§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]
11.38 pm§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)I wish to discuss the new multi-fibre arrangement, known as MFA III. The matter was raised in the House last week during questions to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and during business questions.
A number of hon. Members pressed, particularly during businees questions on Thurday, for a full day's debate on the important negotiations on the renewal of the MFA that are about to begin, when the present arrangement MFA II, expires.
A good deal of concern was expressed on Monday and on Thursday. Frankly, I do not think that it is possible, in the limited time available until about 12.10 am when the House will adjourn, for us to do justice to this subject.
I am glad to see that there are one or two hon. Members on both sides who may wish to speak before the Minister replies to the points that I shall make. It is of massive importance, in the view of all of us who are interested in the subject, and who have been fairly active in that respect in the past, that before EEC Ministers meet on 23 June, our Minister has the advantage of securing the knowledge of what hon. Members want.
We do not say that our Minister, able though he is, can perform miracles. However, we believe that we have a right to ask that before that critical round of negotiations begins, with the meeting of European Ministers on 23 June, when an EEC stance will be crystallised, the Minister should have the benefit of the information and of the views of people who are close to the multi-fibre arrangement and all its implications.
Therefore, tonight I can do no more than say that this is not the vehicle for a long debate. There is no time for that. A number of my colleagues wish to say a word or two. I hope that the Minister will apply his well-known expertise and pressure to make sure that we secure a major debate on the Floor of the House so that he knows what we want before 23 June.
A number of matters deeply concern Members of Parliament with textile interests. We are desperately worried about the continual erosion of the numbers employed and about the continued increase in imports from low-cost countries. However, tonight I feel that I should say no more than to invite my colleagues on both sides of the House to join in the debate briefly and, I hope, forcefully, and support my sincere and urgent plea that the Minister should secure for us a full debate before 23 June so that we may say what we want.
§ Mr. William Whitlock (Nottingham, North)I support the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in the plea which he has made.
The multi-fibre arrangement was originally seen as a means of sharing out the misery among developed countries of importing from underdeveloped countries. As we have borne an unfair share of that burden in the past, the MFA promised a better deal for Britain. That has not come about because other countries have not strictly adhered to the terms of the MFA. They do not allow penetration of their markets in the way that it is done here. The international rules are being bent in many ways.
380 The MFA must be renegotiated in a way which brings justice to Britain. There must be no pussy-footing around the problem by Ministers. They have expressed their resolve to obtain justice for Britain. They must maintain that resolve. There must be no slackening in it.
As the hon. Member for Harborough said, we must quickly have a full-scale debate on the matter so that hon. Members can bolster Ministers in their resolve. Therefore, in international negotiations the Ministers will be able to say what is the feeling which has been expressed by both sides of the House and which exists in the industry up and down the country.
I believe that other hon. Members will make the same point. I hope that the Minister will tell us that there will soon be a debate.
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on his initiative in applying for an Adjournment debate on the subject and being successful in getting one.
I want to add my support to my hon. Friend's call for an early debate on a vital issue. About 600,000 people are employed in the textile and clothing industries. The two industries employ many more people than the steel, iron and coal industries put together. The House and the Government spend time and money on those industries. The work force, management and employers in the textile industry equally deserve attention, so I fully support the call for a full debate on the renegotiation of the MFA before the Council of Ministers meets a little later this month.
Let me give the Minister one or two statistics to take to the meeting. In 1970, man-made fibre production employed 41,000 people. The provisional figure for June 1980 is 25,300. Comparable figures for the cotton and linen industry are 175,000, dropping to 68,800. Huge reductions have taken place in the textile industry. We have had rationalisation. All the organisations involved with the industry believe that hon. Members representing textile areas should have an opportunity to acquaint Ministers renegotiating the MFA of how strongly the House feels.
Sadly, many people among the management, employers and work force believe that the Government and the European Commission are likely to take a less tough stand on imports than had been hoped. They feel that their stand may be weaker than when the MFA was last negotiated. I hope that that is not so. Many hon. Members believe that the present system of global ceilings for sensitive products must be strengthened and not weakened. There must be no thought of abolishing the ceiling for any category of product. There must be no exclusion from the ceiling of any country at present covered.
Consistently through the life of this MFA we have argued that growth rates within the agreement should be restricted to the expected growth in the market. Similarly, many of us with textile interests have argued that there should be a clause permitting a reduction in access to our market when there is a decline in consumption—that is, a recession clause.
I know how strongly the Minister feels about the subject. I know of the calls that he has made on the textile industry up and down the country and the contact that he has with trade organisations, individual employers and 381 trade unions. I sincerely beg him to take up the case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and to press the Government to find time to debate a subject that is vital to 600,000 people, because, if that is not important, what is?
§ 11.48 pm.
§ Mr. K. J. Woolmer (Batley and Morley)I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on securing the Adjournment debate. I thank him for his generosity in giving way to other hon. Members. It is a well attended Adjournment debate, and shows the strong feeling about this important matter.
I am part of the West Yorkshire interest in the wool textile and clothing industry. The matter concerns not only Yorkshire, Lancashire, Nottingham, the East Midlands, Scotland, the West Country and the clothing industries of London but a large number of other constituencies. The industry has lost over 160,000 jobs in the past two years. I do not pretend that the problem has arisen only in that period. A major series of industries is being eroded.
This is not the occasion to go into the many ramifications of the important trading agreement, which strikes at the heart of many communities in Britain. I am sure that hon. Members in the House tonight will agree with me that the proper time to discuss this would be in a full debate so that the whole House might express its views on industries and trade agreements which affect so many communities in this country. Whatever the precedents, it would be quite wrong on this occasion for the House not to have the opportunity to express its views on all aspects of this trade agreement before the European Commission and the European Ministers come to their view on the negotiating position.
I hope that this evening has provided the opportunity for the Minister of State to see the strength of feeling on both sides of the House. On many occasions in the past, he has shown that he is willing to listen. I hope that he will be able to reflect that again tonight and give us an assurance that the debate for which we all so earnestly wish will take place.
§ Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)I, too, am grateful to my hon Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for securing this Adjournment debate. It is crucial that the views of the House should be known. The views of the European Parliament have been made plain on many occasions, but the views of the House have not been properly expressed. My hon. Friend referred to the growth recession clause. We have had assurances from various Ministers on that, but unless we back it up right to the last minute we feel that we may lose on points such as that. We mentioned this, for example, in a booklet called "Textiles in the '80s" which some colleagues and I drew up precisely to draw the Minister's attention to the items that we thought should be included in the multi-fibre arrangement for which negotiations commence in October.
The House must have the opportunity to strengthen the Minister's hand in the coming negotiations. I therefore beg him to persuade the Leader of the House to give us a full day's debate on this matter.
§ Mr. Ben Ford (Bradford, North)I merely add my voice to those of my colleagues on both sides of the House. 382 This is being pursued as an all-party matter. We seek no political advantage on either side, except to achieve security of employment for those who remain in the textile industry, in the cotton, wool, hosiery and other sectors. We are aware that Ministers bear a heavy responsibility for securing the negotiating mandate for the multi-fibre arrangement when they meet on 23 June.
I therefore add my voice to those who have requested a full-scale parliamentary debate before 23 June so that Ministers may understand the depth of feeling in the House reflected from the constituencies that we represent in order that democracy may be served.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Huddersfield, West)My constituency has been devastated by closures of mills never to open again, while others are rapidly slimming down to try to survive. Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I hope that we can have a full-scale debate to save the remaining mills and to strengthen the industry, which is bigger than the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board put together. We must have a full-scale debate so that, when our Ministers go to Europe to renegotiate the MFA, people there will know that we really mean business, that we are fighting to save our industry and that all parts of the House in the United Kingdom are united in that aim.
§ Mr. Stanley Cohen (Leeds, South-East)It is pleasing to witness the rare occasions when hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber share a concern. Politics apart, we share a concern about those whom we represent. As a Member for Leeds, which has always been noted as a clothing industry area, I express my concern about the number of jobs that have been lost in the Leeds area in the clothing industry and in the West Riding in the textile industry. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) and I had the opportunity to visit Taiwan, he quoted a figure that I shall repeat tonight. He said that 2,000 jobs per month were being lost in the textile industry in this country. There is, therefore, cause for grave concern in all parts of the House among Members like ourselves who represent the areas in which those job losses are occurring.
In view of what has been said from all parts of the Chamber, I hope that the Minister and the Leader of the House will give us the opportunity of having a full-scale debate about the problem and the effect that it is having not only in Yorkshire and Lancashire but throughout the country generally, so that we may come to some sort of arrangement before the negotiations take place.
§ Mr. D. A. Trippier (Rossendale)Since the Minister of State has held office in the Government he has been under considerable pressure from hon. Members in all parts of the House who represent textile constituencies. He has responded to that pressure on many occasions and I have no doubt that he will respond to the pressure this evening, and to the pressure that will be put on him in a future textile debate, which I hope will be before the discussions are held within the European Community.
It is very important to convey to the European Community the sort of pressure that the Minister is under. I would have thought that it would be of great advantage to him in his negotiating stance that he should convey the 383 strength of feeling which exists among Members of Parliament who represent the textile constituencies. There would be nothing worse than for him to go to the negotiating chamber without having had a debate behind him, and without an opportunity having been given to Members of Parliament to strengthen his arm. That is all we are seeking to do tonight, and we hope that our application to him will meet with a favourable response.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)The message from the Wool Textile Action Group, which met on Friday 22 May at Wakefield, on behalf of the woollen industry—and I know that this feeling was duplicated in the cotton textile industry, the knitting industry and the clothing industry—was that there is serious concern about the MFA, and that there needs to be a discussion about it in the House of Commons.
People outside look to the House of Commons to air their views. It is not sufficient for the Government to say "Leave it to the Opposition Supply day." This is an important matter, because it is the Government mandate that will be negotiated during the MFA renewal. Therefore, it seems to me a legitimate claim by both sides of the House that the Government should give time and that they should elaborate, in part or in whole, their view of what the mandate should be, so that we by our expression of strength of opinion can strengthen their view, to ensure that a sufficiently adequate MFA—including the recession clause—is negotiated.
We have to ensure that the jobs of over 600,000 people are retained and may be developed and improved. The view of the trade unions and the employers' side at the meeting in May to which I referred was not one of hope. It is incumbent on Parliament and the Government to set down a debate so that some hope and renewed confidence can be given to the industry.
§ The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson)Tonight has been a unique exercise mounted by a body of hon. Members. Ten Members have spoken in 19 minutes, which gives the lie to the notion that Members of Parliament are not capable of making short speeches. What has come out clearly from all the speeches is a very strongly held view that Parliament must have a say about the renegotiation of the MFA, and that the way that Parliament would like to have that say is by mounting a full-scale debate on the subject.
The Department of Trade would welcome such a debate. It is clear that hon. Members in all parts of the House want it. I shall ensure that this very strong feeling, of which the Government are already aware, is conveyed to the Leader of the House. As hon. Members know, what we debate is a matter for him and not for me. The message of the House is clear and unmistakable. I am sure that the Leader of the House will take note of it. I give hon. Members an undertaking that I shall report to him on the speches that I have heard.
By this "exercise", hon. Members have demonstrated that they have ways of getting their message through to the Government. I did not need to be reminded of that. I have spoken to and have been available to any hon. Member from a textile constituency who has wished to see me. I 384 have seen deputations from the industry, from the trade unions, from management and from Members of Parliament. I remain open at all times to approaches from colleagues and from the industry. The Government recognise the big problems that face the industry. In the few minutes available I should like to emphasise the Government's commitment to the industry, to discuss the way in which the process of renegotiation will get under way and to deal with the Government's general line of approach.
I turn to the Government's commitment to the industry. I do not want to cite masses of boring statistics. As hon. Members know, on behalf of the Government I administer 570 quotas with 42 low-cost suppliers from all over the world. I have added to that number of quotas at the rate of about one every two weeks since the Conservative Party has been in power. We have negotiated agreements with the Mediterranean suppliers with whom we did not have agreements and we have taken a tough line with the State traders. We have embarked on a process of obtaining proper transitional arrangements for Spain and Portugal, when they become members of the EEC.
On a daily basis, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to the textile industry. Again I emphasise the Government's awareness of the industry's importance as an employer, as the supplier still, in value, of about 70 per cent. of all the textiles and clothing purchased in Britain and as the exporter of over £2,170 million worth of goods last year. Therefore, as has been said, it is a huge and important industry and the Government are acutely aware of that. The arrangements under the present MFA are, on the whole, working as originally envisaged. However, the market is not the market that it should have been. It is not the market for which the present arrangements were designed.
I turn to the process of renegotiation. As hon. Members know, we are consulting widely at home. Hon. Members, representatives of all sections of the industry, individual employers and trade unions are making their views known to us. The Government are setting up a working group with the industry, which will function throughout the renegotiations. In that way the Government and the industry will know what the other one is up to and will be in continuous contact. Within the EEC the tempo is building up. At a steadily escalating official level there have been discussions. As hon. Members know, on 23 June the first ministerial discussions will take place.
I expect those discussions to be general. The newly elected French Government are unlikely to have a finally formed view. That will be the first exchange of views at ministerial level. On 23 June we shall not settle the Community's mandate once and for all. We shall be probing each other's minds. That process has already begun. I have met ministerial colleagues from all parts of the Community in recent months. We have been exchanging views about the sort of renegotiation we would like. We have been testing each other's ideas on each other.
Recently I was in the United States, where I had discussions with Senator Brock. Senator Brock has subsequently been here. The United States is beginning to develop its ideas. Thus, 23 June is an important occasion because it will be the occasion of the first formal ministerial exchange of views. It will not be the last occasion, and the final definitive negotiating mandate will be evolved over a period beginning with 23 June.
385 In addition to the negotiations and discussions within the Community, the preliminary discussions on negotiations have begun in the GATT textiles committee. One of the things which emerged, which was a surprise, was that there was a general agreement between supplier and recipient countries of the need to have a renewal of the MFA. That might have been contentious, but it is accepted on all sides that the MFA must be renewed. The build-up to the negotiations has begun and hon. Members are correct to say that Parliament must have a say. I hope that hon. Members will accept that they have been entitled to have a say, have had access to the Government on a continuing basis in the past few months and will continue to have such access. If we have a debate, that will not be the final opportunity for hon. Members. My door remains open to hon. Members who wish to consult or to express a view during the negotiations.
I summarise briefly some of our objectives in the renegotiation. The Prime Minister has said that she expects the Ministers in her Government to negotiate a tough and effective successor the the MFA. She has made that clear 386 to us all, to the public and industry. I do not want to go into great detail, but shall touch on a few of the major subjects.
We accept that the arguments for a recession clause are strong. We have said so on a number of occasions. My reasoning for that is that it seems that if one enters into an arrangement on the basis of a set of assumptions, which turn out to be false, there should be a mechanism for adjusting the arrangement to the facts and not to the imagined facts. The Government are strongly committed to that. It will not be easy to negotiate. There is resistance to it. I have tried the idea on a number of people. I told the industry that if it wants to help us it must get its colleagues in industries in other Community countries and in countries outside the Community to see the necessity for the clause. We accept that there is a strong case for it. We also accept that there is a need to look at growth rates—
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.