairman

I have called all the Clauses except the last one. I understood that when the earlier Amendment was negatived the new Clause would not be in order. In any event, I was not going to call a Division on it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 124.]