TEXTILE INDUSTRY

HC Deb 20 March 1975 vol 888 cc1935-91

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

Mr. Speaker

Before I call upon the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) I must point out that I already know of 32 Members who are seeking to catch my eye in this debate.

7.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Meacher)

There has been a great deal of anxiety and concern powerfully expressed over the past few weeks regarding the future of the textile industry. It is appropriate that the House should now have a full chance to debate this critical situation. In my opening speech I shall comment on the present state of the industry, on what the Government have done to date to assist the industry and on future Government policy.

At present the industry is in the grip of a major downturn in the textile cycle, which began in about the middle of 1973 and which steepened considerably in the last months of 1974. To translate the facts into people, the British Textile Confederation, which represents both unions and employers in major sections of the industry, has told us that in February it estimates that 150,000 of the industry's work force in Great Britain of 830,000 operatives were on short time—namely, up to 80 per cent. of workers in wool textiles, 60 per cent. of Lancashire's spinners and weavers and 40 per cent. of the workers in man-made fibres. It estimates that the number of workers made redundant by mid-February was 7,000 to 8,000. A number of firms have gone out of business, including 12 mills in Lancashire. Several more firms have closed factories or parts of factories. Those are clear signs of a downturn in demand unprecedented since the war.

It is equally important to recognise that there are other measures of demand which present rather a different picture. Perhaps I should point them out. Retail sales of clothing remained at a pretty constant level in the last quarter of 1974 and in January 1975. Despite that, manufacturers suffered the drop in demand and short-time working increased, but if retail sales continue at that level the position must be reversed, though there can be no guarantee that British textile mills will ever meet all of the renewed demand.

Another recent indicator has been the figures for United Kingdom production in January of man-made fibres. I understand that the British Man-Made Fibres Federation feels that the 21 per cent. increase in output in January 1975 over December 1974 suggests that the bottom of the production trough may have been reached and that the destocking process may be ending. The federation also notes an upturn in export demand. However, I fully accept that the January figures of some 42 million kilos is well below the 1974 monthly average of some 52 million kilos. One swallow certainly does not make a summer. The position of future demand prospects over the next few months is not clear cut.

The central cause of our difficulties is the combination of the level of import demand in conjunction with the collapse of demand at home and abroad. It is important to recognise that the position of imports is by no means homogeneous and varies significantly. The import figures for January 1975 show imports increasing over those of January 1974 in cotton yarn, man-made fibre, continuous filament yarn and man-made fibre cloth, stockings, outer-wear and woven shorts. Imports, however, decreased in cotton cloth, knitted cloth, underwear, knitted shirts, overalls and trousers. I acknowledge that for some products the January 1975 imports have shown an increase compared with the trend of the last quarter of 1974.

Probably the most effective way of presenting this general picture is to look at imports as a percentage of home consumption. In other words, the import penetration of the United Kingdom market in cotton yarn has almost doubled from 14½ per cent. to 26 per cent. in 1974, but in other sectors it has marginally declined. In certain specific sectors such as underwear, trousers and overalls it has fallen significantly.

What conclusions can be drawn from the figures? As they stand they do not generally portray rampant imports increasing at a phenomenal rate to the detriment of the United Kingdom industry. They show that imports even with the sharp decline in home demand, have largely maintained their buoyancy the increasing expense of British jobs.

The British Textile Confederation believes that the high level of imports reached in 1974 can no longer be absorbed by the United Kingdom market without serious disruption of the British textile and clothing industries. Imports of some products actually declined in the last quarter of 1974 and in January 1975, but the Confederation considers that the current level of these imports is now more damaging to the United Kingdom industry in its present depressed state than the higher import level of mid-1974, when the industry was working at full capacity.

What have the Government done about these imports? As the GATT arrangements for textiles allow, we are ready to use safeguards as far as and as long as necessary to prevent disruption. We have repeatedly taken action in this sense. I ask the House to consider briefly the record of present Government and previous Governments on the protection they have given to the textile industry, and principally to the Lancashire cotton textile industry.

In January 1972, despite a recommendation in the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study that tariff protection would be sufficient for the industry, the then Government decided both to retain the previous quota system and, in addition, to impose a tariff on cotton yarn, cotton cloth and made-ups from the Commonwealth. Thus the Lancashire industry had protection against low-prices through the tariff and against unlimited access by continuing quantitative restrictions. In addition the woollen, knitwear and clothing industries had tariff protection against non-Commonwealth and non-EFTA suppliers.

Then in 1972 the previous Conservative administration accepted the Lancashire industry's case for protection on woven polyester-cotton fabric and made-ups and introduced quantitative restrictions on these textiles. This introduced the principle of quota protection for non-cotton textiles as well as cotton textiles. When we returned to Government last year it was to the multi-fibre agreement to which we turned.

After some very tough negotiations the EEC Council of Ministers approved on 15th October 1974 a Community textile policy, the so-called burden-sharing policy. Under this policy, over the years ahead, we can expect the other Community member countries to catch up with us in the access we have given in the past to developing countries. These countries will in turn have a greater total market to go for than the United Kingdom market alone.

Where in the case of our traditional suppliers we have the greatest share within the EEC of textile imports, our growth rate will be reduced ½ per cent., whereas these EEC countries with a lower level of imports from the same sources will be expected to take a growth rate of as much as 50 per cent. In the cases where the other EEC member countries import more from a low-cost country than we do, we shall be expected to take correspondingly more. The traditional structure of international trade in textiles suggests that we shall probably do better out of burden-sharing.

The first occasion on which we had recourse to these provisions was in relation to the imports of cotton yarn from Greece and Turkey, covered by the EEC's associate agreements to which we are party through our membership of the EEC. As part of the original entry terms negotiated by the previous Conservative Government we liberalised yarn imports from Greece and Turkey, among other Mediterranean associates, from 1st April 1973. From a low base in 1973 imports from those countries multiplied rapidly during 1974. After our invitation to the industry in July last year to submit a case to us on this sector its case was sent to my Department on 12th November. I announced on 20th December the imposition of import licensing on imports of cotton yarn from Greece and Turkey with effect, happily enough. from 25th December.

These dates are important. I have quoted them because I know that there is a feeling in Lancashire that the Government should have acted sooner, but our concern must be with all the industry, and we could not act until we received a submission from the BTC representing the industry as a whole, not merely from individual sectors, because the knitting industry and some weavers were not in favour of restricting imports of cotton yarn because of shortages of supplies from Lancashire.

I must also add a word about the import of cotton yarn from our traditional low-cost suppliers, principally India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. Cotton yarn is on the EEC's common liberalisation list, which means that it can be imported freely into all the original members of the Community. We have secured a derogation to restrict imports in line with the original intention. The figures in the derogation show a maximum level of imports of 20,000 tonnes in 1975 against 17,000 tonnes in 1974. However, increases in quota levels are not necessarily reflected in increases in actual imports. In 1974 India filled less than 50 per cent. of its cotton yarn quota and Hong Kong less than three-quarters.

The largest group of suppliers of cotton yarn to the United Kingdom in 1974 was the developed countries, not the traditional low-cost developing suppliers. In 1974, the developed countries sent us just under 15,000 tonnes compared with only 5,000 tonnes the year before.

Although I have said that quota coverage for United Kingdom textiles is already extensive, it is important to add that we shall soon be extending it to a substantial degree this year. We have agreed to join in seeking EEC restraints on knitwear, woven fabrics and made-ups of fabrics other than cotton and on spun synthetic yarn from the main South-East Asian suppliers. The Council of Ministers has approved the mandate for negotiations with Hong Kong, with which negotiations started on Monday, and the mandate for negotiations with South Korea. The Commission is preparing legislation to reflect the decisions made on Taiwan.

Although I regret the considerable delay in the implementation of these restraints it is important to note that they will eventually apply from 1st January this year. Quota protection is also given against imports of textiles from the Communist bloc and against textiles from Japan. We are nearing agreement with the other members of the EEC on the need to seek restraints under GATT on imports from virtually all other significant low-cost suppliers.

I think that this shows an impressive record of concern for the industry which all too often has received scant acknowledgement.

Dr. Keith Hampson (Ripon)

Why does the Minister constantly define textiles as cotton and not talk about, particularly, woollen or worsted textiles? Hong Kong may not have fulfilled its quota in cottons, but it accounts for a third of all woollen imports.

Mr. Meacher

In my use of the word "textiles" I have taken account of the whole industry, but it is on the cotton yarn side that employment has been hardest hit, so it is not unreasonable to concentrate on that area.

There will now be few areas of the world where we do not impose some restrictions on the imports of textiles. We have a formidable barrage of actual restrictions. Hon. Members will not be able to identify any other private sector industry which has had such a history of protection or such an extensive level of present protection, which we are about to extend—

Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley)

Or such a level of industrial insecurity.

Mr. Meacher

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed, as I now want to turn to future policy and to try to indicate the thinking which is designed to reduce what I readily acknowledge to be considerable insecurity at present.

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)

I was anxious not to interrupt the Minister before he finished that section of his speech. Did he say earlier that he delayed applying for measures in one case because he was prepared to do so only if the whole industry or a large part of it supported an application? Was he then talking in the context of dumping? He was explaining the delay at the end of last year, and I believe that he said that he was prepared to consider an application for restraint on allegations of dumping only if the entire industry supported it. Is that what he said?

Mr. Meacher

Yes, substantially. I was referring to the consideration that we were asked to give to restraints on Greek and Turkish yarns. It is true that some sectors of the industry had asked us to take action earlier in the year, but it is also true that other sectors did not wish us to take that action, and it was proper for the Government to wait for the industry as a whole, through its properly constituted bodies like the British Textile Confederation, to come to a general view. This was nothing to do with dumping. As soon as it came to a general view we acted on it speedily.

Turning to future policy, as a Government we have been looking, as several hon. Members have requested, first at the purchasing of imported textiles from the Government's point of view. The Government's own purchases of textiles amount at most to 2 per cent. of the industry's output. The purchasing Departments believe that more than 95 per cent. of their purchases are from British companies. It is not possible to say definitely how much of these purchases is made up of foreign yarn or cloth, but the direct purchases of textiles from abroad are absolutely minimal. We are examining our purchasing policy, but I doubt whether it can be used to make a major impact now on short-time work.

That major change could, however, he brought about if retailers and the industry itself were to change their buying habits. We know and the industry itself knows full well that a number of United Kingdom companies with their own spinning and weaving capacity are still importing large quantities of yarn and cloth even in the present difficult circumstances. There are also other makers-up, weavers and knitters who prefer to buy their cloth and yarn from abroad.

The amounts of cloth involved run certainly into tens of millions of yards and may be 100 million yards—much greater amounts than the Government purchase. It is scarcely an exaggeration, therefore, to say that the industry itself already holds within its own hands the opportunity to achieve, largely through its own initiatives, the holding back of substantial amounts of cheap yarn and woven cloth imports.

Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth)

That example is a reason for the need for an integrated approach to this problem. In the cases that the Minister is giving, I believe that the main reason why such cheap yarns are being imported is that the manufacturer has to compete with the made-up article which is also being imported cheap. He must look at the whole picture.

Mr. Meacher

The hon. Gentleman must be telepathic. I was about to come to this point, on which I do not think that the kind of sentiment that he has expressed is the last word. I acknowledge that the further processing of this yarn and cloth means jobs in the industry at a later point in the chain—

Mr. Dan Jones

Will the Minister announce anything about the importers?

Mr. Meacher

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed, and then he will see.

I acknowledge that the companies involved may consider that they have good private commercial reasons why they should so import, but I do not find acceptable the pressure now being put on the Government by some members of the BTEA to curb imports when some of the major companies, by buying imports rather than British processed material, prefer to give priority to their own commercial profits at the expense of a loss of British jobs. When this has led to short-time working on the scale that we have seen today, it is deeply disturbing and to be deeply deplored. At a time of so much increased capacity it cannot be said to be in the best long-term interest of the industry or of this country's economy that they continue to import massively in this way.

Therefore, I am appealing to them to stop selling the British textile industry short and to stop selling short British textile industry jobs. I strongly urge the industry to use the power that it has itself to make an effective and desperately needed contribution at present to reducing the level of imports. The Government themselves have been very active in urging on retailers and United Kingdom textile manufacturers the value of close co-operation between them in producing goods for the market place. In this connection, I would expect the retailers to see the wisdom, in terms of their own profits. of doing all that they can to protect the employment, and thus the purchasing power, of their customers in Britain.

Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

I strongly support the plea that the Minister has just made. However, would he be prepared to give hon. Members—even if it were, for example, the all-party Committee on Textiles—some details and names of the firms to which he has lust referred so that we on the back benches can put some pressure outside the House on the companies involved? We do not have the information that the Minister has.

Mr. Meacher

The hon. Gentleman has made a very important suggestion, which I should like to consider very carefully. I am very attracted by it, and I should like to be as helpful as I can. However, he will know that the Government are impeded by considerations of commercial confidentiality as a result of which much of this information, but perhaps not all of it, has come into our possession. I shall look at the matter, and certainly I shall contact the hon. Gentleman if by any means it is possible to pursue his very helpful idea.

I turn now to the two proposals the British Textile Confederation has made to us. The first concerns the imposition of surveillance import licencing on all imports of man-made fibre yarns and fabrics imported from both developed and developing countries. We have decided to introduce a major extension of our existing import surveillance arrangements to cover man-made fibres and virtually all yarns and fabrics of all the main fibres. These arrangements will apply to imports from all non-Community sources. Full details of the arrangements will be published as soon as possible and they will become effective soon afterwards.

Briefly, this means that after the operative date importers of the goods covered will need an individual licence instead, as hitherto, of being able to import under the open general licence. The intention is that importers—and this will be particularly relevant to the problems which confront the industry from American exporters to us of certain textiles—should supply evidence of firm orders with overseas suppliers and give specified details of the goods, and on this basis licences will be issued freely on demand. These monitoring arrangements will provide us with prompt information on prices and quantities of narrowly defined imported goods as well as information about the forward intentions of importers.

I would stress that this decision should not he taken as a move towards introducing quantitative restrictions, but it will enable us to examine textile imports in close detail and consider in the light of the additional information what further action, if any, may need to be taken.

Dr. Hampson

Unless the Minister puts on physical restrictions how does he expect a retailer to turn down suits from Romania which cost £8 each?

Mr. Meacher

I am turning now to the whole issue of specific restrictions on imports. It is important that in the particular areas we have chosen, where there is not quota protection at present, we have the immediate up-to-date information on the basis of which we shall be able to act.

The BTC's second proposal is for import restrictions to cut by 20 per cent. the level of imports in 1974. This raises major and difficult implications for Government policy. The BTC describes this proposal as an emergency measure designed to deal with the crisis conditions in the textile industry. It considers that the British textile industry is peculiarly vulnerable to imports because our channels of distribution and the retail industry are so highly developed and concentrated—as they are. It believes that British textile companies cannot continue to operate for long at present levels of activity. The companies' resources are being eaten away and their ability to resume normal working seriously impaired. With a reduced cash flow, even firms with relatively high liquid reserves, let alone those with large stocks and little or no liquidity, will eventually reach the point where they must close down.

The BTC tells me that with each week that passes it considers that more firms are being forced out of business. It points to the serious risk that the industry will emerge from the present recession, not only reduced in size and capacity, but so disrupted that it will no longer be a balanced industry capable of carrying out all textile processes and able to compete in world markets. If the industry is left seriously weakened imports will increase to make good any shortfall in supplies in the United Kingdom market and exports will decline. If, on the other hand, the industry survives the present recession intact, and disruptive low-cost imports are controlled, it might well be possible for the industry to increase its exports and its share of the home market to the extent necessary to bridge this gap.

The BTC emphasises the dangers that the trade deficit will increase and place an additional burden on the balance of payments. Above all, it concludes that the social and economic consequences of any further disruption of the industry are, therefore, grave indeed.

The BTC has also considered the dangers of a policy of import restraints. It does not believe that such restraints would lead to shortages in the market, eliminate competition or have any marked effect on prices, particularly to the consumer. It believes the risk of other countries following our example to be small.

Britain, is a major trading nation. We have to face the fact, therefore, that, depending as we do on imported food and raw materials, all our efforts to date have been rather to encourage our trading partners to sustain world trade at the highest possible level. We have all benefited from this as consumers. The massive post-war increase in international trade has resulted in equally substantial rises in the standard of living of us all.

The world economy is now in a very difficult position. The Prime Minister himself has told the House that import controls as a general policy would be bad for Britain precisely because they would get world trade spiralling further downwards. He has said that if we impose general physical controls to restrict imports it would not be an alternative to deflation of our own economy. Deflation of demand must to some extent affect the market for the textile industry's own products. Textiles may be a special case, but even then we should not forget that our exports of clothing and textiles in 1974 amounted to over £1,100 million.

I do undertake to give the proposal the most careful consideration, but I must emphasise that the Government have taken no decision. Nor, I repeat, should the extension of surveillance licencing be taken to mean that we are moving in this direction.

I would also remind the House that the Government have told the industry that it should see protection as a means of present security to enable necessary in- vestment to be made for the future. Considerable Government funds are available to the industry to continue its modernisation programme. Let us also not forget the good years of 1973 and 1974 in total terms, when many companies were announcing almost record results in terms of profitability.

The upturn in the textile cycle will surely come. I do not want to see that upturn result in an increase in imports. Some firms in the industry have planned their investment programmes to ensure that additional modern capacity is there to take full advantage of that upturn. I look to the rest of the industry to follow that example, and by investment to ensure now a viable and successful industry in the upturn that is coming.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

The Parliamentary Secretary has made a long and interesting speech, as one expects of him. He sits for a Lancashire textile constituency and he knows his subject. We are to hear from him again tonight, I understand, and although it is a pleasure to listen to him it would have perhaps been a greater pleasure if we could have heard the head of the Department, because, agreeable though the Parliamentary Secretary is, he has no power of decision. It is only the Secretary of State who, having listened to the many voices which will be expressed tonight about the desperate state of these industries, could respond to those voices in a positive way. For all his good will the Parliamentary Secretary has not the power to do that, and to that extent, therefore, all our speeches are to some degree in vain.

The crisis in the textile industries is quite unlike anything I have seen in 24 years. Usually it was possible to point a finger at some weakness in the industries. In the past we were said to have old machinery, bad marketing, no shifts—something was always said to be wrong. But no one on this occasion thinks there is anything seriously wrong with our productive capacity. The plant has been modernised and is very efficiently run. Labour relations are excellent—better than in almost any other industry in the country, although the operatives work for very modest wages—and there is no serious charge of cost inflation there. There is good management, a smaller industry and yet a more efficient one than at any time since the war. In spite of these things, however, the crisis is worse—a crisis in the sense that the penetration of the United Kingdom market gets bigger daily.

We have to consider the fundamental reasons for this. It is not enough, using our existing mechanisms, to look at the details and statistics; we have to consider why, although industry is poised and ready and capable of performing the task it should be performing, it is not doing so.

It is not a failure of demand. In a Written Answer on 12th March the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to blame demand. He said I and my colleagues are very aware of the present state of the textile industry which is being affected by a depressed level of demand." —[Official Report, 12th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 183.] He slightly qualified that reply today by saying that the cause was not a depressed level of retail demand. What he was referring to, although he did not say so, was a depressed level of demand for manufactured goods from the retailers and merchants. That is a very different story. It means that, other things being equal, there is a retail demand there. We know from what my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) interposed that the demand is being satisfied by suits as cheap as £8 from Romania—not, I think, suits that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) could wear, but no doubt suitable in other ways.

There is not a failure of demand. Retail demand is buoyant, and the merchants are buying abroad. The Parliamentary Secretary poured a good deal of scorn on their lack of patriotism, and no doubt if other things were equal or if they were only a little unequal, those merchants would pefer to buy British. However, if things are very unequal, that is too much to ask of someone who is in business.

The penetration is something of the order of 60 per cent. What is the reason for that? First, it has been suggested that the reason that the indigenous industry cannot compete with this very high demand is that it lacks liquid resources in the form of capital and cash in order to weather the recession. That is why the industry is not making for stock any longer, and why short time is being worked. There may be something in that. It is a problem which is common to every industry at the moment, owing to the way industry has been treated, but since this is an all-party discussion I do not wish to raise a discordant note by discussing that situation. Nevertheless, it has a peculiarly devastating effect upon the textile industry.

The second and only possible reason for the continued penetration given the factors I have mentioned, is that, in spite of this slimmed-down, peaceful and very well-managed industry, the overseas competition in some way or other must be unfair. There can be no other explanation. I do not believe that most of the penetration is by fair competition. The memorandum which has often been quoted and which was put out by the British Textile Confederation—perhaps the best of all the briefs with which we have been showered in the last month or so—makes the significant point. It says that imports cannot be fair if the penetration is as rapid and great as it is, and I think that the logic of the situation drives one to that conclusion. The United Kingdom market, it says, is the first target for any overseas industry seeking an outlet for its excess production because it is a soft market and because our systems of control, whatever the regulations may appear like on paper, are softer in practice and in administration than are those of other markets.

I am therefore delighted that the Government have agreed tonight to adopt some sort of new mechanism for at least detecting the penetration before it becomes a flood. One of the troubles of our machinery in the past has been that, while one could not stop, or was not disposed to stop, a flood, one did not even know the flood was occurring until several months after it had begun. I am happy that the new mechanism that the Parliamentary Secretary has announced tonight will at least give us an earlier warning system than we have had in the past.

The previous rules, by which a trader or manufacturer had to go through a very lengthy process before he could prove even that such a flood of goods was coming in, was much too slow. Has the Under-Secretary any announcement to make about speeding up that process? We do not believe that the system of policing imports into the United Kingdom from EEC associates is nearly good enough. Although the Minister has done something about Turkish and Greek yarn, and was right to do it and has done it relatively rapidly—and for that is to be commended—I do not believe, for example, that Portuguese imports are properly examined. I do not believe, either, that manufactured cloth and made-up clothing from Turkey and Greece are properly policed even now. I hope, therefore, that in concluding the Under-Secretary will tell us what further proposals there may be on that score.

Perhaps the big disappointment tonight, not altogether unexpected, has been the Minister's rejection of the British Textile Confederation's suggestion that there should be restraints, preferably in volume terms, by which imports of manufactured textiles and clothing should be reduced to a level 20 per cent. below that of 1974. In a way this is a symbol. The multi-fibre arrangements and the other excellent EEC arrangements for burden sharing will inevitably take time to be worked out and introduced. The reduction to a level 20 per cent. below that of 1974 would be a symbol of the Government's determination to take early and drastic steps to do something about the desperate plight of the textile industry today—not in the autumn, but today.

The figures of short time are terrifying. In my constituency, in a group of mills called the Birtwistle Group, there is nobody working today, and there will be nobody working there tomorrow or all next week. All the workers in the group have been sent away until after Easter. This is the sort of moment when short time begins to turn rapidly into no time, into redundancies.

Therefore, we are not entitled to rely merely on the multi-fibre agreement and the burden-sharing arrangements that the EEC will no doubt produce. What we are entitled to rely on is the crash machinery that the EEC promises in circumstances of closures of mills such as we are threatened with, by which within eight working days, if the EEC has done nothing to help us, we are entitled to help ourselves.

The way in which we should help ourselves is to take advantage of the sugges- tion of the British Textile Confederation —a responsible body which is not given to hysteria, or to crying "Wolf ", and which represents the industry vertically, horizontally, diagonally and any other way one can think of. It has said that there must be a 20 per cent. cut in the level of 1974 imports if there is to be any industry left to take advantage of the good times which the Under-Secretary thinks, and I think, will eventually come.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Mike Noble (Rossendale)

Many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, so I shall be brief. I shall concentrate on the cotton textile section of the industry, as did the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who has told us that the industry is not backward. It is not based in dark, satanic mills but is a modern, capital-intensive, technologically-based industry, with forward-looking management and unions. In the past 16 years it has been trimmed to the bone to become efficient. Those of us from the North-West are aware that it is an efficient industry.

The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that no industry in the country has enjoyed such close and congenial labour relations as the textile industry. Many people would say that the trade union movement should have been more militant in defending jobs in the industry. It is an industry in which multi-shift working has been accepted by the majority of operatives' and workers in the industry have consistently moderated their wage demands. Yet we find the industry in its present position.

I worked in the industry for a short time before I entered the House. I became aware that in many mills in the Lancashire area the majority of employees were coloured immigrants. If there is short-time working, the very fact that they tend to be concentrated on night shift and low-paid jobs, and are therefore probably the first to be made redundant or go on to short time, means that there will be a threat to community relations in Lancashire. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State will bear that in mind when considering what aid should be given.

We have heard about imports. Let us be blunt. This country is far too liberal in its attitude to low-cost imports. Many people would say that without changing any regulations we could at least change the position over dumping, in that we could require the burden of proof that no dumping was involved to be placed on the importer or the nation exporting to us, and not wait until someone in this country said that dumping was going on and then have an investigation. I am not sure that the procedures that my hon. Friend has outlined will do anything to help us in that respect.

I support my hon. Friend's appeal on the purchase of British textiles, which may be useful, but the hon. and learned Gentleman answered that when he said that importing was big business, and asked who could blame the business men concerned. In a capitalist world, who can blame them? If they can make a quick buck, what kind of appeal will they listen to?

Immediate measures must be taken. I am disappointed by my hon. Friend's response. He spoke about public purchasing, and mentioned the figure of 2 per cent. He also taked about import surveillance. Nothing has been done about quotas. I am left with the conclusion that again the Government will do too little, too late, and will relate it to the wrong figures, anyway.

Next Tuesday, 3,000 or 4,000 textile workers from the North-West will be demonstrating in London their justified indignation at the way in which a Labour Government have treated them. Demonstrators from constituencies which elected Labour MPs will be saying "We have been let down.- I am not prepared to accept that, and I hope that I can rely on the support of my hon. Friends. Unless something is forthcoming quickly. we shall, next Monday or Tuesday, pick up where we leave off tonight, and the campaign will continue.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Conservative Members elected for textile constituencies will also be supporting the demonstration next Tuesday?

Mr. Noble

I am aware of that. We shall be delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman, and Liberal Members.

What do we need? One thing that we could do with is a mark of origin. My hon. Friend said that public authorities purchased British-manufactured goods when they knew that they were British-manufactured. We should alter the mark of origin for textiles to read "Spun, woven and finished in the United Kingdom." There would then be no doubt about the origin. Perhaps that would make the buy-British campaign more effective.

We want the change I mentioned in dumping procedures, and we also want the introduction of quotas outlined by the BTC—and we shall continue to press for them until we succeed. Those are the short-term and immediate measures. In the medium term the Government should seriously investigate the proposals from the Textile Industry Support Campaign for a regulator which will move according to the level of trade in this country. In the long term the unions and many employers will be looking towards the Industry Act as a means of survival.

In 1957 a pamphlet was written which opened with these words: Hardly any major British industry has been the subject of so much published information. What is needed now is not further inquiry or talk, but action to secure for Lancashire a secure future in a rapidly changing world. That was the situation in 1957, and it remains the situation today. The write of that pamphlet was the present Prime Minister. We rightfully demand action now.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve (Aberdeenshire, West)

I shall restrict my few remarks to the textile industry in Scotland, which means that I shall be speaking entirely about the woollen side of the industry. Many names in the Scottish woollen industry are household names—Pringle, Braemar, Ballantyne, Reid and Taylor, and Crombie in my own constituency of West Aberdeenshire. Today, those firms are suffering from short-time working and doubt about the future. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) and agree that the labour relations in the industry throughout its long history are a credit to Britain. If every other British industry had the same type of industrial relations we should be a wealthier country today.

We are having trouble in Scotland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, with imports. It is interesting to see where the imports of woollen goods are coming from. A large amount come from the Far East, and some from Eastern Europe. I am certain that if we cannot get voluntary import controls by manufacturers we shall have to have compulsory ones. I echo my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who said that lying at our hand are the EEC regulations which are there to do just this. They are operated regularly and quickly by France and Italy. Why do not we use them when they are there for our use?

Other hon. Members will speak of the crisis in other sections of the industry and suggest what measures should be taken. My remaining few remarks relate to the future on a slightly different subject and that is our position vis-à-vis the EEC, and here I am speaking again mainly about Scotland. In this instance we are net gainers. We send more textiles into the Community pro rata than other member countries send to us. This is particularly important for Scotland, because the Scottish woollen industry exports more than 50 per cent. of its production. Of that 50 per cent., more than 50 per cent. goes into the EEC. When we failed to enter the Community in the early 1960s, about halt our United Kingdom yard and fabric woollen manufactures to Europe were lost. We have been able to estimate, through the Wool Textile delegation, that if we withdrew from the EEC the United Kingdom would lose £50 million worth of sales and 5,000 jobs.

If one makes the calculation for Scotland, with its high proportion of textile manufacture, much of which is exported, one can see the danger of a loss of £10 million on sales and 1,000 jobs. It is vital to take immediate remedial action, but, for the future, it is essential for our Scottish woollen textile industry that we should remain part of the EEC.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Frank R. White (Bury and Radcliffe)

In this debate I shall be referring to the cotton and allied yarn side of the textile industry. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry for the manner in which he opened the debate. Several hon. Members wish to go on record as thanking him for his efforts on behalf of the textile industry while, at the same time, recognising the constraints under which he has had to work. It is his hon. and right hon. Friends who are absent from the Front Bench who are more in need of the stimulation of this debate than he is. I am sure my hon. Friend will draw their attention to our comments and make them aware of the preparation they will have to make when they receive the next visit from the Textile Group.

Mr. Me,acher

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, but I would point out that I have with me on the Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, who will, I am sure, take full account of the many points on trade which will be raised in the debate and communicate them to his Secretary of State.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

It is the top brass we want.

Mr. White

I would not expect my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade to have a guilt complex sufficient to lead him to assume responsibility for the whole Front Bench on the question of textiles.

Mr. Higgins

We are extremly glad to see a representative from the Department of Trade. It is becoming something of a habit for the Secretary of State for Industry, as in the case of Court Line, not to turn up for difficult debates.

Mr. White

I do not regard the debate as the pinnacle of the efforts of our Textile Group on behalf of the industry. It is more like a high plateau of representation that we are determined to maintain. Platitudes from Ministers will not deter us one jot until we have secured an irreversible future for the textile industry of this country.

That leads me to my first request. I should like the Minister in his reply to state unequivocally whether or not it is the intention to retain a viable textile industry in this country—no "ifs ", or "buts" ; just a clear statement. If the answer is "Yes ", all that remains is to deal with the question of what policies should be pursued to make that viability a reality.

I ask for that clear commitment because in the past the industry has received from successive Governments many assurances that have proved to be worthless or, in the event, when they have been realised have come along much too late. In the 1950s the industry was exhorted to rationalise to obtain the optimum unit size. Further contractions seeking this elusive unit took place in the 1960s, and now we face the same problem in the 1970s. We in the industry believe that we have the optimum size now, and that what is at stake is the future of the industry.

I was brought up as a young man in an area of Bolton called Tong Moor. Two of the major employers in that area were the Denvale Mill and the Dart Mill, both spinning companies. The Denvale Mill is now a tool store, and the Dart Mill closed last month. My parents, friends, relatives and neighbours worked in textiles, and terms like "stripper and grinder ", "little piecer ", "ring room ", "guard room ", "beaming and twisting "were as common to me as are the modern day job titles. As a young man my imagination ran riot when I heard spinners on a hot day complaining that their ends had been breaking all day.

Friends in the community like Nellie Harbott, unknown to hon. Members, left school at the age of 12 and worked halftime in the mill. For the uninitiated, halftime meant that for one week one worked in the mill in the mornings, and in the afternoons one went to school, and in the following week one went to school in the morning and worked in the mill in the afternoon. That was not the factory age of Dickens ; that happened in 1914. Nellie Harbott was the young girl of 14 who lost two fingers and a thumb while operating a carding machine and who did not receive a penny in compensation. Nellie Harbott worked in a mill until 1970, giving a lifetime's service to the textile industry.

It is for the operatives who produce great wealth from Lancashire and who, in common with the region, share little of that wealth and the benefits it has brought —people who have lived through contractions, disruptions, the dole, and redundancy—that we demand a meaningful and clear guarantee for the industry in which they serve this country. I say, "serve "because there may be hon. Members present who will remember that in the dark days after the war, when the economy of this country was facing great difficulties, it was, "Britain's bread that hung by Lanacashire thread ". On behalf of the industry I wish to redeem the pledge given in 1946.

I have spoken of the past because it is essential that the contribution the industry has given to the country should not be forgotten and should be the motivation for providing for its future. The industry has continued to meet its responsibilities to the community. The accusations that can be levelled at other traditional industries, such as lack of investment, resistance to change, and bad industrial relations policies, however caused, are not true of the textile industry.

The textile industry is highly capitalised and efficient. It has extremely good labour relations. The trade unions and their members have accepted the changes necessary in restructuring the industry. New techniques, works studies, continuous shift operation and the optimum use of labour and capital have been readily agreed to in a joint effort to rid the industry of its old-fashioned "trouble up at t' mill "image. We now have one of the most modern textile industries in the world, containing the most modern mills. We are the centre of textile technology and, as one of the largest continuous-process operations in the country, we fear no competition from any source providing that that competition is on fair terms.

Many hon. Members will lay evidence of the need for action. Statistics can be produced to show the degree of import penetration and evidence can be presented of suspected dumping on the market. The protective attitude of other countries facing similar problems will be aptly illustrated.

I wish to deal with two aspects which merely emphasise two points already made. First, if we assume that the Government wish to retain a viable textile industry, it follows that a market floor should be established for the industry. Demand above that market floor would be available for import licences. I have been advised that even on full capacity my side of the industry would be able to meet only 60 per cent. of requirements, leaving ample home demand for imports —imports controlled by licence. It will be a matter of Government policy to decide which countries receive import licences. If the whole industry fell short of its production target additional licences could be granted.

Britain is the soft touch for the world textile barons, and the present position cannot be tolerated. We reject the attitude of mind that demands that proof of disruption must be illustrated before action is taken. In this respect, I am critical of some Government Departments —some aspects of the Departments of Trade and Industry. They remind me of the hot air balloonist. Having achieved the height of 10,000 ft. and lost both the balloon and the basket, he requests justification of a pending downward trend—invariably in triplicate! When the livelihood of thousands of textile operatives is at stake I and my colleagues will not accept that the dole queue, redundancies and mill closures are the only acceptable evidence of disruption.

The monitoring and control of imports by a trading nation is of great concern to us. There is an urgent need to review our systems related to this. I note what the Minister said but I agree with the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) that it does not go far enough, is not firm enough, and could be taken advantage of. If Government Departments are prepared to let the industry go to the wall let them say it. Let us say that we have overseas commitments, that we wish to continue to trade with various countries and that the textile industry will have to take what comes. If this is the way we have to do it, let them tell us. Let every other major British industry which could be faced with similar circumstances be warned that it can expect little or no protection.

I mention the retail trade outlets and public purchasing. The Minister has referred to this and I welcome his statement. A few months ago the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) and I questioned Government Ministers on the issue of public purchasing. We were assured by Ministers that the majority of purchases made by their Departments were made in Britain. As the hon. Member for Rossendale said, unless this means spun, woven, finished and made-up in Britain, it is little or no good at all.

We have evidence of people within the industry selling the industry short. I support the Minister's statement on this. These people capitalise on cheap imports, manufacture finished goods and sell them as made in Britain. They build their house on sand. I want to be present when these people in the retail industry, facing problems themselves, ask for Government help. I shall have some scathing comments to make on their requests. This applies even more to the local authorities and local health authorities within the textile region. Overseas purchases are being made while people in those areas are on short time or have been made redundant. Next week in the North-West many mills will be closing down for the full week. In some of those areas local councils are purchasing overalls, Duffel coats and textile goods for their workers direct from foreign sources. I criticise them most strongly on this. We have been told that the Treasury insists on lowest tenders being accepted. It appears that the Treasury would prefer to have British textile workers on the dole rather than to accept tenders of marginal significance. In this respect the Treasury qualifies for membership of the balloonist club.

We have been informed in our discussions with various heads of the industry and the trade union movement that about 14 retail outlets account for 50 per cent. of the retail sales in this country. Penetration to those 14 would mean a disaster to the textile industry in this country. One is a name known throughout the land. Every housewife is confident that when she goes into Marks and Spencer she will buy quality and service. It is a matter of great regret to me that that well-known trade outlet seems to be changing its policy from buying British to buying foreign goods. I urge that company, through this House, to reconsider its purchasing policies. British industry could offer the same skill, design and quality, and at a competitive price. This has been proved.

I am aware that major retail outlets are being approached by the trade unions and the industry itself. I urge them, "Buy British, help the balance of payments and give life to the textile industry ". I can assure them that there is no such reluctance among their retail outlet colleagues on the Continent. They buy home goods first. Some people are of the opinion that cheap goods from under-developed countries aid the consumer.

Bearing in mind the old saying that one picture is worth a thousand words, I have had delivered to me samples of textile goods.

I have here an imported Portuguese flannelette cot sheet, which is a direct design copy of the Lancashire article. This Portuguese article is coming in at 5p to 6p below the cost of production. Believe it or not, this is said to benefit the consumer and the under-developed nations. The Lancashire cloth is first-class quality. We know this because the Portuguese sheet was sent to the Lancashire manufacturers with a letter stating that: Your latest batch is below standard and below quality. We know, therefore, from the retail outlet that the Lancashire article is the quality article. The Lancashire article would be sold to a mail order firm—I shall not divulge the name—at 98p per pair. Every mother-to-be in the land would be buying them. They are offered at 98p per pair and retailed at £1.97 per pair, which is the price they were advertised at in the mail order firm's catalogue. This firm is now buying these sheets from Portugal and retailing them at £2.11 per pair. That one picture amply illustrates that the consumer is certainly not benefiting.

Those who benefit are the unscrupulous mark-up men—the middle men of the industry—at whom the Minister has already had a bash. They are the people in the countries of origin who are capitalising on their work forces. If anyone can show me how the loss of jobs on the part of 70,000 Lancashire textile workers will help people in those underdeveloped countries when this kind of profit is being made I shall be most surprised.

I have tried to make a case for action. I may have been a little emotional at times but to me, and to all of us, this is an emotional subject. We believe that our area has been neglected in many ways. Nowhere can the frustration of ordinary people be felt more than in the textile industry. They feel that they have given all that could be asked of them and in return they have not received the consideration they deserve. Their only wish is to help the country through its economic difficulties. To do that they need work and they need protection. We look to the Government to provide that.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey)

I am sure that I speak on behalf of all hon. Members when I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) on a vivid and knowledgeable address on the problems of the textile industry in his part of the country. I hope he will agree that it is appropriate for us also to consider the problems of Yorkshire and the wool textile industry. I am grateful for the fact that this debate is taking place even though I recognise that it is due largely to the pressure exerted by hon. Members representing West Lancashire on both sides of the House. It is they who drove the Government to provide time for a debate.

The Yorkshire wool textile industry shares many of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe. In the first instance imports of low-priced complete garments are putting at risk jobs in many parts of our area. This is so in my own constituency, and I am sure that it is also the case in constituencies in neighbouring Leeds and Bradford.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) quoted an example in an earlier intervention. I have had a little more information from the wool textile delegation. It appears that there is a large import trade in finished garments from the Comecon group of countries. I have had quoted the price of £8 for a finished suit from Czechoslovakia, £12 for the same article from Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia. The average price of finished worsted suitings from this part of the world comes up at £9 a suit.

From this point of view it is painfully obvious that this country's wool textile industry is facing excessive competition, from Eastern Europe in particular. There can be little doubt that this must be classified as unfair competition. As hon. Members have pointed out, there is also a problem with regard to the import of yarns particularly from the Far East and in particular acrylic yarns from Taiwan and Korea. I cannot help feeling that, faced as we have been tonight with some of the quotations, not only from the British Textile Confederation but from from hon. Members, had we had the courage we would have acted first and explained afterwards.

I cannot help feeling that this is what would have happened in France or in Germany if either of those countries had been in this position. We are regrettably soft when it comes to taking action on import controls. As a trading nation—and no industry is more proud of its export performance than the total textile industry, obviously including cotton textiles as well as wool—we must understand that unless we have a thriving home industry there will be no export record of which to be proud. We must take adequate steps to protect ourselves from imports which are proven to be of a particularly low price and below cost of production if we want to sustain our industry in future.

I turn to a third aspect of peculiar concern to the wool textile industry. Here I hesitate before introducing a more discordant note into the debate. The wool textile industry is fundamentally an industry based on small firms. In total it employs 90,000 people. There are about one thousand firms registered by the Confederation, which means that the average size of a unit in the textile industry is about 100 workers. These are small units of production.

Nearly one-third of these small units is in the hands of private family firms. Many of these produce highly specialist cloth. One of the problems of the industry is that it does not easily lend itself to economies of scale. It is not a matter of arranging mergers to produce larger organisations, because the demands of fashion, variety and the type of fibres which are so specialist require the small units. There are finishers, yarnsmen and dyers. These are small operations which are all part of a large industry.

It will be recognised that the industry looks with a great deal of anxiety to its future. We have discussed the problem of the importation of cheap made-up garments. There is a large problem overhanging the future of small firms and particularly small family firms.

Reference was made to good industrial relations. It is not an accident that good industrial relations exist in small units Government supporters will acknowledge that close involvement between management and operatives in a small unit tends to bring good understanding, good communications and, therefore, good industrial relations. However, as a result of the Government proposals in the Finance Bill, and especially the capital transfer tax, there is great anxiety over the future of family wool textile companies.

The wool textile industry has a proud export record. Almost 30 per cent. of its production was exported in 1974. Therefore, the industry can claim to be a major factor in our trade balance. The wool textile industry exports goods to the value of £2,600 per operative per annum. We are proud of that.

In view of the Government proposals it will be difficult for companies to continue in their traditional way. The problem of financing companies is real in inflationary times, and Governments have perhaps done less for the wool textile industry than they might have done. There is a good sign, however, that the £15 million capital injection will be taken up. The difficulty is that the small companies rely on the banks. There is no capital market on which they can rely, and such,companies are not of the size to command Government intervention. The future of these companies is gravely threatened by inflationary pressures.

I hope that the Minister will recognise that the greatest problem is the future of small family firms because of the capital transfer tax and its effect on the structure of the wool textile industry. If mergers into larger units was a sensible course, as happened with Lancashire cotton textiles, that would occur in the case of wool textiles. However, that is not the case. There are few large wool textile companies, and even those are broken down into small operating units because of the range of manufacture and variety of production.

I hope that we do not have to say that the wool textile industry, especially that in West Yorkshire, withstood the pressures of foreign competition and succeeded in the export market, only to be defeated by the Government at home. Whatever may be his anxieties regarding the Industry Bill, and the effects of the capital transfer tax on industry, I hope that the Minister will examine the effects of CTT on a small industry which is designed around family units, because without the small manufacturing units there would be no wool textile industry.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Nelson and Colne)

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) has left the Chamber, since I wanted to congratulate him on having reminded us that we are talking about human beings and the sufferings they endure because they work in the textile industry. I thought that his was a moving speech.

What type of industry are we talking about? I know that there are experts on both sides of the House. However, we are not speaking about a small industry. We are talking about the third largest employer of labour in the United Kingdom. Approximately 930,000 people are employed in the British textile and allied clothing industries.

Reference was made to the Industry Bill and to the fact that 9.28 per cent. of all those employed in manufacturing industry work in the textile industry. This industry is regionalised. Almost 40 per cent. of the working population of Nelson are employed in the textile industry. I see a smile on the face of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who knows a great deal about mills. In Rochdale 30 per cent. of the working population are employed in the textile industry. In the North-West 23 per cent. are employed in the industry.

This industry is efficient and modern, and even though it has declined in recent years, output per head has risen. It has given a lead which many other industries could follow. Output rose by 7.1 per cent. per annum during the years 1966.1973 when the rest of manufacturing industry lagged behind at 4.3 per cent. In 1974 this industry was our largest exporter. Therefore we are talking about an industry which is vital to the economy of Great Britain.

Much has been said about the lack of investment in manufacturing industry. However, despite its decline, the textile industry has benefited from investments. Between 1970 and 1973 the sum of £145 million per annum was invested. I would rate that as a success story. If there had been that investment in other sections of manufacturing industry, we would not be in the position in which we find ourselves today.

What has been the reward to the textile industry? It has declined, and the reason for its decline is that almost 60 per cent. of the home market is taken up by foreign imports. I suggest that there is no industry in this or any other country which could be viable in those conditions. We cannot for much longer allow it to languish in this fashion. If we do there will be no British textile industry, apart from a few specialised units.

When we talk about low-cost imports, we have to remember that, when the market is booming, the cost of those imports goes up and that in 1974, with a booming market, in many cases they were more expensive than home-produced textile goods. That is what would happen if we allowed our industry to go into such a decline that soon it became extinct. We could not afford the adverse effect that this would have on our balance of payments.

Another aspect which has not been touched upon is that, prior to our entering the Common Market, it was thought by many people in the textile industry that perhaps this would be the panacea for which the industry was looking. Unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case. Our exports to Common Market countries have improved. However, their exports to us have increased at an even faster rate. The difference has grown from a deficit of £4 million in 1970 to one of £45.5 million in 1973, and in 1974 it reached £69.2 million.

Another disappointing feature has been that the other Common Market counties, with the possible exception of West Germany, have not opened their doors to the low-cost imports which we have taken into this country in the way that we would have liked.

When we look at the burden sharing, although it may be right in broad terms, what it really means in relation to the British textile industry is not a reduction of the share of imports which we take but that we have a lower rate of growth while the others are catching up, and the other countries like Italy and France will not catch up until some time in the mid-1980s. That is too little, too late to help the British textile industry.

Mr. John Roper (Farnworth)

Has my hon. Friend any alternative mechanism outside the Common Market by which we could influence those countries to expand their imports?

Mr. Hoyle

Yes, I have. Whether we are in or out of the Common Market, we cannot afford to allow our textile industry to decline. If we are outside, we must take whatever measures are necessary. If we stay in, we must press on our partners the need for them to help us by taking similar measures, otherwise the British textile industry is at risk. That is my message tonight.

It is not just that we have been taking low-cost imports in similar quantities to those that we took before we went into the Common Market. In playing our rôle as a member, we have accepted low-cost imports from the Common Market suppliers, notably the Mediterranean associate countries. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that imports from Greece and Turkey were having such a disruptive effect on the British textile industry that there had been a cut of 20 per cent. in our imports. However, the cut took place only after damage had been done to the spinning side of our textile industry. Indeed, they are only temporary restrictions. I have read in the Press—I should like confirmation of this point by my hon. Friend when he winds up the debate—that Turkey is saying that if we continue with the restrictions on cotton yarn coming into this country, she will take action against the exports of British goods to Turkey—notably, plastic and construction machinery.

It is well known that the Turkish industry is being built up on the basis of free access to West Germany and to this country. Nor is Turkey alone with imports coming into this country. The point has rightly been made that we are a "soft touch ". This matter concerns not only textiles, but motor cars. I have had similar pleas from the motor car industry, the glass manufacturers and the makers of television receivers.

Low-cost imports are disrupting our economy. Textiles have suffered longer than other industries—indeed, far too long. It is true that silent pain gets no sympathy. We shall be not be silent any longer. Indeed, we have been silent too long.

I turn to the liberalisation of yarn imports. Britain is the only country in the EEC which has restrictions on yarn imports. We must have complete liberalisation by 1977.

What has happened to the spinning section with imports from Greece and Turkey? We learn that yarn import quotas this year will be increased by 25 per cent. That has been a death blow to the spinning section. Coming on top of other blows, it is too much for it to bear.

I should like to issue another warning to the woven cloth side of the industry. From January woven cloth from the Mediterranean associates, Greece and Turkey, can be imported into this country without export licences from those countries in any quantity against firm orders. What will that do to the woven cloth side of the industry?

I turn now to the measures which I suggest should be taken, some of which have already been put forward. Due regard should be paid to the plea by the BTC for emergency measures to cut global quotas by 20 per cent. on the 1974 figure. This is being asked for as a temporary measure, but it is the kind of measure which will pump the lifeblood back into the British textile industry. It is not too much to ask on its behalf.

I should like to follow the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) and Bury and Radcliffe regarding dumping. We have read in the Press about the 20p shirt. It is true that one million were imported from Romania and Poland between January and December 1974. Yet I suggest that it was impossible to find a shirt at that cost in any shop in this country. Again, someone has been doing very well in that respect.

I have referred to the subsidies given by the Government to imports from Greece and Turkey. I should also mention Brazil. We should follow the example of Australia and Canada and say that the onus of proof regarding dumping rests with the importer, not with the British industry. By the time the evidence is provided, the damage has been done to the industry.

It is important to look again at the regulator. When the market is booming, as has been said, we do not have the capacity in this country to meet all the demand. Indeed, we suck imports into this country. However, when the market becomes depressed, those imports continue to come in. What we are asking for is a regulator based upon the stock position. There would be a cutback in imports, but when the next boom came and the stocks fell we could have a relaxation on imports. That would bring some stability to the British textile industry. Again, it is not too much to ask. Control of imports would prevent sudden surges which are so damaging to the industry.

Contrary to what has been said, three major firms have over 50 per cent. of the production capacity. We might well consider having planning agreements for them. It is essential that we secure the future of the worker in the textile industry. We who have responsibilities in textile constituencies will not allow the industry to die. We believe that there is a future, which is deserved, for those who have worked in the industry and have given so much but yet have received so little from successive Governments.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I believe that I am the first Cheshire Member to be called in this important debate. I hope that Members who come from Lancashire and who will dominate the debate will not forget that Cheshire is an important part of the textile industry in the North-West. I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle). He echoed, in emotional sentiments at times, my feelings about an industry which is valuable to this country.

I was interested in the reference by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) to origin marking. If his proposal were implemented, a firm in my constituency, Berisfords—the largest ribbon manufacturers in the world—would be most grateful because, in addition to making ribbons, it produces the labels which would be used and on which would be printed the words which the hon. Gentleman wishes to see on British textiles.

I welcome the sympathy shown by the Minister, and particularly the surveillance import licensing system which I understood him to spell out. This is particularly interesting, bearing in mind the brief all Members have received, perhaps only today, from ICI. In the brief it says that if we had such a system for polyester filament woven fabrics we should now have indications of at least four months since the increase in imports began, instead of just two, and the Government could form a proper judgment on whether market disruption, in the terms of the documents which constitute its international obligation, is occurring. The figures show how quickly an import threat can build up. A textile market can be ruined in four months. The same could happen in other types of polyester fibre. The case for introducing a surveillance mechanism could hardly be clearer. I am therefore delighted to welcome the Minister's proposal.

The United Kingdom textile industry is in the throes of the worst crisis of all time —certainly the worst since the 1930s. It is estimated that 150,000 of the 830,000 people employed in the industry are operating on short-time. In the cotton and allied sector, in which I am particularly interested, which includes the processing of man-made fibres, and is largely concentrated in the North-West, 60,000 out of 84,000 people—in other words, three-quarters of the industry—are on short-time.

This is an exceptional situation. We have heard that thousands will be taking an extended stoppage over Easter and that many mills will stop not just for a week but for a full fortnight. That brings with it loss of wages and financial hardship to many textile workers and their families. We represent them in this House and we must stand up for their interests. To repeat what has been said here, these are workers who, perhaps, have been more loyal and conscientious than any other group in manufacturing industry, and therefore they fully deserve better treatment from us.

I hope the Minister will come forward with more proposals for Government action when he concludes the debate. I am pleased that many of his remarks were devoted to his own area—the North-West. There, 12 mills have closed or have announced their intention of closing, and 3,000 people have lost their jobs. In an interchange with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House during business questions a fortnight ago I raised the subject of the Meriden co-operative. The Secretary of State for Industry asked for immediate and exceptional action, and the Government acted. We are talking about tens of thousands of jobs and I want similar action from the Government.

I say without reservation—I would say the same thing to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, were he a Minister of the Crown today—that I want action from the Government. It is true that a reduction in demand has contributed to the situation that we face today, but whatever the Minister may say there can be no doubt that the fundamental cause of the crisis is the high level of imports pouring into this country at an alarming rate, just at a time when the United Kingdom economy can least absorb them. Import penetration has reached an all-time record level of 58 per cent. of the total market in the cotton and allied sector. While no Government—I am as critical of my own party as I am of the present Government —has a particularly good record in this respect, the present Government have done a minimum to date to help the textile industry, despite the fact that the Prime Minister—himself a North-West Member—and other Minister have made promise after promise, going back to 1957, and the Plan for Cotton "of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), the recommendations of which he has totally ignored since he assumed office. I suggest that he resurrects that document from the ashes, price now 15p.

I should point to another of the mammoth companies—Courtaulds—which is operating at the present time at between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of capacity. That firm cannot continue to stockpile as it is at the present time. In another three months an unpleasant decision will have to be made which will have a dramatic effect on the North-West.

Using cotton and man-made fibre yarns as an example, total yarn imports went up by 71 per cent. in 1974. From Mediterranean Associates of the EEC they increased by the mammoth figure of 440 per cent. Belatedly, the Government agreed import quotas on yarn from Greece and Turkey in December last, for which the industry is grateful, and so am I, although it is yet to be informed of the level of these quotas. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about that later.

It is vital that the industry should know their level and whether they will be continued after 1975 for investment planning. At the same time the Minister stated that during 1975 he would maintain quotas on imports from Hong Kong, India, Pakistan and other quota-controlled countries. With this statement was the clear implication that quotas would continue at their 1974 level, and this impression was confirmed in all the discussions that the industry and hon. Members had with the Minister and officials of the Department of Industry. The industry was, therefore, shocked to learn early last month, through an announcement from Brussels, that quota levels were to be increased by 25 per cent. in 1975.

As recently as 24th January the Department of Industry was saying, in reply to a letter to the Minister, that Growth rates in 1975 will have to be reviewed nearer to the end of the year in the light of the situation at the time. Were the Government ignorant of the decision being taken in Brussels, or were they as I suspect, deliberately deceiving the industry?

This plot was continued by the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) in his recent speech in Black-pool, which must go on record as the most incredible example of deliberate political deception of all time, when he repeated that the Government intended to maintain quotas on cotton yarn. In fact, he should have said that it was the Government's intention to increase the quotas by 25 per cent.

In this debate we have not heard very much about the EEC. Will the Minister, when he concludes the debate, give his attention to Regulation 1439/74? This gives the United Kingdom Government, as part of Europe, every opportunity to protect itself against unfair competition or in circumstances in which an industry is being placed in danger or threatened. I refer the Minister again to Regulation 1439/74. I hope that he will use it, because the Government, by a majority in the Cabinet, have come out in favour of our remaining part of Europe. Let us use the mechanism of Europe to safeguard our textile industry. Is it because the Secretary of State himself does not like Europe that he is not prepared to use Europe to defend our textile industry.

I now propose to deal briefly with cloth and garment imports. These have continued to pour into the country at an increasing rate, and they have put the manufacturing and garment sectors of the industry at a serious risk. Imports of clothing increased by 21 per cent., in value, in 1974. Much has been heard of the 20p shirt. More serious, though, are the shirts which come from Hong Kong at 27p and from Portugal at 47p, where the quantities are very much greater than those of the 20p shirt which has hit the headlines.

In my constituency, which has many clothing factories, there are 1,000 textile workers on short time, and a number of redundancies have taken place and many more are threatened.

Only last week the Government gave the industry a list of further items which arc to be liberalised immediately, ranging from bow ties to brassieres. Many hon. Members might welcome the liberalisation of bras—I do not pretend that this news will shake the industry to its very foundations but it is just another example of the Government's determination to erode the industry's markets on almost every front. In this case the industry was given precisely four days to comment before the Government put their proposals to the Commission. I suggest to the House that the industry deserves very much better treatment than it is getting now.

I hope that I may quote an extract from a statement by a member of the CBI Council who comes from the North-West. He said: We have in the North-West a rationalised, modernised, textile industry perfectly capable of coping with and benefiting from the EEC if its supporting pillars are not cut from beneath it by unnecessary imports. Today it has factories and equipment amongst the best in the world, highly efficient management, a willing, skilled experienced labour force working shifts which utilise costly investment to the full in a way unheard of a few years ago, and trade unions which are probably the best in the United Kingdom at understanding what this industry needs and solving those needs by negotiation rather than strike. That surely is indicative that many people in the business appreciate the problems facing the textile industry.

As I said, the industry has the finest work force in the world. Its employees are loyal, concientious and hard working. It has an industrial relations record second to none. It has had no major strike or industrial dispute within the last 40 years. The trade unions have cooperated with employers to the full in the adoption of work study techniques and the introduction of multi-shifts. This is not pleasant for the workers, but they have accepted it and gone along with it. Many firms in the industry are operating not 70, 80 or 90 hours a week but 168 hours, which is a longer working week than currently applies in any other EEC country.

Despite its probelms the industry's record of investment is good. Its capital expenditure, as a percentage of the total wages and salaries, is second only to that of the chemical industry. It is 50 per cent. higher than the motor manufacturing industry, for example, about which we hear so much. The industry wants Government action to regulate the flow of imports so as to eliminate the more serious effects of the textile cycle. The statistics show that every four years the industry suffers from serious recession and short-time working becomes widespread, redundancies occur and there are mill closures.

In such difficult times the industry's labour force and its production capacity are reduced. In the past 13 years the loss of jobs in the cotton and allied sector has been 160,000. Those are people who have had to change their jobs because of the contraction of the industry. There is an average loss of over 10,000 jobs a year. If the industry is allowed to contract any further it is in serious danger of becoming unbalanced and unable to supply certain of the market's essential textile needs. The consumer will suffer in times of bouyant demand because we shall then be at the mercy—both in terms of quantity and of price —of the "textile Arabs "of the world. I am convinced that they would hold us to ransom.

The industry has put forward proposals for an automatic regulator to eliminate the more serious consequences of the cycle. One idea is a dual quota system. That would take the form of a global quota, with each country having a basic quota. The total global quota would be pitched at the level which would secure additional employment for the home industry during the down-turn in the trade. It is similar to the proposal put forward by earlier contributors to this debate. In addition to the basic quota there would be a form of supplementary quota that would be brought into operation in boom periods when shortages occurred. The basic quota would be less than today's existing quotas but the supplementary quotas, when added to the basic quotas, would at times bring the total quota back to its present level and, preferably, provide for further growth when the situation justified it. The supplementary quotas would be withdrawn as soon as the stocks —they are the best indication of what is happening—started to rise.

The situation is now so serious that an immediate and drastic form of action is required if the industry is to be saved from irreparable damage. The statement by the Leader of the House was of no help. The Government should act on lines recommended by the British Textile Federation and effect an immediate across-the-board cut of 20 per cent. in the value of last year's imports of all textiles from all sources.

Serious consideration should be given to the introduction of a regulator to stabilise the industry's market and to prevent a further contraction of the industry. Additional measures should include the use of anti-dumping legislation and a much greater willingness on behalf of the Civil Service, which I believe has a great influence in these matters, to use such legislation.

All Governments, as has been said already, should be instructed to specify, in their tenders for textiles, that they be spun, woven and made up in the United Kingdom. How right were the hon. Members for Rossendale and Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White). It is nonsense that many local authorities and Government purchasing departments should be buying foreign-produced goods at a time when the Government are paying out vast sums in unemployment and redundancy payments to the textile workers.

I feel deeply about this subject. I hope that that feeling has shown through in some of what I have said. I intend to demonstrate with the textile workers when they come down to London next week. Perhaps that is not usual for a Conservative Member. None the less, the textile workers are good, hard-working people. The House should show sympathy to their case and act on their behalf.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

I make an appeal to the House. There are 26 Members with direct constituency interests who still wish to speak. If hon. Members will speak for no more than 10 minutes they will all be able to speak.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Ben Ford (Bradford, North)

This evening is one of the best of House of Commons occasions, when hon. Members on both sides join sincerely in expressing the anxieties and fears of their constituents. I am not exaggerating when I say that the mood of the House is one of grim determination. The Government would do well to note it.

I want to speak particularly about the wool textile industry. The carpet industry uses large quantities of woollen yarn. Yet the ludicrous position is that, under certain hire-purchase arrangements, carpets are at a disadvantage compared with other types of furniture. The Hire Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order 1973 was introduced by a Conservative Government on 18th December 1973 and imposed a minimum deposit of 33 per cent. and a maximum repayment period of 24 months on most listed goods, including carpets. The deposit on furniture is 20 per cent. and provisions in the order permit additions to existing agreements without payment of the full deposit. It has been discovered that this puts the carpet industry at a severe disadvantage. I urge the Government to amend the order to put carpets on an equal footing with furniture.

Another matter currently concerning us is the hold-ups at the ports, particularly certain labour difficulties. I am continually receiving letters, telegrams and telephone calls from manufacturers whose raw materials are held up at the docks. Only this afternoon, I heard from a man who has 55 bales of wool waiting in one ship. If he does not receive something by the end of the week there will be short time next week and there may be a shut down a week after that. From this Chamber, I make an appeal to trade union colleagues working in the ports to resolve their differences, particularly among themselves, and to think of their more unfortunate colleagues in the textile industries who desperately await these raw materials.

The general case about imports of cheap clothing has been made. I must add my own disappointment to that already expressed at the lack of precise proposals by my hon. Friend. Although Turkey is retaliating I have a report here about this—because it is to be allowed to export no more than 3,300 tons of cotton thread to this country, it should also be noted for the future that on 1st March the Prime Minister of Egypt laid the foundation stone of a spinning and weaving factory at Asmun which will have 60,000 looms and will produce 6,500 tons of yarn a year. No doubt, if we allow unrestricted imports, they will seek to export a considerable proportion of that yarn to this country.

I believe that the Government could take action under Article 12 of GATT to do precisely what the British Textile Confederation wants—and that is, by one means or another, to reduce the imports of textiles into Britain—cheap clothing, yarns and so on—by 20 per cent. of the 1974 figure, which will bring them down to about the 1973 figure.

Another matter which concerns the wool textile industry particulary is the attitude of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. It is being particularly difficult on some extremely complex matters arising from the Cyprus situation, but in addition, I want to refer to inflation insurance. Recent legislation gave considerable advantage to large exporters in this matter in securing that they would not suffer too much disadvantage from inflation. But there are smaller exporters, including many in the wool textile industry, who have a two-year cycle from the receipt of an order to the delivery of the completed order. Many of them cannot bear the rate of inflation which has been taking place recently. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider this matter and seek to include smaller amounts of money in the inflation insurance guarantees.

I want to add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) in referring to capital transfer tax. Again, I have received many letters on this subject. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will convey our anxiety to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Rightly or wrongly, many people in the 350 family firms contained within the wool textile industry have expressed their anxiety about this matter. I hope that they can be reassured. I must emphasise that the wool textile industry depends upon these small units, because its very character requires a flexibility of response to customer requirements, which can be provided only by the very small and very varied units of which it consists. It has enabled the industry to maintain a splendid export record of 28 per cent. of its total turnover in 1974.

Finally, I am glad to report to my ton. Friend the Minister—if I may conclude on a note of comparative cheer—that the changes in the scheme of assistance in the wool textile industry have been generally welcomed and seem to be working well. Nevertheless, I urge the Government to take note of the mood of the House this evening. I do not believe that it will be gainsaid.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

The first thing—

Mr. Dan Jones

Ten minutes.

Mr. Smith

If the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) will guarantee to confine his remarks to 10 minutes, I shall try to do the same.

First, I should like, through the Minister, to thank the Leader of the House for having agreed to this debate taking place. That is the only word of thanks I may give to the Government tonight, but I thought that I ought at least to do that. However, there may be odd droppings here and there.

Secondly, I compliment the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) and the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) on what I thought were two courageous speeches. I ask not only that Ministers should take note of them but also that the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench should note them. I am not being rude to him, but I suspect that he knows nowt about textiles. He represents a London constituency which has nothing to do with them.

Nevertheless, I hope that this point will be appreciated. The Opposition have the opportunity of Supply Days and the opportunity, which is not open to my party, of tabling motions of censure on the Government. I hope that in time—I do not mean immediately, because I should like them to have time to act—perhaps in three months' time, if things have not improved the Opposition will use a Supply Day in order to test the House by a vote on this matter and give Labour Members the opportunity to go into the Lobby and demonstrate to their colleagues in the Government how very strongly they feel about this matter. I hope the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) will convey that suggestion to the new leader of his party.

The Under-Secretary made a very fair speech in opening, which is what we expect of him. We realise that we have the quality if we do not have the width of the Department here this evening, but we regret very much the absence of the Secretaries of State for Industry and Trade. We understand, of course. The Secretary of State for Trade dare not face the Commons on the question of textiles, and certainly he dare not face the textile unions on the subject. What the textile unions think of the right hon. Gentleman would make interesting reading—far more interesting than even the differences of opinion in the Labour Party about the EEC.

In spite of what I have said the Under-Secretary's speech left a good bit to be desired. He used the words: "We undertake to give the most careful consideration, but—" and "but" is the important word. I am sorry to say that in the view of many of us that is just not good enough. The Under-Secretary went on to urge the industry to invest now, ready for the boom that is to follow. Many of us would like to echo that sentiment and support him, but he must understand that before industrialists will invest they have to have confidence in the future.

It is for the Government, in line with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe, to give the industry confidence in the future by demonstrating that they consider it to be a viable industry which is worthy of support and telling it what they consider to be rock bottom figures, as the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe pleaded.

We are speaking of a major industry. I have all the facts and figures to prove that, but I shall not waste the time of the House by repeating what has already been said. I initiated an Adjournment debate on this question on 27th November last year. Much of what I said then has proved to be true Whereas I was then speaking of about 700 people in my constituency on short-time, we are now talking about 7,000. We are talking about 150,000 on short-time in the industry generally, and 7,000 being redundant. The industry takes the view that the depression that it now faces is so bad that, to quote a letter to me from a senior man in the industry, in fact, the Confederation believes that the present recession is the worst since the 1930s". Many of us yesterday attended a meeting at a large textile company. I shall not quote its name, in view of what I have to say. We were told by the company that it thought that two to three months was as long as it could continue to stockpile at its present level, and that if something was not given to the industry in the next two to three months it would be faced with the necessity of closing down more mills.

In the Adjournment debate in November I pleaded for a regulator. I suggested some sort of quota system which was geared to the cycles of the industry. Since then the industry has suggested a two-tier quota system with a low basic global quota to ensure full employment in times of depression, and supplementary quotas when textiles are in short supply. That would protect both the economy and the consumer.

There are those—I make no secret of the fact that I have had a bit of trouble with my party behind the scenes as well —who seem to imagine that this country should be a dumping ground for other countries. There are those Liberals who are great believers in free trade. I am a believer in free trade as well, provided, first, that it is fair trade, and, secondly, that everyone else is accepting free trade at the time we are expected to agree to it.

What is being advocated now is that we should be the dumping ground, the soft touch, for the rest of the world. While they are all touching it nice and soft here, the other countries are taking steps to limit their imports. For example, the Korean Government have bought 8,000 tons of cotton yarn from their industry. Taiwan is loaning its industry money on the strength of yarn inventories. Thailand is issuing loans to cover 50 per cent. of raw material purchases. Japan is forming anti-recession cartels, with Government approval, and importers are registering all import contracts signed. India is manipulating import duties to obtain raw material for export goods. Quotas are being imposed by Canada on nylon fabric from the Far East. Example after example could be given of such steps by other countries.

I want to say something about attitudes of mind, because they are as important as policy. We suspect that it is the attitude of mind which is dictating Government policy—the attitude not of Ministers but of civil servants. I heard a magnificent phrase used by a Labour Member. I hope that he will forgive me, because I must pinch it from him. He spoke this week of a Bonga Wonga mentality—a mentality which springs from public schools and elite universities, from a recruiting policy to the upper reaches of the Civil Service, tied to the middle and upper classes.

Those people have never experienced poverty. They do not know what unemployment or under-employment is. They do not understand what it is when a woman's wage is taken from a household. Some civil servants think that women work for the fun of it. They do not understand that in Lancashire women go to work not because they want to but because they have to. Their wage is a basic part of the household economy. When those women become unemployed or under-employed, the household's basic economy is shattered. Instead of being able to put aside so much on Friday night for the rent, the groceries, the gas and electricity, the family cannot get to the end of the line, because the woman's wage is missing. It is not a matter of using her wage for a television set, a fridge or such items ; it is a vital part of the family's economy.

Civil servants born with silver spoons in their mouths do not understand that. Their attitude is that we do things differently in this country, that we play according to the rules. We want rules that benefit the textile workers of Lancashire. It is as simple as that.

At the head of the Department is a Minister who was also born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I hope that his Under-Secretary can tell him about the problems of unemployment and explain that the workers of Lancashire seem to go through a constant cycle, repeating every four years the depression in the industry. It happened when the Conservatives were in power, just as much as it is doing now, when Labour is in power. If some of my mates have their way, it will happen when we are in power, though if I have anything to do with it it will not. Certainly the situation cannot go on as it is.

Mr. Meacher

I understand the hon. Gentleman's genuine concern. He can make whatever comments he likes about me—although in my years on the back benches I did not show myself unconcerned about poverty—but I ask him not to make the kind of comments he has just made about civil servants, because, whatever their views may be and however they express them, the Government do not hide behind the civil servants. Decisions are ultimately taken by Ministers, who stand by those decisions.

Mr. Smith

I am prepared to listen to what the Minister says. He made the same point in the Adjournment debate. But it is a fact that civil servants wield great influence behind the scenes.

However strong and however willing some Ministers may be to stand up to the Civil Service, many of us in Lancashire suspect that the crux of the problem lies as much in the Civil Service as it does in the political machine. I have seen what happens in local government. I have seen these Left-wingers who, when they become chairmen of committees, become the tools of chief officers of the authority. Hon. Members are all good Left-wing lads when they sit on the Opposition benches, but when they get into Government they do as they are told and toe the line.

We are fed up with being the soft touch. We believe that the Department should be tough. It has actually been said by civil servants to textile manufacturers "Our traditions require that we behave differently ". That has been said in the last four months. Whatever our traditions require us to do, it is time we dropped them and dealt with the situation as it is. It is time the Government acted and said "Enough is enough ". It is time the Government said "We do not agree with what the Civil Service tell us to do ; we shall act like every other nation in the world and stop being the laughing stock of the trade."

The industry has appealed for a limitation of imports. The Minister said that he would seriously consider it. We all know what that means in Government jargon. I ask the Minister to look at the document to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred. It is called "Plan for Cotton ", and was written in 1957 by the then right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson). He has now reached an eminent position—I was going to say as leader of his party, but perhaps I had better say as leader of two-thirds of his Cabinet. In 1957 he recommended that there should be an imports commission. The industry would not find that plan unattractive even now. The Minister might do worse than look at that suggestion.

I do not want to abuse the privilege of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, although it is easier for some of us to catch your eye than it is for others. I am sorry to bring politics into this, and I hope that Government supporters will understand that I am with them. There is only one way to get anything done and that is to embarrass the lads on the Government Front Bench. We have to do it politically.

It is ironic that we should be appealing to a Labour Government to save the lives and jobs of workers in Lancashire. We are tired of promises, tired of platitudes, tired of inactivity. The Minister can read out a long list of what the Government are supposed to have done but, despite what has been done, people are still coming out on short time, there is still redundancy, and mills are closing. It is always Lancashire and the North-West that suffer. It is our area that cops the cold.

If the Government fail to deal with this plea for people to have the right to work and to receive fair play—if they refuse to listen to the workers and the trade union movement of Lancashire—which is just as worked up about this as are the employers—there are those of us who will have no compunction in telling the workers of Lancashire that this is the deal they get from a Labour Government. I hope that the Minister will take notice of this and that the Opposition Front Bench will remember the advice I have given them.

I hope that the Minister will ensure that action is forthcoming and that at the end of the debate we shall be treated not to a Civil Service plea but to the Minister speaking from his heart. Those of us who know him know where his heart is in this matter. We want him to have the right to force his point of view through the Department against the people who would wish to stop him. In that way we shall ensure that the people of Lancashire get the fair deal to which they are entitled and which they have been denied for the last decade.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. David Young (Bolton, East)

I join hon. Members in a plea to the Government to act quickly and decisively to put a quota on imports of textile goods across the board in this country. Hon. Members who have textile interests are greatly concerned about this issue. The industry faces the greatest crisis it has faced in the past 30 years. The solution offered to the textile industry is rather like offering a Band-Aid plaster to a man who is to be beheaded the next day.

In 1950 there were 56 spinning mills in Bolton. Now there are 14. In the same year there were 30 weaving mills. Now there are 10. There were 20 finishing mills. Now there are 14. In 20 years, 106 mills have been reduced to 38. The work force of 31,000 has been decimated to 9,500.

The position nationally over the past 16 years, taking cotton and allied textiles only, is that a work force of 240,000 has been reduced to 85,000, while the number of spindles in the spinning industry has been reduced from 17.5 million to 2.7 million. For those hon. Members who are not conversant with the industry, I mention three points. First, the modern textile industry is science-based and capital-intensive. Between 1970 and 1973 it accounted for 6.7 per cent. of the total capital expenditure in all manufacturing industries and 6.2 per cent. of the total manufacturing production, as measured by the net output of those years.

Second the textile and clothing industries today account for 9.2 per cent. of the number of people employed in the manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom. Third, because of traditions in the industry this employment has become localised, and the textile industry may account for 30 per cent. of employment in an area.

In view of this high concentration of textile employment in areas where other jobs are not very plentiful, do the Government regard the textile industry as expendable? If they do, let them say so and let them tell us tonight what they intend to put in its place. If they do not, let them spell out specifically how the industry can survive. There is no doubt in the minds of hon. Members who represent constituencies with textile interests that we are talking in terms of weeks, not months or years, that the are talking about jobs and about a very basic industry on which the livelihood of millions of ordinary people depends.

The writing is again on the wall. Since September 1974 in the Bolton area, five mills have closed and 500 workers have been made redundant. Since Christmas, 3,500 have been on short time. Over Easter it will be another 3,000. This industry is rightly concerned that, despite a record of investment, modernisation, productivity, good industrial relations and efficiency, it is failing because of unfair competition from abroad.

We are not arguing that we do not have traditional loyalties to certain of the old Commonwealth countries. The statistics show that we accept a far higher proportion of their goods than does any other Western nation. How can we calmly contemplate a situation in which, between January and October 1974, 1 million shirts at 21p each came in from the Eastern European countries? Our industry is fighting for survival. We recognise that Governments may be tied with regard to the information they can give. But it is the Government's job to see that the relevant information is available. It is the Government's job to see that procedures are available so that hon. Members can put the finger on those companies which are importing these cheap goods and marking them up to the detriment of a basic industry. I will have no hesitation in doing so.

Let us have the facts. The Government should impose a quota as soon as possible—within the next few weeks—to provide a breathing space. During that time we can work out a long-term policy. On behalf of my constituents and those of hon. Members throughout Lancashire and other areas, I say that it is the Government's responsibility to act. What narks us above all is that we are told that we must abide by treaties and rules. What about the other members of the club? If they can find a way round them, why cannot 'we? What concerns us is that we do not believe that we are geared to react quickly enough to the situation.

The essence of this situation is time, just as much as measures. There are many things that can be and have been suggested. It is the Government's responsibility. They were elected by the people basically to look after the interests of Britain. In my part of the world a considerable proportion of those interests are connected with the textile industry. I do not think that a situation like this would have been allowed to arise had we been dealing with other industries.

I have said to trade unions and employers, during the period not only of this Government but of preceding Governments, that they have co-operated too much and have not been sufficiently militant. There is not one developed country which does not regard its textile industry as a special case. Are we to be alone in seeing our textile industry go to the wall? It is the Government's responsibility to act. They will be judged by that action. It is not proposals but results that will count in the long term. We ask the Government to act with decisive speed and comprehensive application. I hope that my Government will not be found wanting.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. David Walder (Clitheroe)

The difficulty confronting us in this debate is to reconcile two sides. In his speech the Under-Secretary of State produced facts about the textile industry which have always been produced by successive Governments of both parties. He produced fascinating statistics and spoke of a future intention to watch carefully over the industry.

Present in the Chamber are a number of hon. Members representing constituences near mine. Some of my constituency neighbours have already spoken. This demonstrates that the industry is concentrated in one part of England. We know of redundancies, unemployment and the threat of unemployment. We know of the ultimate effect that that will have on the output of the textile industry and the effect on exports and the balance of payments. Successive Governments have always assured us that they would do something and that they were most concerned, yet still the textile industry seemed to suffer. It always seems to be the poor relation in British industry. It is difficult to work out why that should be so.

We know that this industry is efficient and that it has always enjoyed excellent labour relations. Sometimes I think that its efficiency and good labour relations have worked to its disadvantage.

For many years we have been aware of the competition faced by the industry. The Under-Secretary of State and I share one experience. A few years ago we went to Hong Kong, where we saw the competition demonstrated, and the mainland of China, where we saw some machines. If we were to see those machines in a Lancashire mill today we would ask how they could have survived since the 1940s. In those countries we saw a demonstration of the problem—cheap labour, workers employed on an almost military camp basis, turning out cheap textiles, which eventually find their way out through Hong Kong. We have been familiar with that competition for many years.

Lancashire mill workers accept that we have an obligation to the developing countries. We know the familiar example of the attitude of the Lancashire cotton workers during the Americal Civil War, when they were prepared to put conscience before pocket. We have known of our responsibility for many years. However, the competition today comes from the developed countries, which are indulging in State trading, probably with the object of obtaining currency from the West. We are familiar with the examples and the figures. We are receiving fantastically cheap garments from Eastern Europe. How can we cope with that competition? We can think only in terms of import quotas on those goods entering the United Kingdom.

All those who are concerned have tried to analyse the problem. Members of the EEC, who are our partners, look after their own textile industries better than we look after our own industry. We have looked at the alternatives and opportunities offered to Governments. Indeed the Under-Secretary of State said that certain firms within the textile industry should buy British. I think that it is possible to exhort other firms in that way. It might also be possible to exhort the customer.

But I suspect that these are rather ineffective means. Many hon. Members have talked about the vulnerability of the British market. I do not think that the average Englishman thinks much about the source of the goods which he buys in the shop. It might be better if he did. But this is something of a myth. We have been used for many years to a variety of foreign-produced goods. There is nothing strange to us about them. The idea—if that were the Under-Secretary's idea—that this problem might be solved in some way by exhortation is in the realms of pious hope, especially at a time when we are in an economic crisis. When other firms have to survive, I can see them being tempted to buy cheap so that they may survive and so that their workers may be employed.

I come back in my analysis to what I see as the only possible remedy, which is some form of control on imports. They have to be flexible controls. I am thinking of controls imposed not annually but perhaps at intervals of six months. There is adequate machinery within the Common Market and within GATT to do this. We have sufficient cause and sufficient reasons, if only there is the will power on the part of the Government.

As for dumping, it goes right across the board. It is not only textiles which are dumped. Farmers in my constituency will say the same, and not only of the present administration but of their predecessors. The disadvantage is that, even if we could take action—and it is difficult sometimes to prove the justification for it—it always comes too late in the day, so that it is ineffective.

Practically every hon. Member has come to the same conclusion. I do not think that it is insignificant that our arguments in this debate go right across the political spectrum. We are in effect seeking the survival of Britain's textile industry and the livelihood of those who work in that industry.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Alan Fitch (Wigan)

The textile industry is passing through one of its all too familiar cycles of recession. We have experienced them from time to time ever since the last war. All sections of the industry are working below capacity, which means mill closures, short-time working and unemployment. Ironically, the seriousness of the situation is being camouflaged by the very sensible way both sides of the industry are trying to cope with the present crisis. By resorting to short-time working and the suspension of recruitment the industry has managed to avoid large-scale redundancies. In areas where alternative employment has been available, a number of workers facing short-time working have sought alternative work, thus adding to the number of workers leaving the industry and raising the normal level of wastage. The work force in the industry is declining more rapidly than either the redunrancy or the unemployment figures indicate, and this is a very serious sign.

At this stage of a debate, many of the points have been made already. For that reason, my comments about imports will be extremely brief. The House has been told by many hon. Members of the cheap imports of shirts at 40p and suits costing between £6 and £8. Exports to this country from Turkey have rocketed nearly tenfold since 1973. That is a very significant increase.

I agree that the Government have taken restrictive action pending international consultation to establish agreed import levels. Does my hon. Friend regard the restrictive action that has already been taken by the Government as sufficient? Similar action has been taken on imports of cotton yarn from Greece. Does my hon. Friend regard the action that the Government have already taken there as drastic enough?

I turn now to the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember the Ottawa Agreement, which was signed over 40 years ago. At that time the Empire, as it was—it was largely an Empire, with very few Commonwealth countries—was developing. In fact, Canada could have been described as a developing country at that time. The situation today is vastly different. I am aware that considerable parts of the Commonwealth, as it now is, are under-developed and that there is poverty. However, other parts of the Commonwealth—not small parts—are able to stand on their own feet. I sometimes wonder whether, in certain quarters, we still have the Ottawa mentality. If so, we should get rid of it quickly.

Turning to the EEC, I was interested in the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle). I thought that at one time he was almost pinpointing the EEC as the central cause of the trouble in our textile industry, but I am sure that he did not mean to convey that impression.

We must be candid about this matter. We have put the Commonwealth case in our renegotiation of terms with the Community. If we have managed to convince our Common Market partners that liberalisation is the best policy, we cannot turn round and blame them unduly for what they want. I am thinking of the 25 per cent. quota which has been introduced and was agreed only last month by this Government.

I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is not in his place at the moment, that there is mechanism within the EEC to deal with these problems. The Government could have done something about this problem if they so wished.

There is a feeling within the Community that more restrictions ought to be introduced. The EEC-wide cotton textile organisation, Eurocoton, has been pressing for a line of action which would limit exports. I should have thought that the Government would back that line.

When we joined the EEC we secured a derogation, so that, as the Minister said, we could maintain for a three-year period controlled imports from our traditional suppliers—in particular, India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. Last year the Council of Ministers agreed to a formula whereby there would be a more equitable distribution of the growth in controlled textile imports from the Community. That matter was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, who apparently did not think there was much in it. I do not share his view. I believe that that will benefit this country.

Among the member States we are by far the largest importer of textiles from the low-cost developing countries. Thus, the application of this formula will mean that in many cases the United Kingdom will be taking a much smaller share in the overall growth of textile imports. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne was right in saying that this is a long-term policy and that we want something that is far more immediate. The effects of the agreement will be long-term rather than short-term.

I appeal to the Government, not to direct—that is too strong a term—but to try to persuade certain of our nationalised industries and Government Departments to buy British textile goods. I am delighted that the north-western area of my union—the National Union of Mineworkers—has seen the National Coal Board and impressed on it that this should be its policy. We in Lancashire who represent textile interests have sometimes been accused of whining too soon. That is a wrong accusation.

This debate is timely, and I hope that the Government will take further action. Certain actions which they have taken have been good, but they have not been drastic enough. It is no good closing the stable door when the horse has bolted. I ask the Minister to think of taking more immediate action.

9.56 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

When the Minister, in his closing remarks, suggested that the textile industry should use the present depressed conditions to re-equip and reinvest it seemed to me tantamount to asking a man to dig his garden when his house is burning. Who will continue to put money into new investment when he scarcely has the "brass" to keep his machines turning and, moreover, when he does not know whether the Government want a textile industry in this country?

Like many other Lancashire Members, I am desperately worried about the situation in textiles, and I am sorry that the Minister is not present to witness the great concern about it expressed by Members on both sides of the House. In my constituency, no less than 7.2 per cent. of the people are engaged directly in textiles and 2.5 per cent. on clothing and knitwear, making 9.7 per cent. We have an unemployment rate of no less than 5.8 per cent.—nearly double the national average.

The situation began to get bad last year, but it has gone downhill very rapidly in the last few months. Ours is the only developed country which does not seem to care a tuppenny damn about our home industry, as long as we are fulfilling what the Secretary of State has described as our traditional rÔle and are providing a market for developing countries. Frankly, I believe that our first duty is to our own workers and families.

In Lancaster, in addition to those who have lost their jobs or have retired early, the number of people on short time has fluctuated up to about the 1,010 mark. But this is by no means the whole story, as women rarely sign on as unemployed. As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said, when a woman's wage packet goes there is tremendous hardship, particularly in a low-wage area such as mine. When I was in the market the other day, I was standing behind a woman who was buying half a pound of chicken necks for her family. That is what it means in real terms to the people in the area from which I come.

It is equally serious that one of the firms in my area, employing 1,300 people, is making almost entirely for stock in the hope that things will improve. It has about £100 million worth of stock on hand and it can continue for two months, at most, building its stock before there are major closures in addition to those which have already occurred. No other country is allowing its textile industry to be massacred by cheap dumped imports —

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.