§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)I am extremely pleased to be able to introduce this short debate on the impact of the general agreement on tariffs and trade on the British textile and clothing industries. Before I do so, I take this first opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. As a fellow Yorkshire Member, I hope that you have a long, successful and happy tenure in your office, which is very well deserved.
I also declare an interest as a sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I take an especial pleasure in representing the TGWU textiles group which represents many thousands of men and women throughout the United Kingdom who depend for their livelihoods on the British textile and clothing industries.
When I applied for the debate, I did not imagine that it would be as timely as it has proved to be. Only yesterday, in the aftermath of the apparent agreement on agriculture by European Community Agriculture Ministers, a number of hon. Members of all parties pressed for a Government statement on the future of the GATT round. This debate allows the Minister to give the House, the industry and the general public some idea about the current position of the GATT round and about the prospects for a successful conclusion to the GATT negotiations.
The negotiations are now 18 months behind schedule. The main obstacle and difficulty in the negotiations has been agreement on agriculture. Many in the textile and clothing industries are extremely concerned about the apparent priority given to agriculture compared with that given to the textile and clothing industries. In sheer economic terms, the textile and clothing industries are far more important. The output of the British textile and clothing industries is £15 billion compared with £13.4 billion for agriculture. In exports, the figures are £4.5 billion compared with £2.6 billion and in employment, the figures are 420,000 compared with 262,000.
In recent years, agriculture seems to have enjoyed by far the greater attention of all concerned. The December 1990 GATT conference in Brussels, which was designed to agree a conclusion, broke up without agreement, mainly because of differences on agriculture. After further negotiations in December 1991, the GATT director-general, Arthur Dunkel, presented a paper setting out suggested conclusions for the round and asking for rapid agreement. The EC refused to accept the paper because the section on agriculture was unacceptable to it and since then, negotiations on agriculture between the EC and the United States have continued without agreement. Other sections of the Dunkel paper, including those relevant to textiles, have been put on ice until the disagreements on agriculture are resolved. Once that happens, there are other loose ends to be tied up, notably services and tariff reduction negotations.
Throughout the period, the main concern seems to have been agriculture, at the expense of textiles and clothing and of other sectors of industry and services. The apparent importance given to agriculture highlights the worries that continue to exist in the British textile and clothing industries about how those industries are perceived by British Ministers and civil servants, by European Commissioners and EC bureaucrats and by competing textile and clothing industries around the world. There are 619 lingering suspicions among those who work in the British industries that they do not count and that they are not really rated. They fear that they are seen by many Ministers and British civil servants as boring whingers. Whenever the subject of British textiles and clothing comes up, Ministers and officials tend to stare at the ceiling or at their imported silk socks. Sometimes, the industries are depicted as always moaning and their trade and profits are suspected of being a good deal better than they are prepared to let on; at others, they are depicted as old-fashioned and out-of-date industries desperately seeking total protection from the winds of free trade and free competition.
British Ministers must do their best permanently to sweep away those suspicions and the best way of doing that is by taking positive action to instil confidence in the minds of all those who work in the industries that the British Government are pledged to do all that they can to defend the industries' interests and to promote them overseas. Ministerial rhetoric has failed miserably to do that over the years.
It is vital that the Government show their support for the British textile and clothing industries, and action is necessary on a number of fronts. First, and most important, the British textile and clothing industries must be placed at the heart of the revival of British manufacturing. It is most important that the Government's trade, economic and fiscal policies all give positive support to British manufacturing in general and to the textile and clothing industries in particular.
The Minister will be aware of the grave misgivings felt not only in the textile and clothing industries but throughout British industry about the present and future role of his Department. Many of us believe that, unfortunately, as Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Nicholas Ridley and the present Secretary of State for Social Security presided over the demise of their own Department. Until recently, that great Department gave the impression that it had shut up shop, that it took no interest in the future of British manufacturing industry and that it was entirely unwilling to intervene on behalf of British manufacturing or to promote and defend its interests.
All that has changed because of the great promise that the present Secretary of State carries with him. During his attempts to become leader of the Conservative party and subsequently, he has been seen as a disciple—indeed, an evangelist—of British manufacturing. I know that the House is deserted on this occasion, but our debates are read with considerable interest. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take this opportunity to share with us the Department's thinking—and, in particular, the thinking of the Secretary of State—about the reorganisation of the Department and to tell us what attitude the Department will adopt to British manufacturing in future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us, for example, that the conclusion is rapidly being reached that it is high time that the Department established a division with direct responsibility for the British textile and clothing industries on a day-to-day basis. That would enable Ministers and officials to build a continuing dialogue with all sections of the industries and to have access to knowledge and expertise in the industries, thus ensuring that their best 620 interests are represented in all places and on all occasions and that a genuine effort is made to assist and to defend them.
Other measures need to be taken and I shall come to GATT in a moment. I take this opportunity to urge the Minister to consider what action his Department can take to promote exports. As I have already said, the British textile and clothing industries have a remarkable export record, but that record could be improved if the Department were prepared to enter real discussions to find ways of promoting and increasing British exports.
I have always wondered why our discussions on the textile and clothing industries are restricted to Adjournment debates and the odd question at Question Time. Hon. Members representing constituencies throughout the United Kingdom have no regular opportunity to question Ministers, to draw to their attention matters of concern and to urge that the Government act to promote this major British industry. I strongly urge that we should have at least an annual debate on the industries to give all hon. Members a proper opportunity to speak up on the industries' behalf, in exactly the same way as other hon. Members have the opportunity to speak on agriculture. There is a regular monthly Question Time on agriculture, and at least one debate a year, and I cannot understand why we still do not have such opportunities to speak about textiles and clothing.
We must look to the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that its arrangements for monitoring all agreements concerning textiles and clothing, including GATT, are effective and that surveillance is carried out thoroughly and as a matter of urgency.
What of matters affecting the GATT negotiations and discussions? I hope that, following yesterday's agreement, the Minister will be able to give us some clear information about the expected schedule for those negotiations. The Minister will know that there was considerable pleasure when it was agreed that the multi-fibre arrangement would not be phased out in less than 10 years. We must insist on that part of the agreement being maintained and the minimum phase-out period must be firmly linked to the strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines.
It would also help if the Minister could say that, even if good progress is now made in the negotiations, the GATT agreement is unlikely to be concluded and implemented until—most optimistically—the middle of next year and probably until the end of next year. The extension of the MFA—which we were very pleased to obtain—expires in December and it is most important that there should be a further extension, for at least another 12 months. The extension should apply for whatever period is necessary to coincide with the implementation of the full GATT negotiations and agreement.
We are also very anxious about several other issues. There must be a vigorous attack in the GATT market access negotiating group on high tariffs. We are concerned about high tariffs in developing countries and particularly in the United States where the tariff on wool cloth is still 36 per cent. There should be better export opportunities for the United Kingdom industry.
There must be strict enforcement of the current MFA arrangements. New quotas are needed in some cases to deal with damaging import surges and a major assault on fraudulent evasion of quotas, especially by China, should be carried out. We also urge the Minister and the Government to deal with current subsidy problems, 621 notably in relation to the provision of subsidised raw materials to some of the United Kingdom's competitors. The level playing field that we are seeking remains as elusive as ever. We urge the Minister and the Government to do everything possible to ensure that competition is free and fair.
I said earlier that many people in the textile and clothing industries are thought to be boring whingers. If we are honest, it must be accepted that we have a great deal to be concerned about. There has been a massive reduction in employment in our industries. Half a million people have lost their jobs over the past 20 years. In all, 560,000 jobs have disappeared from every region in the United Kingdom. The most recent figures show that 7,000 jobs are being lost every quarter. We must heavily underline the importance of the textile and clothing industries to the regions.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like me, will be aware of the importance of the textile and clothing industries to Yorkshire and Humberside. However, it is worth stressing that importance. At the moment, 63,000 men and women depend on the industries in Yorkshire and Humberside. That represents 15 per cent. of those employed in the industries throughout the United Kingdom and that is equal to 16 per cent. of manufacturing employment in our region. A similar picture occurs in other regions.
I would like the Minister to tell us something about the current position of the RETEX scheme. As the House will be aware, that scheme is designed to assist textile and clothing firms that want to diversify because of the decline in the industry. I should like to know what the budget for RETEX is likely to be. The Commission was to announce that budget. I contacted the Department yesterday and said that I was today intending to ask for information about the scheme. I hope that the Minister can provide it.
In addition to the amount of money available, there is concern about the availability of RETEX funds. At the moment, it seems that funds will be available only to assisted areas. That would exclude certain areas, even within West Yorkshire, where the textile industry is an important employer and an important part of the local economy. I urge the Minister to consider the matter and to ensure that we consider distribution of RETEX funds to regions rather than areas, so that regions where textiles and clothing are important can benefit from the scheme.
I also informed the Minister that I intended to refer today to pentachlorophenal—PCP—which is a fungicide used on grey, unfinished cloth in Asia and the far east. It is used on cotton when growing and also to prevent mildew during transit. When treated cloth is subsequently bleached, dyed or printed in the United Kingdom, any PCP is removed during the finishing process and discharged into the finisher's waste water.
The finishing industry faces difficulties because the permitted levels of PCP in waste water are restricted to very low levels as a result of EC legislation. Yorkshire Water is examining PCP levels at the moment and some water companies have already advised customers that from 1 July discharges containing PCP will not be accepted.
I understand that there is no known practical way of removing PCP from waste water. The textile finishing industry is currently undertaking a £290,000 research project into the problem. However, because of a delay in 622 obtaining funding from the Department of Trade and Industry, the project is not due to report until June of next year.
The finisher also does not own the grey cloth that he processes. It is owned by his customer. The pressures brought to bear by textile finishers on their customers have cut PCP pollution levels by an estimated 40 to 50 per cent. However, there are still insufficient quantities of grey cloth available that are not treated with PCP.
Customers in this country have up to two years' supply of grey cloth for finishing which has been treated with PCP. Textile companies may be forced to scrap those supplies which are worth millions of pounds, unless there is provision to extend the pollution deadline. I hope that the Minister will give us the Department's view about that problem, because it is clear that a sympathetic approach must be adopted. There is a degree of urgency because of the deadline.
I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to clarify the current position on the GATT negotiations and give us clear assurances that the textile and clothing industries will not be regarded as expendable or as industries whose interests can be traded off to reach an agreement under GATT. All the assurances that have been given about the Government's position on the negotiations should be maintained. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the best interests of the British textile and clothing industry will not be neglected or put on one side by the Government.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh)I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on his success in securing a debate on a subject which he follows closely and about which he has considerable knowledge. Whenever matters affecting the clothing and textiles industries are considered in the House, he is assiduous in his attendance and in making his full contribution. He has just done so once again and I hope that I will be able, in replying, to cover the main points which he made.
Contrary to what he said about himself, I would never regard the hon. Member for Bradford, West as a boring whinger; far from it. He speaks with great knowledge on textile matters. He raised some technical points. The first was RETEX, which comes under the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who is responsible for regional policy. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention. We have not come to a definitive conclusion about RETEX. As the hon. Gentleman will know, many initiatives have been promoted by the European Commission. I believe that RETEX is the eighteenth. When I was responsible for regional policy, we were prepared to consider proposals made by Commissioner Millan in a constructive light. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West also raised the problem of pentachlorophenol. That is a matter principally for my colleagues at the Department of the Environment. I understand the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman as a local Member of Parliament about environmental matters and I have noted the force with which he expressed himself today. I shall ensure that my 623 hon. Friend who is responsible for such matters at the Department of the Environment contacts the hon. Gentleman.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the importance of the textile industry. As he well knows, the textiles and clothing industry is still the United Kingdom's largest employer, with about 390,000 people working in it. The Government attach considerable importance to its health and well-being. It remains a substantial wealth creator, despite the retrenchment in size in past decades. It still accounts for roughly 2 per cent. of total employment in the United Kingdom and almost 9 per cent. of manufacturing employment. It is the fifth largest manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom and one of our main exporters.
I took careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said about the House devoting more time to the textiles industry. I shall certainly be happy to pass his observations on to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Department of Trade and Industry attaches enormous importance to the textiles industry. A great deal of time is spent by my officials and those who advise me in ensuring that the Department is a worthy ambassador for one of our greatest and most important industries.
So, by any reckoning, the textiles and clothing industry is of enormous importance to the United Kingdom economy. It has achieved much and has shown very considerable resilience largely because of its skilled and adaptable work force and strengthened management. It has proved itself to be extremely competitive, especially at the quality end of the market. It should also be noted that the industry has made increasing use of new techniques and technologies which have resulted in significant productivity gains. Advances have also been made in design and there is an increasing trend towards specialisation, with companies identifying what they do best and adapting and developing for all they are worth.
All the factors that I have mentioned are important if we are to have a thriving and competitive industry able to respond rapidly to the changing demands of the market place. Output declined in 1989, 1990 and again in 1991 as consumer demand weakened. But this had been preceded by a buoyant period in the sector in the mid-1980s when exports grew strongly and profit growth was above the manufacturing sector average.
The industry's fortunes are closely linked with the consumer market, and measures to slow down demand in the economy have inevitably been reflected in its short-term performance. But the United Kingdom textiles sector has not been unique in experiencing stagnant output growth at the beginning of the 1990s. The picture is similar for most other EC producers.
In 1991 both exports and imports were close to the previous year's levels. Exports were up by 2 per cent. in value terms to £4.7 billion. Indeed, clothing exports have surprised industry observers by their continued strength —in 1991 they were up 13 per cent. over 1990. By contrast, exports of textiles have been a little sluggish—down by 4 per cent. in 1991. Imports of clothing and textiles fell I per cent. in 1991.
With improving economic prospects, the industry can now look forward to emerging from a difficult period and building on the strengths developed during the 1980s. 624 Indeed, I was delighted to read in yesterday's Yorkshire Post the report of record textile and clothing exports in the first quarter of 1992. Exports exceeded £1.1 billion for the first time ever in this period. In that report Mr. Nightingale of the Apparel, Knitting and Textile Alliance said:
UK firms are selling internationally on the basis of quality, design, service and value for money.The hon. Gentleman said that his debate was timely and, of course, it is. The Times this morning repeats what we already know from the Yorkshire Post. It says that exports of British clothing and textiles in the first quarter of this year jumped 9 per cent. That shows that the hon. Gentleman's debate is timely. This is an appropriate moment to take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the attitude of the industry and our attitude to it. The industry has a positive attitude. The chairman of the Apparel, Knitting and Textile Alliance wrote to the GATT round in February this year:
So let us press for a determined drive to a successful conclusion which will leave our industry with hope for the future based on a lengthy and orderly phase-out of the present quota arrangements over a reasonable period, being accompanied by greater access to overseas markets and less cheating by our competitors.So there we see a positive attitude on the part of the AKTA.As the hon. Gentleman is such an expert on the textiles industry, it is not necessary for me to deal in any great detail with the multi-fibre arrangement, especially as time is short. I shall deal now with the current state of play in GATT. Before I discuss the specific impact of GATT on the textiles and clothing industries, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested in an update on developments in the round.
Just before Christmas, the director-general of GATT, Mr. Dunkel, issued his comprehensive draft final act of the Uruguay round. This represented the fruits of five years of hard negotiations. It covered the largest range of issues ever addressed in a single set of trade negotiations. These include further reductions in tariffs and non-tariff barriers, the strengthening of GATT rules on matters such as subsidies and anti-dumping, and improvements to GATT's own procedures, particularly those relating to the settlement of trade disputes. It would bring trade in agricultural products and textiles fully within GATT disciplines. It would also, for the first time, extend GATT rules to trade-related intellectual property rights and trade in services.
This agreement would bring substantial benefits to United Kingdom industry and consumers. It would reduce barriers to our exports, of services as well as goods. It would help to create fairer conditions of competition in international trade. It would reduce the damaging uncertainty which comes about when countries take trade measures unilaterally and it would discourage any tendency towards closed bilateral or regional trade agreements. Perhaps most importantly, it would give a boost to economic growth and confidence just when it is most needed, as the western economies are emerging from recession. The hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him that, for all the challenges that the process poses for the textiles industry, the GATT round is welcome. I am sure that he echoes those words.
The hon. Gentleman will also agree that if the GATT round failed we should not merely lose the benefits of the agreement; trade problems and disputes which had been in abeyance during the round would emerge again. While the 625 GATT system would not collapse overnight, confidence in it would be seriously weakened. There would be a loss of business confidence and an increased tendency to resort to protectionism. Countries would start to take the law into their own hands. The result could be the beggar-myneighbour policies that we saw in the 1930s which had such devastating consequences. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman supports our efforts to achieve agreement and at the same time to be aware of the particular problems faced by the textiles industry.
I am glad to say that all parties to the negotiations—and there are more than 100 of them—have been prepared to work on the basis of Mr. Dunkel's text. Nevertheless, as hon. Members will be aware, a number of problems remain to be resolved before final agreement can be reached. The principal one is agriculture. The hon. Gentleman has rightly made a great play of the subject of agriculture and I understand his point of view.
As is well known, the European Community has difficulties with certain of the proposals in the Dunkel paper. Discussions have continued to try to resolve those, mainly between the European Commission and the United States. An agreement between the EC and the United States is seen as essential to open the way to wider agreement.
I am glad to say that at their recent meeting President Bush and the President of the European Commission, Mr. Delors, reaffirmed their desire for an early settlement in the round. It is a mark of the importance of the round that President Bush, even with the impending election and his domestic concerns, continues to attach such a high priority to it. The British Government welcome that. At that meeting, certain new ideas were exchanged on agriculture, which both sides are now studying. Further meetings at senior level are expected shortly.
We very much hope that those new ideas will make possible an agreement on agriculture. That should be facilitated by the agreement on reform of the EC common agricultural policy, which was reached only yesterday and which the hon. Gentleman alluded to. In turn, that should open the way to resolving the remaining problems in other sectors, most importantly the liberalisation of trade in services and final agreement on the levels of tariff reductions on goods. If the key points can be agreed within the next weeks, it should be possible to conclude the final agreement, including the detailed legal texts, during the following few months.
The hon. Gentleman asked when we might reach a final agreement. I do not know any more than he does, but I hope that we are making good progress. The gap between the two sides is now very narrow and agreement is within reach. The United Kingdom believes very strongly that the overriding priority should be a good overall agreement. Given the potential benefits and the cost of failure, no issue should be allowed to stand in the way of that. Completing and, as necessary, expediting that work will of course be a high priority for our presidency of the European Community, starting in July.
That brings me, in the last nine minutes of my remarks, to the impact of the Uruguay round on the textiles and clothing industries, which is the issue that concerns the hon. Gentleman. International trade in textiles and clothing products is not subject to the rules and disciplines of GATT. Indeed, it is one of the few areas of international trade that are not covered by the GATT umbrella. However, a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round 626 would include an agreement on textiles trade, which would be brought under the disciplines of GATT and would involve the progressive phase-out of the MFA.
The GATT director-general's draft final act includes a draft agreement on textiles. It will involve the integration of textile and clothing trade into GATT over a period of 10 years, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I can now go into more detail. On a periodic basis—at least once every two years—developed countries will be obliged to identify a range of textiles and clothing products, by customs tariff headings, which will be plucked out of the MFA and integrated into GATT. What that means basically is that those products will no longer be subject to quantitative restrictions. By progressively integrating more and more products into the GATT, the MFA will gradually be phased out. That process will be complemented by progressive annual increases in the size of quotas for those products to be integrated into GATT at a later stage.
I should underline—this will interest the hon. Gentleman—that the phase-out of the MFA will be a carefully managed and monitored affair. Aside from the fact that it will take up to 10 years to phase out all quotas, even when a product has been integrated into GATT, the agreement gives provision for safeguard action to be taken against imports that threaten injury to domestic production. I know that the hon. Gentleman will take careful note of that. It is important for those of us, myself included, who are anxious to ensure adequate protection. In other words, quotas can be reimposed on goods integrated into GATT if they are threatening to damage our home industry. The proposed agreement on trade in textiles and clothing also establishes a body and mechanism through which trade disputes between members can be discussed and resolved.
However, phasing out the MFA is only part of the story. Ever since the Uruguay round negotiations began, the United Kingdom Government and the European Community, as well as most other western industrialised countries, have been ready to negotiate the return of trade in textiles and clothing to GATT only in return for strengthened rules and disciplines affecting how all GATT contracting parties, including developing countries, behave in their trading policies. That is another key point which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will support, and it is the level playing field in trade that we all, especially the hon. Gentleman, wish to promote.
The United Kingdom textiles and clothing industries have strongly urged and supported the so-called linkage between MFA phase-out and strengthened rules and disciplines. So what do they—and we as a Government —make of the total GATT package now emerging?
There have been some real achievements. There are satisfactory proposals for enhancing GATT's dispute settlement mechanism and the requirements placed upon the most advanced developing countries to adhere more closely to their GATT obligations. There has been useful, if not perfect—I accept that it is not perfect—progress in three key areas of interest to the United Kingdom industry: subsidies, safeguards and anti-dumping.
We and the United Kingdom industry have long been concerned about the potentially trade-distorting effect of overseas Governments' subsidies, but the difficulty has been to get internationally agreed restraints over the most damaging of them. The Uruguay round is starting down that road. The draft agreement seeks to categorise subsidies according to their trade-distorting effect, eliminating direct export subsidies and others which 627 clearly distort or impede trade, while permitting those domestic subsidies which demonstrably have no such effect. Any other subsidies would be actionable under the new subsidies code negotiated in GATT. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman on the subject of subsidies.
§ Mr. MaddenAs the Chamber is rapidly filling up with farmers, I am grateful that I made my remarks on agriculture earlier. Before the Minister concludes, can he answer the one specific question that I asked: when will the Government announce whether the MFA is to be extended beyond December? That is very important for confidence within the British industry.
§ Mr. LeighThe hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about confidence. The Government would not embark on any course of action that would lead to any lack of confidence. We are negotiating, and we are bound by our partners and colleagues in the European Community, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. As we are in the middle of negotiations, I am not in a position to give an absolute answer to the hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that the moment that we can make an announcement we shall do so. We are aware of the need to promote confidence in the industry and to assure it that we are dealing with an evolutionary process. The GATT round and the MFA process have been evolutionary and we have always tried to ensure adequate protection for industry and adequate warning of any changes. I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise from what I have said that there are grounds for considerable confidence. It appears that, thanks to the considerable success achieved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, 628 Fisheries and Food—who is now sitting beside me—which I am sure that the House welcomes, we now hope to proceed to a satisfactory conclusion of the GATT round.
The degree of discipline to be imposed is, to be frank, not as tight as we and the rest of the EC would have liked, but it reflects the outcome of multilateral negotiations, in which all sides have to compromise. But it is the Government's view that it represents a significant improvement on the current GATT subsidies code, where those countries are under no such obligations. By signing up to the new code, as drafted, they would be accepting a measure of their responsibilities which should go some way to meeting the oft-voiced concerns of the textiles and clothing industries.
In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
§ Madam SpeakerMadam Speaker.
§ Mr. LeighI apologise. I see that you have joined us in the Chair, Madam Speaker.
The MFA was only ever intended to be a temporary mechanism. It was meant to facilitate the managed restructuring of the textiles and clothing industries in developed countries by increasingly exposing them to competition from low-cost overseas suppliers; and that is largely what has happened. Professor Silberston's report for my Department in 1989 spells out the progress that has been made in modernising the British textile and clothing industries, with overseas competition being a key spur to improvements in domestic manufacture. I am sure that the House will recognise that the Government's policy has been a success. We have achieved a managed transition to a successful, modern, progressive industry. We will continue to negotiate with our partners to achieve even further progress.
It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).