Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) (Hansard, 3 November 1959)

§ 1. Mr. Thornton
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a full list of the mills where machinery is to be scrapped, and a full list of the firms who will qualify for compensation under the terms of the Cotton Industry Act, 1959.

§ The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling)
No, Sir. Under the Cotton Industry Act, information about applications from individual firms may not be published except with the consent of the firms concerned.

§ Mr. Thornton
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this secret list is a scandal and is grossly unfair to the operatives concerned? Does not he agree that it is also very unfair to firms remaining in business and those which have publicly announced their intention to close down? Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with this discrimination, or with this preference for private interests as against the public interest?

§ Mr. Maudling
I will certainly examine the matter with the Cotton Board, but I should point out that this is laid down in the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, which continued in this respect the provisions of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947.

§ 2. Mr. Thornton
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many firms which qualify for compensation for redundant machinery under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, have applied for, and how many have been granted, permission 824 to keep such redundant machinery running after 31st March, 1959.

§ Mr. Maudling
The Cotton Board has received four applications and granted one. The others are still under consideration.

§ Mr. Thornton
Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that in granting permission to anyone to continue after 31st March, the main weight will be on social considerations and factors and not on the private profits of the firms concerned?

§ Mr. Maudling
This is a matter which Parliament left to the decision of the Cotton Board, I am sure wisely. The Cotton Board has a high position in the cotton industry and in Lancashire generally, and I am quite certain that it will bear in mind the important point which the hon. Member has made.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there are two very important points here which are neglected in his Answer? The first is that it is unprecedented—does he not agree?—for millions of pounds of public money to be distributed to people without the public or Parliament having any right whatever to know who is getting it and why? The second point is this. Is it not monstrously unfair that people whose livelihood is being taken away in this way should have no proper opportunity of knowing well in advance that their livelihood is being taken away, so that they may seek to make alternative arrangements? Is not the whole thing becoming a public scandal of the gravest kind?

§ Mr. Maudling
No, it is certainly not becoming anything of the sort. I think the hon. Member's question is really addressed to Question No. 1, rather than to Question No. 2. I did say that I would talk to the Cotton Board about the matter. I agree that it is important.

§ Mr. Fletcher-Cooke
Will my right hon. Friend consider issuing, in the most general terms, some kind of interim report on how the scheme is working? There are some people who think that too few firms are closing, while others think there are too many, and it would be of interest to hon. Members and to the public if we could have, if only in 825 general terms, a report on how my right hon. Friend sees the course of the scheme at this stage.

§ Mr. Maudling
I will certainly consider that suggestion. My impression is that so far the scheme is working out much as Parliament intended.

§ Mr. Jay
While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to these responsibilities, may I ask him if he is satisfied with a situation in which, apparently, this list is known to the managements of firms and even to trade associations, but not to any of the operatives?

§ Mr. Maudling
It is not true to say that the list is not known to operatives. I think it is right to say that the Cotton Board has urged firms to tell their people what is happening. I am saying only that we are unable to publish the list because the information we have cannot be published by reason of the operation of the 1947 Act, which was passed by the party opposite.

§ 19 and 20. Mr. Hale
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that many workers in the cotton textile industry find that, having sought temporary alternative employment when threatened with the imminent closure of a mill, they have become disqualified for compensation because they did not have the consent of the employer; and, what steps he intends to take to remedy this hardship;

§ Mr. Maudling
It is for the trade unions and the employers' organisations to settle in the normal way questions arising out of the compensation agreement between them. I understand that the two sides are in touch about the matter to which the hon. Member refers.

§ Mr. Hale
The two sides have been in touch with each other about this matter for a long time and nothing has been resolved. Is the Minister aware of the operatives' position? First, if they leave a firm without written permission 826 they may forfeit the whole of their right to compensation, even if they leave because they are told that the firm intends to close. Secondly, if they want to leave and have another job, the employer is entitled to refuse them permission to leave. Thirdly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am asking a supplementary question on two Questions which were answered together. Thirdly, the Minister has announced that the employee has no right to know whether a firm is closing down or whether he has a possible right to compensation.

§ Mr. Maudling
The hon. Member misinterprets what I said in reply to an earlier supplementary question. The fact in this case was that these arguments were worked out between the employers and the unions, and the Government are not a party to them. As the Government are not a party to the agreements, it would be wrong for us to intervene in them.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we cannot deal with human problems of this kind in the House of Commons by referring to some outside agreement made by somebody else? We are responsible, and he is responsible. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that a great many of these firms are applying for permission, on the one hand, to exercise their right to obtain compensation and, on the other hand, to go on working after the statutory date of 31st March? The men employed in the mills, whose whole livelihood is at stake, are given no information about it at all. How can he justify that by referring to some negotiations outside the House of Commons?

§ Mr. Maudling
The hon. Member is harking back to an earlier Question.

§ Mr. Silverman
No, I am not.

§ Mr. Maudling
The Cotton Industry Act made it clear that the Board of Trade must be satisfied that arrangements have been made for compensation but that details of those arrangements were to be worked out between the unions and the employers. I should have thought that it was the function of the trade unions, which they can discharge very well, to look after the interests of their members.

§ Mr. Rhodes
Is the Minister aware that since some of these firms have made the arrangements to close down and have not done so, the value of their shares on the Stock Exchange has increased by 100 per cent.? If safeguarding the interests of the shareholders is important, I reckon that safeguarding the interests of the workers is more important still. Why should it be that this ridiculous arrangement makes it possible for the shareholders to know that they are getting 100 per cent. profit on the deal while the man who is to be displaced does not even know that he is to be displaced?

§ Mr. Maudling
I quite agree that the interests of the workers must clearly be safeguarded in these matters. This has been and remains the function of the trade unions, which they are carrying out.

§ Mr. Jay
Surely as the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, passed this Act, and as he is spending £30 million of public money—

§ Mr. Rhodes
It is £60 million.

§ Mr. Jay
—or perhaps £60 million, he must take responsibility for what is going on.

§ Mr. Maudling
I can take only the responsibility which Parliament has placed on the Board of Trade. I have said that the two sides to this agreement are already in touch and are discussing this matter.

§ Mr. Hale
On a point of order. I beg to give formal notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer to Question No. 19, I shall raise that matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity and that, in view of the still more unsatisfactory nature of the Answer to Question No. 20, I shall raise that matter on the Adjournment at a later opportunity.

§ 21. Mr. Hale
asked the President of the Board of Trade his present estimate of the number of firms which are closing down mills under the Cotton Industry Reorganisation Scheme; how many employees are involved; and what arrangements have been made for the provision of alternative employment.

§ Mr. Maudling
I understand that some 500 firms have applied for compensation for scrapping, but it is not possible to estimate the number of people who will lose employment as a result. There is a widespread shortage of labour in the cotton industry and many who are affected by scrapping should be able to secure alternative work at other mills. The Cotton Board has informed the Ministry of Labour of the firms concerned and the Ministry will do everything it can to help.

§ Mr. Hale
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that twelve huge mills in the Parliamentary constituency of Oldham, West alone have announced their intention of closing between now and Christmas, that at least 3,000 workers are involved, that no one locally can tell me what alternative employment is available and that, so far from there being a shortage of workers, there is considerable unemployment in Oldham, already?

§ Mr. Maudling
I know that conditions vary from place to place. Of course, that is true, but within the cotton industry and the cotton area as a whole there is a great shortage of labour, of which there is very clear evidence.