§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majestys' Government whether, in view of the expanding textile industries in Asia and the expected increased exports, the existing commitments of the United Kingdom in G.A.T.T. preclude action which would tend to compensate low Asiatic wage costs by protection of higher labour cost structure in the United Kingdom.]
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I am not quite sure which Asian countries my noble friend has in mind. Japan and China are not, at present, parties to G.A.T.T. and the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the admission of Japan was set out in the recent White Paper, with which, no doubt, my noble 808 friend is familiar. The other main textile-producing countries in Asia are members of the Commonwealth and, as my noble friend will be aware, imports from these countries enjoy duty-free entry in the United Kingdom under long-standing arrangements which are in no way connected with G.A.T.T. For most types of textiles we have commitments under G.A.T.T. not to increase import duties above their present level on imports from the territories of other Contracting Parties. But, as my noble friend will realise, these have only a limited relevance to the problem he has in mind.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I must utilise the words of the noble Lord and say that this is a rather complicated reply. It prompts me to ask the noble Lord to indicate more clearly whether, should it be that our commitments under G.A.T.T. do not preclude any protective action where special circumstances are considered to need it, as in the case of jute control which he has just explained, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to consider further protection for textiles in the United Kingdom if employment is threatened by volume imports from low wage-cost countries—as, for illustration, cotton, semi or fully manufactured, from within or without the Commonwealth, such as is now hampering Lancashire. Alternatively, is the Government resigned to the prospect of progressive contraction of presently installed manufacturing capacity for cotton textiles?
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has there material for a two-day debate, and I hope he will forgive me if I do not answer many of his supplementary questions, only a few of which I have followed. If he is suggesting that we should have a cotton control in the same way as we have a jute control, I should like to point out that a cotton control would be a much larger and more complex affair than the jute control, which has a staff of only about thirty and is a comparatively simple organisation.
§ LORD CALVERLEYWould the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, agree that even one of Lord Barnby's Dundee fairies could not abolish all this with a wave of a magic wand?
§ LORD BARNBYAccepting my noble friend's difficulty in giving a reply, I will 809 ease the matter for him by asking consideration in the proper quarter on my putting down a Question not for oral answer. But may I ask the noble Lord to make recommendations in the proper quarter that imports of fully or semi-manufactured cotton, exported from low wage-cost countries for processing in the United Kingdom be admitted only against an undertaking for re-export?
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's first supplementary question with relief. His second supplementary question I will certainly bring—again with relief—to notice in the proper quarter.