§ 7. Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give an indication of the timetable for preparations for the forthcoming negotiations on a new multi-fibre arrangement.
§ Mr. ChannonThe multi-fibre arrangement extends until 31 July 1986, and it is by that date that agreement on any successor regime must be reached. By July 1985, however, the textile committee of GATT has to consider whether the arrangement should be extended, modified or discontinued.
§ Mr. MaddenIs the Minister aware that there is concern among British textile employers and trade unions about the fact that the Government are not representing the interests of British textiles with the same vigour as the Governments of our competitors represent their interests? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to make a clear declaration that the British Government fully appreciate the crucial importance of any new MFA in helping British textiles to overcome unfair overseas competition?
§ Mr. ChannonWe certainly appreciate the important contribution which the textile and clothing industries make to the British economy. It is far too soon to come to a decision on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement. We shall have a special report on that matter and we hope to publish the report in early December. There is another question on the Order Paper about the multi-fibre arrangement. I shall be happy to have the views of the industry and the House on the report.
§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonDoes my hon. Friend agree that it is not too soon to come to an agreement that a new multi-fibre arrangement is essential if the expansion of the clothing and textile industry is to continue? The industry has just begun to recover. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the uncertainty of a future MFA or a successor to the current MFA, irreparable damage would be done to an industry which could do more than any other to solve the unemployment problem?
§ Mr. ChannonI note what my hon. Friend has said. I think he represents a view which is widely shared in the House and in the industry. I believe that we should await that report before deciding on its conclusions.
§ Mr. James LamondShould the Minister not consider the fact that at present China is ploughing ahead with its plan to develop its textile industry, with the object of exporting as much as Europe's entire output? Should not that aspect be looked at urgently?
§ Mr. ChannonYes. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This year an agreement on textiles was made between China and the Community. I believe that the agreement was reasonably well received by the textile industry. Much effort went into trying to make it a satisfactory arrangement. These are difficult and important issues, which we all want to consider carefully. I take note of the views of the House.
§ Mr. Bowen WellsIs my right hon. Friend aware that the multi-fibre arrangement was intended as a transitional measure to enable Britain's textile industry to adjust to new trading conditions? In pursuit of our free trade principles, will he ensure that the arrangement ends when it was expected to end, in 1986? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. ChannonIt is not surprising that there are different views in different quarters of the House, and when the times comes we shall see where the different views lie. It is clear that there are differing views on the virtues of the arrangement. I can confirm that when the arrangement was made it was never intended to be a permanent measure. We should await Professor Silberston's report on the international textile and clothing trades, which will be available next month. When it is available we shall be able to take a balanced view on the issues that surround it.
§ Mr. KirkwoodWill the Minister of State pay particular attention to the representations that are being made to him on the MFA by the Scottish Knitwear Council and others? Is he aware of the importance of some continued assistance and protection under the MFA for the hosiery industry in the border area of Scotland? Will he give us an assurance that there will be an early debate in the House on the subject as soon as the Silberston report is available?
§ Mr. ChannonThe arranging of a debate is not a matter for me, but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. The representations made by the Scottish knitwear industry will be taken fully into account, as will all the representations that are made to the Department. The hon. Gentleman's constituents were among those whom we did our utmost to help in the EEC-China agreement, which I hope and believe is satisfactory.
§ Sir John FarrIs my right hon. Friend aware that, despite a succession of MFAs, many tens of thousands of jobs have been lost, especially in the knitwear and hosiery industries, which will never be restored? Will he assure the House that when he enters into negotiations for a new MFA there will be strict terms for third country imports?
§ Mr. ChannonBefore we decide the exact terms of a new MFA, if that is what it is to be, we should study the evidence—[Interruption.] I am not saying anything new to the House. We must await the report of Professor Silberston and then the House will have an opportunity to decide how it would like the Government to proceed in the negotiations when the arrangement expires. There are some encouraging signs that the textile and clothing industries are now doing better, and I am sure that the House welcomes that.
§ Mr. John SmithIs the Minister aware that to imply that there might not be a new arrangement, but some other device, will cause a great deal of worry throughout the textile and clothing industries? Surely the Minister should be able to tell the House that the Government's objective will be to obtain a new arrangement which caters for the problems of the British industry, without having to await the report of any professor?
§ Mr. ChannonI do not think that there will be any worry in the textile and clothing industries unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes around stirring it up. My right hon. Friend and I are in touch with the industries continually and there is no worry within them. No decision has been taken on what protection beyond 1986 might be appropriate for the British industry. I have made that plain in my original answer and in answers to supplementary questions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being 288 only too typical in trying to distort my answer to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr).