TEXTILES

HC Deb 21 February 1977 vol 926 cc1089-184

[Commission documents: S/1882/76 and S/12/77 on textiles:
S/334/76	…	EEC/Macao agreement on trade in textiles.
S/383/76	…	EEC/Korea agreement on trade in textiles.
S/384/76	…	EEC/Singapore agreement on trade in textiles.
S/504/76	…	EEC/Malaysia agreement on trade in textiles.
S/644/76	…	EEC/Japan agreement on trade in textiles.
S/1203/76	…	EEC/Portugal interim agreement.
R/1928/76	…	Origin rules—Mauritian textiles.
R/1879/76	…	Tariff quota for certain handwoven fabrics.
S/1318/76	…	EEC/Brazil agreement on trade in textiles.
S/1325/76	…	EEC/Colombia agreement on trade in textiles.
S/1479/76	…	Tariff quotas on cotton yarn, man-made fibres, outer garments, etc., from Malta.
S/1601/76	…	Import arrangements for certain textiles originating in Singapore.
S/1602/76	…	Import arrangements for certain textiles originating in Malaysia.
S/1633/76	…	Tariff quota for certain textile products from Turkey.
S/1757/76	…	Imports of certain textile products originating in Macao.
S/1984/76	…	EEC/Egypt agreement on trade in textiles.
S/205/77	…	EEC/Portugal agreement on trade in textiles.]

6.1 p.m.

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

I beg to move, That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. S/1882/76 and S/12/77 on textiles. Most of the documents we are to consider today relate to bilateral restraint agreements which the EEC has concluded under Article 4 of the GATT Multifibre Arrangement—the MFA. I should like to concentrate on this very important instrument, which has governed international trade in textiles since the beginning of 1974.

As hon. Members will recall, there have been special arrangements for textiles since the early 1960s, when the exceptional problems of the textile industry were first acknowledged internationally. These earlier arrangements, to which the United Kingdom was a party, related only to cotton. But as the industry became less preponderantly based on cotton, and as it became clear that the other sectors were subject to essentially the same risks as the cotton sector, the present MFA covers not only cotton but also wool, man-made fibres and knitwear. Hence the "Multi" in its title.

One of the MFA's principal objectives is to ensure the orderly and equitable development of international trade in textiles. In other words, a balance had to be struck between the interests of the importing and the supplying countries. The underlying bargain in the MFA is that supplying countries accept the continuation of discriminatory restrictions against themselves, while in return importing countries undertake not to cut back existing trade levels, to guarantee a minimum rate of liberalisation of restrictions which can be justified under the MFA, and to phase out restrictions which cannot be justified.

Under Article 4 of the MFA, the EEC —which signed on behalf of all the member States—has now concluded 13 bilateral agreements—with India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, which were considered in detail in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments last year; with Macao, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Japan, which have already been discussed briefly in a debate on the European Community last June but which we are considering again today; with Brazil, Colombia and Egypt, which we are to consider today for the first time; and with Yugoslavia and Romania. Unilateral restrictions have also been imposed on Taiwan, which is not an MFA signatory.

These 13 agreements mean that we are now able to restrict imports of sensitive products from all the main low-cost suppliers. As a result of the agreements concluded so far, there are for the United Kingdom no fewer than 89 quotas which cover three-quarters of our imports from the countries concerned. Most of these quotas allow us to maintain our previous quotas on cotton products, and to extend them to other fibres and to knitwear. In terms of coverage, therefore, there is no doubt that the textile industry enjoys a greater degree of protection than in the past. There are safeguard provisions in the agreements and in the MFA itself which allow new restraints on products which have come under threat since the agreements were signed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Will the hon. Gentleman advise the House what progress his Department has made in negotiations with India on the question of that country importing into this country, under a handloom classification, shirts which were undoubtedly machine-made? Is not this undermining the already serious position of the United Kingdom shirt industry? What is the state of the negotiations that the hon. Gentleman's Department is having with the trade department of the Indian Government?

Mr. Meacher

The hon. Gentleman is over-eager. I assure him that I shall deal fully with that point, but I do not intend to bring it forward in my speech. He can interrupt me towards the end of my speech when I touch on it. Whether the shirts were hand-made is an issue. We ensured that a proper sample was examined very closely by the Shirley Institute to ascertain to what extent there might have been evasion of the concession made in that respect.

We have made good use of these provisions to protect some of our most sensitive products —such as in the case of knitted shirts from Macao, Thailand, the Philippines, and India. Further consultations are also being sought on knitted shirts from Pakistan and on jackets and blouses from Macao, jackets from Malta and undergarments from Spain.

Our scope for action is not limited to the MFA. We have always made it clear that we are ready to consider selective action where this is justified, and in the last two years restrictions have been introduced on suits from certain East European countries and on shirts and undergarments from China. We keep a close watch on all imports of textiles and clothing, and in the last case I have mentioned—undergarments, or pyjamas, as it was, from China, for which there was a significant contract in train for perhaps more than 1 million pieces— we introduced a control before the industry had noticed that there was a problem.

Mr. Max Madden (Sowerby)

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to tell the House what stage his Department's investigation has reached into the complaint made by the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation against the dumping of clothing in the United Kingdom by East European countries which was officially recognised by his Department last September but was originally lodged in March last year?

Mr. Meacher

My hon. Friend must be telepathic, because I was about to mention that point; it is dealt with in the next paragraph of my speech. The fact that quantitative restrictions exist does not prevent us from taking action where we are satisfied that goods are coming in at dumped prices. There are quantitative restrictions in respect of East European suits, but we are now talking about the question of dumped prices.

During the last few months the Department has been investigating, at the request of the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation, the prices of suits from Eastern Europe. This is one of the most complex cases which we have had to deal with for a long time. Six countries have been involved and the range of materials and of styles has been very large. I assure the House that it makes it extremely difficult, within the constraints of the legislation, to effect a case which will, if necessary, stand up in court. However, I am happy to say that we are now in the ultimate stages of the investigation and are on the point of concluding discussions with the exporting countries. I therefore hope to be in a position to make an announcement this week which will substantially, I believe, ease the concern of our clothing industry.

I think it is fair to say, therefore, that within the framework of the MFA, and outside it, we have done more than most people realise to protect our industry. But, as the Member of Parliament for a textile constituency, I am the first to insist that there are no grounds for complacency. Despite all our efforts, the textile industry is going through a very bad time at present and it faces increasing import penetration, which is rising inexorably as the existing low-cost suppliers expand their production, often using the latest technology, and as new suppliers appear on the scene. Import penetration in textiles and clothing has risen from 17 per cent. in 1973 to 24.7 per cent. in the third quarter of 1976. Imports are still increasing at a much faster rate than domestic consumption. That, I believe, is a clear reason why we can have no complacency about the present situation.

Against this background the MFA, as it was negotiated to come into force in January 1974, has provided a valuable framework. But the Government are well aware of its deficiencies.

First of all, as we have seen only too clearly over the last two years, the MFA does not provide adequate protection for our domestic industry during a recession. The importing countries receive a guaranteed annual growth rate of 6 per cent. in good times and bad. This means that the brunt of the recession is borne by the domestic producer. A second, related point is that, leaving aside the highly cyclical nature of the industry, long-term growth prospects now seem considerably less rosy than when the MFA was negotiated. The 6 per cent. minimum growth rate is far too high in relation to the prospective growth of the domestic market. Consequently, we are getting levels of import penetration in particular sectors which are, frankly, unacceptable, and with more in prospect unless the MFA provisions are changed.

Another serious weakness, which I know many hon. Members are concerned about, is the base level at which the quotas are fixed. As I said earlier, part of the MFA bargain was that there should be no cut-back on previous trade levels. This principle is an understandable one, but in practice it has worked to the serious disadvantage of the importing countries. The reason for this is the protracted bilateral negotiations which took place between the EEC and its supplying countries. These were difficult negotiations which inevitably took time to complete, and trade during the negotiation period build up so that the base levels, when the agreements were eventually signed, were fixed at artificially high levels, as I am sure everyone will agree.

A further weakness of the present MFA is the lack of an adequate safeguard to deal effectively with new suppliers of sensitive products. At the moment these have to be picked off one by one, as in the list of supplementary restraints I mentioned a moment ago. This permits a degree of control, and I do not underestimate it, but it is an unsatisfactory and cumbersome way of dealing with a constantly recurring problem.

I have described what I regard as the main shortcomings in the present arrange- ments. There are others. Hon. Members will want to know what we propose to do about them. I know that many people have felt and still feel that the immediate and best answer would be imitation of the kind of action which Canada has taken recently on clothing imports. Nevertheless, I believe that there are significant differences between the Canadian situation and our own. I do not rule out such action, but I say merely that we have to take account of the special situation of Canada.

First, we have a considerable degree of protection against a sharp increase in imports through the 13 MFA bilateral agreements. Canada was not protected in this way and, as a result, imports rose very rapidly—in volume terms by 52 per cent.—in the first half of 1976, whereas in the case of the United Kingdom the figures for the whole of 1976, and not just for the first half, were increases of 13 per cent. for clothing and 14 per cent. for textiles. The Canadians have also taken action under Article XIX of the GATT, which means under the GATT Code that they face the risk of retaliation or demands for compensation. Both these are written in the code.

Another problem in imitating such action at present is the effect that this would have on the renegotiation of the Multifibre Arrangement. As hon. Members will know, the present MFA expires at the end of this year, and the participating countries must decide whether to renew, modify or terminate it. I have said a great deal about its shortcomings. None the less I am convinced that a suitably strengthened MFA would provide the best hope of reconciling the legitimate interests of the importing and the exporting countries. I know, too, that this is not only my view but is that of the industry itself.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, East)

If my hon. Friend is saying that "suitably strengthened" means that he will remove all the faults that he has just catalogued, I am sure that that will be acceptable to the House. But can he say whether the Government will go all out to see that the faults to which he referred are removed from the new agreement?

Mr. Meacher

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) also appears to be reading my speech. I am just coming to the objectives and the way that we intend to proceed in these discussions. we intend to take action which we believe will substantially affect the deficiencies which now exist in the MFA.

These objectives are, first, to secure modifications to the MFA which will enable us to protect our producers against cumulative disruption—that is, individually small increases in imports from a large number of sources. Under the present MFA, these new suppliers have to be dealt with one by one. We are now proposing a new safeguard measure which will allow the introduction of a single quota to deal with all disruptive or potentially disruptive imports-of a sensitive product—that is, one where import penetration rates are very high.

Secondly, we want to change the MFA rules so that growth rates can be adjusted downwards to take account of the circumstances and prospects of the domestic industry. The Community has now accepted the principle that growth rates should vary in inverse proportion to the rate of import penetration. In other words, when import penetration is high the growth rate would be reduced accordingly. The mechanics of such a system—and these are proposals—would probably involve some kind of sliding scale which would be operated by the Community.

Mr. Mike Noble (Rossendale)

In view of the fact that my hon. Friend has said that he hopes to achieve growth rates varying inversely to the import penetration, will he say whether he envisages a situation where there is a negative growth rate on imports?

Mr. Meacher

The range of the sliding scale is again, I stress, under discussion. We have to discuss this with our partners in the Community before we have the substantive negotiation in Geneva when we have to get agreement within the wider membership of the MFA. I do not rule out the possibility that the level could go down to zero, but it is a matter which we have to discuss and agree. We have to bear in mind that it is not every country in the EEC, let alone the developing countries, which would be prepared to accept that. But it is one of the proposals to move towards zero growth, and there is no reason why at this stage we should rule out such a possibility.

Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey)

The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) has raised a crucial point. Surely it is not much use the Minister suggesting that a formula can be found unless it can be applied and can offer total protection at a time of major disruption. Is it the Government's intention to try to achieve the kind of negotiation that the Minister has just outlined?

Mr. Meacher

The kind of framework that my hon. Friend mentioned is our objective. We want protection at high levels of import penetration, and it is our intention to get complete protection.

There are many proposals on the table at present. A further proposal to link the scale to the level of domestic prodution. as well as to import penetration, is also being considered, as is the possibility of applying lower growth rates to the dominant suppliers.

We are also considering the base levels at which the quotas themselves are to be fixed, and here there are two important proposals, One is to allow variable reference periods in exceptional cases where the importing country is in difficulty. At present this right extends only to exporting countries. The other is to fix the reference period to the start of bilateral negotiations. This would avoid the present MFA.

Mr. Madden

Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a suspicion in the British industry that, pending bilateral talks, exporting nations have sought to increase their imports to the United Kingdom in order to build a favourable framework for the negotiations? Is it not impracticable to phase the base periods on the bilateral agreement figures? Would my hon. Friend be prepared to revise the whole of the base year period for renegotiation of the MFA, and go back to a period of five or 10 years ago? This would give a much more realistic figure and would take account of the disproportionate amount of import penetration that the United Kingdom has borne during that period.

Mr. Meacher

I appreciate my hon. Friend's fears. I do not believe, how-ever, that it is consistent with the bargain that is the basis for the MFA to get an agreement for the base line for estimating quotas which could go back five or 10 years. The level that exists at the end of the negotiation would be going too far in the other direction, but we could not achieve an agreement to go back as far as my hon. Friend has suggested. We are concerned that there might be a time limit placed with regard to the bilateral negotiations to prevent the kind of forestalling which I have described and which might involve a reference to the most sensitive products. The length of time which we could go back is a bargaining point, and I hope that there will be a considerable improvement on the position as it now stands.

Mr. David Walder (Clitheroe)

Is the Minister saying that it would be possible to have an arrangement which took account of our special difficulties even if that arrangement was not the same as the one entered into by our EEC partners?

Mr. Meacher

The new arrangements would be made on our behalf by the EEC. To that extent they would apply across the Community. Special regional provisions can be made on quotas, and of the 89 quotas which now exist 66 are EEC and 23 are regional quotas applied specifically to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Noble

Would not my hon. Friend agree that within the existing framework there is a possibility of a rolling forward or rolling back of imports? Will he clarify whether the statement he has just made could be overcome by a country taking its quotas in advance rather than a forestalling situation? The present situation allows a greyhounding of further imports into this country.

Mr. Meacher

In so far as there is a time limit for negotiations or an accounting period for the estimation of quotas, it is the start and not the conclusion of negotiations which would deal with forestalling, and the rapid build-up of trade would be prevented. That is the proposal we are anxious to explore within the Community and later in the negotiations.

I should point out here that it is the EEC and not the United Kingdom independently which is a signatory of the MFA. Our first task, therefore, has been and remains to agree a common line with our Community partners, and all the points I have mentioned are proposals which are being discussed in Brussels. No final positions have been adopted and, of course, I cannot at this stage guarantee that the various proposals that I have outlined will be finally agreed in Brussels or later in Geneva. But we shall continue to press vigorously for our main objective—better safeguards and flexible growth rates. I know that these objectives are very closely in line with both sides of our industry. We have kept in close touch with them and have examined all the ideas and suggestions they have made. I very much hope this dialogue will continue in the coming months.

At the opening of the MFA renegotiation in Geneva last December, the Community made a strong statement in favour of renewal of the MFA but with major changes. More specifically the Community drew attention to five main problem areas—cumulative disruption, high import penetration, disruptively low prices, forestalling during negotiations and the base levels for quotas.

That statement was supported by Canada, Austria and Australia. But the Americans, and most of the developing countries favoured renewal of the MFA without change. The Community is now working on a detailed negotiating mandate to convert the Geneva statement into practical proposals. I can assure the House that we are pressing our Community partners to draw up negotiating directives which reflect as far as possible the objectives we all want to achieve.

In the meantime, of course, the present MFA and the bilateral agreements concluded under it will run until the end of this year. The bilateral arrangements which will replace those we are considering today will obviously depend on the outcome of the renegotiation, and some modifications will no doubt be necessary. It is too early to say at this stage what these modifications might be, and I should now like to deal briefly with those documents which relate to MFA agreements. Some of these relate to the formal conclusion of the agreements themselves and others to the licensing arrangements for products which are subject to quotas.

Imports from the eight countries concerned—that is, South Korea, Macao, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Egypt, Brazil and Colombia—together amounted to £116.3 million in 1976, or only about 7.3 per cent. of our total imports of textiles and clothing. About half of this total came from South Korea.

The agreements provide for 19 Community quotas and, in addition, six quotas for the United Kingdom alone. The range of products covered varies from agreement to agreement depending on the pattern of trade with the particular country, and covers the most sensitive products in each case. Cotton and spun synthetic cloth, where the current rates of import penetration are over 60 per cent., are restricted from South Korea, Malaysia and Japan, and cotton cloth from Brazil is also restricted. Imports from Malaysia and Brazil are down on last year, significantly so in the case of Malaysia, and so also are imports of synthetic fabric from South Korea. The penetration levels remain high, however, because of imports from our large traditional suppliers—for example, India.

On the clothing side, there are quotas on a wide range of products from South Korea, including woven and knitted shirts. blouses, trousers and jeans, suits and jackets, raincoats and knitted sweaters. The annual EEC rate of growth for these products varies between 2.5 per cent. and 9 per cent. and is distributed among the member States according to the Community's burden-sharing formula. This allows those member States which have in the past been traditionally large importers to take a smaller share of the Community's growth, down to a minimum of 0.5 per cent. The United Kingdom benefits from this sharing of the burden as far as our big traditional suppliers are concerned. For example, in the case of Hong Kong we have the minimum growth rate on seven out of 20 quotas. Where the traditional trade has been smaller, however, we have to take a larger share, as in the case of South Korea. There is one exception, however, which is knitted sweaters—one of our sensitive products with an import penetration level of 34 per cent.—where we have the minimum figure of 0.5 per cent. growth rate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

On the subject of burden-sharing within the EEC, how long will it take before the United Kingdom as a substantial importer of textiles is in the same position as, for example, Italy? Will it not take a quarter of a century before such a burden-sharing is to our advantage?

Mr. Meacher

It will take some time, but I cannot confirm the period of time stated by the hon. Gentleman because it depends on the terms of the renegotiation of the MFA, on the modifications of existing bilateral agreements and on the extention of those agreements to other countries.

There are four other countries in relation to which we hope to achieve bilateral agreements. I refer to Thailand, Mexico, Hungary and Poland. No doubt in time there will be others, too.

The other smaller agreements provide for quotas on men's shirts from Malaysia and trousers and jeans from Macao and Singapore. In addition, under the consultation provisions in the agreements we have secured an additional restraint on knitted shirts from Macao and we are seeking the same from Singapore. Consultations are also taking place with Macao on men's jackets and women's blouses. There are no restrictions on clothing from Brazil, but we are watching the situation closely as imports are increasing. We do not import any clothing from Egypt.

South Korea is by far the most significant of the eight suppliers. As a result of the agreement, 86.5 per cent. of our imports are now restricted. But hon. Members may recall from the previous debate on this agreement at the beginning of last year that emergency restrictions had to be introduced on some products during the latter part of 1975. Unfortunately, this did not prevent a large build-up of trade, which means that the quota levels in this agreement are higher than we would have wished. As I have already said, this problem of protracted negotiations and forestalling is not adequately catered for in the present MFA, and we are giving very serious thought to improved arrangements in our discussions about the renegotiation of the MFA.

There is one further point about these agreements. As I mentioned earlier, restrictions which predated the MFA but which did not justify inclusion in the bilateral agreements had to be phased out by 31st March 1977. The United Kingdom therefore instituted a programme of gradual liberalisation on the majority of products, by which I mean those that are not sensitive. A notice to importers was published in the journal Trade and Industry on 11th February giving details of a number of restrictions which have now been removed with effect from 1st January this year. These include previous restrictions against South Korea, Macao, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Brazil and Colombia. For certain sensitive products, such as cotton yarn from several sources and cotton handkerchiefs from South Korea, restrictions will continue until the end of March. I wish to stress that we are currently discussing with our EEC partners what arrangements might be made to continue these restrictions after that cut-off date.

I should now like to turn briefly to the other documents listed on the Order Paper, which fall outside the framework of the MFA. First, let me mention the jute agreements between the EEC and India and Bangladesh. The Scrutiny Committee has recommended that the United Kingdom should not give its assent in Brussels to the draft regulations until they have been debated. I hope, however, that after today's debate these two agreements can go forward for formal conclusion in Brussels. Jute is a very important product for both India and Bangladesh and features in the integrated programme which received broad acceptance at last year's UNCTAD conference in Nairobi. In providing for annual growth, which will be distributed among the member States, the Community is recognising the problems of the jute producers and is also fulfilling its obligations under the Joint Declarations of Intent with India and Bangladesh. At the same time, the Community's own jute industries are protected by the continuation of export restraint on the part of India and Bangladesh.

The remaining documents relate to the EEC-Portugal interim agreement and four other measures relating to tariff quotas and origin rules. In order to ensure that hon. Members have a full opportunity to debate this matter, I shall leave that topic to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry to deal with in his reply later this evening.

Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel)

I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to leave this matter to his ministerial colleague, but I am anxious to know the relationship on these matters between the Departments of Trade and Industry. I understand that the Department of Industry appears to have some prime responsibility, although a number of hon. Members are not clear about the situation. Can the hon. Gentleman help the House?

Mr. Meacher

We try to make a distinction between the two Departments that is reasonably sensible and practical. In regard to the domestic industry, as in the case of jute in Dundee, it is my hon. Friend who has signed the explanatory memoranda, but in the case of specifically trading matters—the great majority of cases—I have signed the explanatory memoranda. I should be the first to insist that the connection between the two is extremely close, and we operate a close liaison.

I wish to draw attention to a further regulation providing for Community tariff quotas in 1977 for imports of certain hand-woven fabrics of cotton and silk from eight developing countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. This is an important matter which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Difficulties have arisen with imports of certain made-up goods, notably shirts, of cotton handloom fabric. These are not included in the tariff quotas, which are both small and provide for automatic reintroduction of duty once the ceiling is reached.

I am pleased to say that a note verbale was handed to the Indian representatives in Brussels earlier this afternoon, informing them that the Community intends to introduce immediate surveillance measures and intends to take action if the levels of trade in 1977 look like exceeding certain reference levels. I assure the House that the effect of this demarche in Brussels will be that for woven cotton shirts and blouses of all types imported into the United Kingdom from India—again, this is a sensitive matter—trade in 1977 will be significantly below 1976 levels.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Has the Minister yet received any report from the Shirley Institute on the samples which he presented to it? This is an important matter for a sector of the textile industry—namely, the Shirt, Collar and Tie Manufacturers' Federation.

Mr. Meacher

Yes. We have had provisional results following the institute's examination. The institute looked only at a small sample, and there can be no question of deciding scientifically how accurate the results are when related to the vast quantities of imports that we are talking about. The sampling showed that there were indications that some of the products may have been mill-made and not hand-woven. I stress that that is an expert view and that the experts believe that it was extremely difficult to come to a clear view. Perhaps I should say no more about that.

There are 19 specific documents which are the subject of today's motion. They illustrate many aspects of Community activity relating to textiles. Before I conclude, I wish to return briefly to the general picture and prospects. It is clear from what I said earlier about the MFA that notably the United States and inevitably the developing countries are opposed to the changes we want and that a hard and difficult negotiation lies ahead. I would not seek for a moment to duck that. I emphasise that what I have said are our firm intentions and that proposals are far from being accepted within the Geneva ambit.

I give the House an unequivocal assurance that the Government fully appreciate that the outcome of this negotiation is of vital importance for our textile and clothing industries, which provide employment for around 800,000 people. We are determined to secure international arrangements for textiles which provide adequate protection against disruptive, low-cost imports so that those employed in these industries can feel secure in their jobs and so that management will regain sufficient confidence to invest for the future.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)

I am glad that the House has the opportunity today of a wide-ranging discussion on textiles because, although there have been a number of Adjournment debates recently on the special problems of the industry, it is some time since the House had the chance to discuss textile policies generally. I welcome the debate, and would like to take the opportunity it presents of outlining in reasonably specific terms where the Opposition stand in our attitude to this vitally important industry.

I shall, perhaps, do so in rather wider terms than did the Minister in the hope that management and employees, including the trades unions, in the textile industries will feel that not only are we aware of their successes—and we have not heard much of those today—but that we are also conscious of their anxieties and problems. I would like us to be able to assist the industry wherever we can, as long as that is possible without adverse repercussions elsewhere.

I trust that the House will grant me some licence in that, unlike most hon. Members present today, I have not been associated with textile industry for a number of years. I am a parliamentary newcomer to the subject. Nevertheless, I want to set out, fairly briefly, the background against which I believe that we ought to formulate our policies. We on the Conservative Benches are anxious to strengthen the Government's hand in the negotiations on the Multifibre Agreement. As the Minister has said, they will be hard and difficult. I see it as our function to help the Government keep their nerve, and support them wherever it is possible for us to be of assistance.

May I say that I do not wish to make any partisan points during the debate. I trust that, since we shall, quite shortly, be changing places on the Front Benches, the bipartisanship which will flow across the House today will continue when the two Ministers opposite are sitting on these benches.

By any standards the textile and clothing industries are of great significance for our country. In spite of the major reduction in employment which has taken place, we are still concerned with a larger employer than the whole of the coal and steel industries put together. Although I have not had time to do my sums, it is possible that we are talking about an industry which, employing 800,000 people, is larger in numbers than the motor industry and its allied trades. The industry is of great significance to our economy.

The figures that I have been given show that the industries represent about 11 per cent. of manufacturing employment and about one-fifth of all female employment in the country. They are of staggering size. I do not believe that a policy of benign neglect would be an appropriate one when we are likely to see, in any event, a much higher level of unemployment generally over the next decade. One of the problems I find, as a newcomer to this subject, is that the textile industries comprise such a wide variety of skills, technologies and products—woollen and worsted cloths, cotton and man-made fibres, hosiery and knitwear—that it is difficult to treat the industries as one in a debate of this sort. I have been warned, and I have taken the point clearly, that I must refer to the textile industries, in the plural, in view of the wide variety of skills and products involved.

Mr. Albert Roberts (Normanton)

There is also ready-made clothing.

Mr. Nott

Indeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) and I—rushing from Westminster within a week of our appointments, and we seem to have held these appointments for a remarkable length of time—visited three textile companies in the Oldham, Manchester and Shipley area only to receive a barrage of criticism from the rest of the industry because we had not visited them. We are slowly getting round the textile factories. I visited some of the jute industry's factories in the Dundee area last weekend and we plan further excursions of this kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South who, unlike me, is not a newcomer to this subject, and I were extremely impressed by what we saw. We saw modern mills, some with the very latest equipment. The more I see of the textile industries the more impressed I am, although, clearly, I have not been shown some of the worst examples in the industry which, no doubt, exist.

With the accession of the United Kingdom to the EEC and the responsibility for international trading arrangements moving to Brussels the textile industries find themselves to be only a part, and a small part, of the United Kingdom Government's obligations. In some respects this makes the task of the Department of Trade rather more difficult. Nevertheless, it is in our national interest that these industries should be allowed to develop through the forces of free and fair competition, and that they should have their problems duly recognised in the negotiating of interim agreements.

I wish tonight to refer to a few successes because we have heard too little of them in this House. I have often sat on the Opposition Benches and heard tales of woe about the textile industries —tales of closures, contraction and unemployment. All of this has happened but the truth is rather different. On the whole, there are many excellent aspects of our textile industries. Labour relations appear to be excellent. The industries have been major investors in new plant and machinery. The increase in output per head, as far as I am able to deduce it, has grown at double the rate of manufacturing industry generally, and has been more than five times greater than that in, say, vehicle manufacturing. These are all successes of the industries, and they should be recognised in the House.

It is the recent achievement in export markets which seems to be the most encouraging feature of all. Last year, over £1,500 million of products were exported. Although the industries have taken some nasty knocks in the worldwide recession, with a more stable economic environment and sensible EEC trade policies they could take off and produce a very large favourable trade balance over the coming years.

So I believe that, whereas some people have regarded these as declining industries, we have every reason to believe that they are growth industries, and we must treat them as such and not always assume that they are beset with disasters, difficulties, closures and the kind of problem that we hear so much about in Adjournment debates—although that is not to say that such debates are not desirable and necessary when particular problems arise.

I give two examples. Courtaulds is the United Kingdom's sixth largest exporter and the largest textile exporter in the world. It will increase its exports to the EEC by 120 per cent. this year. An announcement last week said that the British knitwear industry had exported 50 per cent. last year above the previous record year. These examples could be repeated many times over among these large and diverse industries.

This achievement is not just happening in Europe. Many of our companies are beginning to establish major footholds in the markets of the Far East and Japan. It is vitally important that anything we do under the MFA, anything we do in import restraint, and anything we do to encourage more orderly marketing in this country, should not damage the position of our exporters and their prospects in overseas markets.

It would be wrong to suggest, however, that major difficulties do not exist. They clearly do. In recent years the United Kingdom industry as a whole has suffered considerable decline due to overcapacity, not only in this country but in the world generally. As new textile industries have become established in the new and developing world, with a plentiful supply of low-cost labour and cheap raw materials, the pressures on our domestic producers have intensified.

In designing the correct trade policies to encourage our own industries, we have to recognise two prime factors. First, orderly markets in the developed world—the United States, Europe and here— free from dumping and unfair competition, are as much in the interests of the developing countries as they are in ours. Secondly, the major structural changes which have taken place in the textile and clothing industries over the last decade or so are only now just beginning to bear fruit. The results of those changes must not be jeopardised by irresponsible trade policies.

The growth of economic nationalism has meant that trade has not been free for many generations. Although it has been an ideal established by some academics and some Whitehall Departments in the past, those academics and Whitehall Departments—we all know who they are—have not had their theories subject to the disciplines of the ballot box, but I think that all of us have noticed a change in emphasis on the part of the Department of Trade in recent months, and the Government have some credit for that. We welcome it and believe that it is right.

It is within this context that we on this side of the House will support the Government and give them every help we can in renegotiating the multifibre arrangements, but not just in that, but also in arriving at more effective antidumping procedures and policies with GATT. The multi-lateral negotiations will be coming up in the autumn the Tokyo round, and in arriving at arrangements, through multi-lateral negotiations, involving fair competition, fair pricing and fair access to our markets. We will give our support.

Most of the hon. Gentleman's speech concerned the renegotiation of the multifibre arrangements. I will be specific and say what I think, from a necessarily quick study of the subject. But I am glad to say that I have had the help and advice of many of my hon. Friends—and now, at this critical moment, I have forgotten their constituencies; but they include one of my hon. Friends from the Manchester area, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), one of my hon. Friends from Yorkshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler)—the "knitwear" Member—who in particular have spent considerable time trying to keep me on the straight and narrow path.

First, I think that the MFA should be renegotiated to cover a longer period of time. Although the hon. Gentleman did not refer to this point, I take it to be the Government's position that they want to renegotiate the new MFA to extend for at least five to 10 years in length. He did not give the Government's view, but we feel that it must cover a much longer period than the original arrangements. It is also very important that there should be a speedy conclusion to the negotiations in order to prevent the build-up of imports which occurred on the last occasion.

Secondly, if there is to be a longer period for the renegotiated MFA—say, five years or more—in consequence of that length of period, it will be important to build into the new MFA flexibility clauses, should changes in economic conditions render the original agreement inoperative or ineffective. It will be difficult to work out a formula, but I suggest that a starting point could be that the growth factor might be varied in the light of certain specified economic conditions.

Thirdly, the base period for any MFA should be lengthened. I suggest that it should be two years, or more possibly. Perhaps we could take an average of two or three years, and deal with the problems raised by hon. Members opposite on that basis. It is what the hon. Gentleman referred to as a longer reference period. I think that he was, perhaps, suggesting an averaging out process, or something of the kind. I believe that this would provide a more realistic basis upon which to determine the size of import quotas.

In addition, it might be possible to allow the various textile sectors themselves to determine which base period would be appropriate for the calculation of import penetration. I have no doubt that the Government will, presumably, accept from particular sectors of the industry their own proposals for variable base reference points for different sectors. Clearly, one base reference arrangement would not be suitable to cover all sectors.

Fourthly, I think that it is vital that there should be a commitment to move rapidly towards equality of the burden-sharing arrangements among our EEC partners. I think that the Minister was really referring to burden sharing within the Community when he was talking about the state of the domestic market and a sliding scale relating to import penetration. Although the MFA clearly is a Community negotiation I imagine that he, in referring to a sliding scale relating to import penetration, was looking to different burden-sharing arrangements within the Community itself. I think that there is a strong belief—clearly correct: we share it —among our textile industries that they have been forced to carry more responsibility within the Community for the developing nations than is actually fair given the state of the market.

My figures, which are obviously on a different basis from that of the Under-Secretary, show that textiles imported into the United States in 1976 amounted to 15 per cent. of domestic consumption and the figure for the EEC as a whole was 35 per cent. If we look at the cumulative effect of imports at all stages, from man-made fibres through fabrics to garments and other made-up goods, the figure of import penetration in the United Kingdom in 1976 was 66 per cent. The Minister's figure was much lower, but I think he was referring to the cotton and allied textile area. He said 24 per cent. but I was not sure to which area of the market this figure related. I am sure that there is no need to disagree about figures. I have the figure of 66 per cent. It is vital that the new burden-sharing arrangements within the EEC should be fairer and more equitably based.

Lastly, on the Multifibre Arrangement, it is very important that the Community should choose an appropriate global policy for textile imports. This is another reason for agreeing with the Minister, namely, that we must provide against cumulative disruption. That is very important.

I shall leave the subject of the MFA now, since I know that my hon. Friends will wish to fill in the details. Some may disagree with me on points of detail, but this will ensure that we have a more useful debate.

I move on to anti-dumping procedures, which are very relevant to the problems of the textile and clothing industries. Problems have been caused with many products, not least clothing products from Iron Curtain countries. The Minister referred to Romanian suits, I believe. Both sides of the House must agree that our anti-dumping procedures should be made more effective, simpler, and be speeded up. In pursuit of that objective we recommend the following points. The Minister has referred to some of them at Question Time but he did not touch on them today.

First, the burden of proof concerning costs has to be shifted from the manufacturer or the industrial sector affected in this country to the exporter in the exporting country. As I understand the position, this is effectively what happens in many of our competitor countries in the EEC. I see that the Under-Secretary is nodding his head.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Noble

He is shaking it.

Mr. Nott

There is some dispute as to whether the Under-Secretary his nodding his head or shaking it. I think that he is disagreeing rather than agreeing.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Is my hon. Friend aware that North America, Australia and New Zealand to a large extent put the burden of proof on importers? Could we not follow their example?

Mr. Nott

I should prefer to see a change in the burden of proof required in anti-dumping procedures rather than see this country using a whole panoply of non-tariff harriers which are, alas, used by some of our friends and allies on the Continent. It is very easy to foul things up at ports or airports, to make sure that perishable produce lies around for long enough to make it useless. This is not a procedure which any Government or any Opposition should do anything other than condemn. It is better to look afresh at our arrangements for antidumping rather than resort to this kind of device, which is greatly detrimental to international trade.

Mr. Noble

Has the hon. Gentleman looked at this question in the context of GATT, and what GATT has to say about dumping?

Mr. Nott

Although there was some disagreement about whether the Minister was nodding or shaking his head I could read in his mind that he, too, was thinking of the precise terms used in GATT on this point. Of course, I shall look more closely at GATT, but I must confess that GATT has many interpretations, as most countries in the world would agree. I take the point of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) about GATT, and I do not think that the Under-Secretary needs to make the point because it is a valid one.

Mr. Meacher

In the case of America, importers are required to state the domestic prices from the supplying country on their documents, but that is for the purpose of customs valuation, and even in that case it does not prevent the need for a full anti-dumping investigation where there is an allegation of dumping.

Mr. Nott

I understood that, and where there is a prima facie case of dumping, the first problem faced by the Department of Trade is that of obtaining the necessary information to prove the case under the GATT rules. That was my second point, which the Under-Secretary has already made, that we need to put on shipping documents details of prices in the domestic market and manufacturing costs, so that this information is more readily available to the Department of Trade.

I was, however, making another point, that we also have to look at switching the onus of proof from the domestic purchaser who is adversely affected by a prima facie case of dumping to the exporter overseas who is sending the goods to this country.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

I should like to support the point which my hon. Friend was making, although he has not yet made it sufficiently strongly to educate the Minister on this matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the domestic prices are indicated on documents coming into this country the Department of Trade could make them available to the trade, and it would then be up to the trade or a particular section of industry to lodge a complaint of dumping with the Department? In other words, the industry would be able to act very much faster than at present, before the real damage was done. It is the fact that the damage is done before action can be taken that is creating so much havoc in the present situation.

Mr. Nott

I must look at the record tomorrow to make sure that my hon. Friend was saying what I meant to say, but I none the less thank my hon. Friend very much for his assistance. It sounded correct to me.

The records and information will gradually build up over a period if information is contained in documents in the way the Under-Secretary described as happening in the United States. We consider that, if the information can be built up, sectors of the textile industry will themselves be facilitated—this was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—in taking appropriate action and bringing the appropriate information forward to the Department.

There is also a case for imposing tougher control on political pricing. I need to look further into this, but in the case of the COMECON countries, where the Government are supporting the most disastrous trade deals negotiated by the former previous Prime Minister, there is a case for being far tougher on political pricing and subsidy pricing where it arises in countries of the Far East, some of which subsidise exports to this country.

Finally, when responsibility for triggering anti-dumping procedures moves to Brussels later in the year—I speak personally here—I see no question of a future Conservative Government standing idly by if the Commission fails to act in a determined and speedy way. I have picked my words with care, and I mean what I say. I believe it to be out of the question that any Government here could be expected to stand idly by if the Commission failed to take action. That is a practical statement of the situation, and I am just as aware as the Minister is of the Treaty of Accession.

Mr. Meacher

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. Will he explain precisely what action is meant by "would not stand idly by"? Under the Act the powers go entirely to Brussels.

Mr. Nott

I am well aware that the powers go to Brussels. The Under-Secretary of State can interpret however he wishes the words "standing idly by". I cannot possibly give an example till a particular flagrant case of dumping in this country arises for which no trigger is readily available through the Commission arrangements. The hon. Gentleman has made the point that technically, under the Treaty, responsibility for these matters moves to Brussels in July, but I hope that he will not pose in white raiment. His own colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has—I must say that I do not support it—not exactly abided by the terms of the Treaty in what he has done with regard to the pig subsidy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not, therefore, suggest that the Government do not on any occasion contemplate acting unilaterally, since they did so only a short time ago in a way which I should not support.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer)

I hope to reply far more fully later, but may I make clear now that it is intended that we retain an anti-dumping unit here in the United Kingdom and that we shall assist the Commission? We have informed the Commission to that effect, and it welcomed it. It will not, therefore, be just a total transfer to the EEC.

Mr. Nott

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was aware that the Department of Trade intends to keep its antidumping unit here.

Despite the criticisms made of that unit, I should add that I hear many good words said about it, about its skill and its professionalism, and I am glad that we shall be retaining a unit at our disposal. I must add that I should not expect the unit to remain after July the same size as it is now. It would be only too typical of our bureaucracy if, when responsibility for these matters moves to Brussels in July, instead of diminishing it increased in size in order to give better advice to Brussels. Let us be clear that when our positions are reversed the first question which I shall wish to ask is "What was the size of the unit before the transfer of responsibility to Brussels, compared with the size after transfer?" I hope that the bureaucracy is forewarned of an impending, not unreasonable, question on that subject.

Finally in regard to the GATT, could the Under-Secretary of State for Industry tell us whether it is intended that textiles shall be included in the Tokyo Round? I assume that they are to be, but there seems to be some confusion about it. If the United States could be persuaded to reduce its tariffs against, say, our wool textiles, that would be of major benefit to our industry. The ad valorem duties and specific duties on some wool textiles in the United States rise as high as 50 per cent. against our goods. It is vital, first, that in the multilateral trade negotiations in Tokyo textiles are included and, second, that the Government use what I regard as their strong negotiating position in the multilateral negotiations to persuade the United States to be reasonable in the renegotiation of the Multifibre Agreement. I regard the multilateral negotiations as crucial.

I apologise to the House for having taken so long, and I conclude in this way. Improved international trading arrangements along the lines of the Minister's comments, which, I believe, were welcome, are vital, but they are only part of the necessary policy. Many of our textile industries depend on small manufacturing units, many of them managed by families or by small teams of people, and to survive in textiles calls for substantial entrepreneurial skill and willingness to take risks. It must be our policy to establish as soon as possible a climate within which such companies can flourish.

I must put it to the Government—this is my only critical point so far—that they must change the pattern of capital and wealth taxation in this country. The burden which the Government's legislation imposes upon small companies in the textile industry, whether through the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Employment Protection Act or the Price Code, all add to costs and frequently require resources which small companies cannot produce. The health of our textile industries and their contribution to the United Kingdom economy cannot be restored unless the climate for small companies is improved and incentives for enterprise are brought back through all ranges of income. It is all very well for us to discuss trading arrangements today, but these fundamental economic and political points are equally as important to the industry.

We on this side believe that, given the right trading environment in the form of a strengthened MFA, the textile industries have a sound and prosperous future and can continue to make a major contribution to our economy in terms of their export performance, their industrial relations and the employment which they offer in the regions of the United Kingdom. These industries can make a unique contribution to improving the country's standard of living, and it should be the object not just of our trading policies but of our taxation and economic policies also to ensure just that.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Mike Noble (Rossendale)

The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) made an interesting and entertaining speech, despite his fairly obvious handicaps, the first of which he himself admitted, namely, that he is relatively new to the world of textiles and the textile industry. I suppose that one should congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on having taken his hon. Friend round on such a rapid guided tour. I always find it of interest when someone comes new to the world of textiles and is forced to cast off the image of dark satanic mills, cloth caps and clops, and recognise that this is a highly capitalised industry with all the excellent features that the hon. Gentleman described.

The hon. Gentleman's second disadvantage was that the clothes of his political statements had already been stolen by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State. I congratulate my hon. Friend on having made the most important statement on the textile industry that I have heard in this place since I became a Member in October 1974. I assure my hon. Friend that the people who work in the industry in my constituency, the trade unions and the employers will regard his statement as a substantial step forward and will be giving every possible assistance to the Government in the renegotiation of the Multifibre Arrangement.

It has become almost habitual to come to a textile debate with a loaded shotgun, and I assure hon. Members that I had both barrels loaded and carried a good stock of cartridges. In the circumstances, however, I have to put my shotgun away, because my hon. Friend, in outlining the renegotiating posture being adopted by the Government, included everything—or almost everything—that the Labour Party textiles group has been asking for over a long time.

Technically, we are here debating a series of documents relating to the existing MFA, and I think it fair to say that in many ways, in the view of many in the industry, the existing arrangement has become somewhat discredited. I was a little concerned and bewildered during the opening part of my hon. Friend's speech to hear him describe the arrangement in what I regarded as too glowing terms. For example, The Guardian on 7th February pointed out that imports of textiles last year reached a peak of £1.66 billion—in other words, they were more than one-third up on the previous year, and that in spite of the existence of the arrangement. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that my fears were dispelled by the later points he made about the MFA. The weaknesses of that arrangement have been well documented in the Chamber today and at other times.

The biggest weakness has been that the arrangement included a growth factor which could not possibly be accommodated by our textile industry. Whether that factor was 0.5 per cent., 6 per cent. or somewhere in between, at a time when domestic consumption was falling the inevitable result was that mills were closed and workers were thrown on to the dole. It was based on the wrong year. If we could have used 1973 for the base year or used an average of the figures from 1970 to 1975, the figures might have been realistic. But to base it on a year when imports were greyhounded in to establish levels on which to negotiate meant that the levels of imports into the country were far too high.

The third major weakness was that insufficient account was taken, in the burden-sharing arrangements of excessive levels of imports into the country. We have seen the effects of this. We know the effect on jobs. The Amalgamated Textile Workers' Union last year carried out a survey in the North-West of redundancies and of the temporary employment subsidy in the spinning and manufacturing industries. The survey revealed some startling figures. It showed that 74 textile firms received the subsidy in 1976 on behalf of a total work force of 12,364, or 21 per cent. of the total employed in spinning and manufacturing in the North-West.

The survey showed that on 20th August 1976 there had been 394 applications involving altogether 32,287 workers, which suggested that within the textile industry alone, of all the industries in the North-East, successful TES applications accounted for 38 per cent. of the labour force covered. The survey showed that the region's textile firms had announced redundancies which had already affected, or which would affect this year, 5,184 workers in the spinning and weaving industries.

The hon. Member for St. Ives says that we should be talking about a success story in textiles rather than a grim and dismal story. I suggest that he hesitates before arguing that case among textile workers in the North-West who for the last 16 years have seen employment in the industry almost collapse.

It is important to point out that, given the heavy concentration of the textile industry in some towns, the closure of a mill can affect a single family income by wiping out its earning capacity for four people—father, mother and two children. Mill closures have a devastating effect on the community. Although the level of employment changes considerably in textiles whenever someone loses a job, there is still a tremendous cultural feeling for the industry, which generates a far wider feeling than perhaps many other industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) could possible describe this more graphically than anyone as a result of the closure of the Empress Mill and of Courtaulds at Skelmersdale.

We regard the current agreement, reached two years ago, as a beginning. It reminds me of Don Revie. He tried to plan the England team, coached the players and made plans, but somehow the ball always went into his own net. What he did not realise was that, while we were playing a system developed by Sir Alf Ramsey, the Continentals had gone beyond that. That was why the ball went into our net. Similarly, I sometimes think that when we stop up one import source, the developing nations find an alternative way of getting goods into the country.

Many workers and employers in the industry feel that, despite the framework of controls, in some way or other they are sometimes evaded. I describe a feeling; I have no proof. A business man who manufactures children's and women's clothing visited my surgery one Saturday morning. He described the decline of his firm over the last 10 years, particularly the last six years, and the way in which he was convinced that controls were being evaded and more and more garments were finding their way into the country. I asked him to give me some photographic or documentary proof. if he does, I shall pass it on to the Minister.

What do we look forward to in the rest of the agreement? In his opening statement, my hon. Friend mentioned many of the things we want. The most important point he made was about the negotiation of a recession clause. In the debate on 28th January 1976–I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives has been converted to this view—his predecessor as spokesman, the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—

Mr. Nott

Not quite my predecessor.

Mr. Noble

Well, his predecessor but one. I cannot keep up with the changes in the Opposition. When I asked for a regulator in that debate, the hon. Member for Worthing said: I understand the hon. Gentleman's observation that the textile industry cycle may not coincide with the general economic cycle. But unless he proposes to say that when the two do coincide he would not advocate the policy of restricting imports because of the dangers of retaliation, his argument does not stand up."—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 28th Jan. 1976; c. 41.] The hon. Member for Worthing was refusing to accept the idea of a regulator. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that this was included in our negotiating mandate. I can assure him that the textile unions with which we have worked will be delighted to hear that.

Mr. Madden

My hon. Friend has pointed to the divisions of view about textiles expressed quite often on the Opposition Benches. Can he recall, as I do, one notable occasion when the hon. Member opening for the Opposition expressed firm support for import controls, which were strongly denounced by the hon. Gentleman who closed on behalf of the Opposition in the same debate?

Mr. Noble

I can recall that. I am trying to recall who was the hon. Gentleman opening.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

I can tell the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Noble

It was the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) who opened that debate. He is perhaps more experienced in the difficulties of the textile trade than the majority of his colleagues, and he is well known for speaking his own mind. It was regrettable, however, that while he did not need to convince us, he could not convince his hon. Friends.

The other important point which was mentioned was the idea of a global quota which would stop import penetration, or what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary described as cumulative disruption caused by cheap imports. What my hon. Friend did not say was at what level the Government thought that a global quota should be fixed. I assume that this global quota will be on a product-by-product basis. If, for example, we fix the level at 40 per cent.— that has been recom- mended by many of my hon. Friends and by organisations outside—on a specific subject and we leave the margin to be competed for among developed countries, as opposed to low-cost producers, some sectors of the industry might be unable to make up the shortfall because the industry itself had collapsed in that section. In these circumstances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White), who, until his recent promotion, always took part in these debates, has said, the capacity has gone.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these global quotas, certainly from next July, will have to be negotiated on an EEC basis and not purely on a United Kingdom and other country basis?

Mr. Noble

I have always been of the view that, since we had the MFA, any global quota would have to be negotiated through the MFA anyway. Nothing has changed there: it is the dumping which will change in July. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the burden-sharing arrangement, that is rather different. We must remember that we should have to be flexible on the global quota if there should be circumstances in which the British industry could not meet the demands of the home market.

There is one point which has been presed from this side which my hon. Friend did not mention. I would once again draw it to his attention. All of us who have been involved in textile debates over the last two and a half years must be aware that from time to time we have been criticised as being opposed to the Third World, the developing countries. Nothing is further from the truth. The textile worker in general and the textile worker in Lancashire in particular has an honourable record towards the Third World and has helped to provide substantian growth in those areas.

However, when the Lancashire textile industry disappears it will be of no assistance to the Third World. The amount of the textile industry left now is such that the complete disappearance and handing over of all that productive capacity would not help those countries much.

When we talk about fair competition, we feel strongly that we are not comparing like with like. We can talk about raw material costs and so on, but in this country we are talking about the work of a highly sophisticated labour force, enoying the rights of union membership and collective bargaining and at certain times enjoying, if that is the right word, social security benefits and unemployment pay. That all creates on-costs for employers, which many of our competitors do not have to meet.

That situation is recognised by the International Clothing and Leather Workers Federation and by the unions in this country, and the only way that we can effectively help the Third World is by raising their standards towards ours. As long as the multinational corporations, so many of which exploit the workers of South-East Asia, are allowed to go on doing so without the reasonable restrictions imposed by trade union membership and collective bargaining and without the on-costs of the social security systems that we have, that wide gap between British or European workers and those of South-East Asia will remain.

Therefore, we believe that there should be a social or labour code attached to these international agreements. Until that is done and until the workers in Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan and so on have the right to organise freely in unions and those unions are recognised by the employers, thereby improving workers' conditions, we shall continue to have this wide disparity and will have to fall back on some kind of restriction.

There is evidence that, although economic development has been brought to many Third World countries, it has not necessarily brought massive, substantial or even reasonable improvements in living standards. The multinationals have moved in to replace the basic industries with modem and highly technical industries and have created unemployment. Whereas a few people in South-East Asian countries may have benefited, there has been a substantial growth of unemployment and the majority have failed to benefit. I hope that at some stage in the discussions in the EEC the question of a social code attached to the MFA or the GAIT can be considered.

The Minister mentioned the United States. I have been extremely perturbed about the possible attitude of the United States to these negotiations. I was there fore heartened to note an article in The Times today headed US likely to support changes in fibres pact". It said: Indications that America may be prepared to agree to changes in the Multi Fibre Arrangement —which is due for renewal at the end of this year—have emerged after meetings between the United States textile industry organisations and President Carter. This has heartened leaders of the United Kingdom textile industry, which wants the EEC to adopt a tough stance in the forthcoming talks in Geneva on the future of the MFA by insisting on a fundamental renegotiation of its provisions. I believe that the framework outlined by the Minister is a substantial and fundamental renegotiating stance. If the attitude of the United States is softening, that is an important factor in the negotiations when we move on from the present stage to the international stage. I am encouraged by the Minister's statement, as I am sure my constituents will be who work in the industry.

I wish the Government good will and strength to their elbow in the forthcoming negotiations. They must not back down. It is not only a political gambit which is involved, although that may have attracted the hon. Member for St. Ives on his recent tours. It is the lives and the livelihoods of my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friends that are at stake.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I am in considerable agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) has said. He mentioned Mr. Revie and Sir Alf Ramsey and talked about the England football team having a strategy about 10 years out of date. On a slightly different front, only last Saturday, when England played France at Twickenham, we had 90 per cent. of the game but lost the match by 4 points to 3. It is significant that we lost to France, a country which, in any international trading arrangement and certainly within the EEC, ensures on all possible occasions that the arrangement suits it. The French take whatever action is necessary to ensure that their national interests are paramount.

Unlike the hon. Member for Rossendale, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) on the tremendous interest that he has taken in textiles since he took over that portfolio. His first outside visit was to the textile industry and that is significant. There is among the Opposition a deep concern about the industry which my hon. Friend clearly displayed when he went to Bradford, Leeds and Manchester as shadow spokesman for trade just after his appointment.

Since then, my hon. Friend has been elsewhere, including Dundee to examine the jute industry, and has had regular communication with all sectors of the textile industry, including the unions. I was present at a lunch in Manchester when he met union representatives of the textile workers. It is therefore most significant that both my hon. Friend and his number two, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) have been taking a keen interest in this industry.

My hon. Friend was right to say that this is not an industry in demise or one with no future. We believe that it has a great future. Some of his statistics clearly show that the industry as a whole is potentially a major exporter—something of vital importance to the United Kingdom.

If I may be a little parochial for a moment, my constituency has many important textile interests and has made a major contribution to our exports in many respects, particularly narrow fabrics and specialist sectors such as tie manufacturing. A company in my constituency dyed and finished the material used in Princess Anne's wedding dress which shows that we can do whatever is required even at the very top end of the market.

We on this side of the House have been in regular contact with a variety of textile organisations and interests—the British Textile Confederation, representing both employers and trade unions; the British Textile Employers Association; the Textile Industry Support Campaign, which again is representative of both sides of the industry; the Clothing Manufacturers Federation; the British Clothing Industry's Council for Europe, because we know that from July Europe will be very important to the industry; and the Shirt, Collar and Tie Manufacturers Federation. In my constituency I have been in regular touch with the Macclesfield Textile Manufacturing Association, which represents a number of large and small companies.

The major importance of this debate is undoubtedly that we can express views about the renegotiation of the Multifibre Arrangement. I want to deal with this under a number of headings. The first is that of global quotas. Adoption of the global quota system would mean that there would be effective control over imports from all low-cost sources, including both established suppliers and any new sources that may emerge in the future. There is a significant precedent for the global quota approach—I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade has left, because he knows a great deal about this—in the long-term agreement for cotton textiles—I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry is well aware of this agreement, which preceded the Multifibre Arrangement. Global quotas should be applied to all low-cost suppliers, including the EEC associates and Lomé Convention countries. This is vital if there is to be a real future for our industry.

The second heading is that of orderly marketing. This concept was the raison d'ôtre of both the long-term agreement and the Multifibre Arrangement. To achieve this ideal it is essential to ensure that the policy of burden sharing is applied to developed countries and that access to the markets of the developed countries should be equitably shared among the developing countries. The latter should be effected by a redistribution of existing quotas, not by the creation of new quotas.

My next heading is that of price disruption. This phrase was purposely avoided by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, but it is very meaningful to those who work in the industry. This has long been recognised as one of the most pernicious aspects of the imports problem, since the very low prices of much imported merchandise depress the market price available for such part of the market as is left for United Kingdom manufacturers and producers. The Swiss long ago recognised this problem by introducing a system whereby imports were not allowed into the country at a price lower than 90 per cent. of that for comparable textiles produced in Switzerland, so there is a precedent. The Belgians have also operated a scheme whereby the granting of import licences was conditional on the price not being potentially disruptive.

Canada has taken unilateral action. On 29th November of last year the Canadian Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced that imports of clothing in 1977 would be held to the 1975 levels. There had been an increase in imports in the first seven months of 1976 of 52 per cent. over the previous year. The Canadian Minister said that many domestic garment manufacturers had been closed and others were on short time. This emergency action, he said, was taken under Article XIX of the GATT and Canada planned to consult trading partners.

Likewise, unilateral action has been taken by Australia. During 1975, the Australian Government took emergency action under Article XIX of the General Agreement to slow down imports of a number of products. Among the imports affected were motor vehicles, footwear, carpets, and steel sheets and plates. Australia also introduced tariff quotas on imports of certain textiles.

The Australian actions were discussed in the GATT Council on a number of occasions from June 1975 onwards, and concern was expressed by the representatives of many countries. Consultations were initiated between Australia and a number of its trade partners and were still in progress at the end of the year. With respect to textiles, however, Australia was able to lift some of its restrictions early in 1976. In February it announced in GATT that it had abandoned the selective import quotas on textiles which it had applied against several Asian countries in 1975 in favour of a global quota system applying to imports from all sources.

One other example is that of Finland. So there is precedent for countries both within the EEC and outside taking urgent action to protect their industries.

The MFA itself includes unduly low prices as one of the key factors in causing market disruption. What is now required is strict control over disruptive prices, which are quite frequently quoted to the detriment of the exporting country, since they result in depressed earnings; and a revised MFA is the ideal international instrument to give effect to this. Mr. Benedict Meynell, the chief EEC negotiator, has in fact stated that price disruption is one of the problems that a modified MFA should be designed to counter.

The Minister pre-empted some of what I wanted to say in that he talked about a recession clause. It is important to talk about this openly and frankly. Experience has shown that United Kingdom producers bear the brunt of any recession which takes place in world trade, since the full availability of quotas, possibly negotiated at a time of relatively good trading, has given a virtual right of access to a substantially diminished United Kingdom market. The revised MFA should contain a flexibility clause or regulator which would effectively cut back imports during a time of recession.

I move on quickly to the heading "growth factors". The degree of growth to be allowed in any quota should take full account of the degree of import penetration already effected. This has been made quite clear by hon. Members on both sides in previous textile debates. Where this is above a level that could be regarded as consistent with the sustained viability of the home industry, no growth should be allowed. Growth factors should, in fact, be applied so that the concept of orderly marketing, which is so vital to the industry, is facilitated by not only allowing zero growth in cases of high import penetration but by promoting burden sharing amongst importing countries, particularly within the EEC, and a more equitable sharing of export markets among the developing countries having regard to their varying stages of development and established access to the markets of the West. This question formed the last part of the speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale.

In an intervention the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) rightly stressed the importance of the base period. It is vital that the base period for determining quota size should be applied to a fully representative period in order to prevent a build-up of trade by exporting countries as an exporting device. I know that the hon. Member for Sowerby has many examples that he will be able to quote to the House later.

Next, the newly-negotiated MFA, provided that it satisfies the requirements that I have just drawn to the attention of the House, should run for a period of at least five years. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives stressed this matter in his excellent speech. That will allow for better forward planning by the industry.

I shall refer briefly to dumping. Inevitably this subject must form an important part of the debate. It is fully recognised that the major problem facing the United Kingdom textile industry is low-priced imports that are to an extent a result of low production costs, which in turn reflect low living standards in the exporting countries. The hon. Member for Rossendale brought this fact to the attention of the House.

Dumping, and subsidisation—I quote Malaysia and Pakistan as good examples of assisted exports—play a sufficiently signicant rôle to merit serious attention. The total impact of price disruption is of such magnitude that no single contributory factor can be ignored. Past applications under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act have been characterised by a madly frustrating attitude on the part of civil servants charged with administering an anti-dumping code recognised by the GATT. Much time has been wasted and orders have been lost. No doubt the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) will tell us later that while existing procedures have been followed mills have been closed and people have been put out of jobs. All this has happened because of the slavish adherence to a code that is out of touch with reality. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives made this point forcefully.

The lack of relevance of the code to current trading conditions is illustrated by the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been one successful anti-dumping action throughout the whole industrial spectrum in which all the relevant criteria—namely prima facie dumping, demonstrable disruption directly attributable to dumped imports and acting in the national interest—have been fully satisfied. In respect of textiles, as distinct from man-made fibres and clothing, there has been no case in which an anti-dumping duty has been imposed. What may be regarded as successful applications have resulted in agreements on price adjustments or, in the case of the Irish Republic, a quota on cotton yarn.

One of the major demands that I have made in the past is for the onus of proof to shift from the injured party to the exporter or the importing agent. Reference has been made to that argument and an interchange has taken place. I still believe that to be a valid aim. I hope that in the current consultations between the Government and Customs and Excise such an arrangement will be successfully negotiated.

If that were to take place, importers would be required to provide information on the home market price of imported goods as part of the normal customs procedure. Such an arrangement is already routine in many countries and help to provide prima facie evidence of dumping. By implication, the requirement to provide information should act as a deterrent to dumping. Perhaps that is one aspect that has not been fully considered.

As has been pointed out, from 1st July 1977 responsibility for processing antidumping applications will lie with the Commission in Brussels. I describe that as a sharing of responsibility more than a transfer. It should give more strength to our pleas for fair trading.

I, too, welcome the information given to us by the Minister that the section of the Department of Trade dealing with these matters will remain in existence. I shall not emphasise as powerfully as did my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives that the Department should, to use textile phraseology, be cut down to size. It is important that we should have the information and the people available, despite the fact that responsibility is to pass to the European Commission. This, however, presupposes a strong and purposeful policy on the part of the Commission. I hope that it will have such a policy. Any weakening in the resolve by allowing regional considerations to take priority over Community policy, for example, could produce a situation even worse than that endured by the United Kingdom producers and manufacturers in the past.

Legislation as it stands is at best weak and ambivalent—without unity and firmness of purpose, it could become so emasculated as to make a mockery of fair international trading. Obviously the MFA and dumping, despite the numerous documents that we are considering in this debate, have formed the major part of our discussions so far.

I know from my consultations and the representations that I make to the industry that all sectors of it are keeping in touch with key personnel both within the EEC and within our Department of Trade. That is a very good thing, but from a parliamentary point of view it is vital that every effort be made to ensure that full weight is given to anti-dumping applications—their consideration must be speeded up—that the right of action on behalf of one sector in one member State is fully recognised and that the added authority of the Commission be fully exploited to the benefit of our industry.

I remind the House once again that we have a sizeable industry that can make a major contribution to the economy. It can make a major contribution to exchange currency earnings. It has a unique industrial relations record. It has an investment record that is almost second to none.

I hope that the new reality which has emerged in the debate will be continued in future and that employers, entrepreneurs and the skilled work force in the industry can have confidence to look forward to the future knowing that their jobs and investment are safeguarded.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig (Dundee, West)

As most hon. Members will know, the majority of the jute industry in Britain is concentrated in Dundee. I was rather disturbed when the Minister of State when making a brief reference to the instruments dealing with the jute industry said that he hoped that they would be speedily finalised. Bearing in mind the objections that have been made to them by the Association of Jute Spinners and Manufacturers in my constituency, it seems that there is something very wrong in wanting a speedy finalisation. There is great dissatisfaction among those who are involved.

I am worried because the jute industry has steadily contracted over many years. The numbers of jobs is constantly dwindling. The industry has spent large sums on equipping its mills and fac- tories with new machinery and on bringing machinery up to date. It has done everything in its power to try to make the industry competitive.

Over the years there has always been some form of protection against cheap labour and competition from India and now Bangladesh. The protection has varied in its methods. The last form of protection was global quotas. They were claimed to be the answer to all the problems. I suppose that if they were effectively operated, they would be such an answer, but the strange thing is that they are to be retained for certain parts of the jute industry while thrown away for other parts.

Will those who are in the cotton industry be as happy in 10 years' time if they find themselves in the present position of those who are engaged in the jute industry? Will they be as happy when they realise that something has been thrown away for something that cannot be as effective? It may interest hon. Members to know that the agreement that expired at the end of 1975 is to be replaced by the new agreements. The major proportion of the United Kingdom industry concentrates on spinning and weaving cloths that are called Dundee specialities—namely, very high quality cloths and very wide cloths.

Here the industry was protected by global quotas—excluding EFTA—which were operated by the Department of of Industry. Under the new agreements, and certain others, that will not continue. The Government are proposing to adopt the EEC proposals of ceilings, operated by the exporting countries, which will be applied to certain types of cloth produced in Dundee. The interesting thing is that the ceilings are not being set at the present figures. They are higher, and an annual growth rate is allowed for. In the case of India, for categories 4 and 5, this is 10 per cent. on the present ceiling. For Bangladesh an annual growth rate of 15 per cent. is allowed for. That is a fairly large increase, which will presumably go on year by year.

If that is so, the future for Dundee is not very bright, especially as our unemployment is already higher than the Scottish average, which is in turn higher than the British average. Yet an industry employing 8,000 people is to be put in jeopardy by these proposals. It frightens me that my hon. Friend the Minister should blithely refer to the two Statutory Instruments on jute and say that he hopes that they will be speedily finalised, ignoring the objections by the industry.

Moreover, under the ceilings that have been operating so far, India and Bangladesh have continued in full production, regardless of demand. This has meant that the industry in the United Kingdom, as in Europe, has had to bear the full weight of the fall in the market. The United Kingdom production figures over the years show this fall. For example, United Kingdom jute cloth production in 1972 was 26,000 tons; in 1973, 25,000; in 1974, 24,000; in 1975, 16,000 and in 1976, 15,000 tons. Now we are to have these other burdens in addition.

A further problem is that the quotas apply to all the countries in Europe. These ceilings were not given solely to the United Kingdom. If the European countries have a surplus, which at present they cannot use, they will now be able to use it, again to the detriment of Dundee.

Any manufacturer wanting to put capital into modernising his plant to provide jobs and keep his business going, a process that involves large sums of money, will be very reluctant when faced with the Government's attitude and the results of their past efforts, and I could not blame him. As I have said, we have an area of more than average unemployment and the prospect that one of the largest industries in the city, employing 8,000 people, may well shortly be adding to the already very high unemployment. Yet the Government keep refusing over the years to make Dundee a special development area. In spite of the continuing high unemployment there and consistently contracting industries and closures, they refuse to give us the top incentives to attract new industry.

We seem to be losing out all ways. We are losing the protection that we had and are being given new protection that will be much less effective. We are to have little inducement to industry when we already have empty advance factories. The local council has provided other factories out of its own funds, but we cannot find people to occupy them when there is such a grim prospect.

I hope that the Government will be prepared to delay further for consultations to secure an agreement that is sensible and likely to produce the kind of results that we and, I presume, the Government want. They should consult people who know what is involved, and what action needs to be taken to rectify the position. If they do not we are heading towards being a disaster area on Tayside and Dundee.

Not only Dundee but the surrounding area is affected. There will be great hardship for many of the smaller towns around Dundee as well as for the city. There is little prospect of anything to attract more new industry. We are not receiving the sort of assistance that we should have from the Government. The Government should forget the idea of getting this matter quickly finalised, because quickly finalising it in its present form would spell disaster for the city of Dundee and the whole surrounding area.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley)

The Liberal Party wants to see the European Communties successfully negotiate a further Multifibre Arrangement within the terms of the GATT, as far as possible on a fairer and more realistic basis than the agreement which is now coming to an end. But when such an agreement has been obtained, we want to see the Communities work more swiftly than under the present agreement to negotiate the bilateral arrangements which follow under the terms of the agreement. We hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give some indication of steps which the British Government are taking to urge the Communities on in this matter of making swift use of the new agreement when it is available.

We regard the Multifibre Arrangement as a thoroughly civilised means, entirely within the terms of the GATT, of meeting the fully legitimate aspirations of developing countries. It is in the interests of us all to meet those aspirations and to provide arrangements for the established textile industries in the developed countries to increase their specialisation and in a planned and orderly way to continue to alter their structures to meet the new world textile manufacturing position. I stress that, because I have heard no suggestion from any quarter tonight of an agreement which would provide protection for industries in this country—if there were any such—which had a mind to remain stuck in the old groove and not face the facts of the new world position in textiles.

The only part of the industry which I claim to know, and a substantial part of which I represent in this House, has a pretty good record right up to the present time of adapting to new markets, of being in the van of progress in new technology, of supporting a far-ranging research programme for the wool textile and allied industry, and putting that research into effect in West Yorkshire mills and dyeing and finishing plants. To give a prospect of an orderly continuance of that progress and rationalisation of our various textile industries we would welcome a successful negotiation of a further MFA.

That is particularly so since, being entirely within the terms of the GATT, it does nothing whatever to risk any kind of hindrance to the successful export of United Kingdom textile products. That is a matter of enormous importance to the wool and allied sectors, which have a splendid export record, that has now, in effect, received a further boost during the past 12 months.

I stress the need to make proper use of the new agreement once it has been obtained. Mr. Benedict Meynell has proved himself a splendid and dynamic negotiator in Brussels for the objectives that the Government announced today for improving the MFA. I hope that energies such as his will be used to ensure that the Communities swiftly operate the agreement in bilateral arrangements with the various developing countries concerned when they have the new instrument to hand.

The other point that I wish to make has already been referred to throughout the debate—that is the allied matter of anti-dumping. If the textile industries, such as cotton and wool, are armed with a realistic new MFA and much more fair and efficient anti-dumping procedures, that should be enough. Hysterical requests have sometimes been made for provocatively stringent import controls that would severely damage for a long time ahead the export work that the wool textile industry has carried out so persistently and successfully.

I therefore conclude on anti-dumping. My party welcomes the fact that, for the first time in British economic history, the Department of Trade will cease to have the totalitarian power that it has exercised up to now, from start to finish, in the whole process of enforcing and establishing anti-dumping measures. Until now, the Department has been judge and jury as well as reluctant executioner in the anti-dumping procedure. In July, as we have been reminded, authority will pass to Brussels. To the extent that a wider range of minds and philosophies will be at work in this, the change is to be welcomed.

It is also good news that the essential parts of the anti-dumping section within our own Department of Trade will be retained. I hope that once the antidumping section of the Department of Trade has been freed of the admittedly onerous and awesome responsibility of pulling the trigger on anti-dumping procedure, it will, as a unit advising the EEC anti-dumping department, become more adventurous, more enterprising and wider ranging in its investigations of allegations of dumping in this country.

I understand and sympathise with the enormous length of time that it is bound to take conscientious people to examine allegations in the light of all the possible repercussions and all the damage that might be done to the consumer if action were taken too hastily. Nevertheless, it has been a source of low morale for some of our clothing manufacturers when many months have gone by, after representations have been made by trade associations, without any outward signs of movement by the Department. That may not be a fair representation of what has happened, but we must consider those who are desperately trying to preserve a living in these trades. I hope that the combination, of our continuing to have an anti-dumping section in this country advising the anti-dumping unit in Brussels will, without damaging the legitimate consumer interest, prove to be effective. I hope that it will give considerable reassurance to manufacturers in this country who feel that they have suffered unfairly in recent years.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden (Sowerby)

This debate on the Common Market and the textile industry has, so far, been both usual and unusual. It is usual, whenever we discuss the Common Market, for us to face a mountain of papers, and today we are not disappointed, because we have 17 documents before us. However, the debate has been unusual in the Common Market context because the Minister has talked to the House in extremely frank terms and has addressed his remarks in a realistic and hopeful way to an industry anxious about its future.

I am glad that the Minister has returned to the Chamber. I do not wish to be patronising, but his speech will do a great deal to relieve anxiety in the textile industry, because he has indicated in the clearest terms that the Government, in renegotiating the MFA, intend to adopt a tough posture and are pursuing clear objectives that will command wide support from all sectors of the industry.

Personally, I am grateful to the Minister because I am battling against a heavy cold and I am uncertain about how long my voice will last. The Minister has saved me from having to shout at the Government again on the subject of the textile industry. What he has said has met many of the demands that I had intended to make in the debate. I am grateful to the Minister on that score.

If there were a jarring note in the debate it came from the Opposition spokesman the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). He spoke with disarming frankness and admitted that he has come to the textile industry only recently. We all understand how difficult it must be for him. But, in spite of that, he created and underlined in his speech an alarming degree of complacency about the industry's difficulties, not least the unemployment problem. If the hon. Member represented a constituency such as mine—where we now face 800 redundancies of textile workers employed by three firms —he would not view the employment prospects of the industry with the complacency that he demonstrated today.

Only today all West Yorkshire MPs received a letter from Ken Woolmer, the leader of the West Yorkshire County Council. He is extremely concerned—as is his authority—about the problems of the textile industry, and he writes: Because of this continuing upward trend in real unemployment, the County Council has decided that more local assistance to industry is vital. It has therefore established a new Employment and Economic Development Sub-Committee which will be taking direct action to alleviate the deteriorating employment situation. The Committee will, in particular, be tackling the unemployment problems of the inner urban areas, and is seeking Government support in its efforts to revitalise the economic life of inner urban areas, the problems of which are acutely reflected in so many of West Yorkshire's textile towns. That problem is causing concern in West Yorkshire and it has been brought to the attention of the House on numerous occasions in the last few years. It must be tackled and can be tackled only by Government intervention and by achieving the sort of objectives spelled out so clearly by the Minister. We must remember that my hon. Friend has personal experience of these matters as the representative of a constituency in the heart of the Lancashire textile belt.

The debate comes at a time of continuing anxiety about the outcome of the MFA that does not include at least one country—Singapore—which is concerned with the documents that we are debating. We all wish the Minister and his colleagues well in the renegotiations, but there has been a certain complacency in the debate about the prospects of success. We have heard that serious reservations are being expressed, not least by America. Nor can we be complacent about the unity that we shall find among our Community colleagues in the approach to the renegotiations, so no one who reads the report of our debate should be misled by the apparent prevailing agreement.

We are united behind the objectives laid down by the Minister and we endorse the tough negotiating posture of the Government. It would be a serious error for anyone, whether our colleagues in the Community or those with whom we shall be negotiating, to think that we might lie down in front of an agreement that did not secure the objectives spelled out by the Minister. Anyone who imagines that there is not very strong feeling about these matters is doing a serious injustice to himself and to those whom he represents. We are faced with a mass of extremely complex papers that are not easily assimilated at first reading. It is clear that in at least two cases—those relating to jute products from Bangladesh and India—the United Kingdom industry has expressed anxiety.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) has referred to these matters at length, but it is important that they should be put on the record and that we should repeat the reservations expressed by the United Kingdom industry as contained in the explanatory memoranda to the documents. The document relating to Bangladesh says: The United Kingdom industry were fully consulted during the negotiations and have accepted the terms of the new agreement, but, mainly because of the increase in the ceilings, without great enthusiasm. The document on India says: The industry has reluctantly accepted the terms of the new Agreement. Their concern is mainly about the effect on the United Kingdom market of the increase in ceilings, especially the new ceiling for decorative fabric. In addition to the 10 per cent. annual increase in the ceiling for jute fabrics, there was a further increase of 12 per cent. and the creation of a new ceiling for decorative fabric added another 27 per cent.". I hope that the concern of the industry will be acted upon by the Government before these matters are finalised.

There must be concern not only that Singapore is outside the MFA. So, too, are an increasing number of other countires, including Morocco, the Philippines, Thailand, Puerto Rico and others. These are the countries with the growth potential. We should consider the coverage of the MFA before the renegotiations are concluded, because it may be that there are countries outside the arrangement which should be included in the main agreement. It may be that it is not feasible to go on negotiating bilateral agreements outside the main agreement.

Mr. Winterton

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is some danger that countries which reach their quotas under the MFA, and the renegotiated MFA, will seek to increase their trade by re-routing their goods through a country which is not yet a member of the MFA and that that country may be allocated quotas not for its own manufactured products but for those coming from countries that have already exceeded their quota?

Mr. Madden

That is a very real possibility. It is one of a number of developments within world textiles. I hope to refer briefly to another matter before I conclude my remarks. But that is very much on the cards and it is something of which we should take account. It should be recognised in the negotiations.

We all agree that the MFA needs to be toughened considerably. The reasons for this are clear and have been aired. But I would just point to the interesting dvelopments that have occured since 1973. Since then textile and clothing imports into the United Kingdom have doubled in value and 100,000 jobs have been lost. Those are the two important factors that should not be overlooked or dismissed but should remain in our minds when we are considering just how tough we need to be in these renegotiations.

We must insist on a far bigger share of our domestic market, bearing in mind that the most liberal trade policies practised by the United Kingdom over many years have been tolerated by British textile workers. We have made a major contribution to the textile industries of developing countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) made that clear in his speech.

I also believe that the textile industries of some European countries have shrunk to either their minimum viable size or are dangerously near that point. That is certainly the case in the United Kingdom.

I shall not go into the details, which are spelt out in a most interesting booklet which has recently been published by the Textile Industry Support Campaign called "Stop the Flood". I am sure the Minister has seen a copy of that document. It sets out a six-point programme urging certain targets in the renegotiation of the MFA. These are: Fix a maximum permitted level for all imports. Establish global quotas. Relate the level of imports in any year to the state of the market. Permit unilateral restraints. Include the right of importing countries to use the safeguard clauses. Use more realistic base periods. Some of these points have been fully dealt with by the Minister in his remarks. Others have not been touched on. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that document and its demands in detail before coming to a final view on the course that he intends to pursue.

Dumping has weighed heavily in this debate, as it rightly should. It has long been a matter of concern to all of us who represent textile constituencies. There has been too much complacency about the effects of transferring primary responsibility on dumping to the Common Market, which will occur in July. I hope that that will rouse the Department of Trade, which has been dominated by a free trade philosophy over many years. To expect the Common Market—which is based on free trade, the free movement of capital and labour and free marketing—to adopt a more protectionist or restrictive policy is to live in a fool's paradise. I therefore warn the Minister and every hon. Member who represents a textile constituency not to be too sanguine about the policies that we must have if we are to act more effectively on dumping and low cost overseas textiles.

Mr. Noble

An improvement in the anti-dumping procedures is essential, but does not my hon. Friend agree that if every real case was pursued satisfactorily and speedily, that would only make a marginal change in the amount of textiles coming in? What is important is to ensure that the MFA is toughened so that we can deal with across-the-board situations rather than those on the fringes.

Mr. Madden

I agree, but it is necessary to have effective anti-dumping measures which can be used quickly when problems arise. We have all had reason to believe that that has not been the case to date with blatant examples of dumping. However, I take my hon. Friend's main point and agree with him entirely.

In reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who said that the routing of textiles through third countries which were not members of the MFA posed a continuing problem about which we must be wary, let me say that another development about which we must be concerned is the possibility of textile countries overseas, looking for ways of getting round the toughened rules which may be adopted under the MFA, perhaps of getting round the toughened anti-dumping legislation which may be introduced in future, and adopting new ways of breaking into the British market.

I have reason to be involved in a constituency situation which indicates that in future overseas textile manufacturers may be inclined to acquire British textile firms and to use those firms and the labels on their products to distribute imported goods in the United Kingdom. That poses considerable problems. Plainly, it poses a considerable threat to employment in this country's textile industry.

The powers of the Government to intervene in a situation of that sort are pitifully weak. Therefore, I urge the Minister in considering these matters which are directly relevant to the developing textile picture against which we must guard to ensure that our legislation is capable of stopping such a threat which will be manifest if we do not take decisive action to combat it.

I thank the Minister for his speech. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale in saying that it was the most informed and helpful speech on the textile industry that I have heard since I became a Member in February 1974. I hope that what he said will not be left to gather dust in Hansard. I hope that his speech will be distributed throughout the industry, not only among management, but to the trade unions and workers in the industry. It offers a little hope. It offers constructive proposals to deal with the problems of the textile industry. It offers an alternative to the decline of the industry and the worries and anxieties with which people in the industry have lived for many years. I trust that it will give some hope to the industry and to the workers that somebody cares.

I am glad that it is the Government who seem to be caring. I hope that the fine words will be translated into action in Brussels and that we shall achieve the objectives set by the Minister.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey)

It is always a pleasure to follow in debate the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), who inevitably makes pungent contributions to our debates on textiles. I only feel at odds with him in his somewhat uncharitable reference to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) in giving a somewhat more glowing picture of the textile industry than the hon. Member for Sowerby and many others would believe to be justified. The hon. Gentleman should allow himself the belief that his eloquence on previous occasions about the gloom and despondency in the textile industry was so good that it has penetrated the thinking of a number of my hon. Friends who have not his detailed knowledge of the industry.

It is therefore not surprising that anyone going to Yorkshire or Lancashire to view the industry at first hand should see a more modern, thrusting and thriving industry than impressions given in the House have led people to believe. However, that is not to say that the general substance of the debate is not vital to a consideration of the future of the textile industry.

The Minister rightly came to the House today and set out very fully the Government's view on the renegotiation of the Multifibre Arrangement. If the hon. Member for Sowerby ought to consider one matter, it is that in the successful achievement of the negotiations the Minister should have half an eye on the fact that the overall majority of the Government is not great and that what he would most strongly urge would be an agreement across the Floor of this House, and among other parties as well, so that the objectives to be set out on behalf of the United Kingdom textile industry should be pursued with vigour, whichever party was in office.

I think that the Minister has that agreement here today in that what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said was, on all major points, to back the Government fully in the stand which they propose to take in renegotiating the MFA. When it comes to lengthening the period of agreement, altering the base period calculations, taking a global view about burden-sharing and tightening up anti-dumping procedures, all are within a general bipartisan approach to the future of the textile industry. That bipartisan approach is one of the more fruitful results of this debate. I hope that this conclusion will be reached and will be seen to have been reached on the proposals before the House.

Let me take the Minister back a little into the reason why this is so crucial. I do not share the view which is widely expressed that we are here talking about a total exercise in survival. I do not think that that is the case. The resourcefulness of the industries—and they are many—is such that they have shown themselves capable of surviving very difficult trading circumstances time and time again over their long industrial history. After all, the textile industries were in at the very birth of the Industrial Revolution.

But the problems which the industries face today are not just the normal cyclical problems associated with the textile market, with the fluctuations in primary ray material prices or with the difficulties of marketing finished products. Today they have to face the fact—they are not alone in this, though it is much more aggravated than in any other industry—that through the post-war period we have seen industries which historically arc very old and which have not been able in the last 10 or 15 years to regenerate themselves. At the same time, however, they have to compete with industries which have been established in other countries with the most modern technology available and with efficient work forces, whatever their rates of pay may be.

I thought that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) was moving on to dangerous ground when he suggested that we ought to unload to our competitors the costs which we ourselves carry in terms of the social wage and so on. In the end, that produces a parity of price and product which means that there is no competitive edge available to the United Kingdom. We have to recognise that these industries have been established in markets with new technology, with good modern plant and with efficient work forces, with the result that in the end they are producing extremely competitive products.

It would be wrong to assume that all that we require is a satisfactory renegotiation of the MFA and that we can put aside the anxieties about marketing our products to a price and to a specification satisfactory to consumers in world markets. That is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about the Government using their strength, backed, I trust, by the Opposition, to get the best possible Multifibre Arrangement with our EEC partners so that they can negotiate it effectively with outside countries. That should provide the necessary breathing space and help the regeneration of our own industries to become complete.

The Government will know that the Wool Textile Industry Scheme—naturally, representing the constituency that I do, I speak more of the wool textile side—is yet far from bearing fruit. I think that £23 million was spent in the end on the Section 8 scheme for the wool textile industry. In addition, the Government have in more recent times, devoted £20 million to the clothing industry. These schemes represent a major portion of Government investment. Throughout the whole industry, the reaction to the Government initiative of the Section 8 scheme has multiplied several-fold. In the last two years, investment of £75 million has been put into the whole textile sector and this investment is massive in relation to the history of the industry. But it will take time to produce results.

It is crucial to allow the renegotiated MFA and other policies in GATT to which I shall refer later, to provide an international framework within which the domestic industry can seek to obtain results from the massive change in investment policy. It is no good relying on Section 8 of the Industry Act or ill-fated planning agreements to rescue an industry like this. The real drive in rescuing the industry is the drive to obtain adequate profit, and thus adequate investment and more jobs.

We cannot stem the decline in employment in the whole textile sector—and it has gone down to 80,000 at the last count; we cannot stem this annual substantial slide by devices of the kind I have mentioned. We must restore to individual managers and workers the confidence that there is a future for the industry and a belief that if the Government set the international side right the domestic side will see adequate profits at the end of the tunnel—and the tunnel must be a short one. It is within the Government's own policies of industrial restraint that many of tomorrow's problems in the textile industry must clearly arise.

The complexity of the MFA is shown by the fact that it is so difficult to achieve agreement. There are 17 Commission documents before us, including those dealing with Macao, Malaysia and South Korea. It is a nightmare. This is a battle which must be fought on two fronts. It must be fought by the Government arriving at the correct negotiating posture—we are heartened by what Ministers have said today—and it must be fought by the Government's strength and will, within the EEC context of the agreements, to negotiate in this manner for the United Kingdom industry.

How I wish sometimes that we were French artichoke farmers. If we were, there is no doubt that the EEC would bend to our requirements, after we had pushed barrow-loads of rotting artichokes through the corridors of Brussels. There is no doubt that something happens when there is a movement in France to help an industry that is in difficulty.

We are seeking from the Government some indication that they are committed not only to the nicety of their negotiating position but to the determination and courage which a successful renegotiation of the arrangement requires. I trust that the Government will show that sense of commitment and courage. If they do not, I hope that we Conservatives will show it if and when we have a chance to do so.

The European scene is crucial, and that is why the emphasis is on burden-sharing arrangements and, taking a global view, stopping up the loophole which results from third countries acting as "post-boxes" for textile products. It is important to get the Europeans to agree to these things. We must try to renegotiate the MFA with great care and skill.

It is all too easy to lapse—and we on this side lapse perhaps rather too easily —into the use of free trade as a concept. I do not believe that free trade ever existed or ever will exist. It is a nice, useful catch-phrase which usually disguises the fact that in any market of the world, if one looks at the range of commodities imported, one will find that there are restrictions. There are licensing and surveillance arrangements, quotas, administrative difficulties and enormous bureaucracy. There are also difficulties at consular level in diplomatic terms.

Practically every country now trading has its way of restricting access to its market. What we are seeking must not run counter to the generality of free trading arrangements. There must be on textile products the same kind of restraint as in most other orderly markets. We seek that as of right because we can prove our contributions in terms of 850,000 jobs and the regional spread of those jobs, which is crucial. Those jobs are in the South-West, the Scottish Borders, the North-West, West Yorkshire and the East Midlands.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

And Ulster.

Mr. Shaw

And Ulster, as my hon. and learned Friend says. Employment considerations in the textile industry have important regional repercussions. Against this background we deserve to have these arrangements renegotiated on our behalf when we reach the GATT Tokyo round. I hope that the Minister will respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives so that textiles are included in the Tokyo negotiations. There is a body of opinion in the United States that may seek to prevent that happening, although recently there has been some welcome comment pointing to a changed attitude.

When we go to Tokyo for the GATT negotiations, we must press hard—this is not inconsistent with what I have been saying—for reductions in tariffs and restraints on textiles where they are blatantly operated in other countries. There is no question that the United States tariff—it could be lower following the Tokyo round—is vindictive on wool and wool clothing. Any reduction would have a substantial effect on employment prospects and the viability of many textile companies in the areas from which I come.

That view is not inconsistent with the fact that the MFA should be renegotiated on tougher lines. All I am saying is that we should persuade our partners to require some degree of single-minded help to these industries in the textile sector—assistance which most other countries provide for their major industries. We should ask for nothing more and nothing less. This is not an anti-free trade move but a demonstration that what we require is fair trading conditions in a framework that is seen to be fair.

I recognise the niceties of new arrangements with precision as to the base period and a recession clause. I do not like that phrase, and I would prefer to call it a flexibility or review clause to allow arrangements to be reviewed from time to time when markets change. We recognise that this involves difficult judgments. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government and on industries to get together and, with one voice, clarify what they require in detail.

There has been a welcome trend among the textile industries in the various sectors to co-operate, and the British Textile Confederation is the one body that seeks to represent all the various views in the industry. I cannot speak with the same conviction about the clothing industry, which still has a considerable distance to go before it can present to the Government a clear and united policy on renegotiation. It is no good saying that the Government do not understand what is wanted if the industry does not present its arguments with sufficient force and clarity.

If these Multifibre Arrangements mean anything, they mean that at some point we must arrive at a decision based upon the length and breadth of opinion in the textile sectors. It is of substantial importance to the industries that they recognise that they have a major rôle to play in coming together and forming a concerted judgment about the factors that are important to their sector and seeing that the Government are given their views with clarity and precision.

I welcome this debate. It is incredibly timely, coming as it does in the run-up to the renegotiating phase. It is important that there should be a partisan agreement on the major requirements so that the Government are backed by unanimity of purpose. There is a good chance that that unanimity may be founded today.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince)

Like all other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his speech. I hope that I am not being over-optimistic if I interpret it as a firm indication that this country will no longer be the soft touch for textile imports that it has been for too long in the past. We heard an entertaining speech from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) who is not now present in the Chamber. He told us that he came to the job knowing very little about it. His interest has been mainly in economics. He is always an entertaining speaker. He says that he comes to his new Shadow job with an uncluttered mind and has already learned a lot about it.

It was either Churchill or Macmillan who, having promoted someone to the rank of Cabinet Minister, was told by that person "I do not know anything about the job." The new Minister was told "That is why I am promoting you. You come to this job without any prejudices and you have a receptive mind. You will be able to take ideas on board and you will do a good job." I wish the hon. Gentleman well and I wish him a long apprenticeship. I do not share his view that he will be changing sides shortly. I hope that the public will return a Labour Government when the time comes and thus help to ease the burden for everyone and give the hon. Member for St. Ives more time to settle in.

The hon. Member for St. Ives told us that he had been going around the country looking at mills and factories. He is finding out that the textile industry is a highly technical industry with an immense amount of capital. We all know that, while the workers are not supine, their industrial relations record is second to none. The tragedy is that they have had to suffer so much.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) touched on something we tend to forget. He spoke of the debt, if I can call it that, which we owe to the Third World. That debt, if it ever existed, has been more than honourably discharged. We have heard the figures. They show that, with a 66 per cent. import penetration, our record is not matched by any other industrialised Western country. The comparable figure for the United States is 15 per cent. and for the EEC overall it is 35 per cent. It is important to remember that many of the people from these poorer countries have settled in this country and work in the textile industry. If that industry collapses, it will present serious problems for our urban reconstruction programme and probably for race relations. I believe, therefore, that we have discharged our debt in two ways.

The hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned Courtaulds and its track records in exporting and in investment in this country. No one will expect me to cheer when Courtaulds is mentioned. I do not say that it should be condemned out of hand, but I think most hon. Members know that no constituency in the last two years has suffered more from the cruel lash of unemployment than mine. Skelmersdale is in my constituency.

Courtaulds closed down a mill in Ince which had been going for three-quarters of a century. I do not think that it has ever had a moment's trouble with the workers there, who by any account were not overburdened by their pay packets. The mill had not been modernised as it should have been, and it became a casualty, with the loss of a few hundred jobs. Everyone knows the tragedy of the closing of the biggest and most modern weaving mill in Europe at Skelmersdale by Courtaulds. Courtaulds has a good record, but I wish that it had done better in one respect.

I think that Courtaulds was gravely at fault in not agreeing to an inquiry into the reasons for the closure of the Skelmersdale mill, because one of the strands of its statement about the closure was the question of imports. It mentioned that the cloth it was manufacturing at Skelmersdale was meeting tremendous import competition, which had risen from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. in 12 months.

An inquiry would have enabled us to get to the bottom of that situation, to establish the facts and to pass a judgment. It was bad that Courtaulds did not agree, but the Government were not over-enthusiastic in bringing the pressure on Courtaulds that they could have brought to bear to hold the inquiry. The Government, by default, must have accepted a very large part of Courtaulds' reasoning.

The object of the debate is to tell the Government from both sides of the House, with strength of feeling, that we are behind them in wanting to get a good Multifibre Arrangement. The need for it has been set out. I believe that the Government have already taken on board, although perhaps in a slightly different way, the case as set out in the pamphlet we were given by textile industry representatives at a meeting upstairs a couple of weeks ago.

I think that we have to fix a maximum level for imports. I think also that it must be very flexible. We have to have a base which does not go to the most advantaged countries which want to send their goods here. I think that we must average it out and say that that is the base from which we will work. There is no doubt that the present system has caused great tragedies in our textile industries and will continue to do so until we have put it right. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State spoke of the effects on the textile industries of what I call our open-ended policy over the years.

On 16th February my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), in a Written Question, asked the Secretary of State for Employment what increase or decrease there had been since 1963 in the totals employed in each of a number of different industries. The industries included mining and quarrying; food, drink, and tobacco; coal and petroleum products; and textiles. The reply showed that in June 1963 there were 728,000 people employed in the textile industry but that in June 1976 the number had fallen to 486,000. In percentage terms, the textile industry showed the biggest loss of employment apart from the mining industry. Mining and quarrying had lost 49.2 per cent. of its total employment while textiles had lost 33.2 per cent.

Those of us with textile firms in our constituencies know that there is still a shadow over the industry. I hope that those firms will obtain some consolation from the debate, but it is action that they want. There is still real fear in the textile towns.

Finally, I turn to the question of surveillance procedures, which I consider to be one of the most important parts of any Multifibre Arrangement or any antidumping agreement. I hope that I may have the attention of the hon. Member for St. Ives. I am not convinced that our present surveillance procedures for examining whether goods are being dumped are as effective as they could or should be. It may be that there are not enough people engaged on surveillance work. The hon. Member for St. Ives said that he would like a reduction in bureaucracy in this country when much of the responsibility for these matters is transferred to the EEC in July. I do not know about that—I have an open mind on the subject —but I think that the present system is not effective enough.

I shall quote another example of a factory closure in my country, although in this case it concerned the television tube industry. People in the British television tube manufacturing industry said repeatedly that imported tubes were being dumped in this country. I know the technical meaning of "dumping" and how it is established and that one cannot say, simply because a product is being sold more cheaply in this country, that it is automatically a case of dumping. The British television tube manufacturers had given positive proof that tubes were being dumped to the detriment of the British tube manufacturing industry. I concede that they were arguing their own case, but the distilled wisdom and experience of the manufacturers contained sufficient expertise and knowledge to be able to convince anybody.

After a long time and after repeated demands from the manufacturers, we sent investigators to Japan to examine the case against Japanese firms. Our people found that the greatest barrier to establishing the price of manufacture was the vertical nature of the Japanese industry. The cost of manufacturing the television tubes could be hidden in the manufacturing costs of any other commodity, because there was no separate tube manufacturer. There was no way of establishing the proper price of a television tube because there was nothing to which it could be related. It was possible to extrapolate the price from wage increases at a certain date and bring it up to date, or from the cost of increases in raw materials, transport costs or other factors to arrive at a price, but beyond this it was impossible to establish what the real price was. This was because they were what are known as in-house manufacturing units. There were no separate television tube manufacturers as we have them in the United Kingdom.

My factory in Skelmersdale has now closed, and nearly 1,500 jobs have gone. But I am told that there has been a rapid increase in television tube imports and that this substantial rise in imports from Japan more than reflects what people said were the true costs. In other words, when our market has largely gone, foreign exporters can shove the prices up till they reach something like the true costs. The tragedy is that in the meantime I have lost nearly 1,500 jobs.

One hon. Member pointed out earlier that when a mill closes in a small town the business is often a family concern, having been run for generations by grandfather, father, mother, sons and daughters. It is a tragedy when the whole of a family business and income is wiped out. I have seen that in my constituency with the Empress Mill in Ince, which was a family concern in the employment sense.

I am putting these points to my hon. Friends in the special context of this debate in an effort to exercise their minds on what has to be done. It is all very well to have agreements. If the agreements cannot be policed and enforced, we are better off without them, because to have unenforceable agreements only kids people and when they find out the truth they rise up in anger. I ask the Government, therefore, to make sure that our surveillance techniques will meet the demands which will be put upon them, so that our people can have faith and confidence in them.

We do not want another experience such as I had with television tubes. People felt beyond any doubt that they had a good case, with proof positive that tubes were being dumped on us, but, because of the Japanese manufacturing system, which is a vertical and in-house system, they could not isolate and prove the price of a television tube. They were forced to say that they suspected what was being done, but they could not prove it.

That brings me back to what I said at the beginning. We have always been a soft touch in this country. We have played to the rules. Other countries, sometimes Western countries—it is not always the poor countries which adopt these techniques and make it difficult for goods to get in—seem able to use various devices to our disadvantage. I take on board the comment that we should not necessarily copy them, but if our people are suffering we must meet like with like. We need a properly enforceable surveillance technique which will make our people realise that they are not being taken advantage of. The people of this country—with 66 per cent. import penetration—have discharged their debt, if it can be called a debt, to the poorer countries of the world, which understandably want to send their products to Britain and every other country. Foreign exporters find this country a particularly favourable place. I understand that within a radius of about two miles they can meet the eight or nine leading importers who can probably account for 90 per cent. of the whole United Kingdom market. That experience cannot be repeated anywhere else in the world. We are, therefore, a particularly vulnerable and attractive market, but we have discharged our duty, if duty it be. I believe that we can now properly call on other nations to take up some of the debt.

What will it profit any of the poorer countries if, by taking on more than we can bear, we lead to the elimination of the British textile industry? As I said, it is a modern industry with over 400,000 people, even now, usefully engaged in it. It is a highly productive industry, an industry with a high rate of investment and a marvellous industrial relations record. What will it profit anyone to see it wiped off the map?

I believe that we have done honourably by other countries, and I hope that this debate will enable Ministers to impress that upon our friends and allies so that they recognise that what we need now is a breathing space. I hope that this debate wlil bring about just that.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade must be a happy man tonight. He made a speech which, I believe, he has been wanting to make ever since he became a Minister but has hitherto not been allowed to make. It was a speech consistent with his constituency interests, with his ideological position and now with Government policy—though not before. It is worth considering for a moment why there has suddenly been this change.

Why have we had tonight from the Treasury Bench different replies from the sort we have had over the last two and a half years? Has the Department of Trade, which has hitherto been obdurate, suddenly seen the light? It is worth while inquiring into the motives because they will cast some light on the permanency of the change. I fear that it may be only a temporary change and that the Department will revert to the bad old ways when the immediate political need is over. The unworthy thought crossed my mind that the whole of the Labour Party has to be united within the next 24 hours.

If there had not been this concession to Labour Members below the Gangway, there might have been some rather differ-rent results at 10 p.m. tomorrow. I hope that that is not the reason, because if it is it does not betoken much optimism for the future of this new policy. It is an absolute show stopper. It will stop the show about an hour before it should be stopped because normally there are strong and powerful speeches against the Government from Labour Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) said that he had to put away his sharpshooter because there was nothing to shoot at. There has been a love peace such as I have never known in any textile debate over the last 25 years—

Mr. McGuire

The hon. and learned Member should join it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

I have joined it, and I am delighted that it has happened. The only jarring note was when the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) said that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) was unduly complacent. That was not the right adjective. My hon. Friend said that, coming fresh to the job, he was amazed and delighted at the way this industry, unlike many others, had invested in new equipment. He was delighted to find how well equipped and well invested it was, how its labour relations were good and how it was raring to go, and that given a fair wind it could go. That is not complacent; that is optimistic.

Now, we can all be optimistic because the Government have at last given us grounds. To make a declaration of intention of this importance is obviously only the beginning of the story. But there will be great difficulties in getting over the next steps. The first step—not the most difficult—is to get our EEC partners to agree in principle. That seems a relatively easy step because their interests are much the same as ours. They do not want an annual growth of 6 per cent. in the penetration of their markets in bad years as well as good, as at present. The difficult step will be after the agreement with the EEC and in the final negotiations—I think that they are called the Geneva negotiations—with the developing countries and with the United States. There, the Government in particular and the EEC in general will need to negotiate very hard.

I know that this is thought to be an indecent question at this stage of any negotiations, but what is the Government's fall-back position? Suppose that they cannot get accepted, for example, their proposal for a global solution of this problem. Suppose that it is not accepted that we cannot go on with the system under which, every time one country is covered, the flood comes in from a new and hitherto untried producer, sometimes producing himself for the first time, sometimes merely acting as a conduit pipe for another older-established producer who has already filled his quota. The Minister rightly said that we could not put up with that any longer and that we must have a world solution.

Nor can we allow an increase of 6 per cent. or whatever the percentage may be in the penetration of our market in bad times as well as in good, or there will be no market left to penetrate because it will be entirely captured after a few years. What is the position if both the Third World and North America simply reject this proposal? I suppose that it means that the Multifibre Arrangement will not be extended and that there will be no agreement when the present arrangement expires in December. If so, where do we go then?

This is not an impertinent or dangerous question to ask because it will strengthen the hands of our negotiators if it is known that our Government are facing this position already and that they have their fallback plans and, if necessary, will tell the Third World what they are. That sort of frankness is not always, but certainly is in these circumstances, the most likely way of procuring the results we want.

As I said, this debate is the most remarkable textile debate we have ever had. I have not heard one dissentient or rasping voice. In those circumstances, it would be churlish not to congratulate the Government and the Minister on this unprecedented and very happy result.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, East)

I had intended to begin by apologising to my fellow Back Benchers for having been unable to remain during the early part of the debate. However, perhaps that is unnecessary in view of how few have stayed to hear my speech, with perhaps one or two exceptions among the keener textile types.

I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on a thoughtful speech. He congratulated the Minister, but I thought that he scraped the bottom of the barrel in trying to find an ulterior motive for the Government's action. I shall put his mind at rest. The Minister may have been seeking to persuade me with more gentle methods than have been used elsewhere to support the Government tomorrow, but he has had the same lack of success as the others have had. Despite his encouraging speech, I shall be found in the wrong Lobby tomorrow.

The Minister's speech showed the wind of change that is blowing through the Department. It has encouraged Back Benchers and it will encourage the industry that the Department appears at long last to accept the sensible proposals made for some time by the unions as well as the employers. A remarkable feature of the industry is the degree of co-operation that exists between trade unions and employers, as has been shown by the formation in the Oldham area of the Textile Industry Support Campaign, which has the support of both sides of industry.

My hon. Friend's speech did not surprise me as much as it might have surprised others. He and I share the distinction of representing Oldham, which lies in the heartland of the North-West. We have considerable experience of textile matters. It is of great advantage to the North-West to have my hon. Friend in the Department with responsibility for these matters.

The Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council is very concerned about these matters, as are other bodies involved in textiles. The borough secretary recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Industry on behalf of the economic development and publicity sub-committee of the council mentioning the 4,000 redundancies which were occurring in Courtauld's and expressing anxiety about the implications.

The letter then said: The Sub-Committee appreciate that this is a much vexed question and that the Government have previously been reluctant to introduce selective import controls. However, in view of the worsening employment situation, which would seriously affect Oldham, the Sub-Committee are of the firm opinion that strong measures i.e. selective import controls have now become necessary. This is not a Labour-controlled metropolitan borough council. I regret to say that the Tory Party is now the largest party on the council, although the Labour Party and the Liberal Party together match it in numbers. However, I regard the council as being Tory-controlled.

The Secretary of State replied through his Under-Secretary—my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) In a fairly lengthy letter, my hon. Friend explained the points that he set out at the beginning of his speech tonight. The letter detailed the remarkable measures that the Government have taken over the years. Many of these measures may not have been as effective as we should have wished. However, we hear them recited on occasions.

In addition to dealing with those matters, my hon. Friend said in the letter: I am well aware, for example, that the cotton industry whose fortunes are of particular concern to the people of Oldham, has two special worries. First, there are a number of long-standing restrictions on cotton yarn imports from traditional suppliers such as India, Pakistan and Hong Kong which are due to be phased out by 31st March under the terms of the MFA. I fully understand the sensitivity of imports in this sector and we are at present discussing with our EEC partners what arrangements might be made to regulate imports into the United Kingdom after the end of March. Secondly, the British Textile Employers' Association has drawn our attention to the effect of Indian export subsidies on cotton yarn, fabric and made-up goods on the competitiveness of our own industries. Officials in my Department are giving the BTEA application for countervailing action urgent consideration and a decision will be made as soon as possible. My hon. Friend has indicated that the Government are already moving in this direction. The letter continued: … you will also be interested in the future of the MFA itself as the present arrangement expires at the end of 1977. In its existing form it has not been without shortcomings and we are, therefore, pressing for substantial improvements, in particular to secure protection against the cumulative effect of low-cost imports and a reduction of quota growth rates in certain circumstances. I think that an MFA strengthened along these lines would, if it could be negotiated, provide the best framework for safeguarding the interests of our industry in the long-term. That letter was written some weeks ago and is an indication of the Government moving in the direction that has been set out this evening. It was not such a surprise to me when I heard my hon. Friend's remarks. Since 21st January, when the letter was written, the Government have moved even further. My hon. Friend's remarks were even stronger than those contained in the letter. I welcome them and I am sure that the industry will do so as well.

The British Textile Confederation has been in touch with hon. Members on many occasions and with the all-party Cotton and Allied Textile Committee, of which I am the chairman. It has outlined matters that have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber and has stated how it would like to see the Multifibre Arrangements strengthened.

The Confederation wants to see the continuation of the arrangement. It sees the need for special measures to take account of high-import penetration in especially sensitive sectors. It recognises the need to contain imports from potentially disruptive new suppliers. It sees the need for the complete concept of total import penetration, the need for the method of negotiating bilateral agreements to be reviewed and the need for a greater flexibility clause.

The confederation continues to make the interesting point that there is a growing realisation within the other countries within the EEC, such as Germany, France and even Italy, that there is very great danger to the textile industry. As a result, our appeals have been greatly strengthened by the support of the Common Market body. It has accepted the four major points put forward by the British textile industry, which has greatly delighted the industry.

The industry feels confident that the Government will go forward strengthened by what has happened in this country and in the Common Market. It is determined to show the Americans, who are a rather disruptive influence in the negotiations, that, while penetration in the American market may be small and may lead them to seek some political advantage in countries such as Taiwan, there is a strength of feeling here and in other countries in the EEC that will not brook the Americans forcing us to accept a Multifibre Arrangement in line with the present one. There are many motives for the American attitude, including the fact that it is largely American capital that has financed the expansion of the textile industry in Taiwan. All that has been said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on behalf of the Government has heartened us. We want to see the textile industry in Britain and in the rest of the EEC get a fair deal.

It may well be said that there are two sides to the coin. I hope that we shall do what we can to help developing countries. We do not want to make them any poorer. If there is some way in which we can help them without irretrievably damaging our own industry, I am sure that the textile workers in the North-West would wish to do what they can. They have a long history of standing up for the underprivileged. I do not suppose that they want to go back to that now. On the other hand, they do not want to see their own jobs disappear. If the Government are not successful in their negotiations for a new agreement, I am afraid that that is what will happen.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has a double incentive. He has the textile industry to protect and he has his own people in Oldham, West to look after. It is with considerable confidence that I accept all that he has said tonight as being in the right spirit.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts (Normanton)

My depth of knowledge of the textile industry is meagre, as I represent a mining constituency, but for generations the daughters of miners have gone into Leeds or the surrounding area to work in the ready-made clothing industry. Leeds used to be, and probably still is, the largest ready-made clothing centre in the world. During the 1914–18 war it was aways said that if one saw a soldier, one saw someone whose uniform was made in Leeds, and the same could have been said during the last war.

In the 1950s, some of our clothing centres found that there was a need to move into other districts, particularly in my constituency and the North-East. Clothing factories were set up there, but we are now feeling the pinch.

Last year I attended a textile exhibition where I saw suits that were being imported at a wholesale price of £7 to £11. It is impossible for the clothiers of Leeds to compete with such prices. I am pleased that we are beginning to take account of some of these facts.

We have exported machinery and know-how to some of the emerging countries. We know that the people there must live, but our people, too, must live. No one can say that those working in the textie industries are overpaid. Throughout my constituency many clothing workers are out of work. It is an ageing industry in that the number of people on the point of retiring form a high percentage of the work force. It is well-night impossible to pay the right wage to attract young people in to the industry in view of the keen competition. We do not mind fair competition, but when low-priced suits were imported they played havoc with some of our clothing manufacturers. Question were asked in the House, but little notice was taken. I am pleased that something is now to be done. Most people appreciate a good suit and recognise one when they see one.

There is no doubt that the tailoring industry in this country can compete fairly with any in the world. Some worsted manufacturers do quite a good export trade with Japan and America. But we are concerned about the average man and the average boy and his purchase of a decent suit. He can purchase one, but it is coming from abroad at a price that cannot be matched here if the manufacturer is to make a profit. The Government must take cognisance of this fact.

As I have said, my knowledge of textiles is limited, but many women, particularly young women, who are out of work in Leeds and the surrounding areas of Normanton-Rothwell have asked me whether something will not be done to stop the inflow of suits that must have been subsidised. Those suits must have been seen by those who examined them to constitute unfair competition. I hope that we shall be given a fair chance to compete not only in our own country but abroad. If the industry is to be kept alive—I will not say "prosper"—it must be given a fair chance to exist.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)

I want to say only a few words and to pick up the theme that has already been followed by one or two other hon. Members, namely, that in discussing textiles we are discussing a matter of great importance to the Third World and to developing countries. A number of hon. Members have made reference to this, but it is important to stress how vital the industry is to some of the poorest countries of the Third World

I wish to make just a few remarks about document S/1882/76, which deals with the agreement with Bangladesh on jute and jute products. The essence of the agreement is that the Common Market tariff on these products will be gradually demolished and reduced to zero, as it is already for the United Kingdom. In return, Bangladesh has undertaken to exercise some restraint on the export of jute fabrics, particularly carpet backing and furnishing fabrics, and to get exports to an agreed level—subject to future discussions between the Community and Bangladesh if there seems to be any threat to the agreement.

It is important to remind the House how vital jute is to Bangladesh and also that Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the Third World. Jute represents between 85 and 90 per cent. of Bangladesh's total export earnings and is worth about $400 million a year to the country. About 2 million acres of the country are planted with jute and the industry employs about 25,000 people. One must add to that number the dependants who rely on the earnings of those workers in the industry.

Bangledesh's need for export earnings has been considerably increased by its trade deficit and problems with oil imports that have hit many developing countries. During the 1950s and the 1960s there was a rising demand for jute and its products, but, unfortunately, the market was hit—as so many other natural material markets have been hit—by synthetics. That caused considerable difficulties, which were compounded by the problems that arose in the political conflict between India and Pakistan, which led to the creation of Bangladesh as an independent country.

Jute was, unfortunately, one of the few commodities that did not enjoy substantial price increases during the commodity boom of 1974 to 1975. Although the Bangladesh Government tried to combat inflation by pushing up the export price of raw jute, that drove consumers back into synthetics, and the price had to fall again.

Since mid-1975 the international sales of carpet and hessian have improved. It is important that research should be carried out into new uses for jute and that there should be more intensive marketing of this important commodity. These are matters that are partly the responsibility of the Bangladesh Government, but they are also partly the responsibility of the nations that use the commodity. We should also bear in mind that jute is one of the commodities specified in the integrated programme that was broadly accepted by the industrial countries at the UNCTAD IV conference in Nairobi last year. To that extent we have a responsibility to honour the obligations that were accepted in principle.

The fact that we are to take some increased imports is helpful and useful, even with the limitations of the agreement. That is particularly so because one of the great problems of developing countries is not merely the export of raw materials as such, but the export of goods manufactured from raw materials, which greatly enhances their earnings.

The Front Bench speakers mentioned some of the development issues, and I hope that these will not be lost sight of in the serious difficulties facing the textile industry in this country. I appreciate the anxieties of my hon. Friends from textile constituencies and I understand that 800,000 people are employed in the industry—many more than I had appreciated. However, if we are to have a flourishing world economy, the enormous importance of textiles to many Third World countries must be recognised. I have quoted Bangladesh as an example because it is the poorest of the poor, but there are other developing countries that depend heavily on textiles and textile exports for the prosperity of their people.

I close with a plea that this aspect of the overall problem should not be forgotten when we express our proper concern for our own constituencies and industries.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth)

I apologise for my late arrival, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I have not heard most of the speeches in the debate.

Most hon. Members know that I have had considerable personal experience in the textile industry. About one-third of my constituents are employed in the industry, particularly the hosiery and knitwear sectors. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) referred to me and to the part that I played in contributing some of the thoughts that he put forward from the Opposition Front Bench.

It seems that all hon. Members who have spoken have been agreed on the need to take action. The Minister made a positive statement on that aspect and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives made his contribution. Perhaps this suggests that we are something of a protectionist lobby. All hon. Members who have spoken have a fairly strong constituency textile interest, but it would be a pity if there were a common belief at the end of the debate that we were concerned only to safeguard our own. I do not believe that to be so.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and no doubt Government Members will have argued, as I argue, for measures to provide fair trading for our textile industry. By that we mean protection not against dumping, for which measures are available, albeit they are not taken as quickly as they might be, but against competition from low-cost imports which the exporting countries generally consider fair but which, in the context of our textile industry, are not fair.

We can compete in this country. The hosiery and knitwear trades have a fine record and have increased exports this year by nearly 50 per cent. to a record £200 million—a good contribution to our exports. Unfortunately, the industry has been hard hit by imports from the Far East and the many new countries that have come upon the scene and that are not parties to the MFA. What we need is a policy that allows us to adapt our ways of producing textiles but does not allow this historic and important industry to go under. For pretty well all the time that I have been in this House I myself have argued for a system of orderly marketing. I must admit that I argued in vain with my colleagues in the previous Conservative Administration.

One of the advantages of going into the EEC was the establishment of the MFA and the burden-sharing agreements. My own view is that what was established under the MFA was generally successful except, of course, that it was established far too late and, because the negotiations took so long, the volume of imports during the base period of 1974 was far too great.

We must encourage the Minister for so long as he has this responsibility to see that the negotiations are first brought to a rapid conclusion and, when we are using the new base period, that we do not fall into the same fault as before. We must accelerate these negotiations.

I shall not go into the various aspects of the renegotiations and the objectives for which we are looking. I believe that what those in the hosiery and knitwear industry would want more than anything else is some form of recession or flexibility clause. I should like to accent that and to ask the that negotiators should particularly press for something which, when our own industry is in recession, would allow for at least a stop in the rate of increase in imports of whatever particular commodities are affected. That is one prize that we must seek in these negotiations.

I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene in the debate. The textile industry and, indeed, the clothing industry, embracing about 800,000 people, are far too important not to receive Government attention. I believe that they now have the attention they deserve, apparently from both sides of the House.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Tom Normanton (Cheadle)

In accordance with the custom of the House, I declare an interest in the subject matter of this debate—the textile industry. Two weeks ago I was appointed rapporteur of the Economic Affairs Committee in the European Parliament on this subject. The House will no doubt be encouraged to know that after the preparation of any report a major debate on the Community textile industry will be held in the May sitting of the Parliament.

Within the time allotted, I propose to deal with the contributions from this side of the House under three separate headings. The first is the procedural aspect. We are debating Community legislation although it relates to domestic difficulties of which we are painfully aware. Secondly, I shall briefly underline and reinforce the many points which have been made in this extremely valuable and far-ranging debate. I do not think it is necessary to enlarge on them. It is appropriate to comment on the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), who referred to the bipartisan and objective approach which has been the characteristic of all speeches today.

I reinforce the demand for an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State that the Government are aware of the problems of this major sector of British industry and are prepared to use their best endeavours to solve them. It was a little unfair, and certainly totally groundless, for the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) to say that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) was complacent. My hon. Friend may be open to criticism on other grounds, but he has the unanimous support of my hon. Friends in the view that complacency does not come within his vocabulary.

I wish to touch on the procedural aspects of this debate. We are debating the procedures which apply to the consideration of European Community legislation. I hope that no Labour Member will think it awry that I should say that I deeply regret the absence from the debate of hon. Members opposite who, with my hon. Friends and I, play a part in the European Parliament. I know that they have essential political rôles to play in Europe today, and I hope that that is why they are absent. I should like these debates to bring together the representatives of the respective parties in the European Parliament. Debates of this sort would be the richer and better if the usual channels were to consider giving members of the European Parliament greater opportunities to make contributions.

Secondly, it is a great disappointment to find from Hansard that it is almost 18 months since we last debated this extremely important subject within the framework of Community legislation. I hope that the House will resolve that such a lapse of time will not be repeated.

Thirdly, I note that two of the Community documents on the Table are presented for consideration and for the House to express a view on them prior to their submission to and acceptance by the Council of Ministers. This is a highly commendable procedure. Some critics would wish to bring every piece of Community legislation before the House for consideration and debate. I do not feel that that is or ever need be a normal procedure for Community legislation. Two of the proposals are of major interest to one part of the United Kingdom, Dundee, where the jute industry is situated, and it is right that the views of hon. Members should be presented forcefully to the Government.

I do not see these documents as being trivial or irrelevant. They represent what is largely consequential legislation in the sense that it flows from major policy strategies which have been discussed and debated at the level of the Council of Ministers, and which then requires implementation at the nuts and bolts level by the Commission and, naturally, endorsement of such action by the Council of Ministers.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have challenged the Government. In my view, they have done so in the best possible spirit. I cannot help feeling that this debate has produced the most challenging and constructive contributions that I have heard for a long time. Nevertheless, one grain of sentiment has run through all the contributions, and it is the deep disquiet of hon. Members about the handling of trade policy matters by the Government in terms of the textile industry. Before any hon. Member attempts to intervene, let me make it plain that I am not trying to score any party point. I mean that this is the responsibility of the Government and that it is totally unjustifiable for critics of our membership of the EEC to invoke the fact that we are now under EEC rules. Those rules, those interpretations of rules and the formulation of policies are as much our responsibility in this House as they have ever been, and I believe that for Ministers of Her Majesty's Government, whichever party is in office, they represent a greater responsibility than ever before. It is the responsibility of Ministers to use their persuasive powers, to have the courage of their convicitions and to mobilise all the forces at their disposal to persuade the Ministers of other member States.

This is an area, in other words, in which we have an opportunity to influence at the highest and broadest level. If Ministers fail to do that, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have every justification for being ultra-critical of them. If we as a Community make the wrong decisions, it will be due in large measure to wrong, inappropriate or inept representation of British industry's interests in the European forum.

In this context, it is appropriate to say that this House and the other place are the longstop to catch out any ineptitude or any ineffectiveness of representation of our interests at the level of the Council of Ministers—to catch those tricky balls or googlies which happen to slip past what I describe as the wicket-keeper, the European Parliament. This wicket-keeper in Europe is not yet fully recognised. Regrettably, it is not fully understood in this House that it has that precise rôle to play.

The United Kingdom has at least three means of making heard the voice of Britain's industries as a whole or selectively. First we have the Ministers, as between Governments. Secondly we have this House and this kind of debate. Thirdly we have and should use our colleagues from both sides of the House in the European Community and the institutions outside this country.

I come briefly to the debate. I say "briefly" because I feel that the debate has been extremely comprehensive and far-ranging. It requires little more than the underlining of just a few of the points which have been made, with the addition of two or three which still require to be made.

We all know that it is extremely easy for any Opposition to criticise any Government. But it is thoroughly appropriate tonight to say that the content of the speech made by the Minister in opening the debate showed clearly that the Government were thoroughly aware of all the problems surrounding the textile industry and the appropriate solutions. The only ground on which we can criticise the Government is that we are not sure whether they have the will or ability to pursue the promotion of these solutions in the right forum. We shall anxiously await the outcome of their contributions at Council of Ministers level in formulating policies appropriate for this great industry.

Mr. Noble

Will the hon. Member take note of the fact that the Government are now lined up with the policies of the Labour Party outside, the TUC, the textile unions and the textile employers? We welcome the conversion of the Tory Party.

Mr. Normanton

I do not think that there is much chance of my being drawn on that one. There is ample evidence to show that, if there has been a conversion, it may well have been by the present Government and that it is very much a last-minute conversion.

I shall concentrate on three points which were mentioned in the debate. Our United Kingdom procedures for dealing with dumping remind me of the old test that was applied to witchcraft. If the woman was ducked and survived the ducking, the devil was responsible and she would have to die. If she was ducked and died as a result, she could not be a witch because witches could not drown. To succeed in a textile anti-dumping action, the main hurdle which has to be cleared is that the applicant has received a mortal injury. Clearly that is arrant nonsense.

I urge the House to look at the action taken by the European Commission in connection with the appeal for the adoption of anti-dumping measures to help the Community's ball-bearing industry. That is an industry which has hardly been scratched by comparison with the textile industry, yet within six weeks of that appeal being submitted action had been started by the Community, which is not yet the responsible body for dealing with anti-dumping measures. That responsibility will be given to it on 1st July.

The real meat in the sandwich of regulations on the table is the MFA—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

My hon. Friend has quoted a very good example of the EEC being prepared to act speedily. Would he give an assurance to the House that in his opinion the EEC will act as quickly on textiles?

Mr. Normanton

I share my hon. Friend's feelings and I hope that it will be possible to produce documentary evidence not long after the May sitting of the European Parliament to link representations made by representatives from both sides of this House and in the European Parliament and representations on behalf of COMITEXTIL. I take great encouragement from and am greatly stimulated by the evidence of a will to act which manifested itself in the reaction to the Japanese ball-bearing threat.

I urge the Minister to give the strongest possible undertaking to the House and to the textile industry generally that he will use his powers in every sense of the word, particularly his powers of persuasion. Perhaps he will press his fellow Ministers in the Council to take action. We hope that he will give us that assurance tonight. The power certainly exists in this sphere, and there is a willingness in the Community to identify and to reach appropriate measures to deal with the textile industry of Europe as a whole.

If I may take a nonpartisan view, I believe that no Government in the last 20 years have come up with the appropriate answers, difficult though some of the solutions may be.

We must learn from experience, however bitter and painful it may be. The lesson to be learned is that tariffs per se, of themselves in isolation from other measures, are totally useless. Therefore, quotas of necessity are an integral part, along with tariffs, of whatever package finally emerges from the GATT-MFA. We must insist that the formula that quotas should float when the industry is sinking is not an acceptable situation for the people of this country or of the industry as a whole. Therefore, we must insist on incorporating into the MFA a rise-and-fall formula. This point has already been examined by both sides of the House. Furthermore, there must be no carry-over of unused quotas from year to year. The fact is that those unused quotas hang over the industry like the sword of Damocles.

I wish to comment on one area which is not generally the subject of control—namely, handloom woven goods. Indian goods of this nature are generally exempted. The definition of hand-woven goods requires serious examination. It leaves far too much scope for circumvention of international textile agreements. Furthermore, the definition of origin leaves much to be desired. Basically, because of the inadequacy of these rules, there is a totally unacceptable practice of misusing certificates of origin. They are not acceptable and they have little credibility. This matter needs serious investigation at Customs level, because it is at Customs level that goods enter the EEC.

We all agree that the Government and the Community are committed to trade liberalisation. We are also committed to economic aid for the development of the Third World, but it does not help that development if we seek to finance the establishment of new textile plant, whether for man-made fibres or natural fibres, and if that production is aimed exclusively at the European industrial territories to the detriment and destruction of our industries. That does not make sense, and I urge the Government seriously to rethink our industrial overseas aid policies.

Far too much money is coming from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other world agencies and is being put into textiles. That is not the right manner in which to concentrate the industrialisation process. The Multifibre Arrangement covers the regulation of exports from certain signatory States. Why not include the right for the European textile industries, as producers of exports, to sell back into those same countries the sophisticated products from Europe? Perhaps not everyone would agree with the concept, but it is rather reminiscent of the situation in which one is trying to defend without recognising that offence is an equally important aspect of defence.

The British textile industry can compete. It needs but the equal opportunities to do so—a point made by at least two of my hon. Friends in the debate. The erosion of the European textile industry is no new phenomenon. It has lasted for 25 years or more to my personal and bitter knowledge. It is not a unique event either, as we can see from the newspapers and a study of parliamentary answers. One industry after another, even among the high-technology industries, has succumbed to assaults from what used to be described as the "rice bowl" economies of the world. Some of those producers are efficient. We have to recognise that. That is no excuse for us insulating ourselves by antiquated methods of running industry. That is not an attitude to which the British textile industry subscribes.

For many years British Governments have declared a faith in the expansion of world trade. The Opposition endorse this as a goal and an objective to be pursued. World trade liberalisation demands economic policies which make for efficiency in industrial production. Here I am hound to be provocative and add that we on the Conservative Benches are only too painfully aware that the current economic policies being promoted by the Government are as relevant to that objective as a lead weight to a drowning man.

I wish to make a brief reference to the internal market of the EEC, a facet not previously mentioned in the debate but, nevertheless, of considerable importance to the textile industry. We cannot make the MFA work effectively, however it is finally agreed, unless the Community's administrative machinery is uniformly efficient. At present, it is not. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on a highly worthwhile contribution. He was not alone in that. I strongly endorse his remarks about burden-sharing. If the MFA is to work equitably, we cannot have effective burden-sharing unless the member States conform uniformly to their legal and administrative obligations. Here again, they do not do so. I hope that the appropriate Ministers will make this point strongly at the Council of Ministers.

I am not seeking out any one member State to be the joker in this pack. In a sense, we are all to blame because each member State believes that it can solve its own economic difficulties by adopting unilateral measures. That is not possible. I appeal to the Government to concentrate all their efforts on pressing forward with the creation of a truly European open market policy involving the abolition of those non-tariff barriers which still distort trade and make it impossible effectively to apply the burden-sharing about which we all feel so strongly.

We must work towards the abolition of the growing divergency of rates of exchange. We must work towards the adoption of a public purchasing policy, not only in the textile industry but in the whole of industry and trade in the Community. We have to work towards the abolition of administrative devices and subterfuges to preserve national economic isolation. Mr. Roy Jenkins has said that in his new role as President of the Commission this must and will be one of his chief objectives during his tenure of that high and important office.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade gave clear evidence of his grasp of the problems and of his knowledge of what is needed. Both sides of the House have voiced their resolve in principle and in detail. We look forward to hearing and we expect from the Under-Secretary of State for Industry a strong, forthright and energetic confirmation of all that his colleague has said and that the Government will match their words with deeds.

10.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer)

Of course, the Government recognise the importance of the textile and clothing industries. Between them, they are the third largest employer in the United Kingdom. The textile industry in the past few years has made a positive contribution to the balance of payments, but that is not true of the clothing industry. The contribution of the two sections has been a net loss to the balance of trade.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade made a clear and concise statement of the Government's position. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) indicated in an engaging and honest way—which is unusual for Opposition Members—that he had made a number of recent tourist visits to the textile industry, and, of course, he is welcome. Some of us, however, have a closer acquaintance with the industry. Some of us represent textile constituencies, and we do not go on tourist visits to them—we actually live in them. Some of us were brought up in textile towns and have a constant and well-developed knowledge of the industry.

My hon. Friend dealt fully with the important matter of the renegotiation of the Multifibre Arrangement. The Government have already been paying considerable attention to the needs of the textile and clothing industries. We have implemented sectoral schemes for both industries to try to improve the level of efficiency—and hon. Members have mentioned the high level of efficiency of the textile industry. There is no doubt that the Government have made a significant contribution through their Wool Textile Scheme.

The hon. Member for St. Ives discussed how long the renegotiated MFA should apply. I re-emphasise that it is subject to negotiation. It is not a fait accompli by any means. The time of application of the agreement will be determined by the acceptability of the agreement itself. If we find that agreement can be met on all the points that my hon. Friend raised, we shall press for as long an application of the agreement as we can get. Conversely, if we find that the agreement has hindrances which we regard as difficult to accept, we shall press for the period of application to be as short as possible so that it can be renegotiated in our favour again. The length of the base period is still under discussion. It could be two years or an average of several years. I want to emphasise that it has not been, as the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, easy to get the proposals outlined by my hon. Friend on the table. In fact, it has been a long, hard slog.

The Opposition have talked about a weak position. In fact, a strong position has been achieved. It is being discussed, but it is not true to say that our EEC partners have greeted all our proposals with unmixed enthusiasm. There have been a number of critics, but we have nevertheless pressed ahead. I assured the House that the Government will press ahead with full firmness to see that all the proposals are thoroughly negotiated as hard as we can press them.

The hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned anti-dumping procedures and went into a sort of fantasy world in which he imagined that in some dim and distant future the Opposition might again have a nibble at Government. But we recognise that he is subject to these fantasies. He said that the Opposition would not "stand idly by" if the Commission did not implement anti-dumping procedures, but he was not forthcoming about what that phrase meant.

I imagine that what the hon. Member said represents a considerable change of view from all the words he was uttering during the referendum campaign, when we did not hear much about the threats he has uttered tonight about not "standing idly by" if the EEC does not do precisely what he wants.

Mr. Nott

Would the hon. Gentleman stand idly by?

Mr. Cryer

We have made our position absolutely clear. We are pressing for a sensible set of proposals, which the Government have presented to the House and which apparently the enthusiastic support of the Opposition. We want the negotiations to succeed, but we do not utter empty threats which we cannot implement and which have no meaning. Therefore, we are determined to play the fullest possible part in the EEC and to ensure that the Commission plays its full part in applying anti-dumping legislation.

Mr. Giles Shaw

In talking about the length of the MFA, the Minister took up an extraordinarily odd posture. He said, apparently, that he was not prepared to commit the Government to a long-term MFA. He said that they might see how the negotiations went and that we might have to settle for a shorter term. Does he realise that that kind of posture is about the worst possible negotiating position he could take?

Mr. Cryer

I should not have thought so; rather the reverse. If we stated here and now the length of time for which we were determined to have a Multifibre Arrangement, we could find that we were giving support to an agreement which did not entirely meet our wishes. It therefore seems reasonable that we should hold some cards close to our chest. I do not suppose that any Government would be prepared to lay all their cards on the negotiating table in advance.

Mr. Madden

Does my hon. Friend accept that the statement of the EEC about the transfer of dumping functions still applies? I understand that the Commission has said that there will be no reduction in protection available to British industry as a result of the transfer of functions and that it recognises that it may be necessary to act in advance of the industry in a region of the Community. Does that remain the Commission's position? Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be less enthusiasm in the Commission to act vigorously on dumping than may be the case in the Council of Ministers, and much less so than among the wicket-keepers in the European Parliament?

Mr. Cryer

Pursuing the cricketing analogy, Conservative Members have sometimes been at silly mid-off. We believe that the Commission can be pushed into taking anti-dumping action, and we shall certainly be pushing it.

My hon. Friend anticipates the remarks I was about to make concerning antidumping. As has been pointed out to the House, at the end of the transitional period—that is, after 30 June 1977—the United Kingdom will no longer have freedom to take independent anti-dumping action on a national basis against dumped imports from outside the EEC. Instead, the full Community procedures will apply on anti-dumping as they do now when other Community producers complain about dumping of the same product and the complaints are considered jointly.

Parliament and British industry have been and are concerned about the loss of autonomy in the anti-dumping field, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has had discussions with Sir Christopher Soames on this problem. In addition, officials of the Department of Trade have been in touch with Commission officials and talks are continuing.

As a result of the discussions, it has been established that although the normal Community procedures will apply after the end of the transitional period it will be possible to take action under these in defence of a region such as the United Kingdom, in which case it will be necessary only to prove that material injury is being suffered by producers in the regions and not by the Community industry as a whole. Also, as a result of the discussion it has been established that the Community is to reinforce its staff so as to be able to cope quickly with the extra work envisaged at the end of the transitional period.

Finally, it has been recognised that there is adequate scope for the United Kingdom to continue to protect the interests of British industries, by discussing complaints initially with potential applicants, by receiving complaints and providing additional information at the prima facie stage, by assisting in the full investigation of the complaint, and by considering complaints and appropriate remedies along with the Commission and other member States in the EEC Anti-Dumping Committee. There is also provision for the defence of British industry in discussion in the Council when an anti-dumping duty is being considered. The Commission has been advised of the United Kingdom's intention to retain an anti-dumping unit to assist potential applicants in the United Kingdom and to take part in investigations and discussions, and has welcomed the proposal. The remaining points to be cleared are mainly of a legal nature. This demonstrates that we are determined to maintain our initiative here in the United Kingdom.

On the question of staff, the hon. Member for St. Ives wants it both ways: he wants to get rid of the anti-dumping unit, but he wants the unit to be effective. He cannot have it both ways. We shall have to see how it works out and how effective the system will be. We cannot make any hard and fast judgments at this time.

The hon. Member for St. Ives concluded his remarks by pointing out what many hon. Members already know—that textile firms are generally small—and he suggests that the Government should change the climate for small firms. As it happens, and as the hon. Gentleman is probably acutely aware, I have special responsibility in the Department of Industry for small firms, and this is something that is dear to my heart. I reject the charge that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, make that the Government are running a vendetta against small firms. That is totally opposite to the truth. The Government cannot insulate small firms against the general economic position. What is true for the rest of small firms is true for small firms in the textile industry.

In the capital transfer tax provisions we made specific provisions respect of small firms. The Tory Opposition predicted that CTT would transform this country into a Marxist State. It has done nothing of the sort. Capital transfer tax was and is a tax levied at no higher rate than the old estate duty. It happens that it is less convenient to die under CTT than under the old estate duty. It is not a tax that is avoidable, but we have made special provision for small businesses. It is disingenuous of Opposition Members not to acknowledge that. We treat profits up to £30,000 at a lower rate of corporation tax, and there is marginal relief up to £50,000.

We have maintained and extended the small firm information centres, and in the South-West I introduced a special counselling service for small firms. Hopefully, that service will be extended to the rest of the country during the ensuing 10 or 12 months. Hopefully, when it is extended it will be available to textile concerns as well as the rest of industry.

There is as good a climate for small firms as for the rest of industry. I do not pretend, nor do the Government, that it is the best climate for industry, but that is because of a recession throughout the whole of the Western world. It is not true to say that we are attempting in any way to inhibit the growth and development of small firms. That applies also to the textile industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) made a valuable contribution to the debate, not least because, along with myself and others, during previous textile debates we used to make vigorous onslaughts on the Government. It is much more comfortable to be on the Front Bench now than when I was on the Back Benches putting forward a few criticisms to my right hon. and hon. Friends. There is no doubt that things have improved quite recently. No doubt it is the calibre of the intake that has helped.

I very much appreciate the welcome that has been given to my hon. Friend's opening remarks. They have been extremely well received. I think my hon. Friends agree that there has been a marked and radical change from previous debates, when there was a certain critical air.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale raised a number of points about global quotas. A global quota for each product is in the Government's mind, although this is part of the negotiating package. My hon. Friend mentioned a social clause because of some of the countries exporting to the United Kingdom having a very high degree of exploitation. In some cases there is no right to join a trade union, for example, no Employment Protection Act and no Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act. A social clause is absolutely desirable. It is, however, felt that it would be an unlikely contender for multifibre renegotiations. It will be raised in the Tokyo round, or there is a strong chance that it will be raised. It is something that is eminently desirable, but I cannot give a guarantee that it will find wide acceptance. It will probably not, but at least it is in our minds.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) raised the issue of global quotas and price disruption by cheap imports. The Multifibre Arrangement is designed to promote fair competition. As I have already said, we shall pursue dumping to the best of our ability.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Canadian example. The Canadians imposed import quotas. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State went into this matter in some detail, but I shall re-emphasise it. My hon. Friend pointed out that Canada has taken the course of implementing import quotas and he explained that in our view the Government should not follow Canada's example. First, we have a considerable degree of protection against a sharp increase in imports through the 13 MFA bilateral agreements. Canada was not protected in that way. As a result, imports rose rapidly—by over 50 per cent. in volume in the first half of 1976. The parallel United Kingdom figures were clothing, 13 per cent., and textiles, 14 per cent. The Canadians, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield pointed out, have acted under Article 19 of GATT, which means that they face the risk of retaliation or demands for compensation. Therefore, I think that that is a fair point for my hon. Friend to make. It seems to me that there is not a fair parallel.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Does the Minister know whether compensation has been claimed against Canada? Is it his view that the claiming of compensation would induce Canada to continue to purchase from those markets which sued her for compensation under Article 19 of GATT?

Mr. Cryer

We have no information as yet, and our rights in the matter are fully reserved. But the general point is a fair one to make, that if one takes the sort of action that Canada took there are risks that compensation will be sought. Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that is not likely to encourage international trade. Although there are important considerations about the use of selective import controls, and the Government have never excluded that sort of policy for any stage, there are grave dangers in the sort of action that Canada took, because of the diminution of international trade that might result.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) was one of the few hon. Members to raise a critical voice in the debate. I am pleased that he took the trouble to attend and put his points of view and express his concern. He is not the only Member representing Dundee, but he was the only one to be present, and he is to be congratulated on his attendance.

Although my hon. Friend said that the Dundee Association of Jute Spinners and Manufacturers had expressed great dissatisfaction, I must point out that the Department has had frequent contact with the association in the period leading up to the start of the negotiations on the two orders. Consultation began in April 1975 with a meeting between officials and the association, and thereafter the association was kept informed of progress in EEC working groups. Advice was then regularly sought upon points that arose concerning the negotiations, during which there was frequent exchange of correspondence and advice between the association and the Department. This has continued to the present time with regard to the interpretation and implementation of the agreement. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will accept that the Department certainly sought to consult the industry in its representative association to the fullest extent that was reasonable.

Although some of my hon. Friend's points about the regulations were to some degree valid, Category 7—wide speciality fabric, as used for decorative wall hangings, for example—is now a separate category under the agreement, whereas before the agreement applying at the beginning of 1976 it was included in another category. Therefore, it is now in a sense subject to a greater degree of control, because it has been separated out from the others. If the ceilings are being approached, negotiations can be set in train to ensure that disruption of the industry is not maintained.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for his comments. His point was valid that imports from India and Bangladesh make a contribution to our attitude towards the Third World. Bangladesh in particular is one of the poorest of the poor countries of the whole world. The responsiveness of the Community, including Britain, to the fulfilment of its obligations under the Joint Declaration of Intent of 1973 is represented to some extent by these two agreements. Under them, not only we but our EEC partners will take increased imports. There will, therefore, be a real element of burden-sharing in aiding countries that are certainly—I think that the whole House will accept this—among the poorest of the world.

The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) urged strong application of the renegotiated MFA, but, as I have already pointed out, we are taking one step at a time. It has been a hard slog to get the proposals on the table. As I have assured the House before, we shall pursue the negotiations as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman raised the anti-dumping issue. I hope I have assured him that by retaining an antidumping unit in the Board of Trade we are not simply letting authority on this matter go to Brussels. We shall be working in conjunction with Brussels to ensure that anti-dumping investigations are pursued. I must also, in fairness, point out that anti-dumping investigations are difficult. A low price is not necessarily evidence of dumping. Sometimes it is difficult, for instance, to ascertain the costs involved in a non-market economy as compared with a market economy. It is sometimes difficult to obtain information at all. Therefore, although it is easy to criticise and to say that anti-dumping measures should be taken immediately, in order to be fair we must treat such applications on a proper basis and submit them to the scrutiny of the evidence. That is certainly the sort of thing that we shall pursue.

Mr. Richard Wainwright

Are the Government taking steps to make sure that, if and when a new Multifibre Arrangement is achieved, the unit will not be as slow as it was under the earlier one in fixing bilateral agreements, at which the Americans beat us hollow?

Mr. Cryer

We shall be pressing as hard and fast as we can for full and proper implementation of the MFA. If the Government did not do that, we might lose the good will that now emanates from the House and we would be subjected to critical examination that we would not want. Recognising the scrutiny of the House, the Government will be pressing ahead as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) emphasised the problem of unemployment in the textile industry, the fact that there has been a diminution of employment and its serious consequences. He made the point that there are potential sources outside the scope of the MFA. That is an important point. We introduced surveillance licensing, however—at least in part—because of the pressure of my hon. Friend and his colleagues. In April 1975 we introduced Government surveillance of textiles, and in March 1976 we introduced surveillance of garments. Under this system we can rapidly spot any unusual increase in imports of textiles and garments. It enables us to spot more easily than before any new source of imports, and we can then take appropriate steps.

My hon. Friend mentioned the unusual example of Chinese underwear. It is not often that the Department of Trade searches out Chinese underwear, but that was the case and we were able to take appropriate action. That would be the case from whatever source the import developed.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the case of Moderna in his constituency. He has been fighting hard to combat a situation in which a company with two £1 issued shares has managed to gain control of a blanket manufacturing factory and has put about 320 people on redundancy notice. My hon. Friend had an Adjournment debate on the matter. However, where companies are registered in the United Kingdom with owners who are also resident in the United Kingdom and are British citizens, it is difficult to take any action. We cannot compel them to sell the factory or the plant.

I am told that a Mr. Somchand Shah, who recently featured in a "Nationwide" broadcast of absorbing interest to employees of the company, does not own any shares in Sona Consultants, the firm that has taken over Moderna. I can only urge Sona as strongly as possible to submit an application for assistance under the 1972 Act as quickly as it can. This will give assurance to the people concerned that the company means what it says about restarting the manufacture of blankets at Moderna.

This case emphasises the grave difficulties that still exist in the textile industry. We do not want to get into a state of euphoria because we have put forward excellent proposals for the renegotiation of the agreement. There are still difficulties to be faced in the textile and clothing industries, but the House should recognise that the Government are willing to give help wherever they can.

The hon. Members for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and for St. Ives both asked about textiles being included in the Tokyo round. I can tell them that textiles will be included in the round and that manufactured goods will be considered on the basis of tariffs. That is a stage ahead, but it will be involved in the negotiations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) asked about Courtaulds at Skelmersdale. He has been extremely powerful in advancing the cause of Skelmersdale and his constituents, and he has raised some important matters tonight. Some of the issues, particularly on the manufacture of television tubes, were outside the scope of the debate, though the point made by my hon. Friend has been taken.

My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of an inquiry into Courtaulds. We do not have the power to hold such an inquiry into a company. The Opposition are always talking about the Marxist steps being taken by the Government towards complete centralisation of the economy, but this is another of their fantasies and is totally alien to the truth. If a company chooses to close a plant and put 3,000 or 4,000 men out of work, the only protection available to those working people is the Employment Protection Act, which gives them certain negotiating rights if they are members of an organised trade union and a certain amount of notice of redundancies, depending on the numbers involved.

We do not have the right to hold an inquiry in such a case—though we have powers in certain circumstances—without the co-operation and help of the firm concerned. I know that this is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, and perhaps it ought to be examined in future.

The hon. and learned Member for Darwen has to get up early in the morning and has apologised for not staying to the end of the debate. I think that I have answered emphatically his points about a long, hard slog and getting to the negotiating table.

We always welcome contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), and I noticed that he expressed his support for the Government. I hope that it will continue in the next few days.

My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) was the only hon. Member to refer specifically to the clothing industry. We have introduced a clothing scheme and we propose to spend £15 million on modernising the industry because we recognise its importance. The scheme has recently been extended to the end of 1977 and applications are increasing. The take-off of this scheme was not as rapid as we had hoped, but applications are now improving. I might say that we have dropped the lower limit to £10,000 in the hope that small firms will be involved and will make application. This is yet another example of the Government's determine- ation to help small firms in the clothing industry because we recognise their importance. I hope that that goes some way towards answering the fears expressed so cogently by my hon. Friend.

The debate has been a full and good one. The Government's proposals have been heartily endorsed by both sides of the House and especially by my hon. Friends. This is a recognition of the very good work that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade has done towards establishing this régime. It also reflects the very real concern that the Government have to ensure that an important section of British manufacturing industry—the textile and clothing industry—should be retained and developed. The Government are determined to do this, and the opinions of the House tonight indicate endorsement of the Government's actions in these matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. S/1882/76 and S/12/77 on textiles.