HL Deb 04 December 1951 vol 174 cc764-72

2.56 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, I should like to dispose of this matter with the same brevity and efficiency with which we dealt with the last, but as it is an Order of great importance to the whole cotton industry I think your Lordships would wish that I should explain its purpose. I am glad to say that in its main provisions the Order has the unanimous support of employers and employed in all sections of the industry. To anyone who has known this industry for many years this unity of purpose and action is significant and gratifying. I remember that thirty years ago when I first went to the Board of Trade there was very little of this unity. The structure of the cotton industry has always been horizontal and not vertical, and spinners, weavers and finishers were for the most part, and still are for the most part, I believe, separate entities, and certainly in the old days were very individualistic at that. Though all these sections had a common interest in the sale of the finished goods in highly competitive markets, there was little cooperation towards that common end. But even in those days the need for closer union was beginning to be realised, and in 1925 the various sections established a Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations, and as far back as that Sir Raymond Streat, the present Chairman of the Cotton Board, played an active part in bringing all the interests together.

The usefulness of this Joint Committee, and increasing competition in foreign markets, led in the 'thirties to a proposal to set up a statutory board with extensive functions to reorganise the industry, and an Act giving effect to this proposal was passed in 1939, but was never implemented because of the war. But in 1940, under a special war-time Act, a Cotton Board was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Raymond Streat. It did valuable work, not the least part of which was greatly to increase the spirit of co-operation in the industry; and the result was that when the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, came into operation, the Cotton Board was reconstituted on a permanent basis as a Development Council, with the support and full agreement of all sections of the industry. The present Cotton Board has been able to maintain this spirit of unity and has established for itself a secure place in the industry. Every appropriate organisation, trade union and trade association in the industry has been consulted, and they were all unanimous that the Cotton Board should continue in being and, in giving their support to the continued existence of the Cotton Board, every organisation has expressed most strongly its desire that the Board should continue under the Chairmanship of Sir Raymond Streat. Therefore your Lordships will see that the first provision of the Order continues the existence of the Cotton Board.

The next question was as to how, if at all, the Order of 1948 ought to be amended. I apologise for the fact that, inevitably, this Order has to be by reference, but I think I can make it plain to your Lordships by explaining what the old position was and how and why it is being amended. First of all, I will deal with the definition of the industry. The industry is defined in the 1948 Order as consisting of the activities of spinning, doubling, weaving, finishing, making-up and packing and converting in relation to cotton yarns and cotton cloth, and spun rayon yarns and rayon cloth. The cotton section of the industry, as distinct from rayon, is further defined as being concerned solely with yarn and fabrics containing 40 per cent. or more by weight of cotton. The existing constitution of the Board is laid down in Article 2 of the old Order. The Board consists of eleven members, four on the employers' side, representing spinners and doublers, weavers, finishers and converters, four on the employees' side, representing spinners and doublers, weavers and finishers, and three who are independent. So far as finance is concerned, the Board is financed by a levy on the industry, but at the present time, under the existing Order, that bears entirely on the spinners. In addition, all persons in the industry, who are required to register with the Cotton Board, are charged an annual fee of £1. The maximum amount which can be levied under they Order in any year is £250,000.

Then the existing functions are these—your Lordships will find them in the Second Schedule to the main Order. Part I is concerned with recruitment and labour utilisation, working conditions, advice to the Government, information and publicity services, and the collection of statistics. Those can be exercised in relation to the industry as a whole—which, of course, covers rayon as well as cotton. The functions in Part II which relate to scientific research, development in design, distribution, export promotion and promoting the use of cotton goods, can be exercised only in relation to the cotton industry. In the exercise of their functions, the Board have done—as I think anyone who knows Lancashire will agree—very valuable services in labour recruitment and re-deployment, and in maintaining a colour, design and style centre. It has also given great support to the Cotton Industry Research Association, which everyone in Lancashire knows so well—the Shirley Institute.

I come now to the recommendations for amending the Order. A great many of the organisations which were consulted certainly had recommendations to make for amendment of the Order. These have all been considered, and a number of them, the most important of which relate to the raising of the levy, have been embodied in the draft Order which is now before your Lordships. But the Board of Trade did not find it possible—or practicable, at any rate—to accept all the recommendations made to them. There has, however, been full discussion with the industry of all the points raised. The doublers and the waste spinners put in a strong plea for increased representation, but it was felt that that really could not be granted, because once you begin to interfere with the existing representation you are liable to upset the balance of the Board, and you might get it not only out of proportion but too large. This was carefully considered when the original Board was set up in 1948.

Then there was the matter of the position of the rayon industry in relation to the levy. It was represented that the functions of the Board, under Part I were equally available and of benefit to the rayon industry as well as to the cotton section of the industry, and it was suggested that the rayon industry should also be subject to the levy. But the greater part of the rayon section of the industry felt that they did not derive the same value from those functions as did the cotton section, and they objected, in principle, to a statutory payment. But they were not at all "dog in the manger" about this, and, while objecting to being subject to a compulsory levy, they immediately offered a substantial voluntary contribution—which offer was very reasonably considered. Lancashire folk, being good business people, do not reject a good voluntary offer, when it is made, and the cotton section were glad to take advantage of it. The amount of that contribution will be settled by agreement between the two organisations.

I think that I had now better come to the amendments. The title of the Council drops "1948". There was no great historic significance attaching, to "1948", as there might have been to, say, 1812, 1815 or 1945—with regard to the last year, I am, of course, referring to the end of the war and not to that disastrous occurrence the advent of the Labour Government. But "1948" figured in the title only because the previous Cotton Board was still in existence. So "1948" goes out of the title and the Board becomes "The cotton Board". Then as to the levy. I am clad to say that all sections have agreed that the levy should no longer fall on the spinners alone. I need not go into the rather technical reasons why, while there was control, the levy on the spinners could be passed on to all sections of the trade. Now we have returned to freer trade in cotton that is no longer possible, and it has been agreed that the levy shall fall upon all sections of the trade. When one looks at the Order and notes the way the levy is to be calculated, it does appear to be terribly complicated. It reminds me rather of the way in which, when I knew the mines pretty well, miners wages were calculated. That was the sort of formula which would appeal to higher mathematicians like the Paymaster General.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

He is here now.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

That is good. Now the noble Viscount will be happy—we can all be of one mind in the House. This extraordinarily complicated formula is one which has been devised by all sections of the industry. Therefore, it is not for a layman to criticise. I am assured that it will work all right. The collection of the levy will be made on a half-yearly basis from everyone except converters, from whom, for seasonal reasons, it is agreed that it is more convenient to collect the levy once a year. It is proposed to increase the total amount of the levy—that is, its ceiling—from £250,000 to £300,000 per annum. Costs have gone up in this business as in others, and also more money is required—and is certainly not grudged by the industry—for research. The Cotton Board's financial year runs from April 1 to March 31 of the following year. This Order does not come into operation until January 1 next, but provision is made for the collection as from January 1 to March 31, 1952, of a charge equivalent to a year's levy. That does not mean the industry has to pay a disproportionate amount in that year. Actually, because discussions and negotiations were going on, no levy has been collected at all during the current year. Therefore, all that that means is that the levy will be collected in a total sum in the last quarter.

Some definitions are given. The definition of "converting" has been changed. by agreement with the industry. There is only one other provision to which I need refer and that is the amendment to paragraph (4) of the Third Schedule, which allows for the payment of a pension to the Chairman of the Cotton Board, the amount of the pension to be approved by the President of the Board of Trade. I should like to make it clear that there is no question at all of a penny of charge falling on the public funds. This will come entirely out of the Cotton Board's own revenue. I think it is a great and well-deserved tribute to Sir Raymond Streat that it was the unanimous wish of employers and employed of all sections of the industry that this provision should be inserted, and I am sure your Lordships will gladly pass it. As briefly as I can, I have tried to explain this rather complex Order. I think it is splendid that it comes forward with such unanimous support, both from the whole of the cotton trade and from the rayon side as well. I am sure your Lordships will welcome the Order and will wish the Cotton Board well.

Moved, That the Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Viscount Swinton.)

3.12 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am glad the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, did not dismiss this Order "on the nod," because I think it is fitting that some tribute should be paid to the Cotton Board for the splendid work they have done. The Board is a counterpart of the development councils, and if we want an example of harmonious and constructive work for the good of an industry, we have only to look at the Cotton Board. It must have given the noble Viscount a great deal of satisfaction to stand at that Box and propose the adoption of this Order. Five times President of the Board of Trade, and now in the hierarchy of overlords, the noble Viscount once again comes to your Lordships' House as spokesman of the Board of Trade on a fitting subject. Noble Lords on this side do not propose to obstruct the passage of the Order in any way, but there are one or two questions I should like to ask the noble Viscount. The main object of the Order is to increase the levy from £250,000 to £300,000, and one of the main purposes of the increase, as the noble Viscount has said, is to pro- vide the Chairman of the Cotton Board with a pension.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

That will not take a big part of the levy. I think the largest part will go on research.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

No, but that is one of the main objects. Let me say straight away that I am in complete agreement with the development councils following industrial practice. I have always held the view that if we want first-class brains we have to pay first-class rates for them. If we are willing to pay only third-class rates. we shall get only third-class brains. That is equally true in regard to development councils, nationalised boards and private industry. I have no quarrel whatsoever with that provision. I do not want even to ask what the amount is. But there is one point that puzzles me. If the noble Viscount will turn to the new paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule he will see that: There shall be paid by the Board— (a) to the independent members of the Board, or to any of them, such remuneration (whether by way of salaries or by way of fees) as may be determined by the Board of Trade, and on the retirement or death of the Chairman of the Board, such pension or gratuity to him or to others by reference to his service as may be so determined; That shows clearly that the responsibility for determining the amount of the pension and the terms—for example, whether it shall be contributory or not—falls upon the President of the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade, like any other Minister, is responsible to Parliament for any ministerial action. I should like to ask the noble Viscount by what machinery Parliament, if it so desires, can have an overriding responsibility over the actions of the President of the Board of Trade. I am aware that no public funds are involved, but this is a statutory instrument and it places a responsibility on the President of the Board of Trade. If, in discharge of that responsibility, he is not going to be responsible to Parliament, then that is delegated legislation in its worst form. I hope the noble Viscount will be able to give us a satisfactory answer. I hope he will tell us whether it is by statutory instrument that can be prayed against, by Question, or by any other method, that Parliament can hold the President of the Board of Trade responsible for the proper discharge of his functions as set out in the Schedule. This is the first time that a pension is being paid to the chairman of a development council—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong. It will not end there, and it is quite right that it should not end there. The chairmen of all the other development councils will want the same pension rights, either now or in the future. Your Lordships will recall that these unfortunate gentlemen have a very insecure position. In some cases their security of tenure is for only five years. How can we expect the best men in any industry to give their services to a development council, unless they are treated in some way comparable with the practice of the industry?

There is one other question I should like to ask the noble Viscount. I believe nothing is laid down in the original Act to determine how the Chairman of the Cotton Board shall be elected. I think I am right in saying that up to date the chairmen have been elected from the independent members, but I do not think there is anything in the Act to say that that must be so. Therefore it puts an added responsibility upon the President of the Board of Trade to see that these pensions are not paid in future in any manner other than a correct and proper one. Those are the only observations I have to make. Noble Lords on this side view with the greatest pleasure this amended Order. In the original Act it was laid down that three years had to elapse before such an Order could be brought forward. This is the first of such Orders. It comes with the good wishes and blessing of the industry, and I hope it will have the blessing and good wishes of Parliament for its future success.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords the answer to the first question is quite simple. It is true that the President of the Board of Trade has to approve the amount of pension. Obviously that can be challenged. It can be challenged by Question to the President of the Board of Trade in another place; and if honourable Members do not like what he has done, then, when the Board of Trade vote comes forward, they can move to reduce his salary; and when you move to reduce the salary of a Minister you can discuss anything for which he is responsible. So far as this House is concerned, the noble Lord can put a Question to the Board of Trade—

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

And have it answered by a Lord in Waiting.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

—and a suitable representative of the Department will answer it. As regards other development councils, we are not concerned with them. This Order relates only to the cotton industry. I think I am right in saying that no pension could be paid to the Chairman of any other development council unless there were an Order that such a pension should be paid, or giving permission for it to be paid, approved by an affirmative Resolution of Parliament. The Chairman must be one of the independent members.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. I should like to ask this question. The noble Viscount says that we can put down a Question. But we can put down a Question in the other place or in your Lordships' House only when we know the pension has been paid. That we can find out only by a perusal of the yearly accounts. There is a statutory obligation for a development council to lay its accounts before Parliament. I should like to ask whether any machinery could be set up that would enable us to learn what the proposals are before they are determined.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

No, I think that is most unreasonable. After all, any Minister of the Crown is responsible for the administration and executive acts of his Department. He cannot come for prior approval for everything he does in the course of his day-to-day business. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would say if the Foreign Office had to do that. The matter must be challenged afterwards if it is wrong. As regards finding out this information. the noble Lord can put a Question at any time, asking: "Is it proposed to give a pension, and has the pension been settled?"

On Question, Motion agreed to.