IMPORT DUTIES

HC Deb 09 December 1971 vol 827 cc1643-70

10.01 p.m.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble)

I beg to move, That the Import Duties (General) (No. 7) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1971), dated 4th December, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved. The order has two main purposes. It implements the final stage of tariff reduction which the United Kingdom agreed in the Kennedy Round of Trade Negotiations. And it imposes import duties on certain cotton textiles imported from countries in the Commonwealth Preference Area, other than the Republic of Ireland.

First, the Kennedy Round. The main elements of the agreement reached in the Kennedy Round Negotiations were welcomed by the whole House in May, 1967. A more detailed account was published in a White Paper in July, 1967. The Kennedy Round negotiations were the most ambitious attempt ever undertaken to lower international trade barriers, the objective being a 50 per cent. across-the-board cut in tariffs, with the minimum of exceptions.

Thirty-two countries, accounting for about 75 per cent. of world trade, made tariff reductions. The United Kingdom granted concessions on 53 per cent. of its total imports, and other major participants, including the E.E.C., Japan and the United States of America, made broadly similar reductions. The average reduction in our tariffs on dutiable industrial goods from the E.E.C., Japan and the United States was closely in line with what we received from them. After implementing by this order the final stage of the reductions the average level of United Kingdom on industrial products from dutiable sources will be about 10 per cent. and in the case of the E.E.C. it will be about 8½ per cent., compared with about 16½ per cent. and 13 per cent. respectively in 1967.

A few participants—for example, Japan, Canada and Switzerland—have already implemented their Kennedy Round obligations in full, Along with other participants, the United Kingdom has implemented its obligations to the extent of 80 per cent. of the agreed reductions. The order now before the House implements the fourth and final stage, due to come into force on 1st January, 1972. The E.E.C. and United States are committed to complete their reductions on the same day.

During the first three years after the Kennedy Round duty reductions began to come into effect, there was a remarkable increase in international trade. The value of industrial imports into the four major participant countries—the E.E.C., Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom—increased by 65 per cent. between 1967 and 1970 compared with 43 per cent. between 1964 and 1967. This increase was rather less dramatic than might appear at first sight because it takes no account of changes in the value of money. And it was not solely due to the Kennedy Round tariff reductions. But they undoubtedly played a significant part in bringing it about. I hope that despite current difficulties and uncertainties the world trading community will maintain the general impetus of trade expansion. We have all benefited from reducing trade barriers.

We in the United Kingdom have long acted—and will, I hope, continue to act—in pursuit of liberal international trade policies. But we have to recognise at the same time that there are specially intractable problems in certain areas, and we have to have regard to the actions of other members of the international trading Community. It is with this in mind that I should now like to deal with the second main purpose of this order.

For reasons which we gave yesterday, the Government have decided to retain in 1972 the present general system of quantitative restrictions on imports of cotton textiles. Nevertheless, we are still going ahead with the tariff on imports of cotton yarn and woven cotton textiles imported from the Commonwealth Preference Area, other than the Irish Republic, from 1st January, 1972. The decision to introduce this tariff was announced by the then President of the Board of Trade on 22nd July, 1969, and endorsed by this Government after taking office. It followed a recommendation by the industry's own Textile Council, after a two-year productivity and efficiency study, that the tariff would offer a margin of protection that was stable and predictable and would enable the industry to plan ahead with confidence. We still regard the tariff as a necessary long-term form of protection for the industry.

The new Commonwealth Preference Area rates of duty introduced by this order are generally 85 per cent. of the existing most favoured nation rate—thus retaining some preference for Commonwealth suppliers. As a rough guide, they are generally, 6½ per cent. on cotton yarns where the most favoured nation rate is 7½ per cent.; 15 per cent. on woven cotton cloth against the most favoured nation rate of 17½ per cent.; and 17 per cent. on most woven cotton garments where the most favoured nation rate is 20 per cent. The levels of tariff imposed under this order are broadly in line with those of the Common External Tariff of the E.E.C.

Knitted cotton cloth and knitted cotton made-up articles, which have never been subject to quantitative restriction, will remain free of duty from the Commonwealth Preference Area.

The order makes some other less important changes which are nevertheless desirable. It makes, for example, a series of amendments in accordance with a recommendation of the Customs Co-operation Council. The House will recall that this body, of which we have long been members, supervises the international nomenclature system on which our Customs tariff is based. It recommends amendments from time to time in order to keep the nomenclature in line with technological development, and to resolve classification difficulties which have come to light in the course of day-to-day Customs administration.

I will not weary hon. Members with a complete catalogue of what I might call the structural changes. They are described in the Explanatory Note to the order and if any Member has any question on any of them, I shall do my best to deal with it in my winding-up speech, if I have leave of the House.

Because the tariff changes made by this order cover a very wide range of goods, the order takes the form of an order with a schedule showing the total United Kingdom protective tariff as from 1st January, 1972. This is expected to be the base date from which the tariff changes which are required by our accession to the E.E.C. will be calculated. The base rates of duty will be those actually applied on the same date. But all this lies in the future. Much remains to be done to complete the enlargement of the Community and to establish new relationships between those within the enlarged Community and those outside it. The Kennedy Round negotiations will not be the last tariff negotiations, and we look forward to playing a constructive part as members of an enlarged Community in further international trade discussions at the appropriate time. In the meantime, I am pleased to present in this order the conclusion of the most successful international negotiations which have ever been undertaken to reduce tariffs. I willingly pay tribute to the previous Government for their part in this.

Before commending the order for approval, I should like to draw attention to an inaccuracy in the Explanatory Note. This states that the order consolidates the No. 7 Order of 1970, which was last year's big order, and the later amending orders. This is correct, with the exception that it does not consolidate the No. 8 order of 1971. Members will know that the order that we are discussing tonight is the second version of the General No. 7 Order of 1971. The No. 8 order was made in the time between the first and second versions of the No. 7 order, and I regret that its existence was overlooked when the Explanatory Note was repeated in this second version.

The point was drawn to our attention by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, along with the need to make a further order to carry forward into 1972 the effect of the No. 8 order. The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has been told that the necessary arrangements have already been put in hand. However, I should like to take this opportunity of saying how grateful I am to the Committee for its careful and helpful scrutiny and for drawing our attention to the point so that it might be put right.

With that acknowledgement. I commend the General No. 7 Order for approval.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

There are very important matters of merit involved in this order. Therefore, it is with considerable regret that I feel obliged to draw attention to a matter not of merit but of form. I do so only because I consider it to be a matter which is of concern to the House and because of a very serious principle involved in it.

Before coming to that, I refer to the fact that notice of this business was not given to the House in the normal way by the Leader of the House in his business statement last week. Neither has a supplementary statement been made, regardless of the great importance of the order.

As the Minister has said, the order is intended to replace the previous Import Duties (General) (No. 7) Order, 1971, Statutory Instrument No. 1813. That was laid before the House under the Affirmative procedure, because it made changes in a number of import duties. However, the affirmative Resolution was not moved within 28 days, and the order lapsed. It sank without trace. However, during the period in which the order was before the House, the No. 8 order was laid. That came into operation on 2nd December. Therefore I submit that it could not by any stretch of the imagination be said to amend an order which was made on 4th December, 1971, namely, the order that we are now considering.

Clearly, this order does not do what it sets out to do and what the Minister explained that it achieved. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Explanatory Note is misleading in this respect.

My difficulty arises from the fact that the Minister said that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments had been informed that the Government had considered its report on this matter. I am Chairman of that Select Committee, and it is my knowledge that the Committee has not had an opportunity to meet in order to consider the Government's decision on the matter or the memorandum. In fact, the Committee met to consider this matter on Tuesday of this week. The Clerk of the Committee immediately wrote to the Treasury and a reply was received at once. Indeed, I was amazed at the speed with which the Department moved in the matter. However, it has not been possible to call another meeting of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments to consider the Treasury's reply.

While I do not wish to cast any doubt on the assurances given in the Treasury reply—to the effect that the error contained here will be put right subsequently—I suggest that it is a bad way for the House to do business to pass a piece of legislation knowing that it is not in a correct form, and passing it on an assurance sent to a Committee which has not had time to consider the assurance that the error will be put right subsequently.

On a matter of this importance concerning a document which we are told will be the basis of calculations for future rates of duty under the E.E.C. scheme, we should have correct documents before us and we should not pass any Instrument unless it is correct. That is my first submission.

My second point concerns the matter of principle which arises here. I am not suggesting that a wide range of duty levels are wrong. In fact, only one is wrong and as a result requires Amendment. The matter of principle is the way in which the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is being treated. An increasing volume of delegated legislation is being placed before the House. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that hon. Members have some control over, and opportunity to scrutinise, this vast volume of legislation.

If any hon. Member cares to ask the Vote Office to supply him with every piece of delegated legislation and every Act passed by the House he will find, if he takes those documents home and makes two piles of them, that the pile of delegated legislation in any recent year is very much higher than the pile of Acts.

It is natural that hon. Members will not readily address themselves to this task of scrutinising delegated legislation if, when they draw the attention of Departments to errors in Instruments, those Instruments are pushed through the House before the Select Committee has had a chance to consider the reply of the Department.

For these reasons it would not be proper to pass this Order in its present form and, even worse, we should not be asked to approve of any Department informing the House that the Select Committee has been informed of the Government's decision, and that is the end of the matter. The House should have an opportunity of considering the report of the Select Committee, and until then it is not correct for the House to pass this order which is before it.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever (Manchester, (Cheetham)

I am not rising in any way to hint at a curtailment of the debate, but to pass some general remarks before other hon. Members contribute to the discussion. First, however, I wish to express the gratitude of hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, and I endorse everything he said.

It seems rather remarkable that the Government should be treating the legal forms in this cavalier way and, what is more, treating the Committee that the House has set up to safeguard the interests of the House in matters of delegated legislation in this way. What is the point of having the Select Committee if we cannot have its views before legislation of this kind is brought before us, especially if its view, which is known to the Department, is that the legislation is technically deficient?

Another point of general importance to which I cannot refrain from giving my warmest support is the fact that the right of this House to scrutinise Statutory Instruments becomes academic to a degree if, when so many Instruments can be rejected only by an affirmative vote, we cannot get an opportunity even to discuss them.

The Government ought to be giving some thought to making this whole regulation procedure more generally democratic and effective. But the House is rather in the position of the nephew of one of the aunts in an H. G. Wells novel, who bought him a trumpet on condition that he promised never to blow it. The House's control over delegated legislation is roughly of the same order as that unfortunate child's control over his trumpet. I hope that something will be done about it, otherwise we shall have to raise the matter in a rather fuller House and with rather more vigour.

On the substance of this matter, we welcome the implementation of the Kennedy Round, and I accept that there must be these reductions in tariffs that are appropriate to that Kennedy Round. I am a confirmed liberal in matters of international trade, and I wish to see the advancing liberalisation of trade continue. But at this point it is worth uttering a few words of warning about it.

We have already moved, in international trade, to complaints about the liberalisation of trade where it has caused great difficulty for particular countries, notably the United States in relation to Japan—and I fear that we may find ourselves in similar difficulties in liberalised trade. These complaints are never thought to be reputable or reasonable by Governments if made in the form of saying, "We simply cannot stand up to the competition in particular areas, and the consequences of that competition will be too devastating if it is allowed total liberal freedom of action." But no one says that. What Governments tend to say, more reputably but not very relevantly, is that others have unfortunate trade restrictions which result in the aggregates of trade not turning out very fairly from the complaining country's point of view. But the truth of the matter is that the danger of the acceptability of liberal trade is not in the restrictions, some undesirable and some worse in some countries than in others.

The danger is that in the modern world changes in productivity in particular industries, as between one nation and another, are so rapid that if they are allowed to impact they can restrain or discipline upon the industries of another country, which produces a ruinous situation.

I give a simple example. If the Japanese motor industry, in perfectly fair competition, can extinguish the British motor industry over the next five years—which may be the case, for all I know—what will happen to the workpeople of Coventry? When they become unemployed in hundreds and thousands, shall we congratulate them on their sacrifice in the sacred cause of the international division of labour? They will not find that an adequate ground for satisfaction and rejoicing.

The truth of the matter is that in our concern for the liberalisation of trade, which I absolutely support in general, we have blinded our eyes to the fact that it proceeds at a pace which does not create unacceptable social and economic hardship in particular countries at particular times. Otherwise we shall simply be creating new depressed areas, not only in this country but all over the world. We shall be creating depressed areas in some other country and the Japanese, for instance, will be creating depressed areas in Britain. Then we shall be turning loose all the brains of the country and having another debate on another expenditure White Paper—perhaps a three-day debate—in the following year, because we shall have added to the number of development areas.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman to realise that if we are to have the ongoing liberalisation of trade which all of us will welcome, it must take place at a speed and within international disciplines which do not result in intolerable hardships and intolerable social difficulties in particular countries. Something has to be done about this, and we are only at the beginning.

I shall not refer to the matter of textiles because I hope that my hon. Friend will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend will no doubt want to ask in some detail why we are to have tariffs and quotas on the imports from less developed countries. That will probably be explained, and no doubt my hon. Friend will press the matter. No doubt other of my hon. Friends will have other points on this matter. I do not wish to inhibit their discussion. I merely wanted to register these general points. While I welcome the Kennedy Round, the naive liberalism which we have all suffered from earlier on cannot be sustained in future. It will have to be liberalism accompanied by sensible and creative international disciplines, which will allow that liberalism to proceed at the maximum rate possible, given the need in the twentieth century for guarding against unacceptable social and political difficulties arising from it.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. David Clark (Colne Valley)

I am sure that we all share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) about the way in which this order has come before us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) had the key of the matter when he spoke about pace and discipline. I was delighted that the Minister should say that, since the Kennedy Round reductions, we have seen an increase in world trade. This is something which we all welcome. But I want to raise a specific point under the heading 8701 and to make certain representations on behalf of several thousand factory workers in my constituency.

I take the Minister's point that these negotiations were concluded roughly in 1967, and that the House then welcomed them. But, as my right hon. Friend said, it all depends on the pace and the discipline. There have been great changes in international trade. Perhaps the greatest obvious effect is the decision for this country to enter the Common Market.

This raises a difficulty. The tariff for the import duty for agricultural tractors on 1st January, 1972, will be reduced from 9 per cent. to 7 per cent. This will be effective once and for all, or it should be. But the situation is more complicated because, after 1973, due to our commitments with the E.E.C., we have to alter the rate once again and have a differential system, whereupon for third countries, those outside the E.E.C., the 7.5 per cent. duty referred to in the order will be increased gradually by 1977 to 18 per cent., in spite of our general desire to lower the rate of duty.

But on the other side of the scale, the tariff barrier, the 7.5 per cent. for Common Market countries will be phased out until 1977, when it becomes zero. This causes difficulties. It means that, because of the change in international agreements negotiated since 1967, the tractor industry in Britain will be placed in a very difficult situation. For example, in 1973, British tractors will face a 14.4 per cent. barrier, on the Continent, whereas continental tractors will have to surmount only a 6 per cent. barrier in Britain. This does not seem to me to be liberalisation of trade on the equal competitive terms which we are all interested in. It is this problem that worries me. I fully understand that the Kennedy Round negotiations followed the G.A.T.T. treaty, which we signed as a nation. But it has meant that concessions on certain goods have had to be waived in preference to other goods. It so happened that the E.E.C. countries demanded that tractors be excepted. We thus have the strange anomaly in the order which will cause severe difficulty to our tractor industry. I shall show that, since these terms were agreed, in 1967, the situation has changed to such an extent that, if the order goes through, it will cause grave difficulty to our tractor industry, which, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, is already in great difficulty. I may be wrong, but I do not think that a single tractor manufacturing company in the country has been working full out, at least recently.

The situation has radically changed since the Kennedy Round was signed. We have the rather ridiculous situation now in which we are reducing tariffs this year for third countries from 9 to 7.5 per cent. but are immediately going to start putting them up to 18 per cent. We are to reduce them progressively each year in favour of a trading bloc and we in this country are going to be on the receiving end. This is very worrying and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) pointed out, this order has almost been sprung upon us

There is widespread under-employment and under-use of resources in the tractor industry. That was not the case when the Kennedy Round was negotiated. The industry throughout the world at that time was working, if not to full capacity, then fairly near it. The international scene has changed. For example, the tax credit system introduced by the United States, which is one of the most important markets for our tractors, is going to be very harmful to our tractor industry.

Certain countries, the United States and Denmark in particular, with surcharge arrangements are going contrary in one sense to the G.A.T.T. These contraventions were introduced to assist in solving national problems. But this sort of thing creates an extremely difficult and dangerous situation for our tractor industry, where the workers are already on short-time. They are working three days a week in some cases, or one week in four in others. There have been large-scale redundancies-1,000 in my constituency, for example.

The inconsistent tariff arrangements which we are to have, with two differentiating levels of tax, will make it even more difficult for our tractor industry to plan its production in the way we want it to do if it is to be viable. If we are, on the one hand, telling the industry of the great future in Europe for it, while, on the other hand, introducing tariff reductions in the way contemplated in the order, life will be extremely difficult for the industry for the first five years.

The tractor industry is being put in an extremely difficult situation. First the Government squeeze it very hard, and then they tell it to expand. I submit that the reduction proposed in the order is not compatable with the need to look after not only the thousands of workers in the tractor industry itself, but those who work in the supply and allied industries. This is an unwise move.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

I rise to reinforce what has been said so lucidly and forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark). This afternoon during Question Time I sat on the Opposition Front Bench listening to the Secretary of State and junior Ministers at the Department of Employment answering Questions from both sides of the House which reflected the concern of hon. Members about the present high levels of unemployment. I heard Ministers regretting the unemployment figures and telling the House what the Government were doing and what their hopes were. I had not the slightest doubt that those Ministers were sincere in their hopes and in their concern about the unemployment situation. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when, on studying this enormous order, I realised the consequences of it for my constituency where, according to the most recent issue of the Department of Employment's Gazette, the current unemployment rate is 7.6 per cent., and the male unemployment rate is in excess of 10 per cent.

One of the largest employers in my constituency is the International Harvester Company which manufactures tractors and earth-moving machinery. I see from the order that the Government are contemplating reducing the rate of import duty on goods from the E.E.C. countries, without any corresponding reduction by them. The rate of import duty on tractors from the E.E.C. is 9 per cent., but our exports to the E.E.C. carry a tariff of 18 per cent., which is double the figure we impose.

We are solemnly contemplating reducing our rate to 7 per cent., without any reduction by the E.E.C., and this at a time when the International Harvester Company has declared 750 people redundant, and thousands of workers are on short time. I understand that, as a consequence of this order, not only will the present rate of 9 per cent. be reduced to 7 per cent., but that tariff changes will follow our entry into the E.E.C. By 1973 we shall reduce our tariff against the E.E.C. to 6 per cent., while the E.E.C. will reduce its rate to 14.4 per cent. At present the E.E.C.'s tariff rate is double ours. In 1973 it will be more than double. In 1974, we shall impose an external duty of 4.5 per cent. That of the E.E.C. against us will be 10.8 per cent.

It makes the Government's statement this afternoon about their desire to reduce unemployment sound hollow. At 2.30 they say that they are concerned to reduce unemployment and that they will do what they can to that end and have already taken certain measures. At 10.30 they move this order, which will achieve the reverse. This is hypocrisy. Thousands of my constituents face a very bleak Christmas. I shall make it my business to tell them of the consequences of the order.

The Minister rightly said that the order flowed naturally from the decision of the Labour Government in 1967. It seemed then to be a wise decision, but that decision was taken in the light of circumstances as they then were and irrespective of the consequences of entry into the Community. We are now faced with the dire consequences of the decision of the House that Britain should join the Community.

I understand that the House must endorse the order tonight. In view of the poor attendance in the House, it is unlikely that the House would do otherwise. I cannot appeal to the House to reject the document.

Mr. John Biffen (Oswestry)

The hon. Gentleman can try.

Mr. Walker

I must therefore seek some other help for my constituents. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) should regard this as a matter for mirth. I challenge him to come and explain his Government's policy to my constituents. If he had experienced the hardship and misery of unemployment as I have, he would not smile at it.

I appeal to the Government carefully to consider the terms on which we enter the Community, a least in relation to their impact on these distressed people in my constituency. I appeal to the Minister to draw the circumstances that I have described to the attention of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the hope that he will seek in his negotiations with the Common Market countries to accelerate the rate of the Community's tariff reductions on our exports to the Community so that parity will be achieved earlier on tariff rates, in the hope that our industrial products, in particular our tractors, can compete on fair terms. We ask for no more than the opportunity to compete on fair terms with our European competitors rather than to have built into the order alongside the Government's policy continuing discrimination against the productivity and efforts of my constituents working in this industry.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen (Oswestry)

It might be for the benefit of accuracy on the record if I take the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) back over the sequence of events of a few moments ago. He was asserting—I will not here challenge his analysis—that the order would exacerbate the unemployment situation in Doncaster. He was indicating his extreme displeasure with the order. He concluded that he would not consecrate this by dividing against the order. I said, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's comments about the lateness of the hour and the apparent paucity of attendance in the Chamber, that he could try—no more than that. I do not think that that quite constitutes mirth. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply on the question of unemployment, but I hope that in his sense of self-righteousness he will not assume that those who take a different view in politics are any less sensitive about these things.

I turn to the more important issues. First, there is the question of the validity of the Government's proceeding to implement the major recommendations of the Kennedy Round tariff reductions. Contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Doncaster, I am glad that the order is before the House and that it shows every likelihood of being confirmed without a Division, for the whole direction of British foreign and trade policy must be to persuade the North Americans to desist from following the protective instincts that have become very evident and on which we have become no more painfully aware than in their decision to put on a 10 per cent. surcharge. If we are to argue with any effectiveness, we must proceed on the basis of actions rather than mere words. Therefore, I am delighted that this country will not join in a headlong rush for protectionism in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Anyone who is concerned about the gap between relative living standards on a global scale, as is the hon. Member for Kensington. North (Mr. Douglas-Mann), must also be pleased that we are not moving headlong into protectionism.

That brings me to the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), who confessed that in his day he had been afflicted by "naive liberalism". I do not think that those of us who have seen the right hon. Gentleman in operation would ever have thought that naivety was one of his political characteristics. Broadly speaking, I reckon to be fairly liberal in my political instincts, and I hope that they are tolerably sophisticated, sophisticated enough to warn my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade that he will hear a great deal about the dislocation of British industry that would result from any tariff or quota changes that are ever contemplated. Undoubtedly there would be adverse consequences, and we should be foolish to ourselves and dishonest to our constituents if we assumed that business would go on as before, apparently unaffected by such changes.

But the greatest impact, even if it derives from technological change, which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, is as likely to be evident among industrial communities as among those to be found in the developing countries. We have only to think of the impact on the paper industry in this country in free trade circumstances at a time when integrated paper making was taking place in Scandinavia on a scale that could not conceivably be matched by the forestry resources of this country. That has had to result in adjustments in paper making in this country, but I wonder who, looking back over the past decade or so, would have wished to half-freeze the patterns of production of this nation in that respect. I do not think that on balance it would have been nationally advantageous.

To the extent that such changes are moderated so that they proceed more slowly, this is a legitimate matter for political debate, but it is also legitimate to question whether or not it is, in even the medium and short run, more socially well directed to see that those changes are affected quickly rather than to opt for the slow death or slow contraction of an industry.

I will not go any further into these matters tonight, but they will obviously preoccupy us a great deal as we see foreign trade possibly making greater inroads into our national economy.

What seems to be a matter of real substance was the point raised by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) about the actual state of good order of this document we are asked to endorse. I thought he made a powerful case of which I was wholly unaware until I heard him making it, so no one has got at me and put the other side. Maybe there is a very good "other side and I am being immensely circumspect in any strictures I might seem to direct to my right hon. Friend because there could be an explanation which will send us all home happily.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to underline the significance of the Select Committee which he chairs with such distinction. If this country becomes a member of the E.E.C. then some arrangements will have to be found to the satisfaction of this House for dealing with all those regulations which are presumed in the words of the Treaty of Rome to be "binding in every respect", because I do not believe that this House and this Parliament is in any mood to abdicate its ultimate and final responsibilities for what law is to be authorised in this country. That being so, it lends point to the arguments made by the hon. Gentleman about the desirability of Statutory Instruments being in first-class order and nothing being done which would seem to take this House for granted. As the debates on the relationships between this House and other law-making bodies within the Community proceed, this House will not be in a mood to be taken for granted. In that spirit I think the hon. Gentleman has done us a signal service and I congratulate him.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton)

I rise to support the point already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and which has been accorded further significance by the comments of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). Neither hon. Member pointed out that Motion No. 4 on the Order Paper is concerned with this subject too. We are being asked later to approve the Lords Resolution: That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to enquire into the procedures and practice by which the control of each House over delegated legislation is exercised and to report how they might be improved, be now considered. That would imply that we are not satisfied with what happens at the moment.

This point, raised several times, highlights the power this House has de jure but which the Government are sliding round de facto. I have been in this House for only just over a year, but I have to tell those who have been here longer that the public is getting fed up with bureaucracy of all sorts. It is a growing problem in the country at almost every level. Delegated legislation is one of the greatest growth industries of the lot. It is not new and it behoves any Government to treat such legislation with the utmost care if the power of Parliament is to remain as strong—and it needs to be just as strong if not stronger in future in the conditions we face, industrially, economically and socially—as it has been in the past. We have to be ultra-careful about these matters. I understand that this order is technically in order despite the note which tells us that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet completed its consideration of the Instrument. This is a distinct loophole in the Standing Orders of the House. I hope that when the Select Committee on Procedure looks at this, it will take note of the loophole that has apparently appeared as a result of this order.

Since coming to the House, I have been impressed by the extent to which democracy is protected by a procedure which I can only call delegated scrutiny. A great deal of scrutiny is done in many places. If an hon. Member wishes to stop an order, or legislation, or to question a Minister, there are many ways of doing it. This is not generally realised by the general public.

This delegated scrutiny is in the hands of the Statutory Instruments Committee and here that Committee has been deliberately bypassed. Although the matter on which it has been bypassed may not be very great, surely that is the whole basis of our parliamentary democracy. We are not concerned whether a change we are asked to approve is small or great, we are concerned with the principle of procedure, because that is the way in which our freedoms are not only given but protected. I am sorry that the Government have bypassed the Committee, even over a technicality, particularly in view of the legislation which may be presented to us after the recess.

Why is it necessary for us to look at this order? If there has been a technical hitch, is it not possible for the order to be brought back before the recess? This is not a matter on which many hon. Members would wish to speak and there is unlikely to be a vote. The Leader of the House made no announcement about the order, which affects the constituencies of two of my hon. Friends. This again is a convention of value which has been apparently neglected by the Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness says that one figure in the order is wrong, but the Minister did not say which figure it was. Nor did he say whether, before the recess, an amendment order would be laid before the House to correct it.

Mr. Noble

It will be.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful, but it is in the traditions of the House that the right hon. Gentleman should have said so in his opening statement, so that the actual figure might appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I underline what was said by the hon. Member for Oswestry. If this is the way in which the Government are going about delegated legislation on a matter of domestic policy over which we have full and final control, what will happen if and when we go into the Common Market?

Cannot the Minister withdraw the order? If it were to be laid again later, there might be no discussion and it might be taken "on the nod" Perhaps this might be the best way of dealing with this matter in view of the apparent irregularity to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness has drawn attention. This would be within the spirit of the House and might retrieve the unfortunate lapse of the Government.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Kensington, North)

I wish to endorse the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) that the Minister should withdraw this order. The circumstances in which the order was presented are not clear. The order has appeared on the Order Paper on a number of days and has not been debated, and many of us were taken by surprise that it was decided to debate it this evening.

The order is being debated the day after the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry presented to the House proposals for the perpetuation of the quota system for cotton textiles. We had understood that the intention of the Labour Government on cotton textiles was to substitute a tariff system for the quota system. Yesterday, however, the Secretary of State said the quota system was to be retained. Now we are to have tariffs and quotas both perpetuated at the same time.

Nobody can speak in this House, least of all hon. Members on this side, without feeling immense concern about the present level of unemployment. But it is certainly totally unjustified to export unemployment—which is what this measure will do in relation to cotton textiles—to those countries which can bear it least of all. I share with everybody else concern for the hardship in the Lancashire cotton industry; but to compare hardship involved in Lancashire with the hardship involved in India, to which unemployment will be exported, is totally to expose the Government's proposals for the cynical measures they are.

Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince)

My hon. Friend should bear in mind that Lancashire has suffered tremendously. This country, which has generously accepted imports from the under-developed countries, has set a magnificent example, but it has been at the expense of Lancashire textile workers. And if other countries had concentrated their minds in this respect with the same generosity as has been displayed by this country, this problem would not have arisen. Lancashire has set a great example, and we cannot make a desert out of our Lancashire interests simply to show that we have got to take in more imports. We have to put a stop to it, and we have done, and I make no apology for it. Most Lancashire hon. Members are as concerned as my hon. Friend for the underdeveloped countries—or the developing countries as they are coming to be called—but Lancashire has borne its burden grievously and something has to be done. If other countries would respond half as well as has Lancashire, then I am sure my hon. Friend would be in a happier state of mind about the state of the developing countries.

Mr. Douglas-Mann

I fully understand my hon. Friend's feelings, but with a declining industry I do not believe the solution to the problem is to prop it up in this way by controls of imports. I know my hon. Friend will accept that one of the problems of the Lancashire textile industry has demonstrated itself in the fact that a substantial part of the labour force in that industry is now having to be recruited—and has been recruited for some time—from immigrants from the very parts of the world which will be suffering the consequences of the order.

This is an industry which no longer adequately meets the employment needs or production needs of Lancashire. It is an industry that is probably not the kind of industry in which we, as an advanced industrial country, can most usefully and advantageously be engaged. I am conscious that I am advancing an argument which inevitably will be unpopular in many parts of the country, and most of the Lancashire constituencies represented by many of my hon. Friends. But the hardship in the constituencies of my hon. Friends cannot be compared with that in those countries which will bear the brunt of the effects of this order, coupled with a quota system.

My party's Government proposed an import duty system as an alternative to a quota system. Now we are to have both tariffs and quotas. How does this arrangement accord with the negotiations for Britain's entry into Europe? How does the Minister justify the consequences that it must have on these countries whose cotton textiles will be affected by it?

It is probable that India has a bigger economic burden to bear than any underdeveloped country has had at any time in history. Yet this additional burden is to be placed on countries like India. It is totally unjustified, notwithstanding the fact that it could be said to remedy the unemployment position in Lancashire. However, this is not the right way to do it.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett (Heywood and Royton)

This has been a very interesting debate, more so, probably, than the one which has been going on during the past two days. I did not dream that so much of it would be taken up by points about the Common Market. While the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) will know that I do not agree with his Common Market views, nor with those of some of my hon. Friends, nevertheless I accept what he and my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and Acton (Mr. Spearing) said about Statutory Instruments. Quite apart from the Common Market issue, the growth in the number of Statutory Instruments has been enormous. Obviously hon. Members must be concerned with the way in which they are discussed.

The hon. Member for Oswestry said that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness had done the House a great service in putting this matter before us tonight. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was being mischievous in taking to task my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) and Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), who both made valid constituency cases in respect of the tractor industry. We are all theoretical liberalisers of trade, but, in practice, unilateral liberalisation will not help a country. That is why we have Kennedy Round negotiations, and it is why we are a member of the G.A.T.T.

I feel that my hon. Friends are mistaken. My understanding of what will happen after 1973, if and when we are members of the Community, is that the gaps in the levels of duty on products as between us will narrow until they cease to exist. Obviously the Minister will be able to deal more adequately with that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley seemed to be on a good point when he said that we appear to be moving in the initial years to a situation where we shall have a very much lower tariff than that which applies in the Community.

I want to deal briefly with the textile industry. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that, while I speak from the Front Bench, I am also very proud to represent a Lancashire constituency. My hon. Friend is right to say that we cannot compare the levels of unemployment in Lancashire and India, but it is wrong to suggest that Lancashire and its textile industry should bear a burden that it has borne for so many years. Both the employers and workers in the Lancashire textile industry have for far too long allowed themselves to be treated in a way that has led to the present situation.

That does not mean to say that there was not bound to be a decline in the cotton textile industry. It was inevitable because the developing countries were bound to come into this industry. All that we in Lancashire say is that it did not have to happen as fast as it has been happening.

Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware that if the quotas had been removed, the one developing country that would have been particularly concerned would have been India. It is the people of Hong Kong who are vitally concerned about the quotas being put back. The Indian textile industry views this very differently indeed. I should be surprised if the Indian textile industry is not delighted that the quota system is being retained, and if my hon. Friend cares to make inquiries I think he will find that this is the situation.

When my hon. Friend speaks about the unemployment levels in Lancashire not being that bad and about the industry declining anyway, I remind him that 30 per cent. of the labour force in one part of my constituency is engaged in this industry, while in another part the figure is 15 per cent., and my constituency is not unique in Lancashire in this respect. I admit that to a large extent this is female labour, but this is vital in view of the lower wage levels for men and the important part the women's wage plays in the livelihood of the family.

Mr. Douglas-Mann

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the wages reflect the fact that this is a declining industry, is an industry in which Britain is not in a position to compete, and that it would be desirable for alternative sources of employment to be provided, rather than our attempting to maintain the industry at the expense of the rest of the world?

Mr. Barnett

No, I would not accept that. One reason for the low wage levels in this industry is the large percentage of females in the labour force and the fact that the trade unions have not been as powerful as they should have been. I do not believe there is any need for the industry to decline any faster.

Even under the existing quota system, we have this year imported about 55 per cent. of home consumption, while in Europe and the United States they import between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. My hon. Friend should be arguing his case in Europe and America. We in Britain, and especially the people of Lancashire, have done more than our share; and, as much as I sympathise with the position of the developing countries, I do not accept that Lancashire needs to bear any more of the burden.

I have a fear, despite the fact that the Government have conceded the case which the Textile Council recommended. I remind hon. Members that the Council did not recommend that right away quotas should be removed and tariffs put in their place. It recommended a transitional period during which there should be tariffs and quotas. Tariffs were wanted because of the disruptive effects of cheap textiles exported from the developing countries. It had, and is having, a terrible disruptive effect, particularly on certain types of textile. I have not time to develop the argument, but anyone in the industry knows that the prices of goods coming in were such as to make it almost impossible to produce a similar product in this country, regardless of the quotas. The price was the disruptive effect, and this is why the Textile Council wanted tariffs as well.

What worries me is that even given both tariffs and quotas, next year we shall still be importing 55 per cent. of home consumption, and we shall still see mills closing at a rate of one a week or more. That is why I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to reduce the quotas.

Mr. Harold Walker

I speak as a native Lancastrian who was a resident in the area to which my hon. Friend now has the honour to represent. He will recollect that it is less than 20 years since the hoardings in Lancashire were plastered with inducements for the people of Lancashire not to leave the textile industry and with the slogan, "Britain's bread hangs by Lancashire's thread".

Mr. Barnett

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. He comes from the area I have the honour to represent. He is right. No one who knows that area will be unaware of what the people of Lancashire have done for the textile industry.

I ask the Minister two questions. First, as I have said, 55 per cent. of our home consumption has been taken up by imports. But have the voluntary quota arrangements been wholly taken up in 1971? I am delighted that the Government accepted the point about quotas. I understand the anger in some of the developing countries that they were imposed at such short notice before they expected them. I am interested to know what the position will be now. As I understand it, these are voluntary arrangements and quotas. So what is happening is that we had the voluntary quotas ending on 31st December, 1971, and now we are told that the new quota system is to stay in force from 1st January, 1972. I can hardly imagine, for example, that in the case of Hong Kong this will be a voluntary system, because it will be the sort of voluntary system that we know of in the House—of the arm-twisting kind, perhaps. Have they accepted it, or have we got or are we negotiating a new quota system? If so, what levels have the Government in mind?

I hope that the Government will be able to say that the levels are likely to be kept rather lower so that we shall not be importing as much as 55 per cent. I hope that the Government will have at least some negotiations with our possible prospective partners in the E.E.C. to see if they cannot harmonise with us their levels of imports of textiles, and, indeed, with the United States.

The Chancellor is attending a new meeting on 17th and 18th December on world monetary problems, which will include some discussions with the United States which we hope will result in the removal of the 10 per cent. surcharge. Is it too much to ask that the Government will also consider putting to the United States that they should increase their level of textile imports if the rest of the world agree to some change of parities along the lines desired by the United States?

To sum up, I am delighted that the Government have moved some way towards what many on both sides of the House have been pressing upon them. We hope that they will now be able to ensure that we in Lancashire do not carry the sort of burden we have carried for so long, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) so rightly said.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble

With the permission of the House, I should like to try to answer some of the points raised during the debate.

First, I did not disagree with a single word of what was said by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), as Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, because we all realise the importance of the scrutiny which is exercised by that Committee. I paid particular tribute to it in my opening remarks. I certainly would not wish to treat the Committee in the way he describes. There are, however, two important reasons why the House should pass this order. First, it is necessary to pass it before the end of the year to give effect to Britain's international obligations in the Kennedy Round. These expire on 1st January and it is therefore not possible, as the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) suggested, to leave it over until after the recess.

Mr. Spearing

I was suggesting leaving it until a week hence so that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments could at least have met and, even informally, dealt with the point that has arisen.

Mr. Noble

I see the point and I will come to that in a moment. The second reason is that it is important if there is to be good administration that traders should know with certainty well before the end of 1971 the rates of duty which will apply in 1972.

I was asked what the particular worry was. It was a single item and I am not attempting to excuse it. I have seen the House demand that a Bill be withdrawn because an "s" did not have an apostrophe before or after it—I have forgotten which. This may occasionally be very good discipline for Government Departments. In this case the item was a particular order on the duty on drained or glace cherries which came in, unfortunately, between the first and second copies of the order. I am fully aware of the mistake I have made.

Mr. Booth

If it is the case, which I accept, that it is important that these rates should be known well before the end of the year so that business can be properly carried on, why did not the Government bring the order forward in any one of the 28 days that it laid before the House before last Friday? Surely the same purpose would have been served by moving an affirmative Motion on the previous Import Duties (No. 7) Order.

Mr. Noble

That may well be so. But the fact that the document was laid before the House for 28 days at least indicates what is intended. This is not an unusual situation because this is, I think, the fourth of these orders that has been laid, one each year, and the trade knows, with the possible exception of some mistake by the Department in the omission of glacé cherries, that the order, as laid, comes into effect. The trade knew what they thought was going to happen. It was only because of a mistake that the duty on glacé cherries will be double what it should be. I know this is a mistake and I am not trying to make light of it, but it is not of earth-shattering importance to the industry or to the House. I make a full apology, but these things happen occasionally.

It is inevitable in discussing so large a document as this that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) or perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) should raise points of detail and ask for explanations but I am sure they realise that it is difficult for Ministers to be fully briefed on the whole range of problems that may rightly be raised.

I know, because I am interested in it, that the tractor industry in this country has been looking forward with a good deal of anticipation to Britain entering the Common Market. Over a period of years, they could see the great advantages. Most of their main markets have been into the E.E.C. and into America over considerable tariffs, which are coming down. At the moment, both the Danish and the American surcharges are a serious impediment to trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) pointed out the great importance in trading circles that these should be brought down. But, if hon. Members will forgive me for not pursuing this point further now, because I do not have the details, I will write to them and try to give them the facts and figures on imports as soon as I can.

The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) made a serious point, that we might be exporting unemployment. This is certainly a problem if one operates in this field, but his hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) got it exactly right when he explained, as my right hon. Friend did yesterday, that, of the countries likely to be affected by the combination of tariffs and quotas, India is the one which in our view is possibly likely to gain.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether the quotas which had been allocated in the past had been taken up. It is interesting that the one quota which has not been taken up fully in the past is the Indian one. This shows that my right hon. Friend's point yesterday and the point of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) today may well be valid, and India is one of the countries which will gain, because she will still have her quota and still be able to use it fully, whereas, under a system in which all the quotas disappeared, the more aggressive Taiwans and Koreans and other countries might well take them up more fully.

As the right hon. Member for Cheetham—who kindly explained to me why he could not be here for the end of the debate—pointed out, and as I noticed in our debate last night on generalised preferences, we tend to be a little split-minded about many of these trade problems. We want to be liberal, and over the long term it pays Britain enormously so to be, but when we become too liberal there are significant problems in our own constituencies which raise many worries. We must rethink many of our ideas when it affects us. Everyone likes changes so long as it does not affect him.

The Kennedy Round brought very great benefits in trade for the whole world, and I should be very sorry to see them lost. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) asked about arrangements for the voluntary nature of these quotas. We will be opening discussions with these countries in January and we will bear his points in mind.

With these quick comments on what has been a useful and interesting debate, and with renewed apologies to the Chairman and members of the Statutory Instruments Committee, I hope that the House will pass the order, so that we are not in breach of our international obligations and so that the people who have to base our trade on the known quantities of tariffs can get about their normal business.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Import Duties (General) (No. 7) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1971), dated 4th December, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.