CLOTHING INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ORDER

HL Deb 08 November 1949 vol 165 cc317-35

2.37 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on October 27 last, be approved. The Clothing Industry Development Council Order for which I am asking the approval of your Lordships is presented to your Lordships' House in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. Its purpose is to set up a development council for the clothing industry, and it follows in fairly close form the precedents set up by the Orders already approved by Parliament, under which development councils were set up for the cotton industry, the furniture industry and the jewellery and silverware industry. Therefore, I do not think that I need worry your Lordships with the details of the provisions.

The clothing industry is one of our most important industries. Every member of the population is interested in it as a consumer. I suppose it could rightly be said that, after food, we are primarily concerned with clothes—and perhaps it could be said of the female sex that that order is reversed. Everything that happens in the industry, its efficiency, the quality and the price of its goods, the contribution it makes to the export trade and the demands it makes upon our man-power, are all matters of national interest. Its set-up follows closely the pattern of so many of our British industries: a few large concerns, many of medium size and a whole host of small ones. Only 5,000 employers in the industry employ more than ten workers, and in the great majority of these cases the number is less than 100. How many there are who employ fewer than ten at the present time I cannot say, but in 1935 it was estimated that there were over 20,000.

As does happen in industries where this state of affairs persists, it is the happy hunting ground for those who think that the number of trade associations provides a way to measure the efficiency of an industry. When we had negotiations with the clothing industry concerning this development council, we had to consult on the employers' side no fewer than twenty-five separate bodies, each claiming to represent a substantial number of employers in the industry, and there were, in addition, a number of local and other bodies. According to the information supplied to the Heavy Clothing Working Party, the total membership of the twenty-five central organisations of employers does not appear to exceed 6,000, so that 75 per cent. of the firms operating in this industry have no trade organisations. Upon the workers' side there are two unions having a membership of something in the region of 150,000, out of a total of about 450,000 employees in the industry. Despite the multiplicity of trade bodies on the employers' side, or perhaps because of it, the industry is not well organised. Consultation and negotiation on various matters for years past, other than the negotiations that were carried on in connection with this development council, have been very difficult, and this has prevented the industry from working out and pursuing a common policy and from overcoming some of the evils from which it has suffered in the past. And it must he admitted that in some of its branches, though not all of them, the over-all standard of production is not that which we would like and which we think is obtainable.

In April, 1946, the Heavy Clothing Working Party was set up. It was followed in the succeeding year by two other working parties, one for the light clothing industry, and the other for the rubber-proofed clothing industry. They were composed of representatives of the employers and workers, together with independent members. The Heavy Clothing Working Party Report was submitted in November 1946. It said: We consider not only that the need for a central organisation is evident but that the establishment of such a body to perform those functions which are not covered by the existing organisations and which cannot or should not be undertaken by the Government is essential to the well being and efficiency of the industry. The Light Clothing Working Party Report, which was submitted in 1947, contained this finding: We have come unanimously to the conclusion that the best solution lies in the establishment of a single development council, but on a federal basis, providing the maximum degree of automony for the light clothing and heavy clothing sections of the industry. The Report of the Rubber-proofed Clothing Working Party, which was also submitted in 1947, said: We think that the rubber-proofed clothing industry would have everything to gain from the setting up of a development council for the clothing industry, sharing in the benefits of any general work sponsored by it and able to bring to its attention the special problems of the rubber proofed clothing trade. We recommend that in any Order setting up a development council for the clothing industry provision should be made for direct representation on the council of the rubber-proofed clothing interest. The draft Order before your Lordships' House sets up three separate committees; one for the heavy clothing industry, one for the light clothing industry, and one ' for the rubber-proofed clothing industry.

Section 1 (4) of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act reads as follows: A development council order shall not be made unless the Board or Minister concerned is satisfied that the establishment of a development council for the industry is desired by a substantial number of the persons engaged in the industry. In submitting the other Orders to your Lordships for approval, I have had no difficulty in satisfying your Lordships that those in favour of a development council were a substantial number, because in all cases they have been in the majority. I cannot claim that this Order commands the same degree of support but I have little fear that I can satisfy your Lordships that the support which is given to the Order is substantial. To enable me to satisfy your Lordships, I think it is only fair that I should acquaint the House with the hare arithmetic of the position. On the employers' side, two employers' organisations—the Master Ladies Tailoring Organisation, and the Light Clothing Contractors' Association—believed to represent over 1,000 out of a total of about 6,000 firms organised in the industry, have declared themselves firmly in support of the Order. One other organisation—the Bespoke Tailors Guild—after originally giving their approval, later made their support conditional. The majority, though not all, of the remaining employers' organisations are opposed to the Order. In addition, there are approximately 20,000 firms, representing about 75 per cent. of all firms in the industry, who are outside the employers' organisations. These have said neither "Yea" nor "Nay." Their views are not known, although we have tried to get their comments. We have issued a non-Parliamentary publication, Press notices and the like, but there has been no response one way or the other.

Upon the workers' side, the two unions, the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers and the Waterproofed Garment Workers Trade Union, representing some 150,000 employees, the whole of the organised workers in the industry, are strongly in favour of the proposals in this Order. That is the bare arithmetic, but I would acid to the substantial number of 1,000 employers and 150,000 workers the three working parties, which were composed of responsible and leading industrialists representing all sections of the employers and of the unions concerned. These working parties, from whose reports I have just quoted, are unanimously in favour of setting up a central body such as a development council. Indeed, the United Committee of Light Clothing Associations submitted a memorandum to the Light Clothing industry Working Party which contained this basic recommendation: The United Committee are in favour of a central organisation being set up to cover all sections of the garment manufacturing industry. The United Committee further considers that this central organisation should be created by the Board of 'Trade under the powers conferred under, and in conformity with, the principles to be embodied in the Industrial Organisation Act when this becomes law. It is further recommended that the powers to be conferred by the Act be invoked to provide for the financing of this central body, or development council as it will more appropriately be called, by a compulsory levy on all manufacturers covered by the council. Further support was given to proposals similar to those contained in this Order by a Council of the Clothing Trade Associations which was set up in 1943, under the chairmanship of Mr. G. Russell Vick, K.C., to report on post-war reconstruction in the clothing industry. A significant passage in their Report is this: With these facts and experiences in mind, it is clear that there is a call for the creation of a central body coordinating the functions of the various associations, providing facilities for discussion and action on common problems, and providing services to the industry which it would be beyond the powers, for various reasons, of individual associations to provide. So the reasons which brought all these various bodies to the conclusion that a central organisation on the lines of a development council is necessary are the self-same reasons which have induced His Majesty's Government to bring this Order before your Lordships this afternoon.

There are a number of problems of vital concern, not only to the industry but to the nation—problems which the present crisis brings out in stark relief. All these problems can be effectively dealt with only by some central organisation such as is proposed. The outstanding need is to increase, first of all, the industry's productivity. Much can he done in this direction by the improvement of its technical efficiency, the improvement of factory lay-out, machinery, equipment, lighting and production methods. In our present crisis a manufacturing industry which requires a labour force of approximately 500,000 must be expected to make an outstanding contribution to our export trade. At the present moment the clothing industry's contribution 'to our export trade is only 4½ per cent. of its total production—namely, about £13,000,000 out of its annual turnover of £300,000,000.

Both the heavy and the light clothing working parties regarded the evil of seasonal fluctuations as being very serious. Unemployment in the off-season, ranging at about 9 per cent, of the whole labour force, and short-time working for many, both on the male and the female side, were characteristics of prewar years. The establishment and maintenance of proper standards of quality, which is a highly technical matter and one well fitted for a body fully representative of the industry, is one of the all-important matters which must come under consideration. In the past, as a number of noble Lords here well know, the industry has been able to rely upon a plentiful supply of cheap labour. In the future, the economical use of labour and its better utilisation, resulting from improvement of equipment, is a matter which must receive the urgent attention of the industry, as must also the training of its technicians and designers. Attention, too, must be paid to that multitude of problems to which any highly developed industry must have regard.

I have drawn your Lordships' attention to the lay-out of this industry, which, as I have said, consists of a few large, many medium and a multiplicity of small concerns. It is the pattern of many British industries and will remain so while British individualism remains what it is. But it makes efficient organisation difficult. In fact the clothing industry is a typical example—I might almost say it is an outstanding example—cif where that wide gap between the most efficient and the least efficient firm e lasts—the gap to which Sir George Schuster so pointedly drew the country's attention in a recent letter to The Times. The industry has not organised itself. It has taken no steps to implement the conclusions in that Report on Post-War Reconstruction in the Clothing Industry, which was issued in 1943 and which I have already quoted. It has taken no steps to organise itself since the publication of the Reports of the three working parties. I am therefore forced to the conclusion that this industry is so disorganised that it cannot organise itself without outside help.

The Government have a heavy responsibility in this matter. They can let the thing slide and drift; they can give the industry some statutory powers to organise itself upon a quasi-voluntary basis; or they can take it over. They do not wish to do the last, and they cannot do the first, so their proposal is that they should take the middle course and set up this development Council in order that the industry can organise itself, where the efficient can help the inefficient, where the total knowledge can be pooled, and where the recalcitrant have to contribute to the cost and not leave it to the public-spirited few to carry out the work and, incidentally, bear the expense as well. When there is so much controversy between noble Lords on the opposite side of the House and those on this side upon the merits or otherwise of nationalisation, surely there can be no controversy upon a matter in which the Government are willing to take steps to help private enterprise to do its job better in the national interest. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th of October last, be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

2.56 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord for his exposition of a subject which was debated in another place for three and a quarter hours. I was particularly interested to listen to what I might term—I hope without offence—the special pleading of the noble Lord. He painted us a picture of a delightful Order, to which a few foolish people were objecting but which was deserving of unanimous support from all sides of the House. In the few moments I desire to take of your Lordships' time, I should like to try and show that there is another side to this problem. When the noble Lord talked about "the bare arithmetic," I think he ought perhaps to have added that it was arithmetic of figures planned and presented in order to support his particular contentions, and mixed up with a somewhat one-sided presentation of the facts of the case.

We object to this Order on three grounds. First, it does not fulfil the undertaking given by Ministers in this House and in another place that a development council would not be foisted upon an unwilling industry. I will come back to that in a moment, and I may even quote the noble Lord himself, as well as some of his colleagues. Our second objection is that it does not fulfil the condition laid down in Section 1 (4) of the original Act, which says that if a development council be brought into being there must be substantial numbers of persons in the industry requiring it. I will come back to that in a moment. The third objection is that we feel it will not work, because it will impose a very considerable financial burden upon the industry—and eventually upon the consumers—just at the time when we are being exhorted by the Government to keep all forms of production costs down.

As the noble Lord said (I would like to achieve some measure of agreement with him, so far as I can) this is not one industry; it is a whole series of industries, employing, in round figures, 500,000 persons. The manufacturers' associations, representing about 4,500 firms, employing 80 per cent. of the labour force, object to this Order. My first difference with the noble Lord is that he told your Lordships that 75 per cent. of the employers were not represented in the employers' organisations. That may be true in numbers, but the fact is that the employers represented in the manufacturers' associations employ no less than 80 per cent. of the labour in the industry. It is no good the noble Lord saying that 75 per cent. of the employers are not in these associations. What the noble Lord ought to say is that 80 per cent. of the employment in this industry is represented by the employers' associations. I submit that that would be a fairer way of putting this particular point.

The noble Lord then said that he based his case on the reports of three working parties which he said were unanimous in their recommendations for a development council. The noble Lord was not quite clear—I think "clear" is a fair word—when he said that the Heavy Clothing Working Party reported before the passing of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. Since their recommendation was made before the Bill was passed, it cannot be used in support of a development council.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

What I thought I said was that the Heavy Clothing Working Party were in favour of an organisation similar to that which is now proposed.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

I think it will he within the recollection of your Lordships that the noble Lord gave the impression that all three working parties were in favour. I am glad to receive that amendment to the noble Lord's special pleading in that direction. It is true that the Light Clothing Working Party and the Rubber-proofed Clothing Working Party, did recommend this. But what the noble Lord did not tell the House was that the employer members of the working parties were appointed as individuals; they had no mandate at all to speak for the employers' organisations to which they belonged. They were there solely as individuals, and their recommendations do not carry, and were never supposed to carry, any weight on behalf of the particular employers' organisations to which they belonged.

The noble Lord quoted three employers' organisations which are supposed to be in favour of this development council. What he did not tell your Lordships was that of the three he mentioned two represent not manufacturers themselves but sub-contractors, small people who do not own the main materials which they use to fabricate. Those are owned by members of other organisations. It really is not fair to come to the House and say that employers' organisations are in favour, when the two he quotes are virtually small sub-contractors to the main body. He has also told your Lordships about the Bespoke Tailors Guild being in favour and then later withdrawing. I must press the noble Lord on this point, because there have been misunderstandings—I would not like to say misrepresentations—on it, and in another place the President of the Board of Trade said the same thing.

I have here a letter from the Bespoke Tailors Guild, together with a statement which was issued by them on November 8. I will read it to your Lordships, because we must have this matter fair and square. The statement says: In view of the statements made by Mr. Harold Wilson, President of the Board of Trade, in the House of Commons (a) that the Bespoke Tailors Guild was in favour of a Development Council for the Clothing Industry, and (b) had not declared its opposition. I must draw your attention to a Press Conference called at the offices of the Guild on February 21, 1949. At this Conference it was said ' We have never supported the proposals for the formation of a Development Council'."— and then a further statement was issued. That is a categorical statement by the Guild which, in his special pleading, the noble Lord said was in favour of this development order.

I now come to the pledges which have been given by Ministers both to your Lordships, here, and in another place, that a development council would not be imposed upon an unwilling industry. I will deal first with the noble Lord himself, as it may ease his conscience a little if I take him 'before the other Ministers. The noble Lord, in reply to my noble friend, Lord Swinton, said in this House: …it was no good attempting to foist…on the employers and trades unions something with which they did not wholeheartedly agree, because that would have made the scheme abortive from the very commencement… The second pledge was given in another place by Mr. Marquand, who at that time was Paymaster-Genetal. He said: The Government have every intention of proceeding by agreement rather than by compulsion and does not wish to impose a development council on unwilling industry. Then the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—who I regret is not here to be reminded of his words—said this: If in some particular industry the general attitude towards development councils is hostile, it is very unlikely indeed that a development council will be set up. I know the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, did not give a definite pledge, but at any rate he gave an indication; other Ministers, as I have said, gave definite pledges.

The industry's objection is not based on any political grounds, as the President of the Board of Trade inferred in another place. It is a real objection by business men concerned with businesses in which they have spent their lives, and who feel that they know the industry and its requirements better, perhaps, than those who sit at the centre in Whitehall. As the noble Lord said, there are many common problems which can be tackled separately. The industry say that there are very few common problems which can be tackled centrally; moreover, such problems as exist are already being tackled and can continue to be tackled in the future. One form of agreed central action is the example of the Clothing Mission, representing both employers and employees, which has gone to Canada. And the industry feels that the Government could proceed by voluntary organisation. The noble Lord brushed aside very quickly any idea of there being a voluntary organisation, but the industry has never expressed its unwillingness —indeed, it has expressed its willingness—to go forward on a voluntary basis rather than have this development council foisted upon them. The industry objects—and I believe we must all object, as consumers—to a charge of £300,000 in three years, which will be the amount of the levy on this industry. Eventually, everyone will have to pay for that in the price of their clothes, either those used here or for export. We feel that this is a wrong moment for the introduction of such heavy charges.

I want to come for a moment to the Government's statement that there are substantial numbers in industry who want a development council. The noble Lord quoted the trade unions. I have here figures which show that only 28 per cent. of the men in this industry belong to various trade unions—that is the estimated number. Of that 28 per cent, in the industry, how many really want this development council or know anything about it? There has been no ballot amongst those men as to whether or not they want a development council. All that has happened, apparently, is that the central representatives, or the representatives of this 28 per cent., have said they want a development council. I do not regard that as proof that substantial numbers in the industry are in favour of it. I am reminded of one of those card votes at the Trades Union Congress which we read about in the Press. A great union—let us say the Sheet Metal Workers' Union—supports a proposal for the immediate abolition of the House of Lords, the abolition of all private property and the nationalisation of industry—one of those extreme resolutions which sometimes come up at the Trades Union Congress. They are, I am glad to say, always defeated, and though a card vote shows a majority in favour of them, I am sure the noble Lord will not tell me that every sheet metal worker is in favour of these things. Of course not. And in the present instance there has been no ascertaining from the men in the industry whether or not they desire this development council.

Finally, I would remind your Lordships that the President of the Board of Trade in another place gave as a reason for rejecting the voluntary basis the fact that the trade unions would not cooperate on a voluntary basis. The President of the Board of Trade, though he is frightened to go forward on one course because the trade unions will not co-operate, is willing, if the trade union representatives want another course followed, to go forward with that, even if the employers, for very good reasons, will not co-operate. It seems to me that that shows where the power behind this Government lies; when the trade unions say they want something the Board of Trade immediately go ahead, irrespective of the fact that the employers say that the proposals are unworkable and undesirable. I repeat, that shows where the real power lies. I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should take back this Order and think again, and see whether he can not come forward fulfilling the pledges which Ministers have given, that nothing should be foisted upon an unwilling industry. I suggest that the Government follow the course of voluntary action by those concerned, so that there can be co-operation by all in the object which all have at heart—the further improvement of the industry. If the Government will do that, this improvement could be achieved by peaceful means, without any reason at all for antagonism. This Order has been passed in another place, and we on these Benches do not propose to divide on it. But even at this late hour I would ask the noble Lord to take back the Order, to ask his colleagues to think again and to let wiser counsels prevail.

3.14 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has already dealt with a great many of the points with which I had intended to deal. I shall not repeat what he said, but there are one or two points upon which he did not touch, and which I may perhaps be allowed to mention. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred to the fact that in 1943 there was apparently an idea that this industry should be reorganised. Surely that is quite natural. The whole industry had been tremendously upset during the war; it had been turned on to making uniforms and other war material, and it was natural that an industry of this sort should wish to reorganise when the war was over. My excuse for addressing your Lordships is that I am the honorary treasurer of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce; that is how I come into touch with all these industries —I say "all these industries" as there are many different industries within the ambit of this Order. If ever there was an industry which was unsuitable for centralisation, I think it is this. I believe this industry is far more complicated, and has far more separate units, than is the case with the iron and steel industry.

My noble friend has quoted some figures in regard to the numbers of firms and others who are implicated in this business. I should like to refer to the question of whether or not the industry was in favour of a voluntary advisory council. The Minister himself said that even if it was, he could not accept it.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

When the noble Lord refers to "the Minister" is he referring to the President of the Board of Trade or to myself?

LORD TEVIOT

To the President of the Board of Trade.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Can the noble Lord give me the date on which the Minister said that?

LORD TEVIOT

The noble Lord will find it in Hansard, November 1, Col. 308. It says: …I indicated in reply that in my view a development council was desirable and that I was perfectly certain from the attitude on the trade union side that no voluntary body would receive the co-operation which would be required to make it work. That, I think, deals with the question which the noble Lord has just asked.

Undoubtedly this is an unwilling industry. I myself within the last fortnight have had interviews with important people in this industry and I failed to find one on the employers' side who was in favour of this Order. There is one question I should like to put to the noble Lord to show the diversity of the various industries (or trades as one might call them) within this industry. What possible relationship can exist between ladies' corsets and men's hats? Yet both come within this Order. That surely shows the absurdity of trying to centralise an industry which has such a wide diversity of products.

There is another matter on which my noble friend did not touch. So far as I can make out, there is only one thing that this Order can insist upon, and that is that the component parts of the industry can be forced to pay this £300,000 levy, to be expended in three years, to keep this council in being. So far as I can see, if the council come, for instance, to my noble friend or myself and say, "You are not running your business properly; you must do this or that to improve it"; and I say. No, I have been running this business for many years; it is running very well and I am not going to do what you tell me to do," there is no power to make me do it. No doubt there would be a reflex action in the fact that my supplies of raw materials might be interfered with by the authorities in order to make me do what I was told. But, so far as I can see, there is no question that I can be forced by this Order to carry out its recommendations, other than that of paying the levy. Moreover, this is bound to be a most wasteful enterprise. No questions arise in the industry that cannot be dealt with by existing bodies in the shape of trade organisations, employees' organisations and Government organisations. Any points that are likely to arise can be dealt with, without this new organisation which is to be set up at great expense. As my noble friend asked, where is the money going to come from eventually? It will come out of the consumer's pocket, here and abroad, and in view of our situation generally it seems to me that it is a most unwise project upon which to embark at the present time.

My noble friend has dealt with much of what I was proposing to say. Now I come to my final point. What is really behind this? I have read this Order very carefully, and it seems to me that it is just a prelude to an attempt eventually to nationalise the industry. Surely we have had enough nationalisation of industry. It has cost the country a terrific amount of money in every instance, and to begin to deal with a complicated industry of this sort, with such wide and different trades embodied therein, is asking for more trouble and placing more expense on the wretched consumer and taxpayer. I only wish that my noble friend, who opened the debate on this side of the House so admirably, would insist that we should divide upon the matter. I think it is a most important question, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will do everything he can to make the President of the Board of Trade think again before he embarks upon what seems to me a most hazardous, dangerous and unwise Order.

3.23 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I want to support very briefly my two noble friends. When the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, unfolds to us another corner of Utopia, I often wonder whether he really believes in it himself. It seems to me that the process is derived from the very childlike attitude of His Majesty's Government towards industry in general. When they see a plant growing, they always want to pull it up to see if it really is growing. This is just another example. Some of the reasons which the noble Lord gave for the promulgation of the Order sound most specious. The reason why this industry does not provide a large export trade is perfectly obvious. If he put himself in the position of the corresponding industry in any country, he would snort with indignation at the thought of any British exporting firm breaking into his territory, and would proceed to erect a huge tariff against it. I thought that today our need was to reduce overheads. We frequently hear that cry from the noble Lord himself. We have certainly heard it from the trade unions and from the Government themselves. Yet this Order imposes more overheads upon that industry.

We have three committees. They have each fourteen functions and, if noble Lords read those fourteen functions, they will see that the possibilities of an accumulation of paper work are infinite. As much as £150,000 in a year can be spent by this particular development council, but most of the expense is to fall directly upon the industry; it will not be included in the £150,000 at all. I should be very surprised if the industry did not have to bear at least ten times that amount on its own account, in addition to financing the £150,000 by a levy. The list of functions is so diverse and complex that I do not believe the council, when set up, will have the slightest idea where to start and, in default of knowing how to do it, the first thing they will do is to take refuge in function No. 14—the collection of statistics. The collection of statistics from thousands of units (I think I am right in saying, from even tens of thousands of units) who do not keep them to-day, who do not know how to keep them and to whom statistics are quite meaningless when they are kept, will certainly tax the available staffs of the council to an enormous extent, to say nothing of the extra burden and cost which will be thrown upon the suppliers of the statistics. I know that, in spite of my noble friend's plea, the noble Lord may not be successful in getting the Order withdrawn. If he is unable to do so, I hope he will put in a strong plea that these organisations, when they start work, will ignore item No. 14 of their functions for the first two or three years of their life.

3.27 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for not accusing me of presenting this Order in an unfair manner to your Lordships. I have had the honour of putting proposals before you from this Despatch Box on many occasions. I have always tried to be scrupulously fair and honest in my statements, and I do not think I can be accused of not being honest in this. Naturally, the noble Lord opposite would expect me to present my case as well as I can. I should not be standing here if I were not able to do that. The noble Lord has presented his case in opposition as well as he could. He would not stand there if he could not. People who sit on Front Benches are not put there as ornaments; they are put there for reasons of ability. I gave your Lordships the bare arithmetic and stated only the facts. Then I weighted, as I think I was entitled to weight, those facts with the opinions of the organisations to which I have referred.

The noble Lord will not deny that the men who sat on these working parties were the leading industrialists of the industry. I am quite prepared to admit that, although they were nominated by the organisations, it was clear that they sat as individuals. But that did not take away their brains or their reputations. If your Lordships would like me to read out the list of the employers' representatives upon the working parties I will do so, and you would see that they were the leading figures in the clothing industry. These working parties were unanimous, so I do not think mine was an unfair statement. The noble Lord then said that the Act stated that there must he "a substantial number." I went out of my way to acquaint your Lordships with what it said. I said that, although in this case there was not a majority, at least I could claim that there was a substantial number; and I maintain that there is a substantial number.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asks: "Have you taken a census of the 150,000 employees in the trade unions as to whether they are all in favour? "No. I would ask the noble Lord, have the employers' organisations taken a census of all their members as to whether they are against the Order? The answer is, No, they have not. We have had quite a number of letters from members of the organisations saying that they are in favour. So we shall not get anywhere by arguing on this basis. I ask your Lordships to take this argument into consideration. Is a figure of 1,000 firms—some may be sub-contractors (that I grant the noble Lord) but they are at least members of the manufacturing side of this industry—

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

May I ask the noble Lord whether it is true that those 1,000 firms employ about 3 per cent. of the labour?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I will tell the noble Lord that I do not know. I have no figures to contradict that statement. But these are the facts: 1,000 firms upon the manufacturing side; 150,000 workers upon the workers' side; an organisation set up by the whole of the industry in 1943, who unanimously recommended that a central organisation such as this was necessary; and three working parties who unanimously reported, are in favour of such an organisation. It is true that one reported before the Act came into being and they could not, therefore, use the term "a development council." My Lords, am I not entitled to say that that in total adds up to "a substantial number"?

LORD TEVIOT

I would like to point out to the noble Lord that the fact that the working parties have come to certain conclusions does not for a moment, on the noble Lord's own showing, mean that the industry is in favour of the Order.

LORD LUCAS or CHILWORTH

I have been in industry long enough to know that a leader of industry who sits upon a national body is, somehow or other, supposed to be cognisant of the feelings of his industry and voices those feelings. If not, then lie belies the title of "leader." The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, also asked about pledges. This matter has not been foisted upon an unwilling industry. The Bespoke Tailors' Guild said to the Board of Trade that they would support this development council, albeit with reservations, and would want representation upon it. I am very certain that this industry will live to appreciate the action of His Majesty's Government and of your Lordships' House in approving this Order, as I understand from the noble Lord your Lordships will do. Because the noble Lord has given me that assurance, I am not going to say one 'word that will make co-operation between His Majesty's Government and this industry more difficult.

But I think I am entitled just to reply to one or two other points. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, says that this industry is totally different from any other. That is said of every industry and, believe me, this industry differs not one iota from practically every other British industry. Every British industry, as I have said (and it is quite true), consists of a few big, many medium and some very small concerns. The engineering industry is a typical example. That industry has thousands of shops which employ only two or three men and make things as far divorced as are corsets and caps. I have no intimate knowledge of corsets. The noble Lord enjoys a certain reputation amongst your Lordships and I do not know whether he is a greater authority than 1. But if we get on to similes of various things, of wearing apparel and their connection with one another, we might get into deep waters, into which I feel your Lordships would not like to go.

LORD TEVIOT

I mentioned that merely as a diversity between the two things. I will take something else if the noble Lord does not like it. The overall trade and children's clothing are, I submit, miles apart. How can you centralise an organisation dealing with those?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

They still use the basic material, cloth. I do not think I need reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I have replied to the general point. But perhaps I should say this. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned that the cost of the levy for this development council was £300,000 per year.

LORD TEVIOT

It is for three years.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

It cannot exceed £150,000 in any one year and it will cost the employer something in the region of 5s. per worker. If it could be reduced to the cost of a garment, it would be a fraction of one farthing per garment produced. That is the other side of it. The noble Lord's figure of £150,000 sounds very impressive, and my figure of a farthing per garment is equally impressive; it all depends on how you look at it. My Lords, may I end by thanking the noble Lord for his constructive criticisms and also by thanking your Lordships for approving this Order. It is really in the national interest, and I am certain that it will do inestimable good to the British clothing industry.

On Question, Motion agreed to.