Sitting of 30 June 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
ALL HALLOWS THE GREAT CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]
ALL HALLOWS THE LESS CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]
WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Pneumoconiosis Statistics, North Staffordshire
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) if he will make a detailed explanation of the figures for North Staffordshire shown in the Digest of Pneumoconiosis Statistics 1956, table 9, page 11, and tables 10, 11 and 12, with particular reference to the relatively large numbers of reassessment boardings and their results and of disablement assessments of 10 per cent. or less;
    (2) if he is satisfied with the administration of the Industrial Injuries Act in North Staffordshire, with reference to pneumoconiosis, and, in particular, with the classifications and the percentage assessments made; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): A full explanation of these complex statistics is hardly possible within the permissible length of an oral Answer;
    850
    but if the hon. Member will tell me the points about which he is concerned, I will write to him about them. The answer to the first part of his second Question is "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Whilst thanking the Minister for his sympathetic Answer, may I ask whether he has made a personal analysis of the serious figures contained in the excellent Digest of Pneumoconiosis Statistics, and if so, does he agree that it reveals some startling figures, particularly as regards their effect in North Staffordshire? In view of the situation in North Staffordshire and the concern of the miners there, will the Minister agree to consider having a special investigation?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have looked at these figures, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware, of course, that as the Digest itself shows, they fluctuate very much from area to area for reasons which I think are quite easy to understand, such as the nature of the coal dug, and, to some extent, the differing awareness of risk, of which there is a good deal among those concerned. There are explanations which I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman of the extent to which the figures about which he is concerned diverge from those in other areas. I do not think that the figures are startling. I think that they are all explicable, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain them.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the high percentage in an area of an extensive coalfield like that in North Staffordshire as compared with other parts of the country is such that concern should be felt? Can the Minister perhaps suggest why it should be higher in that area, or is he prepared to give special consideration to the matter to find out whether there is some special reason for it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Lady is concerned about the relatively high figure for reassessment boardings, the reason for it is that owing to the shortage of accommodation for this purpose in 1953 and 1954 a much larger number of assessments were made for a longer period than was usual. The result was that they have been falling in for reassessment in substantial numbers. We

    851
    have, I am glad to say, now remedied the shortage of accommodation. That is the explanation.

    National Assistance (Rents)
    Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps are taken by the National Assistance Board to recover increases of rent paid to the landlord of a house, occupied by a tenant who is receiving National Assistance in respect of rent, when that landlord, after the expiry of six months, has failed to fulfil a statutory undertaking given by him to put the house into good repair.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The National Assistance Board informs me that it expects tenants receiving National Assistance in respect of their rent to exercise their rights under the Rent Act, 1957, and where a tenant in so doing withholds rent, his assistance allowance is adjusted accordingly. The Board's officers discuss these problems with the recipients of National Assistance where they arise.
    Mr. Marquand: Surely it sounds rather extraordinary to say that one expects tenants receiving National Assistance to do this. Does not the Minister know that many of these tenants are mortally frightened of their landlords and are afraid to seek to secure their rights under the Act? Does not the National Assistance Board make some special effort to get in touch with these tenants to make sure that the landlords are not defrauding the Revenue by continuing to extort a wrongful rent?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Under the procedure to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, it is very much to the interest of the tenant, if the repairs specified in the notice are not being carried out, to ensure that they are carried out, otherwise he lives in accommodation which is less sound and less good than otherwise it would be. As to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it is, of course, the practice of the Board's officers to discuss the problem when it arises with the recipient of National Assistance. It is certainly not their practice to cut off assistance in advance of such discussion or such action being taken, but if the tenant appears unreasonably to refuse to exercise his rights, then I think it would be the duty and the
    852
    practice of the Board to adjust his assistance accordingly.
    Mr. Marquand: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the officials of the Board cannot visit every one of these tenants every week and that it cannot always be aware of what has happened? Has he taken note of the letter in the Manchester Guardian of 25th June from Mr. Roberts, a public health inspector, who says:
    "This deduction to which the tenant is entitled is in many cases not being made either through ignorance of the Act or apathy, since the tenant will not himself benefit financially."
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can only say that the writer of the letter seems to have overlooked the fact that the tenant will benefit by having his accommodation put in order. As to the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have made it clear that the Board expects and generally finds that the recipients of National Assistance behave sensibly and responsibly as other people do. I should not like to accept the suggestion that there is irresponsibility on the part of recipients of National Assistance.
    Mr. Marquand: I did not say "irresponsibility"; I said "apathy". Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House that the Board has sent appropriate instructions to its officers throughout the country drawing their attention to the possibility of this abuse?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman wished special instructions to be sent on every point of this kind, a great many instructions would go out. I am satisfied that the Board's officers are carrying out their duty sensibly and humanely.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Could not the Board's Advisory Committees with its special knowledge of the circumstances in the areas be asked to give advice and keep in contact with the Board?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will consider any suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman on that subject, though I must reserve my position on whether on consideration it appears that the suggestion would in fact be useful.

    Provision for Old Age
    Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proposals for new legislation he intends

    853
    to introduce for the provision of old age by a National Superannuation Scheme; and if he will publish these proposals in a White Paper.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no statement to make on this subject.
    Mr. Hunter: In view of the wide public interest in national superannuation schemes, and in view of the Press publicity last week, will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement shortly?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When and if I am in a position to make a statement I will make it, but the hon. Gentleman really must not allow himself to be misled by everything that appears either in the newspapers or in any other direction.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that there is some doubt about the rumour that the Government contemplate introducing legislation for the purpose of remodelling our whole superannuation and pension scheme? Is there some doubt about it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman studies my clear and succinct original Answer any doubts he may have on any subject will be reassured.
    Mr. Marquand: While the right hon. Gentleman is considering whether to make a statement on this matter, will he provide the House of Commons and the country with a White Paper explaining his calculations on which in his opinion such a scheme would have to be based? Is he aware that, although he has criticised the procedure put forward by the Labour Party, he has never had the courage to bring forward his own repudiations of those figures in a White Paper?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am always very happy to discuss the miscalculations of the Labour Party's scheme. Frankly, I do not know whether they rank for a White Paper. As far as information on this subject is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have taken the opportunity to study the Government Actuary's Report on private pension schemes which was made available, I think, about the middle of last month.
    Mr. Marquand: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government Actuary does not report on the very matters referred to in The Times and by the Phillips Committee as deserving of a thorough report, with plenty of figures and details? We have not had this.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Nevertheless, I think the right hon. Gentleman might find it profitable to study the Government Actuary's Report.

    War Pensioners' Widows
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many of the 9,574 wives of war pensioners, who were widowed during 1957, received from his Department information concerning their pension rights; and if he is satisfied that only 1,690 of these widows had any entitlement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are longstanding arrangements for enabling widows of war pensioners to get not only information about their pension rights but help if needed in claiming them. I am satisfied that these arrangements are working efficiently, and have no reason to suppose that widows entitled to war widows pensions are being denied them.
    Mr. Simmons: The Minister will notice that I refer to war pensioners, not just ex-soldiers. The fact that they were receiving pensions is prima facie evidence that their widows have some entitlement. Does not the Minister feel that this figure of 1,690 out of 9,574 is a very low figure of widows receiving such pensions?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I really do not share the hon. Gentleman's view that receipt of a war pension necessarily raises a prima facie case that death is due to the pensioned disability. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the fact that most of the men in this figure are First World War men, of some age, some of them with disabilities at the lower percentage ratings. Each case is gone into very sympathetically to see if there is a connection between the disability and the death; but in the absence of that connection, and in cases where death arises, as it must to so many people in the ordinary course of the normal accidents and incidents of life, it is really impossible to relate the war pension claim to the death which has taken

    855
    place in the same way as that of many other members of the civilian population.
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the economic position of the 7,857 wives of war pensioners who were widowed during 1957 and are not receiving any pension from his Department.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. I do not think a special inquiry of this sort is necessary.
    Mr. Simmons: The Minister must realise that the figures he gave a few weeks ago are very alarming. Only a very small proportion of these widows are receiving pensions, and yet as the widows of ex-Servicemen, they ought to receive very sympathetic consideration. What is the economic position of those widows? Surely the Ministry of Pensions, if it has no legal obligation, has a moral liability to see that they do not suffer in poverty?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: From the way the hon. Gentleman has put his Question I think he has somewhat misapprehended the position. The figures I gave him the other day related to widows of war pensioners not receiving a war widow's pension. He has framed his Question to speak of pension received from my Department. Many widows not eligible for war widow's pension are entitled to and receive National Insurance pension. My welfare officers get in touch with the widow of any war pensioner and I have no real reason to believe, in particular from the point of view which the hon. Gentleman has expressed, that there is any need for any special inquiry of this sort.
    Mr. Marquand: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that about two years ago, when we were debating in Committee upstairs a Bill dealing with widows, I suggested that there might be a Government inquiry into widows generally, including war pensioners' widows, and that he said then that he would consider the suggestion? Has he done so?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a very much wider question than the one on the Order Paper, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have a considered reply, I think he might put it down.

    Retirement Pensions (Earnings Rule)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the nature of the reply he has sent to the letter from the Salford Director of Civic Welfare regarding part-time vacancies for eight elderly men which could not be filled after being offered to nearly 300 Salford pensioners who, though eager for work, would not volunteer for a job which would have earned more than£2 10s. a week and thus have reduced their pensions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A reply has been sent to this gentleman explaining the operation of the earnings rule in relation to retirement pensions, and seeking further information about the particular case he had in mind. I think he is probably under some misunderstanding since my information is that the employment concerned could have been accepted without effect on receipt of a retirement pension.
    Mr. Allaun: But would not acceptance of this job have resulted in some reduction in their pensions to which the men feel they are justly entitled? Does not the Minister appreciate the advantage of a part-time job as a halfway house to retirement, and that this is particularly what the present earnings limit is discouraging?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as my information goes, the work offered was work for three hours a day for five days a week at half-a-crown an hour, which works out at total earnings of 12s. 6d. below the present earnings limit. Therefore, if it means anything it would seem to suggest that the present earnings limit was fixed at about the right place.

  ELECTRICITY

    London Electricity Board (Contracting Section)
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the Paymaster-General if he has now considered the report made to him by Deloitte, Plender and Griffiths into the affairs of the contracting section of the London Electricity Board; and when the said report will be placed in the Library of the House.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): No, Sir. Since the inquiry started, the Southampton police have found it necessary to investigate certain transactions in this connection. I cannot, therefore, say when the report will be made available to Parliament.
    Mr. Hobson: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I take it that, irrespective of the inquiries now proceeding, the report will be made available to hon. Members at the earliest possible moment?
    Sir I. Horobin: Yes, Sir.

    Nuclear Power Stations (Plutonium Production)
    Mr. Robensasked the Paymaster-General what will be the effect on the cost and building progress of the atomic energy programme of the recent decision to modify the programme so as to produce plutonium of weapons grade; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Palmerasked the Paymaster-General (1) what modifications are being made in the nuclear power programme because of the less favourable estimates now current in relation to capital costs, operational conditions, and plutonium credits;
    (2) if he will make a statement on the decision to use the civil nuclear power stations now being constructed by the Central Electricity Generating Board for the production of military plutonium.
    Mr. Masonasked the Paymaster-General what will be the initial capital cost of the modifications required to the affected atomic power stations for the production of plutonium; and what is the estimated additional operating cost.
    Sir I. Horobin: The capital cost of the modifications about which my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on 24th June is not yet known precisely but is unlikely to exceed 1 per cent. of the cost of the stations concerned, and since this will be borne by the Government, it will not affect the cost of the civil nuclear programme. The necessary alterations in the designs of the stations can be made without affecting building progress.
    858
    The additional operating cost that would be incurred by the electricity authorities, if the facilities were used, would be very small and would also be borne by the Government.
    The nuclear programme is kept under constant review in the light of all relevant factors but has not been revised since it was rephased last year as part of the general revision of capital investment.
    Mr. Robens: I take it from the hon. Gentleman's reply that modifications of a capital nature are to be paid for by the Government, and the extra operating cost. Could the hon. Gentleman, therefore, tell us who will pay the increased capital cost of the fuel charges?
    Sir I. Horobin: As I understand the matter, I do not think that that arises. The question at issue is how long these charges remain under irradiation in the reactors. It is simply a question whether one leaves them there for a longer time or a shorter time, in view of the different isotopes of plutonium which arise at different stages. Therefore, I think that the righthon. Gentleman's supplementary question arises out of a misunderstanding.
    Mr. Robens: May I say that it does not arise from a misunderstanding at all? Is not it the case that the number of initial charges required by the Electricity Authority would probably be in the ratio of 5 to 3, or even 4 to 1, and therefore there will be substantial initial capital costs? Who will pay these increased capital costs? The hon. Gentleman said that whether one gets plutonium of weapon-grade or not depends upon how long the original charges are left in the reactor. I understand that the ratio is probably 4 to 1. Therefore, there must be at least five charges to the one which the Electricity Authority would be required to pay for, as it takes fifteen months to extract the plutonium from the uranium rods.
    Sir I. Horobin: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to refer to initial capital cost. That is not affected. There will be additional cost, owing to the fact that the uranium rods move through the reactor more frequently, and that extra cost will be met as a defence charge by the Government.
    Mr. Robens: If I put down a Question will the hon. Gentleman be able to tell us the exact cost?
    Sir I. Horobin: I cannot promise until I see the Question. I will certainly consider it.
    Mr. Palmer: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this mixing of the military and civil aspects of nuclear energy is likely to make it very difficult for us to form a proper estimate of true operating costs and therefore may have an adverse effect on the expected British trade in export markets of nuclear power stations?
    Sir I. Horobin: That is a difficult question to answer offhand. One obvious reply is, of course, that at least two of the generating power stations will not be modified, so facts and figures will be obtainable from them. In any case, if we start from the assumption that we require this insurance, this is a very much cheaper way of doing it than any other way.
    Mr. Mason: Am I right in assuming that there are three costs under discussion—the initial capital costs, the operating costs, and the costs which will involve security? The ones which we are particularly interested in, in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has assured us that the initial capital and security costs will be borne by the Government, are the additional operating costs in view of the fact that the uranium rods will have to be inserted far more often than previously under the peaceful programme?
    Sir I. Horobin: If the hon. Gentleman will look at my original reply, he will see that I specifically dealt with that. I will repeat what I said:
    "The additional operating cost that would be incurred by the electricity authorities, if the facilities were used"—
    and I stress the word "if"—this is an insurance and it does not follow necessarily that they will ever be used—
    "would be very small and would also be borne by the Government."

    Domestic Refrigerators (Purchase Tax)
    Mr. Snowasked the Paymaster-General if he is aware that Purchase Tax reliefs in respect of domestic refrigerators have not been passed on to the public in full by electricity boards; and if he will give a general direction to the Midlands Electricity Board that Purchase
    860
    Tax reductions must be passed on in full on all equipment supplied by area boards.
    Sir I. Horobin: The prices which they charge for appliances are a matter for the commercial discretion of the boards and a general direction is therefore inappropriate.
    Mr. Snow: Is the Minister aware that my constituent signed an agreement for the purchase of a refrigerator, manufactured by an American company, at a certain price which I can give to the Minister? Three days after he signed the agreement, an additional charge was imposed, without any reference to him at all. In this matter, the electricity board is acting as agent for the manufacturers and is, therefore, being made a party to what, I am afraid, I can only describe as rather a fraud on the public. Will the Minister look into this matter?
    Sir I. Horobin: I cannot accept what the Gentleman says. So far as his suggestion is concerned, it would appear that that would be a matter for the Board of Trade and not for the Ministry.
    Mr. Snow: In view of the answers given by the Minister, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  COAL

    Pneumoconiosis, North Staffordshire
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Paymaster-General if he will make a statement on the information about pneumoconiosis contained in the Digest of Statistics, 1956; what action is being taken to reduce the numbers affected and the suffering to a minimum; what is the explanation of the relatively high figures for North Staffordshire; and what special action is being taken in the area.
    Sir I. Horobin: Four thousand, eight hundred and fifty-three new cases of pneumoconiosis were reported among coal miners in 1956. Though this figure reflects the increased readiness of the men to present themselves for examination, it represents a slight improvement over the figures for 1955 and I am glad to say that in 1957 the number of new cases fell steeply to 3,756.

    861
    The figures for North Staffordshire are higher than the general national average because, in the past, dust conditions were bad in the pits in that area.
    The National Coal Board continues to make vigorous use of all possible means for eliminating dust from the pits, and the National Joint Pneumoconiosis Committee is satisfied, as a result of a recent survey, that medical treatment facilities throughout the country are satisfactory. A special chest clinic and a hospital unit for pneumoconiosis cases were opened in the North Staffordshire area in 1956.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for that part of his reply which confirmed my view against the reply that we have just had from the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance? While we appreciate most of his reply, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the miners are becoming increasingly concerned about the amount of dust which arises from modern machine-mining? Is he also aware that the general secretary of the miners' union in the area is also of the opinion that it is the deeper mines that contribute to this? In view of that fact, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to consider having an investigation made in the area?
    Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that the situation is quite so serious as the hon. Member suggests. He must remember that this dreadful disease is one of those which takes 10 years and even 20 years to become diagnosable. Therefore, one cannot take today's figures as indicating present risks but rather risks of the past. The dust suppression methods now being used in this coalfield are very substantial, and we should hope that as time goes on and the old cases come forward for diagnosis the figure will tend to fall. At any rate, all that can be done is being done.
    Mr. Snow: Arising from the last part of the Minister's answer, may I ask whether it is not possible that this rather alarming increase demonstrates that diagnosis in the past has not been all that accurate? In view of this, is not it desirable to give some form of instruction to the authorities that old cases which have been rejected should be reconsidered?
    Sir I. Horobin: I should not like to reply to that without consideration, but I repeat that we should not give the impression that there is an alarming increase. In fact, the most recent figures for the country as a whole show a very satisfactory decrease. We are not content with that, but we do not want to be over-alarmist.

    Opencast Mining, Biddulph
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Paymaster-General how many acres of land in the vicinity of Biddulph, North Staffordshire, are already developed for opencast mining; and how many tons of coal to date have been won from these sites.
    Sir I. Horobin: Ninety-two acres and 43,000 tons in the Biddulph urban district.
    Mr. Davies: Before hacking away at the surface in these areas, have the authorities considered the possibility of winning coal, not so much by deep mining in the area, but by footrails or level, as they are called in North Staffordshire? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 600,000 tons of coal in the North Staffordshire coal field which could be won by this method, before we start attacking the beauty of the area by the opencast method?
    Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that it is appropriate for me to enter into very technical discussions of that sort. These are considerations which the Coal Board has to take into account before it puts forward proposals to the Minister, and in every individual case these are balanced in the national interest.
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Paymaster-General if he will give an assurance that the Biddulph local authority will be given a full and comprehensive report on any proposed opencast mining in its area.
    Sir I. Horobin: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that the local authority feels that it does not have the consultation which it deserves with the officials, the Ministry or the Coal Board? Has a comprehensive report now been presented on the possible development in the Knypersley Pool area to the Leek Rural District Council or to the Biddulph Urban District Council?
    Sir I. Horobin: The next Question deals with Knypersley Pool, which is not in the area to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Paymaster-General what reports he has had from the National Coal Board on the proposed opencast mining project in the Knypersley Pool area, Biddulph, North Staffordshire; whether he is aware that public opinion is overwhelmingly against the destruction of this beauty spot; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir I. Horobin: The National Coal Board is now prospecting for opencast coal near Knypersley Pool. It will require my noble Friend's approval before it can work any coal which it finds, and any objections to its working proposals will be heard at a public local inquiry.
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. May we take it that every possible effort will be made by the Coal Board and the Minister to see that all interested parties and local authorities will receive prior information before there is any development in this beauty spot?
    Sir I. Horobin: The proposals, if any, will come under the new provisions of the Opencast Coal Bill which has just been passed through this House. The hon. Member and the House will recall that a number of very explicit undertakings were given in the course of debates on that Bill.

    Civil Defence (Deep Mines)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Paymaster-General if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board that all civil defence plans involving expenditure on works in deep mines to prepare them for use in case of a hydrogen bomb attack must be submitted to his Department for approval prior to action being taken.
    Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the plans recently revealed in North Staffordshire for the use of deep mines for civil defence purposes? Are these plans part of national plans for the use of deep mines for civil defence? Why is it that the Home Office,
    864
    as the civil defence authority for the country, knows nothing about them, and who pays?
    Sir I. Horobin: It is the Coal Board's responsibility, as it is that of other employers, to endeavour to secure the safety of its staff. As a very substantial proportion of the Coal Board's employees at any given time are underground, I should have thought that it would be common ground among all of us that it is the responsibility of the Coal Board to take special action to ensure their safety as far as that can be done.

    Opencast Mining, Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Paymaster-General what report he has had from the National Coal Board on further proposals for opencast mining in the borough and rural district of Newcastle-under-Lyme; and if he will withhold his sanction from such projects until the Opencast Coal Bill is brought into operation.
    Sir I. Horobin: While prospecting is going on no proposals for opencast coal working in the borough and rural district of Newcastle-under-Lyme are before my noble Friend.
    Mr. Swingler: If proposals are made, would the Parliamentary Secretary be willing to respond favourably to the suggestion in the latter part of the Question and withhold any sanction until the provision regarding preservation of amenities under the new Bill comes into operation?
    Sir I. Horobin: I cannot without notice give a categorical reply, but, broadly speaking, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to ensure, so far as possible, that new workings should come under the new Bill. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a specific Question, I may be able to give him a categorical reply in respect of these particular workings.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Paymaster-General how many acres of land in the borough and rural district of Newcastle-under-Lyme are already developed for opencast mining; and how many tons of coal have been won from these sites.
    Sir I. Horobin: Three hundred and fifty acres and 600,000 tons.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Welsh Office
    Mr. Gowerasked the Paymaster-General what considerations have led to the decision to close the Welsh Office of his department, in contravention of the policy of devolution of the administration of Government Departments in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir I. Horobin: No such decision has been taken.
    Mr. Gower: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that no such decision is contemplated? Does he realise that rumours about this have been circulating in Wales? Indeed, there have been some reports in the Press which appear to give this information.
    Sir I. Horobin: I am not quite sure to what reports my hon. Friend refers. I notice that the Select Committee excepted Scotland only; but certainly it is not the view of Her Majesty's Government that Scotland should have any preference over Wales.

    Gas and Electricity Industries (Co-operation)
    Mr. Batsfordasked the Paymaster-General what progress has been made by the Committee set up to examine certain aspects of co-operation between the gas and electricity industries; and whether it is inviting evidence from members of the public.
    Sir I. Horobin: I understand the Committee has already held four meetings and has received a considerable volume of evidence. It is at present considering meter reading and billing, service centres and showrooms, advertising and co-operation in regard to the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, and would welcome comments from any body or person that may be interested.
    Mr. Batsford: Is my hon. Friend aware that members of the public are awaiting the findings of this Committee with considerable interest?
    Sir I. Horobin: Yes, Sir; and perhaps the findings will be more to their liking if those who are competent to assist the Committee with evidence would give it.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Rotodyne Aircraft (Experiments)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made in the Rotodyne aircraft experiments; and what are the prospects for its utilisation for inter-city travel in this country.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): Progress has been encouraging. The first prototype has been flying for eight months. It recently achieved successfully the transition from vertical to direct forward flight and it has already flown at forward speeds of up to 165 miles an hour. Since the aircraft has been designed to meet a requirement for a 40–50 seater inter-city helicopter issued by British European Airways and is unique in its class, its prospects for inter-city use in this country and elsewhere are promising.
    Mr. Dodds: I thank the Minister for that information. Is he aware of the deep concern which has arisen from authoritative reports that there is a likelihood that this aircraft, with its tremendous possibilities, may be sold to American interests because of the difficulty of the makers to raise enough money in this country, and will he state what the Government are doing to ensure that it remains in this country?
    Mr. Jones: I find it rather difficult to understand that there should be any concern on this subject about a possible sale to American interests. The position is that I have invited two companies, the air frame company and the aero engine company, to submit to me their proposals for their financial contributions to complete the development of the aircraft. On receipt of the information about their contributions, Her Majesty's Government will make up their mind about their contribution, but it is quite premature to speak of the possible demise of the aircraft.

    Swallow Aircraft (Project)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Supply what consideration he has now given to the new proposals from Messrs. Vickers-Armstrongs for an experimental aircraft embodying the principles of variable geometry.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: Examination of the proposals is not yet completed.
    Mr. Beswick: In view of the rather exaggerated statements made about this proposal, would not the Minister consider it advantageous if the House were given a little more information about it? It is a fact that, instead of there being just one design involved, there are a number of different ideas which may or may not be best developed in one aircraft, and may we have an assurance that, no matter what may happen with regard to the American proposals, these different lines of inquiry will be pursued in this country?
    Mr. Jones: I am always happy to give the hon. Gentleman and the House as much information as I can. I tried to do so in the recent debate on the aircraft industry. It is perfectly true that a number of principles are involved. What has been at issue is how many of those principles one can attempt to incorporate at the first stage in a research aircraft. Should the project be an ambitious one to start with or a little more modest? The answer to that depends, of course, on the cost.
    Mr. Beswick: To pursue the second part of my supplementary question, if American proposals for an ambitious prototype fall through, shall we in this country develop some of these ideas?
    Mr. Jones: There are no proposals from the Americans. The proposals are from the company, and I think we had better await the American answer and then see what is the position.
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Supply if, before making any final decision with regard to the development of the Swallow aircraft with United States financial aid, he will make a further detailed statement with regard to the proposed terms on which the aid is to be made available.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: It is not yet known whether the American Government will feel able to support this project under Mutual Aid. If they do, the standard conditions agreed on between the two Governments for this form of aid, which safeguard commercial rights in the invention, will apply.
    Mr. Beswick: Will the Minister take into account that there are many people
    868
    in this country who feel that ideas have gone across the Atlantic for development in the United States without this country getting very much in return? Can he say whether it would be possible to give the House the terms of any possible agreement before it is concluded?
    Mr. Jones: Again it would be difficult to give the House the precise terms of any agreement because it would be an agreement between two companies—for instance, a licence arrangement—and, as such, would be confidential. In broad terms, I should be only too happy to try to help the House. At this stage I can say that most of the techniques involved here have already been patented, and the conditions agreed upon between the two Governments are designed to safeguard commercial rights.
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Supply to what extent his Department has now considered financing the variable geometry aircraft in co-operation with the United States of America under the Mutual Air Programme; and to what extent within this programme other advanced methods of space travel are being considered.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: As I have already stated in reply to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), the examination is still proceeding. This particular variable geometry project has no special relevance to space travel.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: As one who was trained to build turbines and other engineering products mathematically and geometrically, and having learned that engineering is a precise science, may I ask the Minister to explain what "variable geometry" means?
    Mr. Jones: If, as a tyro, I may offer an explanation, I think the terms means an aircraft which varies its shape in flight.

    Nuclear Power Stations (Plutonium Production)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Supply what proportion of the initial capital cost of modifying power stations for producing missile war heads will be borne on the Vote of his Department.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: I presume the hon. Gentleman has in mind the modification to certain civil power stations to enable

    869
    them to produce, should the need arise, a grade of plutonium suitable for military purposes.
    The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority will pay the Central Electricity Generating Board for the capital cost of the modifications required; and will, in turn, recover this expenditure as an element in the price of military plutonium which is bought by my Department, and resold to the Services in the form of complete weapons. The cost of the modifications will in this way be recovered from the Defence Votes over a period.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Whilst the capital cost is to be met by the Vote on his Department, will the Minister state whether the extra cost of the fuel to the Atomic Energy Authority will also be met?
    Mr. Jones: The Question related to the capital cost, but it is true that any extra operating cost will, in effect, be incurred by my Department in the prices of products bought by my Department.
    Mr. Robens: May we be assured that extra charges likely to be involved by reason of the use of the atomic power stations for the making of plutonium will not fall on the civil power programme or on the electricity consumer?
    Mr. Jones: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the arrangements decided on are designed to place the burden of the cost on my own Department and, through my Department, on the Service Departments.

    Space Travel (Research)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Supply what research he is sponsoring into a manned space aircraft, which can be launched like a rocket and which can land like a conventional aircraft, on the lines of the Dynasoar which is being developed for the United States Air Force.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: Some aspects of the fundamental research currently being done in Ministry of Supply establishments have a relevance to space travel, but there is as yet no specific project.
    Mr. de Freitas: What machinery exists by which we can keep in touch with these developments in the United States, when
    870
    now we may have something to contribute but, because of the enormous expense, as the years pass we may have less to contribute? Can the Minister give any assurance as to the machinery we are developing now when we have the cards?
    Mr. Jones: There are arrangements for the exchange of technical information in the military sphere between the United States and ourselves, and I am sure that this project will fall within the scope of those arrangements.

    Blue Streak Missiles
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Supply how many Blue Streak missiles being developed for the Royal Air Force will be used for scientific experiments; and whether these experiments will involve the launching of a space satellite.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: While advantage will be taken of the test programme of the Blue Streak weapon to obtain incidental scientific information, there are at present no plans for diverting missiles to scientific experiments. As for earth satellites, I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave on 16th June to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).

  HOSPITALS

    Geriatric Service, North Middlesex
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Health the present position with regard to the provision of a full geriatric service at the North Middlesex Hospital.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The service is provided at present under the supervision of three general physicians.
    In consultation with their medical advisory committee, the regional hospital board is considering the recommendations made in a circular of October last for improving the services for old people and the chronic sick. The board will be making proposals to its hospital management committees for improving existing services where necessary in the light of these recommendations.
    Mrs. Butler: May I take it from the Minister's reply that the Board will not

    871
    be suggesting the appointment of a fulltime geriatrician? Does he realise that the doctors and others concerned with elderly people in the area have been pressing for this appointment for the last six years, and that the position is getting extremely serious?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir; I think the hon. Lady would not be justified in making an assumption either of a negative or a positive character in that regard. The regional hospital board will make proposals, as I have said, but it is not for me to say what those proposals will be.
    Dr. Summerskill: With some knowledge of this hospital, may I ask the Minister to try to expedite this matter? This hospital serves one of the most congested areas of North London—Wood Green, Edmonton and Tottenham. Not only is it in urgent need of a geriatric service, but will the Minister realise that, when this has been introduced, it will facilitate the turnover of beds and, incidentally, will add to the harmony of the relationship between the doctors and the general practitioners?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir. This hospital is known to me, as is also the surrounding area to which the right hon. Lady has referred. All these considerations are in my mind and, I am satisfied, in the mind of the regional board.
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory administrative arrangements controlling the admission to hospital of geriatric cases from Wood Green; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not aware that the administrative arrangements are unsatisfactory, but if the hon. Member will let me have details of what she has in mind, I should be glad to look into the matter with the regional boards concerned.
    Mrs. Butler: But does the Minister realise that of the three hospitals which admit geriatric cases from Wood Green, the North Middlesex gives prior consideration to cases from N.9, N.17, and N.18 postal districts, and St. Ann's and the Prince of Wales's to the cases from the Borough of Tottenham and the marginal districts of other constituencies, so that Wood Green comes off very badly in this respect?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My information is that applications for the admission of patients from Wood Green receive exactly the same consideration as those from Edmonton, but I will certainly look at the matter again in the light of what the hon. Lady now says.

    Nurses
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, whilst there is a shortage of nurses in general hospitals, teaching hospitals frequently have a waiting list or more nurses than they require; and what action he is taking to redress this inequality.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 23rd June, to a Question on the same subject by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson).
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that student nurses who fail in their examination at the end of their three months' preliminary training at one hospital frequently repeat their training at one or more different hospitals and fail in their examinations in each case; and if he will make regulations to put an end to this practice which wastes public money and does not produce nurses.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have no evidence that this practice is widespread, but in any case I would not wish to do anything to prevent a girl who wishes to become a nurse from having a second chance.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I know of a nurse who went successively to four hispitals in Manchester and did practically nothing at any of them and eventually went back to Ireland, having lived for a year at our expense, and she was still not a nurse at the end of that time? Will he look into such cases if I send him information?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I should think that such a case must be very exceptional. I have known people in my own profession who practised successfully after having a certain initial difficulty to overcome.

    Sisters (Accommodation)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the standard of accommodation for sisters in general

    873
    hospitals is unsatisfactory; and if he will take steps to bring about improvements.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The standard of accommodation varies, but I am not aware that it is unsatisfactory in general. I rely on hospital authorities to carry out, within the limits of the resources available, whatever improvements are needed.
    Mr. Johnson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into the possibility of obtaining any outside accommodation which may become available—such as large houses which the owners no longer want—so as to use it for these sisters?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I will certainly take account of any possibilities which seem to offer help in obtaining accommodation of the type required.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Poliomyelitis
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the Minister of Health what is now the attack rate of paralytic poliomyelitis per 100,000 of the population aged 1–5 years, 6–10 years, and 11–15 years; and what is the death rate per 100 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Information is not available for these precise age-groups. In 1957 the rates per 100,000 at ages 1–4, 5–9 and 10–14 were respectively 35·2, 21·6 and 8·6. The death rate over all age groups was 8 per 100 cases.
    Mr. Hobson: In view of that reply, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his Department ought to reconsider the importation of untested vaccine?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think that any such conclusion follows from the figures I have given in my Answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the Minister also aware that although my hon. Friend has specified certain age groups, the fact is that there is a high percentage of poliomyelitis among the adult population?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The attack rate is a good deal lower among the adult population, but the mortality rate of those adults who get it is higher.

    Lung Cancer (Smoking)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health what contribution, financial or otherwise, is being made by his Department in relation to research and propaganda on the connection between cancer of the lung and smoking.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): Cancer research at public expense is being undertaken by the Medical Research Council and within the National Health Service but it is not possible to say how much is spent on research into smoking and lung cancer. Copies of a report by the Council and of a statement made in the House on 27th June last year were sent to local health authorities with the request that they should publish in their campaigns on health education information about the risks of smoking. These campaigns attract 50 per cent. Exchequer grant.
    Mr. Hastings: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the number of new cases of cancer of the lung is steadily increasing in this country, as indeed it is in other countries, and that the public really want to know whether tobacco in any form is safe, and if so, how much they can use? Will he consider preparing a leaflet with the imprint of the Ministry which can be given to the inquiring public by local authorities?
    Mr. Thompson: My right hon. and learned Friend will shortly be asking local health authorities for reports on the action taken in this matter during the year since the Medical Research Council's report was originally sent to them and for their comments and suggestions generally. I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for further guidance.
    Dr. Summerskill: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how far his Department is co-operating with the Ministry of Education to educate boys about the danger of acquiring this habit?
    Mr. J. Griffiths: And girls.
    Dr. Summerskill: And girls.
    Mr. Thompson: We believe that the main publicity effort should be directed at the young and should be made by the local health authorities, which are primarily responsible for health education in

    875
    their areas and are equipped to provide it. I have every reason to believe that the co-operation is good.

    Smog
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health if he will issue suggestions to local authorities in the Greater London area as to action to be taken during the next epidemic of smog.
    Mr. R. Thompson: I am sure that the authorities are already aware of their powers and responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and I do not think that any suggestions from my right hon. and learned Friend are called for.
    Mr. Hastings: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the atmospheric conditions in the coming winter in the London area may well be little different from those in 1952, when 4,000 people died of smog? Will he reconsider his decision and give local authorities in the London area the best advice possible on what to do if another case of smog supervenes during the coming winter?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir. My Ministry and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government issue a joint broadcast notice when persistent fog is forecast recommending steps to reduce smoke and advising people with chronic respiratory complaints and heart conditions to stay indoors as far as possible. The question of actual treatment is, of course, not for the local authorities but for the hospitals and general practitioners under the National Health Service Act.

  MEDICAL RESEARCH

    Atmospheric Pollution
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will give the results of recent researches that have been carried out as to the best method of removing sulphur oxides from the air inspired and to ameliorate the worst effects of smog on the health of Londoners.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Research is being undertaken by the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and by other official
    876
    and industrial organisations on methods of removing sulphur oxides from the atmosphere as part of the wider problem of the elimination of all pollutants. This work is, however, of a long-term nature and results are unlikely to be available for some time. To provide relief for those most affected by the conditions caused by serious air pollution, "smog masks" are available on prescription and trials are being undertaken of the various types of such masks as well as of ammonia dispensers and other air-conditioning devices.
    Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House a little more information about the smog masks, which seem to be very efficient? When will he have a definite report upon them, and will it be available before the coming winter, when the possibility of smog is very great?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: There is a smog mask already available on which controlled trials have taken place. The result of those trials has been a most effective form of smog mask. In addition to that, trials are going on into the possible value of ammonia shields and ammonia bottles. I think the hon. Gentleman has an ammonia shield.
    Mr. Hastings: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman issue some leaflet to inform the public of the details of the various methods and when and how they may be obtained?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Member knows, I am answering this Question on behalf of my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, and I will certainly draw his attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING
  Mr. G. Wilsonasked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he will take steps to improve the quality of the Cornish pasties served in the Members' Cafeteria.
  Sir William Steward: I will look into my hon. Friend's complaint, and see what can be done. However, if he, as

  877
  the Member for a Cornish constituency, has any culinary information to give, I shall be pleased to hear from him.
  Mr. Wilson: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the articles of food being sold as Cornish pasties in the cafeteria at present do not bear any resemblance at all to pasties as eaten in Cornwall, except for a superficial similarity of shape? They do not contain any potatoes, turnips or onions and appear to be pre-cooked. Does not he consider that if one seeks to sell a traditional dish under its traditional name, it ought at least to be based on a traditional recipe, of which there are several for pasties, one of which I can quote:
  "Pastry rolled out like a plate,
  Piled with 'Turmuts, Tates, mate,'
  Doubled up and baked like fate.
  That's a Cornish Pasty."
  Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Sir W. Steward) issue a leaflet to hon. Members indicating the dangers to which they may be subject as a result of consuming this remarkable edible?
  Mr. S. Silverman: Does the hon. Member for Woolwich, West realise that, as a result of the Government's policy in the last seven years, so many of my constituents have been driven from their homes to the south-west of the country that the art of making Cornish pasties has been lost in Cornwall and they now make Lancashire hotpot instead?
  Mr. Hayman: As one who has perhaps eaten more proper Cornish pasties than any other hon. Member, may I ask the hon. Member for Woolwich, West to bear in mind that what is sold downstairs is a complete monstrosity and that I shall be prepared to supply him with a proper recipe, although the resulting article will not be cheap?
  Sir W. Steward: I shall be most pleased to receive any valuable information from the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman), as I shall be pleased to receive any culinary information from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson).

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1958–59
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding£30, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the following services connected with the Cotton Industry, namely:—

Civil Estimates, 1958–59

£

Class VI, Vote 1 (Board of Trade)

10

Class II, Vote 7 (Colonial Office)

10

Class VI, Vote 9 (Ministry of Labour)

10

Total

£30

COTTON INDUSTRY
3.31 p.m.
Mr. Harold Wilson: This is the first full debate on the cotton industry that we have had for well over three years. Apart from debates on Finance Bill Amendments proposing the restoration of investment allowances for cotton, there has not been a general debate on the industry since 9th March, 1955. I think I may claim, therefore, that the Opposition have shown the very greatest restraint—as has the cotton industry—in the conditions that we have been facing. The reason is that there has been a general desire in the industry to produce a solution to its problems on an industry-wide basis, and that both sides of the industry have been co-operating equally to secure that achievement.
Frankly, however, the situation has now grown too urgent for us to leave it any longer. For four years the industry has been slowly bleeding to death, and the Government have rejected or ignored all appeals for help. I must remind the Committee—and those members of the Front Bench who have been listening—that it is practically four years since the Cotton Board appealed to the then President of the Board of Trade—the

879
right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft)—as a matter of urgency. It was on 8th July, 1954.
In that year things were getting serious. Imports from Asia in 1954 rose to a level of 236 million yards of woven grey cloth, compared with only 76 million yards in 1953. That was a very big increase—more than trebling in a single year. That was why the Cotton Board went to see the then President of the Board of Trade, although it must have realised what a futile proceeding it was. The right hon. Gentleman said that Lancashire was squealing before she had been hurt, and in answer to a Question in the House he dismissed this very big increase in imports as "a slight increase."
That was four years ago, and I challenge the present President of the Board of Trade—who has been just as useless on this subject as his predecessor, if that is possible—to tell the Committee what, after four years, the Government have done. I challenge them to tell us one thing that the Government have done for the industry in all that period—apart from two points that I will give them: first, the Purchase Tax concession of April, 1955, which we forced upon the then President of the Board of Trade, now the Lord Privy Seal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not think that anyone will deny that, least of all the Lord Privy Seal, because he refused to do it in his April, 1955, Budget, and when we tabled a Motion upon the subject he said that it would be dishonest to give way to pressure. But two days later he did give way to pressure, so we may claim to have forced it upon him, however dishonest he may have thought it. The other point I give the Government was their decision, a few months ago, to put controls on imports of cloth from China—although whether that was to please Lancashire or the State Department, I am not quite sure.
I want to give the Government the dates, to remind them what a long time it has been. We had this high-level Cotton Board delegation in July, 1954. In December, 1954, the first suggestion was made that we should have negotiations to secure a voluntary restriction on exports by the countries principally affected—and at that time India was the chief country. That suggestion was made
880
in a leading article in the Manchester Guardian, in December, 1954.
In January, 1955, those of my hon. Friends who represent Lancashire and Cheshire constituencies met a delegation from the Lancashire cotton trade unions which came to London and stressed the extreme urgency of the problem that we were facing, and in February hon. Members on this side of the Committee announced their plan for regulating imports and dealing with any which were the subject or product of unfair competition, such as the subsidising of prices for raw cotton. Looking back over the four years, we see that that has been the only plan produced by any party. We have had nothing from the Government.
In March, 1955, the Cotton Board went to see the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), but in April, his successor, Sir Anthony Eden—who had just become Prime Minister—turned the Board down and said that nothing could be done. That was more than three years ago, and still nothing has been done by the Government, despite a clear pledge from them, made by the right hon. Member for Monmouth in the debate on 9th March, and the fact that a Resolution was passed by the House including that pledge.
I invite the Committee to look at the figures of imports of grey cloth. I do not want to weary the Committee with too many figures, but these are too startling to be ignored. I must preface them by pointing out that they exclude processed cloth of any description and also made-up garments, the import of which is rapidly increasing. In 1953, the grey cloth imported amounted to 76 million yards; in 1954, it was 236 million yards; in 1955, it was 268 million yards; in 1956, it was again 268 million yards; and in 1957, it was 372 million yards. In the first five months of this year imports have been running at about the same rate as in the same period last year.
That is serious enough for the industry, in all conscience, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree, but the urgency of the present situation is that this is happening at a time when there has been a sharp reduction of exports and a recession in home demand, with stocks

881
piling up. Since we last debated the industry the export record has grown steadily worse. In 1954, we used to have to remind the right hon. Member for Monmouth that exports of cotton, under his stewardship, were lower than at any time since figures of cotton exports were first collected by the Board of Trade, under the famous Mr. G. R. Porter, in 1840. Since then they have fallen by a further 25 per cent. As I say, combined with that we have these heavy imports and a present recession in the textile demand.
This has meant the closure of many mills. The Minister of State, Board of Trade, gave us the figures a few days ago. Fifteen mills closed in 1954; 90 closed in 1955; 96 in 1956; 60 in 1957; and 46 in the first five months of this year. As we know, since the beginning of this month still more have closed. These figures may seem remote, but anyone who travels in Lancashire, for example, from Manchester to Oldham or in any direction from Manchester, can see that many of these mills, the product of some of Lancashire's most confident periods of expansion, just after 1900 or even just after the First World War, have closed.
The tragedy is that some of the most recent closures, as among mills closing this month, is that they are among the most modern, highly efficient and highly equipped mills imaginable. It is all very well for hon. Members not from textile districts to say, "Of course, Lancashire has 'had it'. Many of these are old mills which failed to re-equip when they could." I can assure hon. Gentlemen that some of us have been extremely critical of same of the mills at the time when they should have been re-equipping, and no one pressed them harder than Sir Stafford Cripps. The plain fact is that mills that have been re-equipped since the war, and during the last five or six years, have gone under in the same fashion to this very serious attack from abroad. It is no good anyone saying that Lancashire could avoid this problem if it were more efficient and productive.
From the figures I have given we see that 307 mills have been closed in less than four and a half years and that more than 250 of them have been closed since we last debated the subject in the House. It would be interesting to see how many
882
mills were closed when this party was in charge of the cotton industry. On one occasion I went, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) will recall, to the most extraordinary lengths to stop one mill from going on short-time for a fortnight. Since then, we have read of huge modern mills closing. We read it almost every week in the Press.
The reason why we went to great lengths to avoid even temporary unemployment and short-time working is that we really believed in the drive for increased productivity and redeployment in the cotton industry. We knew that it would be an almost fatal blow to that drive for redeployment if unemployment and short-time working were to occur and were to revive memories of the bad old days in Lancashire.
What about the numbers employed? In June, 1951, they were 318,900—or 319,000 in round figures. In June, 1954, the number was 291,000 and in March, 1958, 240,800. In other words, there has been a loss of 78,000 workers from the industry since the present Government came to power. The industry has fallen, in terms of numbers employed, by almost a quarter. This does not allow for the unemployed who are on short-time. We have lost 50,000 in the period of rather less than four years since the Cotton Board appealed to the Government as a matter of urgency.
These are grim figures at a time of what is generally supposed to be full employment. This is, as everybody in Lancashire knows, Tory freedom working in one more industry. Government supporters may say, "At any rate, the unemployment figures are not very high". They show 17,000 registered as wholly unemployed or temporarily stopped, and last month 22,000 were registered as on short-time at the last date from which figures are available. What we know is that the figures do not tell a part of the story. Many of the men who are unemployed find work in other industries. There is no opportunity for many of the older workers to find re-employment, so they just retire from industry altogether. The same is true of the women workers. A very large number of them would work in the cotton industry at the mill round the corner, but they just will not or cannot travel four or five miles to the engineering

883
shop or some other light industry some distance away when their mill closes.
I wonder whether Government supporters realise that whole areas are declining. The cotton towns are beginning to repeat the tragedy of the pre-war depressed areas. There is loss of population to other areas and above all—this is a most serious thing—young people are drifting away because there is no future there for them. There is waste of social capital. There are even houses standing empty in some of the cotton towns when, as we know, in most areas there is a shortage of houses.
Not long ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) invited me to go to his constituency and address a meeting on the cotton industry. We are often told that the days of public meetings are over, but my hon. Friend will confirm that nearly 2,000 people turned up at that meeting that night because of their concern about the future of their industry.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he will no doubt tell us that when we go to an area like his constituency we see empty houses, evidence of depopulation and of no future for the young people in the area. Although this part of Lancashire was scheduled by the then President of the Board of Trade many years ago as a Development Area, that remained an empty gesture because nothing has been done for it. That has been simply a broken pledge.
I remember going to my hon. Friend's constituency, when I was at the Board of Trade, and appealing for more people to go into the industry. That was Government policy. We said "Britain's bread hangs by Lancashire's thread". We made an appeal to young school-leavers to enter the cotton industry, and we gave them the undertaking that our Government and any future Government would look after the industry and would not let the workers down as their fathers and mothers had been let down. That pledge has been utterly betrayed by the present Government.
I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he go to Nelson and Colne, the Rossendale Valley and other cotton towns and see things for himself.
884
Frankly, I think it would do him far more good than some of the joy-rides he goes on, philandering with Fascists. Let him go to some of the cotton towns and see what Tory freedom has brought them in this past few years.
Only this morning, I received a letter from a senior official of a mill in Rochdale. I would like to read two or three sentences from it. Talking about the immediate, present position, he says:
"I don't suppose there is a mill in Rochdale that can see a fortnight ahead. We are just hoping and hoping that something will turn up. Stocks are piling up and up. We could all close down for a month if we paid any attention to our order books. Something must be done at once for our industry or it will collapse. Then the people of this country will be at the mercy of the foreigner and in the long run prices can get out of hand. I only wish one of the Cabinet represented a Lancashire constituency. Perhaps something would be done."
I doubt even that. He goes on to say:
"As you know the manufacturing side of the cotton trade consists of small and in the most instances family businesses. Rather than lose all their capital they are closing down. It is a natural thing to do. The closures are coming at such an alarming rate that we the spinning side are over-producing. Being larger units and limited companies we are holding on."
One of the most serious things is this big pile-up on the spinning side. The Manchester Guardian drew attention to the fact that on the fine spinning and doubling side of the industry these tragedies are taking place whereas any theoretical observer would have said a few years ago that it could hope to survive whatever might happen to the rest of the industry.
What is the solution? I am not suggesting that all that needs to be done is to deal with the problem of imports and Lancashire's future will then be assured. In the long-term, Lancashire's future depends upon the efforts of Lancashire people themselves, on the steps that both sides of the industry can take to increase efficiency and modernisation and to employ productive resources in those products in which Lancashire can and still does lead the world.
I do not intend to weary the Committee with the various proposals that might be made in this connection. I have set them out at some length in "Plan for Cotton", which I was asked to prepare for the cotton trade unions.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Where can that document be obtained?
Mr. Wilson: I know that copies are available at the Weavers' Office in Darwen, also at the Labour Party bookshop and, I think, at the Conservative Party Central Office as well. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has a copy because, on my representation, copies were sent to all hon. Members representing Lancashire and Cheshire constituencies.
I shall not go into all the measures to raise efficiency in production, marketing, sales and procurement of raw material which are outlined in the document. I was amused to hear that when the trade unions went to see the President of the Board of Trade about this document all he could say to them was, "Can you tell me which recommendations are supported by both sides of the industry?"
After the Government have sat there for seven years without producing a single idea for the industry, all he could do was quite pathetically to ask what agreement had been reached on both sides of the industry on a plan produced by Her Majesty's Opposition. I do not know whether he wants us to negotiate an agreement with both sides in order to get him something to legislate about.
Obviously, a great deal needs to be done. It is right that we should pay tribute to the many firms which, in very difficult conditions in the past few years, to their great credit have pressed on with imaginative investment schemes and modernisation programmes. After the rather poor record of investing in past years it was said—unkindly, but not altogether unfairly—that the cotton industry never modernised itself because in good times it did not need to do so and in bad times it could not afford to do so. In view of that record and that gibe we should pay tribute to those firms which have so imaginatively mechanised and modernised themselves in recent years, but we cannot expect that effort while the industry is bleeding to death.
As I have reminded the Committee, the tragedy is that some of the most recent closures of mills are those which are among the most modern in the world. A long-term job of rehabilitation is essential, but the bleeding has to be
886
stopped first. That is what we on this side of the Committee want to stress first and foremost in this debate.
I think I can claim that we made that the theme of the debate in March, 1955, when I said:
"But all our hopes for re-equipment, modernisation, mechanization, redeployment and all these other things which are essential to increased productivity in the industry will receive a great setback if something is not done immediately about the problem of Indian imports.
There can never be a progressive attitude in Lancashire when men on both sides of the industry are dominated by the fear of an approaching slump."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 463.]
It was only an approaching slump then but now the slump has been with us for four years. What do the Government intend to do? I must remind the Committee that in the debate on 9th March, 1955, the then President of the Board of Trade moved an Amendment to our Motion of censure. That Amendment called on the House to approve
"the declared intention of Her Majesty's Government to take such safeguarding action on imports as may prove to be essential and appropriate having regard to the position of the United Kingdom as a world-wide trading nation"
and went on to welcome
"the steps which Her Majesty's Government have taken to obtain from the Cotton Board their detailed views of the problems and their specific proposals for action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 464.]
The Amendment referred to
"the declared intention of Her Majesty's Government to take such safeguarding action on imports as may prove to be essential and appropriate".
In view of that
"declared intention…to take safeguarding action on imports"
we have a right to ask the President of the Board of Trade what the Government have done in fulfilment of that pledge, made more than three years ago. Of course, they have encouraged voluntary negotiations.
In March, the President of the Board of Trade sent a high official to Hong Kong. I think I can claim that the way for his visit had been prepared by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) and myself, when we went to Hong Kong in February. When some of these problems were discussed very frankly for the first time with leading

887
textile interests there, it became very clear that the Government had not been very clear in putting Britain's case across to those textile interests. I hope that today the President of the Board of Trade will give us a full account of how those negotiations now stand.
I understand India and Pakistan are willing to agree to a voluntary limitation on the understanding that Hong Kong is included. Obviously, India and Pakistan could not agree to hold down their exports to this country if the position were to be open ended for Hong Kong. We understand that Hong Kong, with the utmost reluctance, would accept a ceiling on exports, provided it was limited to cloth and was not to be a precedent for other goods about which complaint has been made, such as rubber footwear, gloves and so on.
There the matter rests. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee what he has said in Lancashire during the past few weeks. There are stories circulating—quite specific stories, there cannot be any doubt about them—that many firms in Lancashire are working on voluntary schemes—I do not mean schemes for reducing exports—by which an unofficial tariff or levy is to be placed on imported cotton goods from Asia by the textile finishing trade in this country.
That is the proposal which is being very much canvassed and their understanding is that the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government cannot do anything for them, but they must do it voluntarily. He may have said that there must be a voluntary agreement with the textile industries of the Asian countries concerned, but some people, including highly placed people, in Lancashire have interpreted his phrase as meaning that if the Government will not introduce quotas or tariffs the industry must introduce a voluntary system of levies, tariffs and quotas.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will utterly repudiate the statement, because it is far advanced and it is an utterly fantastic proposal. The first thing that the right hon. Gentleman would have to do if that took place would be to register it under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. It would break down,
888
because a lot of goods would be processed in Hong Kong instead of in this country, or they would be sent to Germany, Belgium and other countries and dealt with there. I am glad to see from the nodding of the head of the right hon. Gentleman that he is not himself a party to those back door negotiations. I hope that he will make it quite clear that he will repudiate any proposition on those lines if it stems from his original words. I am glad that that is the position.
We made clear our position three years ago and it was repeated in the document to which I have referred. Our plan was for a centralised import commission for woven piece goods, and yarn also should that be necessary. That proposal was turned down by the right hon. Member for Monmouth without his coming forward with any alternative proposal. The Government cannot say that this is contrary to G.A.T.T., or any international agreement, because they have been doing this in the case of the jute industry for six years. If the Government were to announce their willingness to introduce this scheme they would not have to wait very long before the prospect of its introduction—or, if hon. Members like, fear of its introduction—led to an agreement to a voluntary scheme on the part of the countries concerned, including Hong Kong.
When I was in Hong Kong, in February, I felt that it was because of the publicity given to the Labour Party's proposals for a Government import commission that the textile interests there were more willing to contemplate a voluntary restriction. It may be a hard thing to say, but sometimes only when one has a sanction or a scheme are people willing to agree to a voluntary proposal of the kind that has been canvassed.
As I have said, I had some discussions in Hong Kong in February. We all recognise the problem of finding employment and a livelihood for Hong Kong's teeming population. We recognise the political as well as the social necessity of maintaining full employment in that Colony. As we all know, the Hong Kong textile industry is a mushroom industry, built on refugee capital and refugee labour, and in far too many of its establishments there are labour conditions which we ought not to tolerate in a Crown Colony,

889
irrespective of the effect on any of our home industries. Even if those conditions were not involving Lancashire in the crisis which I have been describing, we, as Members of this House, with our trusteeship and our responsibility for Hong Kong, ought not to tolerate those conditions of labour which have been reported to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth.
When I met representatives of the textile firms I felt that they would be prepared, with a great deal of reluctance—it would not be easy—to accept a ceiling based perhaps on the average exports of the past three years, but it will be essential—and this is something they have not yet accepted—to include made-up goods on a yardage basis in any ceiling which is worked out. As we all know, all the time more and more of these made-up goods, clothing and even furnishing fabrics, are coming into this country from Asia.
The present position is based on fear and uncertainty. The Hong Kong interests fear that this House is about to impose quotas cutting down their exports almost to nothing. The Lancashire interests fear the open-ended nature of the trade and the dangers of further expansion even above the present figure. In these circumstances, where there are those two fears from opposite directions, I think that a settlement would be possible.
It is impossible, however, to debate the problem this afternoon without reference to labour conditions in Hong Kong. I am glad that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has joined his junior colleague on the Front Bench. As the Committee knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth spent several weeks in Asia on a mission for the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions earlier this year. In an Adjournment debate in the House just before the Whitsun Recess he gave some alarming details about labour conditions in Hong Kong, details which were not queried or challenged by the Government spokesman in that debate and have not been challenged at any other time. He told us that there are 19 new mills in Hong Kong
"of which nine operate on three shifts of eight hours each, which is quite satisfactory by any standards in that context. The other 10 mills operate on two shifts of 12 hours each. In addition, there are 149 small weaving mills,
890
some of these relatively old, and nearly all operating on a two 12-hour shift system."
My hon. Friend gave his authority for those statements. They were based on the Annual Report of the Hong Kong Commissioner of Labour. My hon. Friend went on to say that
"These 12-hour shifts are worked in a large number of mills in Hong Kong. Worse than that, it is not 12 hours a day for six days per week but 12 hours per day for seven days per week. These mills operate all the year round, the only holidays most of the workers get being four days holiday at Chinese New Year."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 23rd May, 1958; Vol. 588, c. 1744.]
My hon. Friend went on to explain that, theoretically, they got a day off every couple of weeks, but that in most cases they were under very heavy pressure to work on that day in return for double wages. I hope, Sir Charles, that my hon. Friend is able to catch your eye and to give to the Committee more information on this subject, because it was his speech which brought these facts to the attention of the House of Commons.
There can be no doubt in any part of the Committee that this problem needs to be tackled urgently by executive action in Hong Kong. I am sure that no hon. Member in any part of the Committee can defend women working for 12 and 13 hours a day. We cannot defend women, or men for that matter, working a seven-day week. We cannot defend the figure which my hon. Friend gave, which he said was probably an understatement, of an average working week of 65 hours, because the conditions existing in Hong Kong at present are conditions which we made illegal in this country more than a century ago.
A serious point about them is that they are not only bad by our standards but, on the basis of my hon. Friend's report, they are worse than any other standards in any other country in Asia except, of course, South Korea. It can be precious little satisfaction to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to say that the conditions which he has to defend are in any case equalled by those in South Korea.
Mr. Philip Bell: I am not trying to obstruct the right hon. Gentleman because I, too, feel strongly about this, but I have the report here of a visit to Burma, Hong Kong and Japan. I am sure that the right hon. Member is familiar with it; it was directed and reported upon by Mr. Henniker Heaton.

891
This was in 1955. He devoted a whole paragraph to these conditions, and he does not suggest that they are as bad as the right hon. Member has said. Have they deteriorated in the last three years?
Mr. Wilson: I do not think that Mr. Henniker Heaton would deny the figures which I have given in view of the article by him in the Financial Times this morning, in which he did not attempt to challenge the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth, although he suggested that they referred to a smaller proportion of the industry than my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Ernest Thornton: There has been some subtlety in Hong Kong. It has been the practice, when visitors arrive, for the mill owners to show them the nine new mills which work three eight-hour shifts. It is reasonable to assume from this that eight-hour shift working is the practice, whereas, in fact, it is the exception rather than the rule.
Mr. Wilson: I am sure that my hon. Friend's report, which was prepared for the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, will command great authority. It is significant that in view of the fact that he sent his report to the Colonial Secretary in March, no attempt was made by the Government spokesman in the debate on 23rd May to suggest that any of my hon. Friend's facts or conclusions were in any way wrong.
What do we say should be done? First, we say to the Government that they should accept our proposal for a Government buying commission to regulate imports. I should be out of order if I pursued that very far, because it would require legislation and I cannot go into it in detail. Secondly, we say, go to the countries concerned. I suggest that we should send a Minister to Hong Kong to speak with the authority of this House, armed with the proposal for a Government buying commission, and to negotiate an agreement. Having announced the intention to introduce this method of regulating imports, the Government will find it not too difficult to negotiate a voluntary agreement. Thirdly, they should deal with the problem of labour conditions in Hong Kong. The Secretary of State has told us that steps are being
892
taken and that a Bill is being drafted. I should again be out of order if I debated that, since it involves legislation in Hong Kong.
I want to make it clear that Lancashire and the cotton unions are not saying, and never have said, "We will not have any imports from countries with lower labour standards than ours." I have heard Lancashire trade union leaders say many times that lower Indian wages, for example, are not of themselves a threat, because Indian productivity is so much lower, and the problem of Indian competition in the main has been one of raw material prices. If we were to say that it is right in all circumstances to place tariffs and quotas on goods purchased by countries with lower labour standards than our own, obviously we could not honestly protest against tariffs put on our exports by the United States and Canada. That is not the question of labour conditions here. The special problem of Hong Kong is one of abnormally depressed labour conditions, amounting in many cases to sheer exploitation and to conditions and hours such as we should not dream of tolerating in this country—conditions not only far below our standards but far below those of the rest of Asia, as my hon. Friend made clear.
Another point which I wish to underline in relation to these Hong Kong standards was again pointed out by my hon. Friend and is very clear from the report of the Labour Commissioner in Hong Kong. It is that the labour conditions in the textile mills are far worse than in other Hong Kong industries such as the dockyards, printing, and footwear. That is why we say that action by both the President of the Board of Trade and the Colonial Secretary is necessary.
The other thing that I want to make clear is that we, as an Opposition, have never called for either tariffs or quotas. We recognise all the difficulties, not to mention the dangers of retaliation against our own export industries. Nevertheless, when some of those other export industries smugly criticise Lancashire, let them realise that some of the most successful of our export industries, especially the motor car industry, enjoy a very high degree of protection in our own home market. It therefore does not lie in the mouths of some of those industries so smugly to criticise Lancashire for the state that we are facing.

893
It is a historical accident that protection against imports of manufactures from the Commonwealth is so difficult to introduce, simply because, when the Ottawa Agreements were negotiated, when the agreements with India and others were negotiated, imports of manufactured goods from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong were, frankly, never contemplated as a possibility. That is why Lancashire is in so very much worse a position than is the motor industry and other export industries.
We believe that the problem can be solved, and where the Government have failed, we put forward, more than three years ago, our own solution. It is the Government's refusal on, as I believe, doctrinaire political grounds to accept that proposal that has led to the closure of 300 mills and the loss of 50,000 workers; that has led to this depopulation and social decline of whole areas. We therefore challenge the Government either to accept our scheme or, if they reject that, not to seek a way out by a pledge to introduce measures that they have no intention of introducing, but to produce a scheme of their own—very late though it may be—which is adequate to stop the rot in this great industry, and to create the conditions in which it can go forward with those long-delayed plans of reorganisation and modernisation which, in the long run, will be Lancashire's only guarantee of survival and security.
4.12 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) reminded us that we have not discussed cotton fully in the House for three years. I agree with him that it is time we did, because cotton is the gravest problem we have in the private sector of the economy. There is not any other industry that is undergoing such a painful and drastic readjustment as are the spinning and weaving sections of this, Lancashire's traditional undertaking.
I could, perhaps, very quickly give the full picture by going back rather far, and then coming forward. If one goes back to 1913, which was the peak year in the history of the British textile industry, we find that our production then was 8,000 million sq. yds.; our exports were 7,000 million sq. yds., and our retained imports were negligible. If we compare those
894
figures with those of the latest year for which we have full results, 1957, we find our production to be, not 8,000 million, but 1,700 million sq. yds We find our exports of Lancashire woven cloth to be 285 million sq. yds. and, if we add in reexports, 455 million sq. yds. That is one-twentieth of the old figure. In addition, we find that retained imports amount to 250 million sq. yds.
We can see from those figures that it has been the stupendous decline in exports that has revolutionised the scale and the nature of the Lancashire industry. But the export markets have been lost as a result of two world wars, and in ways that do not excite the same indignation as does the current loss of the home market due to competition from cheap imports. Today, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, Lancashire cannot see where this invasion of the home market is to end, and the industry is asking us for a measure of stability. The Government support that demand, as the Committee will see when I give the latest information on what has been done to secure voluntary and effective checks on the increase of retained imports.
I know that some of the leaders in the Lancashire cotton industry feel that the Board of Trade does not appreciate their difficulties. I assure them that that is not so. We watch with real anxiety the cotton industry, with its proud record, suffering these severe and continuous amputations but, like the rest of the Committee, we are thankful that the younger operatives have so easily found work in other growing industries. The unemployment figures in what is loosely called the Lancashire cotton belt have been consistently below the national average, but we know that the older workers and, especially, the women, do not find it so easy to change their jobs when a mill closes. We know, also, that there is no alternative work near some of the mills.
We shall shortly, we hope, have powers to help in cases where local unemployment is seen to be likely and persistent. If the Bill that has gone from this House to the other place becomes law, we shall have the power to assist a mill to adapt its premises or to change to the manufacture of other goods, and we shall use those powers.
We also know that those who have invested in cotton have suffered severe

895
losses. The mayors of six of the cotton towns explained to me how the decline in the spinning and weaving sections of the industry created difficulties for local government. Indeed, that must be so, in those areas where other industry is not expanding, where people move away or, as the right hon. Gentleman said, where premises become empty and rateable value goes down.
Then, of course, those in this House who represent the cotton industry or, indeed, represent any interests that are suffering losses, whether they are financial losses or human losses, naturally expect the Government to do all that is possible to soften the blows and to stabilise the position. I should like to thank the Lancashire Members for two things: first, for the trouble that they have always taken to inform the Board of Trade about what is actually happening in the cotton industry; and, secondly, for all their understanding of what I have already called the most difficult industrial problem that we have to face. If we are not taking today the action that the Lancashire Members would like us to take, we cannot plead ignorance. We really do know what is happening.
I should also like to pay a tribute to the leaders of the industry. I believe that hon. Gentlemen who represent Lancashire would agree that Lord Rochdale, Sir Cuthbert Clegg, and the members of the Cotton Board have given wise, patient and constructive leadership. I do not forget the trade union leaders, who have been troubled by the effect upon their membership of the rapid decline in their industry.
Now I want to describe the situation as I see it. We have to recognise that the cotton textile industry is in grave difficulties in all industrialised countries. The causes are everywhere the same. First, came the immense increase in spinning and weaving capacity in so many countries which had, before, been importers of piece goods. I am sure that every hon. Member who has been abroad has seen one of the post-war, modern cotton mills, equipped with British machinery, and operated by intelligent but not always highly-paid local labour.
Only a few weeks ago I visited such a spinning mill in Brazil, a subsidiary of a great British firm. There, I saw the finest and newest machines made in
896
Lancashire, three large spinning frames operated by one Brazilian girl, the product coming out of the works cheap and protected by a tariff. That can be seen in almost every developing country in the world.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: Did the right hon. Gentleman find out what wage was received by the woman working in that factory?
Sir D. Eccles: I asked that question. It depends upon the rate of exchange. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who know anything about Brazil will know that there are several rates of exchange, but at the most unfavourable rate of exchange I reckon that at a rate of 380 cruzeiros to the£, what she earned is equal to about£3 15s. a week. Three months before, that would have been over£5 a week. I would add that this is a subsidiary of J. & P. Coats, with extremely good Labour relations.
Mr. J. T. Price: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious point. Because of trading difficulties with Brazil there is virtually no trade between that country and Britain in the type of goods which are the subject of today's debate. If a similar situation existed in Hong Kong the clamour which has gone up from Lancashire and which we are voicing in the Committee today would not have been so great. It is inappropriate to quote the worst examples. We are now meeting competition from Portugal, one of the minor backward countries in the world, because we have neglected to consider Lancashire's case. I would not have thought that Brazil was a good example to quote today.
Sir D. Eccles: The fact that Brazil supplies her own requirements and exports a little only shows that there is a different picture today compared with thirty years ago, when we were supplying cotton goods to her. Cotton has had to compete with man-made fibres the development of which goes on from year to year. That has not been wholly bad Some of those fibres can be combined with cotton, and the great cotton firms are doing well out of that combination. I believe that there is more to come in that direction.
Thirdly, although the purchasing power of the world's consumers has been rising,

897
they have not been spending in proportion more on textiles. It seems that they prefer to buy electrical goods for their homes, or a car, or to spend more on entertainment. The result is that despite full employment, the increase in the demand for textiles has not been as great as one would wish or would expect. Standards of taste are rising, and I believe that we shall see a steady increase in the demand for high-quality and well-designed fabrics. There are signs of that happening already, and this is a movement which will help the textile industries in the older industrialised countries where they can afford, as we can, to do more research and to keep ahead in these new developments. I will return to that in a moment.
Lastly, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we have had a recession in world trade this year. The year 1957 was surprisingly good for the production of textiles in the world. In fact, towards the end of the year more textiles were coming onto the market than the market could absorb, so that in 1958 we find a decline in output. We find stocks to be worked off everywhere, and import restrictions have been imposed by quite a number of countries. From all those long-term and short-term changes the Lancashire industry has suffered more than any other in the world, because it had more to lose—that is because it started with by far the biggest export trade.
Coming nearer to our own time, 1951 was the peak year in the Lancashire cotton industry after the war. I think that it is natural that it should be so, because from that year onwards Japan came back strongly into the market and, even more serious, new cotton mills in the Commonwealth were opened in increasing numbers. Our worst losses in exports in the last seven years have been in Australia, South Africa and West Africa.
Over the same period the effect on employment has been roughly as the right hon. Gentleman described it. I would only say that though there has been this very large and serious decline in spinning and weaving, employment in finishing has been almost steady. I should like the Committee to have the latest and not at all agreeable facts; 14th June, I believe, is the date for this figure. There is now in the North-West
898
region short time among about 13 per cent. of the workers in the textile industry. None the less, it still remains true that unemployment in Lancashire is well below the national average. Even if we take weaving and spinning, in May it was 1·5 per cent. or 4,400 workers, not 17,000 which the right hon. Gentleman quoted probably for the whole region and all industries.
Mr. Leslie Hale: This is an important point. The right hon. Gentleman ought to appreciate that if a skilled worker leaves the cotton industry he is an unskilled labourer somewhere else. There is little satisfaction in the fact that out of 70,000 men 60,000 are doing casual labour, or something like that. That is Lancashire's bitter grievance.
Sir D. Eccles: That is not so. If one takes the figures for men and women in work in Lancashire over this period—that is, in engineering and other manufacturing industries as well as in the distributive trades—one finds that there are more people in work now than there were seven years ago, in spite of the 100,000 who have left the cotton industry.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Fantastically untrue.
Sir D. Eccles: There is no use the hon. Gentleman saying, "Fantastically untrue". These figures are well-known to anyone who studies the facts.
Mr. Silverman rose——
Sir D. Eccles: I said that the increase in employment in the last seven years in engineering and other manufacturing and distributive industries is over 100,000, showing that the amount of work in Lancashire has increased and not decreased.
Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about the unemployed. Would he repeat the figures that he quoted?
Sir D. Eccles: The figure which I gave was the May figure for full-time unemployment in spinning and weaving.
Mr. Silverman: What in the world has that got to do with it?
Sir D. Eccles: Only that my figure is right and the right hon. Gentleman's figure is wrong.
Mr. Wilson: I am quoting from the Ministry of Labour Gazette, published by the Ministry of Labour. It is true that I gave the figures of unemployed, but not wholly unemployed. In this industrial analysis the numbers of unemployed are quoted as 12,185 for cotton spinning and doubling, 5,458 for cotton weaving, making a total of about 17,500. I said that this is the number unemployed; I did not say "wholly unemployed".
No one knows better than the Minister of Labour that these figures greatly understate the real unemployment situation in the industry. The Ministry of Labour Gazette, before the war, used to have a section on textiles every month in which it was stated, "These figures cannot take account of all the forms of under-employment in the industry."
Sir D. Eccles: I agree that the figures understate in one respect; that is, that quite often when women leave spinning and weaving they retire and they do not register as unemployed. I agree that that has an effect which is not measured in those figures.
The fact remains that there has been a greater expansion of employment in Lancashire than the contraction in the textile industry. I should like the Committee to realise that we realise that because the great majority of workers who have left the cotton industry have found other employment, that does not mean that there have been no human suffering or serious losses.
One very difficult problem which always arises when an industry is declining, is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the labour force becomes unbalanced because it is not possible to attract young people into it. That we are aware of, and we realise that it is very serious. It is one of the reasons that a period of stability in Lancashire is essential.
At the same time, one should remember, being in mind what has happened, that when a Lancashire operative loses his or her job he or she can nearly always find another fairly quickly, whereas if a cotton operative in India, Pakistan or Hong Kong loses his job he and his family come near to starvation. This brings me to the problem of the import of textiles.
It is quite untrue to suggest that Lancashire enjoys no protection. Our tariff against non-Commonwealth textiles is
900
fairly stiff; it is 17½per cent. against piece goods and about 20 per cent. against made-up goods. Further, we have imposed stringent quotas on textiles originating in Japan and China, and we give very small, merely token quotas for other Communist countries.
It cannot be said that we have done nothing by direct action to protect Lancashire. As soon as I saw that imports of grey cloth from China were beginning to make an impression on this market, I put on a quota at once. That was done in January last. I responded to the very first appeal for help which was made. This shows that the Government are ready to protect Lancashire by direct action when the principle of Commonwealth freedom of entry is not at stake.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite might reflect on this when they press us, as they do, for increased trade with China. It is quite clear that it would be with cotton textiles that China would be most likely to find the finance to buy more from the non-Communist world. However, we all know that it is the duty-free imports from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong which are eating into our domestic market. As recently as 1954, retained imports of textiles amounted to about 3 per cent. of home consumption. I have not the accurate figure, but I estimate that today it must be something over 15 per cent. This is a serious deterioration, and we are resolved to see it checked. We are trying to achieve a stable position by supporting the Cotton Board in its negotiations for voluntary three-year ceilings on imports from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong.
I will not trouble the Committee with all the details of these long negotiations, but I will say something because the right hon. Gentleman asked me about them. At all stages we have tried to assist in bringing them to a successful conclusion. The Cotton Board would give us credit for that, I know. Last year, Sir Cuthbert Clegg led a mission to India and there came to an understanding with the Indian industry conditional upon similar arrangements being made with Pakistan and Hong Kong.
Sir Cuthbert and his associates then went to Hong Kong, where their talks failed, so the scheme broke down. We

901
then sent my Permanent Secretary, Sir Frank Lee, to Hong Kong, where he was well received. He persuaded the Hong Kong industry to agree to renew talks with Lancashire upon conditions which have been published. After hearing Sir Frank Lee's report and consulting the Cotton Board, we asked the Indian and Pakistani Governments to encourage their industries to send representatives to London for talks with the Cotton Board. This they did last month.
Two distinguished industrialists, Mr. Kasturbai Lalbhai and Mr. Shaikh led for their two countries. Agreement was reached with India, and I had hoped to hear today that agreement had been reached with Pakistan also—unfortunately, it is still to come in, but I am very optimistic—on the figures for the three-year ceilings. Assuming that Pakistan agrees, we shall then have to go back to Hong Kong.
This time, I very much hope that the Cotton Board will succeed in reaching an agreement with the Hong Kong industry. As these negotiations are not easy, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, I hope that nothing will be said in the debate to make it more difficult to get the Hong Kong industry to agree. The industry in Hong Kong is not particularly well organised, and we must remember, I think, that those concerned in Hong Kong are living in a very precarious part of the world.
My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, who will wind up the debate, will speak about labour conditions in Hong Kong, with particular reference to the very interesting remarks made by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton). I want to say something about the constitutional issue only. Clearly, a Colony is in a different position from a Commonwealth country. It does not have the same liberty of action. We have a special responsibility for the Colony's welfare. If we impose restrictions on India's exports to us, India can retaliate by penalising our goods. A Colony is not in the same position because, in the last analysis, we in the House of Commons are responsible for the commercial policy of a Colony.
Again, if for reasons of straight protection—that is what it would be in the case of cotton textiles—we impose a quota on Commonwealth goods, the
902
countries concerned can take us to G.A.T.T. and makes things very difficult for us. A Colony could not do that because we, that is to say, Her Majesty's Government at the time, represent colonial interests in G.A.T.T. It is, therefore, our duty, I submit, to seek for voluntary agreements between industries and not to impose restrictions on the export of goods from a Colony.
Other Commonwealth countries do sometimes put restrictions on exports from a British Colony, but they are not responsible for the Colony's welfare and they do not represent the Colony on international bodies. I should add that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have had many occasions to urge upon other Governments not to impose restrictions on imports from Colonial Territories. We have had some success in these representations, which mean a very great deal to the welfare of our Colonies. But who would listen to us if we ourselves broke our own obligation to afford duty-free entry to colonial products?
Although these are very strong, even overwhelming, arguments against imposing restrictions on goods of colonial origin, there are other arguments almost equally strong in relation to all Commonwealth countries. The offer of duty-free or unrestricted entry for Commonwealth goods is our side of the system of Imperial Preference. The preferential system, which is under fire today, would collapse if it were not seen to be of mutual benefit. If we shut out goods coming from the Commonwealth, we could not expect the Commonwealth to accord us preferences.
When voices are raised in Lancashire asking us, in one way or another—by tariffs, by quotas, or by the right hon. Gentleman's purchasing commission, which is only a dodge to achieve the same thing—to limit imports from the Commonwealth, they are asking us to strike at the root of the Imperial Preference system.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that a very large number of other types of manufactured goods from the Commonwealth, including rayon, are subject to a tariff.
Sir D. Eccles: Yes. But that was understood and arranged at the time when the Ottawa Agreements were made. We have a contractual obligation to India not to impose any restrictions on duty-free goods from her. We say, on our side, that the Imperial Preference system is very much in our interest, and that if it were broken it would damage many other industries besides cotton. We are very glad to see that the Canadian Government have stated that, at the Montreal Conference, Canada will support the maintenance of the preference system. So will Her Majesty's Government. But how could we go to Montreal and make our case for maintaining mutual preferences if just before, and unilaterally, we had imposed restrictions on textiles from Asia?
Mr. H. Rhodes: There is no difficulty, because the right hon. Gentleman has the precedent of the Canadian Government imposing tariffs on wool textiles only a fortnight ago.
Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman simply does not understand our trading system. We enjoy the very large preferential margin that Canada gives us on woollen goods only because of the duty-free system of admitting Commonwealth goods to this country.
Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is quite possible with cotton, as with many other manufactured Commonwealth imports, to have a duty on the Commonwealth products and, at the same time, have a substantial margin of preference. Why does he ignore that?
Sir D. Eccles: Because the obligations that we have not to impose new preferences will at once be contravened. We should have to raise the M.F.N. rate.
Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir D. Eccles: I must get on.
I have just been giving the economic reason for preferring voluntary agreements between Commonwealth textile industries to imposing restrictions. We support that policy to the full. We have shown that we support it by telling the Governments concerned that we would be willing that the Customs and Excise should be used to police such voluntary agreements. But I am bound to say that
904
the situation will be very bad indeed, both for us and for the Asian textile industries, if our industry cannot make these voluntary agreements.
We accept that structural change in our cotton industry is inevitable. The figures show that it has been taking place over many years, and the process is not yet at an end. But the acceptance of gradual change does not mean that we should allow a violent disruption. Indeed, the industries of India and, I hope also Pakistan, have shown that they agree with this view, because they have negotiated three-year ceilings on exports to this country.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Are those agreements dependent upon an agreement being come to with Hong Kong, or do they stand in their own right, irrespective of whether an agreement is come to with Hong Kong?
Sir D. Eccles: Naturally, the Indians and Pakistanis say, "Unless you get an agreement with Hong Kong, too, all bets are off." I was just coming to that point, but I should like to say that the understanding which has been shown by the Indian and Pakistani industries is what we expect between Commonwealth partners. We now look to the industry of Hong Kong to take the same statesmanlike view.
We want agreements, because then there will be a period of three years, the first period of three years, during which it will be possible to bring about a hopeful transformation of the Lancashire cotton industry. I use the word "transformation" deliberately, because so many new ideas are being put into production in textiles that it seems to me to be not an unfair description.
Every month one hears of new finishes, crease, water or flame-resisting new fabrics that do not need ironing, and new fabrics which are partly cotton and partly synthetic fibre. That is due to the fact that we are doing a great deal of research, both in the industry's laboratories and in the Shirley Institute, which has done so much for the industry as a whole.
Mr. James Harrison: Will the President explain why weaving and spinning have declined substantially, yet finishing seems to be holding its own?
Sir D. Eccles: I should have thought that it is fairly clear. The import of grey cloth from Asia, in particular, is taking the place of cloth woven in Lancashire, and, therefore, the through-put of its finishers is not so much influenced.
Then there is the improvement in design. I have long taken an interest in this matter. I first came up against it in a serious way at the time of the Coronation. I was convinced then, and I still am, that if manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers will be a little braver and make modern art their ally they can win new markets all over the world. Indeed, it is happening. Last autumn, in California, there was an international exhibition of fabrics at which our fabrics won over half the medals. When I was in San Francisco, at Christmas-time, people there were delighted at the beauty and excellence of the British exhibits; and our trade in North America is increasing in the finer fabrics.
Finally, I ask the Committee to give us the chance to see these negotiations for the voluntary agreements completed without threatening to impose restrictions on Commonwealth goods. It is here that I part company with the right hon. Member for Huyton. He wants us to hold out a threat against the Commonwealth, "If you do not do this, we will do that". I suggest to the Committee that that is not the way to treat the family when we are now two-thirds of the way to making this voluntary agreement.
Mr. H. Wilson: The Government have had four years in which to carry through these negotiations. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greater willingness in Hong Kong has stemmed from the fact that they know there will be a scheme of this kind in due course—after the next Election, in fact—and that that is why they are more willing to conclude a voluntary agreement? Is he further aware that the producers in Hong Kong, who are quite realistic and not sentimental, are very much moved by things said in this House?
When I was there, they were very worried indeed and were prepared to be more accommodating simply because a Question was tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) calling for restrictions. Any suggestion of quotas from either side of the House tends to make them more likely to conclude a voluntary agreement.
Sir D. Eccles: The Labour Party can have what policy it wishes. Clearly, it now has the policy of ending duty-free entry from the Commonwealth.
Mr. Wilson: That is quite untrue. On that argument, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the Government have ended duty-free entry from the Commonwealth for jute over the last six years?
Sir D. Eccles: We have moved a little on the jute problem. It was a scheme which we inherited and which I dislike very much. It is clear—I was certain that we should find it in the course of the debate—that there are hon. Gentlemen opposite who think that we ought here and now to impose restrictions on the Asian members of the Commonwealth.
I understand that such hon. Gentlemen may not be moved by the thought that they are striking at the root of the Imperial Preference system. They may not believe that such action would destroy much of our influence at the Montreal conference. They may not consider that we ought to look after the welfare of any Colony for whom we are trustees as though it were part of our own country.
None the less, I would advance one last argument against imposing restrictions on Commonwealth goods. There are great populations in the world today hesitating between the Western system of trade for cash and of unqualified mutual aid and the Communist system of rigorous bilateralism and political loans. If we in the free world first lend money to underdeveloped countries and then refuse to buy their goods, is not that a kind of colour bar, is that not a kind of discrimination inside the Commonwealth family?
Is it not true that the advance of science and technology helps the United Kingdom, with our better developed system of education, to keep our economy out in front; that in this age in which we live it is easier than it used to be for us to change to more complicated forms of production while our friends in Asia and Africa are raising their standards by the forms of production which, at present, are most easily within their capacity?
When we go to Montreal I shall be asking the Commonwealth to buy more British aircraft and to buy British nuclear power stations. Do hon. Members really

907
mean me, in the same breath, to have to say, "We have just put on restrictions. We are not going to buy so many of your goods"? I claim that our policy is fully justified on strictly economic grounds. If we departed from it many industries would suffer very much.
But there is the other question. What would be the political and moral consequences of abandoning duty-free entry for Commonwealth goods? That is the great issue, and the Government feel that it cannot be disregarded. Therefore, we set our face against the imposition of restrictions, and we shall go on—and we are nearly there—to securing volutary agreements.
4.53 p.m.
Mr. H. Rhodes: The President of the Board of Trade reminds me of "Pooh-Bah", who added verisimilitude to an otherwise unconvincing narrative. The arguments that he has deployed will, I am sure, not be supported by Lancashire Members on his side of the Committee, because they have an immediate duty to our constituents in Lancashire.
The President of the Board of Trade kept saying, "I think that we must remember", and every time he said it it was against the interests of Lancashire. I would also draw his attention, when he deploys the argument about how well we are doing in scientific research and technical education in the Lancashire cotton industry, to this morning's Manchester Guardian. Out of all the graduates who qualified in textile chemistry, all were foreigners except one. That shows what the Government have been doing to encourage people to enter the industry.
In answer to what the President of the Board of Trade said about new industries I would tell him this. He must not in any circumstances pin all his faith to prospective new industries. He has got to be looking after the old ones as well all the time.
Just before the Summer Recess last year a group of us went to the National Physical Laboratory, where they have two new electronic devices called DEUCE and ACE, which were absolutely the last word in Western electronic computers. I asked the director of the National Physical Laboratory, "By how much do you estimate we are in front of all other countries,
908
like Japan, whose people are so skilled, and very quick at picking up ideas and putting them into practice?" We well remember the stories which used to circulate in the old days about the Japanese who came to this country and photographed every nut and bolt on a piece of textile machinery. What did the Director reply? He said, "We have got about three years' advance."
So may I say that we cannot plan an economy on the basis of a three years' scientific and technical advance in the hope that that will replace conventional industries? May I supplement what my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has said and remind the President of the Board of Trade that the Lancashire cotton industry is part of the whole textile industry? It is not alone in this recession. It is not just the Lancashire cotton industry which is suffering at present, but the wool industry, too. When the right hon. Gentleman gets the figures for overseas exports, particularly to the North American market, in a few months' time, he will have the shock of his life, because the combing industry, at Bradford particularly, is now working only four days a week and practically the whole of the woollen industry is doing the same.
The Board of Trade knows full well the problem in Lancashire. It knows the problem in Yorkshire, too. It is up to date with its information. It is well supplied with it. The President of the Board of Trade knows the position, and, therefore, it is not for me to start going over the whole position again—for instance, about the number of mills in my division on short time, though the number is very considerable.
I come to another aspect of the problem. There are two things now exercising the attention of people in the textile industry. One is the fall in commodity prices, and the other is foreign competition. For those of us engaged in the industry those are the two fears. If one has a long order book and prices start to go down, one is open to a quite considerable loss in terms of contracts not being taken up. So there is automatically a recession in world trade, and if world trade declines, the people who are on very low wages have a strategic advantage in getting what trade is still

909
available. I think that we can accept that as a near-platitude.
Listen to what the Economist said in its edition of 21st June, on the question of commodity prices:
"The immediate reason why commodity prices broke was the backwash that followed the ending of the Suez crisis. 'War fears and war buying stopped.' But a fall in commodity prices—possibly with a different timing—would have occurred, Suez or no Suez. This was made inevitable for metals particularly, but for some agricultural commodities as well by the large capital investment that stockpile buying had called into being. Sometimes actually aided by Government investment, the production capacity created still existed when the American stockpile programme was substantially completed and when"—
and here is the rub—
"with little thought about the example it was setting the British Government began to unload its stock. This was the basic cause of the crack in commodity markets. It will not be mended until industrial demand expands sufficiently to take care of the productive capacity that was created."
That applies to cotton just as much as to wool. Last August, wool that I use was 84d. a lb. Before the trouble in France it was 46d. Since the trouble in France it was and is now 54d. a lb. That is the sort of move that has been going on. From the middle of 1957 the price of long staple cotton dropped by 2s. a lb. That is a factor which is having its effect at present on world trade.
If a man is in business in the textile industry, and the price of his commodity falls, he knows what happens. His order book automatically contracts. If he can, he goes on making stock in the hope that there will be a change. But at the time that they were hoping that there would be a change the Government placed a restriction on bank advances, which made it doubly difficult for people to carry on.
No wonder people in the textile constituencies adopt a cynical attitude. No wonder the sardonic humour of Lancashire is reappearing. The old story that used to circulate before the war is heard again. It is the story of the man who came back from the mill looking glum. His wife said to him, "What is up with you?" He did not reply. She said, "Have they sacked you?" Again he did not reply. She said, "Come on, is mill closing down?" "No," the man said, "it is worse than that; they've gannet me." That is the sardonic
910
humour which circulated before the war, and is current now.
No wonder there is a cynical attitude today. It is epitomised in speeches like the one delivered by Mr. Winterbottom last week. He is a very fine businessman who has done a lot for Lancashire. He said:
"It is a businessman's duty to safeguard capital and get a proper return for his shareholders. Textile firms try to keep to their traditional background of trade, but now, instead of buying new machinery with an unpredictable future, they are using their capital to earn a revenue for their shareholders in other industries."
Mr. Winterbottom then challenged the Government
"to tell them that the cotton industry is expendable and has no future or limit imports of cloth."
I ask the Committee, and particularly hon. Members opposite representing Lancashire constituencies: what about the salary and wage earners in this industry, too? The country has a duty to its workers besides the companies' duty to the shareholder. I ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has ever been sacked.
Mr. H. Hynd: He will be.
Mr. Rhodes: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been sacked from a job which he was doing well because he was not wanted any more?
Mr. H. Hynd: Yes, from the Ministry of Works.
Mr. Rhodes: As an employer, has the right hon. Gentleman ever looked into the eyes of a chap whom he has to sack? Has he seen the grey lines under the man's eyes? That is happening every day in Lancashire at the present time.
It really is about time that, instead of mouthing the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman used today, some really concrete proposals came from the Government. If hon. Members opposite representing Lancashire constituencies can listen to a speech like the one made by the President today without raising their voices in protest, then they have not the spunk that I think they ought to have.
The President of the Board of Trade spoke about the movement from one trade to another. It is admitted that there has to be a change to fit the times. Even hon. Members opposite admitted that at

911
the time when capital shifted from the railways into other forms of transport. An adjustment has to be made. It comes more pointedly when capital is moved from a public utility because then the Government have to do something about it, as the present Government may have to do something in terms of shipping in a year or two's time. The textile industry is not regarded as a public utility. The circumstances are different, but that does not alter the fact that the human consequences of what is happening are going to be obvious in every town in Lancashire during the next year or two, and any changes should be orderly ones. For instance, did any of the Lancashire Members opposite sit on the old rent and rate arrears committee at the time when things were bad? If any hon. Member did, he would have witnessed the impossibility of a man being able to preserve his dignity. That is what is coming back for some of the older employees.
Governments can do a lot. The Labour Government throughout the whole of their time in office were constructive in their approach to the cotton industry. It started when Sir Stafford Cripps introduced his Cotton Reorganisation Act and put millions into the cotton industry. Some£16 million went into the industry, and, altogether,£24 million were offered. Measures were introduced to supply cotton without risk. I have no doubt that in the course of time we shall see many of the ideas which were put into operation by the Labour Government, perhaps in modified form, brought back again. The Labour Government encouraged productivity councils and organised recruitment. Confidence was given to the industry. Since the advent of the Tory Government, we have had a negative attitude towards the industry. We have seen a relapse into the laissez faire of the nineteenth century in an age which demands Government assistance and which demands more agreement and action on a quid pro quo basis between the industry and the Government.
Governments in the Free World must take more responsibility for economic action, otherwise our democratic system will go under. The Communist countries nowadays are able to play us just like fish. When they enter the big markets, such as the wool market, they can force prices up and when they go out the prices
912
go down. That tendency will increase as more of the world comes under their domination.
The Government used to laugh at out Utility scheme, but it was the sheet anchor of the cotton industry. The industry had a dependable market. All the arguments that were used by hon. Members opposite, however—and they were legion—were adduced to prove how poor a scheme it was. The argument adduced from the Government side when they wiped out the Utility scheme in 1952 was that its removal would help exports. I will not go over the familiar arguments, but ever since then exports have declined. When the Raw Cotton Commission was wound up, the argument was that its winding up would facilitate the cheaper buying of cotton. That has never worked. There has never been any cover for long staple cotton, and the people who use short staple cotton have often been in difficulties, particularly the small firms.
Whatever either Government have done, however, one thing upon which we have agreed is the necessity to re-equip. Successive Governments have assisted the cotton industry and the textile industry generally, as well as most other industries, to re-equip. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton said, however, it is exactly the firms which re-equipped and put in first-class machinery which are in a more vulnerable position than the firms which did nothing at all.
When there has been good trade, many people have said, "No. We will not put in new machinery. We will play the market and we will get out as soon as conditions become difficult." That is why we have to exercise a little bit of discretion in assessing the amount of importance that we place upon the number of mills closing. I ask the Committee to note, however, that we as a country have no right to let the people go out of business who have ploughed back their resources and put in new machinery at the behest of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer and Prime Ministers. If we do, we are traitors to our own textile industry.
Unless the import of goods from Hong Kong is tackled in a realistic way, and if free imports are allowed from Colonies with low standards of living, there is not

913
one consumer goods industry in the country which is not under notice—they have "had it". It is not a bit of use using academic arguments about this whilst Lancashire is bleeding to death and whilst Yorkshire is vulnerable to the same type of competition.
I put this to the President of the Board of Trade to bear in mind when he goes to Montreal in September. The Canadians will sympathise with this. Hong Kong is an anachronism. If one compares the population of Hong Kong several years ago with today, one sees that it was only a fraction of what it is today. No one on either side of the Committee knows how much the position in Hong Kong is aggravated by refugees being injected into Hong Kong. If the argument is on a humane basis, that we are to raise the standard of living of all these people so that they will be less competitive, we have a job on hand that will take the youngest man all his life to try to achieve, if ever. How can we lift the standard of living of 600 million Chinese? In any case, they will take over Hong Kong as and when it suits them.
I ask the Government to realise that we are in Hong Kong on suffrance, and that if it took the Japanese ten days to take Hong Kong it would not take the Chinese more than twenty-four hours.
Mr. S. Silverman: Does my hon. Friend realise that, on the argument of the President of the Board of Trade, the only salvation for Lancashire is that Hong Kong shall cease to be a Colony?
Mr. Rhodes: That is precisely what I am getting at. I think it would be a good thing if it ceased to be a Colony forthwith. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton was perfectly correct in saying that the argument that we adduce and the attitude that we take, on both sides of the Committee, to this problem will be reflected in the attitude of the Hong Kong manufacturers when it comes to making agreements with our people here. If this country has nothing better to look forward to than part of its colonial and Commonwealth structure depending on sweated labour, it is about time that we faced the problem realistically and acted courageously for our own people.
5.17 p.m.
Mr. Richard Stanley: I find myself in complete agreement with most of what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) said, except towards the end of his speech, when probably he got a little excited by a question from his own side of the Committee. It is obvious to all Lancashire Members and those who represent textile constituencies that the decline in the industry is becoming more and more serious.
We have been put off, not only by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade but by his predecessors, with soft and honeyed words. We have had absolutely nothing but promises that negotiations were going on and that if we were patient, in three months' time everything would be all right. I am sorry to say that we have had absolutely no results.
When Sir Anthony Eden was Prime Minister he came up to Lancashire and gave a great speech, which cheered everybody immensely, by saying that he could not announce everything at that moment but soon would announce great improvements.
Mr. H. Hynd: Another Tory pledge.
Mr. Stanley: They will still come about, we hope. We thought, therefore, that things would be all right. The Government must make up their mind what they want to do.
Mr. S. Silverman: They have.
Mr. Stanley: There is no doubt that the industry had a good jab in the arm during the war. In the 1914–18 war it got into the same position; it was not going too well, a war came along and everything was wonderful, but then down it went again. We must try to hope that that will not be the injection we shall get this time. It is no good the Government simply going on hoping for the best.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyme said that one of the most serious aspects of the closing down of factories was that among them were factories in which brand-new machinery had been installed. This is what frightens most of us. We all knew that quite a large number of looms which were making large profits immediately after the war could

915
not continue to operate for very long because the machinery was so very old, but it seems a great pity that the employer who has spent large sums of money to lay out new machinery should have to close down his factory and put his employees out of work. The Government, therefore, must make up their mind. Either they want the industry to run down even further, and if so they should say so and should indicate where the process is to stop, or else they must inject new life into the industry.
There is talk of people being stood off rather than being unemployed. It is quite true that we have had very good employment figures in Lancashire. My right hon. Friend has mentioned people who lost their jobs in the cotton industry but obtained work elsewhere, but he must remember that all these skilled people will never return to the industry. There is absolutely no recruitment of young, competent men and women into the industry. Those who obtain reasonably good degrees at the universities go into heavy engineering. Why should they enter an industry like cotton which is gradually going down? Unless we obtain the services of these young men and women the industry will become an incompetent, not a competent, industry, and parents will make every effort to put their children into some other industry with a safer future.
It is easy to criticise the Government and to say that they must do something. I and, I am sure, most hon. Members who represent constituencies in the textile-producing areas feel that a quota must be imposed on India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade spoke of how important it is that we should treat our Colonies properly. Hon. Members from Lancashire are just as good Imperialists or lovers of the Empire as my right hon. Friend or anyone else. We all believe in the Empire, but we do not believe that one of the major counties of England should have to suffer for the sake of one Colony. We must keep a proper sense of proportion in these matters.
There has been talk of the difficulties of imposing a quota on Hong Kong, but if we in this country have to take all the various kinds of goods exported from Hong Kong, why is it that Hong Kong
916
does not import ours? Why is it that the machinery in most of the mills in Hong Kong have come from Germany and Switzerland? I know that the excuse is given that machinery imported from England is not properly maintained and that equipment has to be bought elsewhere, but it seems silly that we should let Hong Kong buy machinery from our opponents in other fields so that Hong Kong can manufacture goods which it knows that we in this country must import. All these statistics seem to me to be crazy, mixed-up figures.
We wish my right hon. Friend success in his negotiations with business people and others in Hong Kong. It surely should help him if the people of Hong Kong can read in HANSARD the feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee as expressed in today's debate. One hon. Member has mentioned how frightened those concerned in Hong Kong were when one of my hon. Friends put a Question on the Order Paper about a quota. How much more frightened would they be if they learned from a report of this debate that all hon. Members representing constituencies engaged in the textile industry were of the same opinion on this subject. Therefore, it should help and not hinder my right hon. Friend in his negotiations in Hong Kong to have the feelings of both sides of the Committee fully expressed today.
Again, when my right hon. Friend goes to Montreal, would it not be easier for the Canadians to understand his position if we express ourselves freely here? I should have thought that the people of Australia and of other Commonwealth countries were in exactly the same position as we are and that it would be of assistance to my right hon. Friend if they knew that great pressure had been put upon him to seek the adoption of a quota system in certain parts of the Empire when exceptional circumstances prevail.
Obviously, we all want to do everything we can to help trade within the Empire. One hates to keep stressing the need for this quota but, as in so many other spheres, there must be certain exceptions. When an exception to the rule is needed in the interests of the health of the patient, it is better to apply that exception early rather than wait until the patient is so ill that the help given by

917
applying the exception—in this case, the quota—will be too late.
One of the causes of the present difficulties has been the rather unfortunate mud-slinging which has been carried on between leaders of the industry in Lancashire and Hong Kong. Neither side has been helpful. It would have been much better if they had proceeded quietly with their negotiations instead of talking so much about them in public. Time is running out. The industry is getting in a serious way. It will make a great difference to the textile industry in Lancashire if my right hon. Friend can give it a shot in the arm as quickly as possible.
5.26 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Thornton: If I do not follow the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) in the detail of his remarks, it is because I find myself in substantial agreement with many of the things that he said. I am sure that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade will not have allayed disquiet in Lancashire. It would appear that the future of the Lancashire textile industry will be largely in the hands of the Hong Kong mill-owners. I have a respect for some of the owners of Hong Kong mills, but there are others for whom I have very little respect at all.
The Lancashire textile industry, and this side of the Committee, have behaved with very great restraint during the last five or six years in the hope that some agreement might transpire. I am not optimistic, unless the Government make it quite clear that an end must be called to this erosion of Lancashire's basic home trade. That must be made clear if confindence is to be restored. Disaster is fast approaching the industry.
I was interested in the historical review of the decline of Lancashire's textile industry which was given by the President of the Board of Trade. The figures which he gave are perfectly correct and are well known to anyone who has studied this great industry, but I should like to add to the picture that when Lancashire exported 7,000 million yards in 1913 the world trade was 9,000 million yards. During the last 45 years the world trade in cotton textiles has continued to decline, and the trend continues further.
Therefore, the loss of much of Lancashire's export trade was inevitable, and
918
the trend of the last ten or fifteen years has been for Asia to be the main supplier of world trade in cotton textiles as distinct from the West. There is no major industrial country in the world that has not a substantial cotton textile industry, and with this contraction of world trade and the growing productive capacity more and more pressure will be applied to the weakest spot, which, of course, is the United Kingdom market.
The great development in the cotton textile industry in Asia during the post war period has been in India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. Those have been the new additions to textile capacity in Asia, and they have had full access to our market. I believe that in India and Pakistan there is an appreciation of the danger of over-reliance on cotton textiles as a means of earning foreign exchange, because of the declining trend of the past 45 years to which I have referred. But I am by no means sure that the Hong Kong mill owners appreciate the significance of that trend. They feel fairly certain that there always will be a safe and growing market for them in this country. They have to be disabused. If Hong Kong long-term interests are to be served—assuming that Hong Kong has a long-term future—it is important that her economy should not be developed on the lines of an over-reliance on an industry where there is a declining world trade in that commodity. She should be encouraged to diversify.
Reference has been made to conditions of work in Hong Kong. I want again today to make the definite assertion that the hours of work for women in Hong Kong textile mills are the longest in Asia, and I want again to make the definite assertion that the labour laws of Hong Kong are the worst in Asia and probably the worst in the world. I hope that the Minister will reply to that assertion and not to the assertion which I did not make and to which the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies replied in an Adjournment debate.
I did not say that conditions of work in Hong Kong were the worst in Asia and the worst in the world. I said that the hours of work were the longest for women of any of the Asian countries. These excessive hours of work take place within the laws of Hong Kong. The Government and the House of Commons are responsible for Hong Kong. We have

919
often been told from the Government Front Bench that the House of Commons has special responsibilities for Hong Kong. I think that we all accept that, but the responsibilities have regard to the industrial workers as well as to the commercial and industrial interests in Hong Kong. We in the House of Commons have a special responsibility for those industrial workers.
When I was in Hong Kong earlier this year and found that women were working twelve hours a day seven days a week, I felt thoroughly ashamed of this legislative assembly's responsibility for this Colony. Something must be done and done quickly. Otherwise, in my opinion, Great Britain can be pilloried at the International Labour Organisation for the scandalous hours of work women are allowed to work.
From my reading of the labour laws of Hong Kong, it is not only possible for a woman to work thirteen hours a day for seven days a week; it is possible for her to be working that period without a meal break. There is no provision in the labour laws of Hong Kong for a compulsory meal break even in a thirteen-hour day. This can only be applied to young persons and not to women. That is really a scandalous situation.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us that agreement in negotiations is near with India and Pakistan, but the nigger in the woodpile is, apparently, Hong Kong. I cannot understand why the Government should have a soft spot for the mill owners of Hong Kong. In my condemnation of these conditions, I want to make it perfectly clear that conditions in some Hong Kong mills are quite good by any standards.
There are nine new mills there which operate a three eight-hour shift system, and the working conditions are good by any standard. My only criticism would be that they operate for a seven-day week and are putting almost impossible conditions on the factory inspectorate there to ensure that the women have a rest day each week. The other nine or ten new mills operate on a two twelve-hour shift system. My authority for saying that is the 1956–57 Report of the Commission of Labour, where it will be found that the Commission states that nine of the new mills work three eight-hour shifts. It
920
does not refer to the other nine or ten mills. From the information I got, I am fairly certain that the other new mills operate a two twelve-hour shift system. The 149 or 150 small mills operate either thirteen-or twelve-hours shifts, almost without exception, so far as I could gather, and I went into this problem fairly thoroughly.
Some of these small mills are among the worst I have seen anywhere from the point of view of physical working conditions, and I place them in a separate category from the new mills. Working conditions in the new mills should be good. They are modern mills, and I suppose that the factory department of the Hong Kong Government will have laid down certain minimum standards. The ones which I saw were quite satisfactory from the point of view of physical working conditions.
I hope that something will be done quickly concerning the situation in Hong Kong. As I have said before, I should not like it to be thought that the comparisons which I am drawing are between labour conditions and hours of work in this country and those in Asia. There is a world of difference between living standards in Asia and living standards in the Western world. There is an enormous gap, and anyone who is realistic will know that it will be many years before that gap can be closed.
My condemnation of the position in Hong Kong is based upon a comparison between comparable Asian countries. India and Pakistan, self-governing Dominions, have an effective labour legislation which reasonably limits the hours of work of women. The same also applies to Japan, and we may have the Americans to thank for that. In Japan, the big mills now operate on a two seven-and-three-quarter-hours shift system, six days a week, and the labour laws in the big mills in Japan, so far as I can ascertain, are observed.
To come back to the Hong Kong situation, I should like to make reference to a leading article in the Hong Kong Standard, an English language newspaper, dated 28th May, which made a slashing attack upon my speech on the Adjournment debate. I do not mind that. I have been in public life long enough not to mind it. But the significant thing about this article is that it

921
did not attempt to refute one of the facts which I gave in detail on 23rd May. The disturbing thing is that it attempted to justify those facts. I do not know whether right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite or the hon. Members sitting behind them have worked in textile factories. I have done so for ten hours a day. I have said this before, and I repeat it, that I knew when I started work on a Monday morning that by Saturday noon I should have finished and have the weekend free for rest and recreation.
It is a devilish system which calls upon women to work in a textile mill, in the heat and noise of the spinning room and weaving shed, for twelve hours a day seven days a week with only four days holiday in the year. It is a vicious system which stipulates that if they take a day off they lose two days' pay. This Committee should insist upon something being done, and quickly, in such a situation.
Now may I return to the article in the Hong Kong Standard? It does not deny these long hours. My estimate was that the average working week of women in all the mills, big and small, those on eight hour and twelve hour shifts, was sixty-five hours a week. The article confirms my former impression that, if anything, this figure is an underestimate. In an attempt to justify those long hours, the article states:
"Many of the woman workers, most of them young, usually work for only two or three years after which they return to their homes, probably with marriage in view."
A correspondent of mine in Hong Kong has sent me a copy of his reply to the editor of the Hong Kong Standard, in which he says that the statement that the women stay there for only two or three years is true—
"Owing to the fact that the meagre wages paid per shift would not keep the body and soul of a rabbit in condition, even in Tsuen Wan. These young women return to their homes not with marriage in view but to rest their shattered and wasting bodies."
That may be an over-statement, but I believe there is some truth in it. Any of us who have had experience of working in a textile factory will agree that if women work in textile factories twelve hours a day for seven days a week 361 days a year they will seriously damage their health.
922
On the wages question it is important that attention should be paid to establishing a legal minimum wage. I say that advisedly, and on a comparison between Asian countries. I am not using the United Kingdom as a standard of comparison. India has established a minimum wage for her textile workers. Therefore, although wages are low in India as compared with our standards, the minimum wage protects the operative against the worst type of employer. Since we should protect the workers against such employers, I hope something will be done. As far as I could ascertain, average hourly wages in Hong Kong fit fairly well into the Asian pattern. I would say that they are slightly below the average hourly earnings in Japan and India, and probably a little better than in Pakistan. Due, however, to the excessive hours of work, weekly earnings in Hong Kong are probably higher than in many of the Asian countries to which I have referred. Yet it is immoral and wrong that we should expect people to work excessively long hours to have a standard of life which is a little above the average Asian standard.
I hope the Government will treat this as a matter of urgency. In saying what I have done, I am not motivated by a desire to assist Lancashire in solving her problem, because an improvement in these conditions will in the long run increase the efficiency of the mills. The nine mills which work three eight-hour shifts are probably the most efficient mills in Hong Kong. The others—probably due in most cases, not in all, to inefficient or inexpert machine maintenance and lack of skilled personnel—are trying to make up for their shortcomings by working their operatives excessively long hours. Legislation to limit the hours to a reasonable number would result in increased efficiency, so what I am saying will not result in increasing the cost of goods produced in Hong Kong in the long run. I approach this matter mainly from the humanitarian standpoint, based upon my own experience of working in a textile factory.
Now that this Committee knows of these events, which have not been refuted, I hope that action will be taken in the interests of the Chinese workers. Let us remember that they are subjects of Her Majesty just as much as we are. This is

923
really sweated labour. I am not condemning the practice of working twelve and thirteen hour shifts as sweated labour merely because the workers are paid a low wage which fits into the pattern of Asian living standards, because I do not believe that to be sweated labour on this wage issue alone. However, the working of such criminally excessive hours is sweated labour, and so I hope, even at this late hour, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to remedy the situation.
5.47 p.m.
Sir John Barlow: I am glad to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), because he always talks with great knowledge of the textile industry which he knows so well. We are indebted to him this afternoon for telling us factually about labour conditions in Hong Kong, of the long hours and, in some cases, the bad conditions.
I hope that in this debate we shall keep these facts in the right perspective. The hon. Gentleman said that perhaps nine or ten mills were, for that part of the world, first-class employers. He criticised the remainder severely, as I think all the rest of us do on both sides of the Committee. At the same time, it would be a mistake for us to create unnecessary bitterness and exaggeration about this matter. I feel sure that already sufficient has been said for the Government to take suitable action in a short time. It would be easy for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to exaggerate the conditions of perhaps a minority, and so make exceedingly difficult the arrangements which we are trying to make with Hong Kong at present.
Mr. Thornton: If the hon. Baronet will forgive me for interrupting, may I say that the reason why I introduced this aspect of the question again today was merely to show that the Government ought not to be so soft, so conciliatory and so considerate towards these Chinese employers.
Sir J. Barlow: I am sure that after what the hon. Gentleman has said today, and after what the Government have said before, action will be taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "What action?"] Suitable action. It is important to have this debate now. It is all too long since we had a
924
similar one, in view of all the circumstances, although it is a little difficult that it should take place in the middle of conferences which are going on at the present time. Undoubtedly it would be generally the most satisfactory thing if voluntary arrangements suitable to both sides could be arrived at without Government interference. We must recognise, of course, that this great cotton industry of ours is open to evolution, rightly, as are other industries in this country. The important thing, however, is that we want to see reasonable evolution and not chaos.
A number of figures have already been given this afternoon. So few people outside the cotton industry seem to realise the gigantic fall in the output of cotton cloth and what it means to Lancashire that I hope the House will forgive me if I outline the figures again. In the last 40 years the industry has been reduced to one-fifth of what it was before 1914. At that time it was producing about 8,000 million yards a year, seven-eighths of which were for export. Now it is producing at the rate of about 1,630 million yards a year, and we are importing 466 million yards a year and, in addition, made-up clothing at the rate of 37 million yards a year. In the past four years 330 mills have closed and the operatives employed have been reduced by 70,000. Many more than those have really gone out of employment in the industry, but the figures are not fully reflected in the returns.
At one time the mills were willing to run at a loss in order to retain labour because it was so difficult to get back cotton operatives if they once left. Now the mills do not worry about it; if they cannot make ends meet they have no compunction about letting labour go. They have to let it go; they know that they can get it back in most cases, though not all, only too easily.
Some people suggest that the industry is antiquated. There is an element of truth in that, but it is largely untrue today. Vast amounts of capital expenditure have been put in since the war, especially large when one considers how little was known about the future of the industry and the future of exports.
I remember this kind of thing.—the diminution of exports and the difficulty of the cotton textile industry—recurring

925
over the last 30 years. When the production was probably about half what it is today, I remember very vividly trying to sell textiles, sweating through the bazaars of Calcutta and other Indian towns and Singapore and other Eastern places. At that time the great competitor was Japan, and it was most difficult to sell Lancashire textiles against Japanese in those days.
I confess that I came back very concerned, but older men in my firm assured me that there was nothing to worry about because the number of spindles and looms in Japan at that time was so small compared with Lancashire that it was only a flea-bite and there was nothing for Lancashire to worry about. I was concerned very much at that time when other competitive firms were selling cloth at a loss in order to keep the connection. I quickly took the line that that was a mistake, and I refused to sell cloth at a substantial loss in order to keep the trade, and I have been thankful ever since that I did so.
The competition of India, Pakistan and Hong Kong is only too well known to us all. The great point is that the difficulty has been continuing for six years and we think the Government have done all too little about it. They have talked and made sympathetic noises, but the net results in terms of benefit for Lancashire are very small indeed. I do not think that any of the other Western countries allow duty-free imports from low-cost Eastern countries to enter their shores as we do.
Because this competition did not exist and there had been no problem previously, no one thought of putting this on the list in the Ottawa Agreement in 1932. At that time attention was given, possibly, to new synthetic fibres, motor cars and motor cycles and other things, but because there was no organised textile industry in any of the Colonies, and very little in the Commonwealth, no one thought fit to mention this subject. It is for that reason that we have the great problem of Hong Kong imports into this country at present.
I hope that when Government representatives go to Montreal this autumn they will consider that question. It is bound to recur in other industries in the next few years. We shall have all kinds
926
of easily-manufactured goods being produced by low labour cost countries and sent to this country. It is a new problem for the Government, one which they have never had to face previously. I hope they will face it fairly and squarely. The Montreal Conference will be much the poorer unless these facts of life are discussed.
The question of double shifts has been mentioned, and treble shifts in Hong Kong; in effect, the long hours of work compared with Lancashire. The whole wage structure—I feel sure that the hon. Member for Farnworth will agree—is complicated in Lancashire, and it is very difficult to prove that two-shift or three-shift working is more expensive or cheaper than single-shift working with different types of machines and mills and so forth. Apparently in this country if two shifts are worked the second shift gets payment for, normally, 45 hours when working only 37½or thereabouts. Therefore, other things being equal, the added cost of a second shift is a 16–20 per cent. premium, which is not helpful for cheap production.
In addition, if a Lancashire loom is in existence it is astonishing how cheaply it can be run on the old system, whereas if one tears it out and puts in modern machinery, with all the expense involved, it is surprising how little saving is made in many cases. However, the industry is so involved and so diverse that I would not be dogmatic about that in any way.
I noticed in the newspapers at the weekend that at the annual meeting of the China Association the chairman, I think, suggested that in Hong Kong people spun and toiled and that in this country people merely spun. That is a very unfair criticism, and I should like the gentleman who made those remarks to repeat them in Lancashire where he would get the answer which he deserves and which, I think, he should get in view of the knowledge that we have of the way the cotton operatives work.
I believe it was at that same dinner that some confusion of thought occurred as to the importance of the imports of cloth to be retained as against those for re-export. The Committee will know that quite a substantial part of the imported grey cloth which comes to this country is finished and re-exported. No one wants to stop that trade; the whole

927
industry wishes to keep it, because it at least saves a certain amount of the traditional Lancashire business of finishing cloth, and if those imports were stopped fewer operatives would be needed.
The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) talked about the policy of the party opposite as set out in the booklet which was issued last year. I cannot agree with his suggestions. They would be in no way suitable. They are based largely upon the re-establishment of the Raw Cotton Commission. We have had experience of that, and we did not find that it worked satisfactorily, generally speaking—and at times it was very expensive to the British taxpayer. The whole idea of the party opposite is to nationalise the cotton industry, with Government control through the Buying Commission.
We know how difficult it is to run any nationalised industry satisfactorily, and I feel sure that it would be much more difficult to run this one than any of the others which have already been nationalised. It would mean that bilateral and barter agreements—which hon. Members on this side of the Committee do not like—would become a commonplace. I agree that in certain exceptional circumstances they may be advisable, but a national policy based upon bilateral and barter agreements would be entirely unsound for a country such as ours.
The right hon. Gentleman further suggested expenditure upon modern machinery. It has already been pointed out that much expenditure has been incurred upon modern machinery. If the Government would only give us some idea what size the industry should be in the future many people would be only too willing to spend more upon capital expenditure. In the last six years the Government have given no such indication to the cotton industry.
Mr. Ellis Smith: This is all in my right hon. Friend's pamphlet.
Sir J. Barlow: The industry has fallen to one-fifth of what it was forty years ago. Do the Government think that it should fall by a further 10 per cent. or 50 per cent.? If they would tell us what they envisage it would help the manufacturers a great deal. They would know where they were, and whether it was worth while
928
to put more money into capital equipment.
The right hon. Gentleman further suggested amalgamation within the industry. That has already happened fairly quickly, and with the number of firms going out there will not be nearly so many to amalgamate. There are 330 fewer than there were four years ago. The right hon. Gentleman says that he considers than in many cases the Government should take a controlling interest. That would mean the complete nationalisation of the industry, from the buying of the raw cotton, through the spinning and weaving, to the finishing. It would be most unsatisfactory, and just would not work.
At the same time, I want to make it abundantly clear that many Members representing Lancashire constituencies are very concerned about the situation. The President of the Board of Trade said that Hong Kong is in a precarious part of the world. I can assure him that Lancashire also seems to be. He said that the Government have special responsibilities to the Colonies. I can tell him that we Lancashire Members have special responsibilities to Lancashire.
Mr. S. Silverman: So have the Government.
Sir J. Barlow: My right hon. Friend further said that the change is not yet at an end. We know that to our cost. But we do not know what the end is, nor the size of it. My right hon. Friend said that a transformation is going on, and that is abundantly clear. But we must have enough vision to see what will be left at the end. He said that there are new and synthetic finishes which will help to tide the industry over a difficult time. That is so; a large number of new finishes have been discovered in the last few years; indeed, a firm with which I am connected has done its share in that way. But those of us who are connected with the industry and represent cotton constituencies are profoundly disturbed.
During the past six years the Government have failed to tackle the problem of cotton and cotton textiles. They have consistently procrastinated, without putting forward any real policy or taking any remedial measures. I listened to the President with the greatest care today, but I could not detect any change of heart or

929
policy. Unless something much more reassuring is said tonight by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General I shall feel compelled to abstain from voting. I am not prepared to condone the decline and fall of the cotton industry.
6.6 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) is always listened to as a man of integrity and honesty. He has spoken honestly today, and we respect him for it. But it is time that hon. Members opposite representing Lancashire constituencies did speak honestly; indeed, it is a little overdue. I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. Member, but I would say that part of his speech sounded rather like a political confession on a psychiatrist's couch—the confession of the man who at last realises the error of his political ways.
The history of this matter goes back to a whole series of Acts. I have not the time today, and I have no wish, to indulge in recrimination, although the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) once said that the use of recrimination about the past was to enforce action in the present. At least we can learn by looking back upon some things. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich has been in the House long enough to recall the Cotton Spinning Industry Act, 1936, under which compensation was paid out of levied funds for the destruction of spindles, and for the limitation of their use in the cotton industry. After the compensation had been paid most of the spindles were exported to Japan and Hong Kong—some by Conservative Members, including those representing Lancashire constituencies. Those spindles helped to found the industry there. That is a melancholy record.
I would tell the President of the Board of Trade, first, that if ever I were called upon to defend him on a criminal charge, whether or not I thought him guilty I would not in any circumstances advise him to go into the witness box. We have listened today to 35 or 40 minutes of a "Child's Guide to Imperial Preference," with no other reference to the cotton industry at all.
Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Member has got it wrong.
Mr. Hale: Of course he has got it wrong. In his booklet on the cotton industry my right hon. Friend made eighteen concrete suggestions and a great many more important tentative ones, but the right hon. Gentleman made no reference to them. He appeared completely unaware of them.
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling)The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling) indicated dissent.
Mr. Hale: My right hon. Friend referred to a great many of them, and in a moment I shall come to them.
Mr. S. Silverman: He wrote the book.
Mr. Hale: He wrote the book, which is rather important.
The right hon. Member ought to apply his mind to this matter a little more. Even the cotton manufacturers in Lancashire are a little concerned about the conflict between the Paymaster-General and his efforts to get a European Free Trade Area and the President of the Board of Trade and his efforts to get an extended Imperial Preference area, with complete uncertainty as to what will happen in either case, and as to what the future may bring.
Mr. Silverman: Except that Lancashire will suffer.
Mr. Hale: I do not accept that. I take the view that if Lancashire considers the report of the O.E.E.C. on cotton it will find that, while European free trade will not help very much, it will probably be of some assistance. I see no reason for the assumption that Lancashire will suffer from European free trade. The experts report that on the whole there is a slightly expanding market in Europe for cotton goods, which is not of very great significance but from which Lancashire can derive some small benefit. I am not, therefore, at the moment criticising European free trade.
I want to deal with one or two things that seem to have been forgotten from the speeches. We have talked about a gradual recession in the cotton industry. It is true—we want to be honest about this and we do not want any unnecessary party recrimination—that when the Labour Government took over and created full employment there was a sellers' market and post-war conditions,

931
but some of the conditions were favourable and some were unfavourable. We had full employment but, in the textile industry, no labour force. We had an industry which had had no re-equipment over the war years and was sadly lacking in re-equipment. The industry had a legacy from the past and was always worried about the future. It had always been one of the problems—events have justified the pessimists—to get people in Lancashire to think in terms of a few years ahead in order to restore confidence.
One can well understand their doubts about it. Minister after Minister over the last six or seven years has been saying, "We took over an unhappy situation"; it is not true. In the Economic Survey for 1950 we were planning a further expansion of the textile industry. In 1951, we secured it. When we commenced our planning of textile employment about 1947 we estimated an optimum employment of 320,000. When the Labour Government went out, there were 321,000 employed, which was 1,000 more than we had thought the optimum. At that time, we were reporting that markets were likely to expand. Conditions were probably slightly expanding. The Paymaster-General shakes his head.
Mr. Maudling: The consumption of textiles was falling before the resignation of the Labour Government in 1951.
Mr. Hale: It is not true. We had to place orders abroad for defence needs because the industry said that they could not fulfil them. In 1951, whether we were right or not, we offered orders to the Lancashire industry, which said it could not fulfil them. It had a surplus of orders and there was delay. That was what happened. Then we had a General Election, and the only thing then was this wretched business of a Conservative Government being returned.
Later we had a debate. The present Leader of the House was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the debate on the Address he said that the Government were attacking the situation. They were going to increase the Bank Rate from 2 per cent. to 2½per cent., to develop our export industries—that was to be a priority matter—and to restrict any increase in the cost of living and reduce public expenditure. When the Leader of
932
the House says that he is going to increase the Bank Rate, maintain the standard of living and reduce expenditure it means that he will increase the Bank Rate.
Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Can we not get this matter into perspective? I think the hon. Member will recall that when Parliament assembled in 1951 there was a short debate—I think it was initiated by ourselves—on textiles. That was within three weeks of the meeting of Parliament. The whole matter was ventilated, and considerable anxiety was expressed from these benches about the state of the textile industry at that time.
Mr. Hale: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to HANSARD. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made his maiden speech in that debate and he understood that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was to increase exports of textiles. The hon. and learned Member said that it was the most encouraging thing that Lancashire had heard for a long time. That was the spirit of the debate. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says that he followed that speech, so he probably recalls it. Whether he recalls it or not, it is recorded in HANSARD.
We had a speech from the then President of the Board of Trade. Heaven knows, we have had some Presidents of the Board of Trade, Chancellors of the Exchequer and even Prime Ministers, in this period. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"But perhaps our main task in this field is to persuade the British public of the vital importance of exports from this country. It is quite easy for a man who is working in a factory manufacturing a gun or a tank to understand the contribution which he makes to the defence effort. It is not quite so easy sometimes for people to understand the type of effort required to expand exports. There is a great diversity of exports and many small bits of manufacture—perhaps the manufacture of a birdcage for example—for export to some country is not understood to be important. But it may be very important as an export.…I believe that in the last resort the survival of this country and the overcoming of her difficulties will not be achieved by speeches made either from the Despatch Box opposite or the one on this side of the Table, but by the energy, initiative, thrift and courage of the British people. All that any Government in the last resort can do is to give some lead and to smooth the path so that the British people may start upon that road. I believe that the speech of my right hon. Friend the

933
Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very good start in that direction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November. 1951; Vol. 493, c. 586.]
What was to happen and who was going to smooth the path I do not know, and what that had to do with the export of textiles I do not know. Figures were not given, anyhow. That was the spirit of the thing. That was a reference to the last President of the Board of Trade but one, the penultimate deterrent. I have the words of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the present Leader of the House. He said:
"We shall review the thousand-and-one instructions, regulations and manuals of advice which go out from Whitehall to the local authorities, to see that there, too, the same principle of reasoned economy is observed. I must wait until my review of the draft Estimates is completed before I am in a position to decide whether sufficient savings have been made. If not, still more stringent methods will be necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 203.]
The right hon. Gentleman then announced his increase in the Bank Rate and his proposals for preserving the cost of living. He managed to convince both the then President of the Board of Trade and the hon. and learned Member for Darwen that this seemed to mean an increase in textile exports.
That was the position. The President of the Board of Trade has talked today about Imperial Preference in a vague, rather loose way. I came across a letter from the Board of Trade quite by chance in the course of this week-end. It is nearly three years old now. It exemplifies precisely the position and the kind of thinking on this subject that is going on even now in the Board of Trade. I will read from it. It relates to a complaint from a Lancashire manufacturer who was buying viscose staple fibre at 50d. per lb. The letter said:
"The actual cost of the spun rayon interlock fabric made from this fibre landed from Japan in West Africa, was less than they had to pay for the fibre itself. The cost of our raw materials was 9d. a lb. more than the cost of the manufactured cloth delivered to West Africa."
I wrote to the Board of Trade about this and the Minister replied,
"It appears that the price of the viscose staple fibre in Japan is slightly cheaper than in the United Kingdom, being about 23d. compared with 24d. per lb. While we have had no official information we understand that the price is 50d. per lb. and that the cost of the yarn in Japan is less than this. This price is
934
obviously reflected in all stages. Bearing in mind the low labour costs at subsequent stages"
—which the letter gives as wages of£15 to£8 6s. per month—
"it does not seem out of line. We have no means of costing the cloth but so far as we have been able to investigate this we have found no evidence that Japanese interlock fabric averaged at 41d. a lb. must be either subsidised or dumped."
It is worth examining that curious document which was signed by a Lancashire hon. Member who was then occupying an office at the Board of Trade. What does it mean? We are now importing an incredible yardage from Hong Kong. It has gone up year by year until it has become rather more than a quarter of our total imports of that material. It is produced by labour working 80 to 84 hours a week in shocking conditions and for very low rates of wages.
I cannot claim many virtues in this House, but I think I can claim that I do not tear out my conscience and dust it regularly and publicly. As one who has been a protagonist of war on want for the Colonial Territories, as one who perhaps has made his foremost consideration in politics the question of trying to fight disease, poverty and want, I cannot understand anyone who says that if we have conditions virtually of slave labour we ought to help those countries to preserve them. I do not understand the argument which says that if we refuse to buy from those people their conditions will get worse. The Colonial Secretary to the Colonies and the Under-Secretary were on the Government Front Bench when that matter was discussed.
Our proposals for the Colonial Territories have always been: No. 1 priority, establishment of trade unions; No. 2, establishment of agricultural co-operatives; No. 3, a drive for a decent standard of living. That is what we want. Then we had this very dishonest argument—it really was a very dishonest argument—that if we believe in investing money in the Colonies we cannot prevent them selling goods to us.
That is the final exposition of the unutterable folly of Tory policy. Immediately after the General Election of 1951 we had the restoration of economic anarchy, accompanied by bay-throated roars of applause from hon. Members opposite. They destroyed every provision

935
we had made for the industry. They destroyed the sanity of long-term buying and destroyed the Liverpool Cotton Market. They destroyed C.O.S.—and in a pretty corrupt way. In relation to imports there was an active campaign for spinners to contract out and, two years later, they abolished it on the ground that the chaps who had contracted out were worse off than those who contracted in. That was the argument, that they had not adequate cover because they contracted out and they had to be put on the same basis, which was worse than before.
They destroyed our marketing arrangements. I would not be too lavish in my comments on the Paymaster-General, but I expect him to approach this matter with more sanity than any of his colleagues. I say to him that there are certain considerations which apply to the whole question of Empire Preference.
Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member said that we destroyed the trade with the Colonies by various means. Is he aware that last year, for example, exports to Hong Kong exceeded imports by more than£80 million? That does not bear out his contention.
Mr. Hale: What was the figure the hon. Member mentioned?
Mr. Shepherd: Eighty million pounds excess.
Mr. Hale: I thought the trade of this country was£27 million. Therefore, it could not be exceeded by£80 million. I believe there was a£12 million surplus.
Mr. Shepherd: We imported from Hong Kong roughly£200 million worth of goods and exported£285 million.
Mr. Hale: I should be very surprised if the hon. Member is right, but I have been wrong before and it may be that I am wrong on this occasion.
Mr. Bernard Braine: I think the figures are not in pounds but in dollars; but the point is still a valid one. We are in fact selling more to Hong Kong than Hong Kong sells to us.
Mr. Hale: If it is reduced to dollars the point is valid because, arithmetically, it comes approximately to the figure I
936
mentioned, which is at least a point. I was not dealing with that, but I was suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman, who takes a serious interest in these matters, that it is anarchic to suggest that in considerations of Empire Preference representations cannot be made between partners in the Commonwealth for the elimination of unfair competition.
Mr. Braine Mr. Braine rose——
Mr. Hale: No, I am blowed if I will allow the hon. Member to interrupt again.
What becomes of proposals for a European Free Trade Area? It cannot be done without some arrangements of this kind and some approach to a fair wages clause.
When I came back from Canada in 1946, I suggested that we should have a Consultative Commonwealth Council, with no legislative powers but with powers to get the facts, to know the position in the Commonwealth, to meet throughout the Dominions and to help to cement understanding between the nations. If we had done something like that, these problems could have been considered in the light of give-and-take between nations dealing with complex problems which are always capable of solution by comradeship and understanding. By a series of historic accidents, this exists in Strasbourg, but not in Westminster or Montreal. There is the machinery operating in the seven or the fifteen European countries, but not in the Commonwealth and Colonies.
All the suggestions up to now have been rather in the nature of palliatives. The restriction of imports from Hong Kong cannot cure the problem of the Lancashire cotton industry. I agree with the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich that this problem may confront other industries. When we were working together on the pamphlet "War on Want", we found that the two most needed consumer goods in Africa were cotton cloths and bicycles. A bicycle makes a man an aristocrat and good cotton cloth makes a woman a lady. They are the two treasured and needed imports. If we are to approach the problem of finding a permanent solution for Lancashire we have to create new markets. In our African Colonies there are 65 million people, nearly all grossly underpaid and many of them brutally

937
victimised. The slightest increase in the standard of living there would mean expanding the market for Lancashire. People say that when they go from Kenya to Uganda, where the standard of living is only a shilling or two a week higher, the difference in the standard of clothing is noticeable and to be observed at once.
Many of my colleagues want to speak in this debate and I must draw my remarks to a close, not because I want to do so, but because I must apply a self-denying ordinance. The President of the Board of Trade has had three deputations to see him in the course of the last three weeks. One was from workers, another from employers and the third from mayors of Lancashire. He managed to annoy them all. The sort of half-baked answer he has given us today was the sort of reply he made to the mayors of Lancashire—that the matter was under discussion, that negotiations were in progress and that he had nothing further to say. The President of the Board of Trade appears to have failed to satisfy anybody except the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine).
Mr. H. Wilson: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the right hon. Gentleman satisfied the hon. Member for Essex, South-East only because he managed to convince him that the whole system of Imperial Preference depends on duty-free imports from the Commonwealth and that in fact this is completely untrue, because the principle of duty-free imports does not apply to most of the goods imported from the Commonwealth. The whole of the argument therefore breaks down.
Mr. Braine Mr. Braine rose——
Mr. Hale: I think it would be kindest to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East if I did not give way to him again.
Mr. Braine: The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) is utterly wrong.
Mr. Hale: The President of the Board of Trade has succeeded in Wimbledon week in doing what no other tennis player has done he has committed a treble fault. I dislike personal criticism, but there has been on his part a good deal of preening in the mirror in his gold lamé panties and rather little time spent on practising his service, which both politically and industrially has been singularly unsatisfactory.
938
The late Mr. Schickelgruber, when he spoke to the Austrians, said, "Give me five years and you will not know the place." The Tory Members who won Lancashire seats might have said the same thing. This great industry, which has a high record of skill and of service to the community, has withered away under this Government. The figures show that for every hour out of the twenty-four hours of every day—every day of a seven-day week—since the Government came into power, one man has lost his employment. Indeed, the figures show that it is more than one man. That has gone on for seven long years. It is a terrible indictment.
Now we have reached the stage when even some of the best-equipped mills in Lancashire are closing down, it may be for ever, and machinery is being destroyed. If the President of the Board of Trade has no more to say than he said earlier today, then I beg him to resign and to make way for someone who may be prepared to try to do something for Lancashire.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Braine: I do not think that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) should be allowed to get away with one passage of his otherwise interesting and, as always, thought-provoking speech. That was his assertion that the plight of Lancashire started with the change of Government in 1951.
I recall distinctly a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) in November of that year. It was quite clear that the cotton industry had been getting into difficulties throughout 1951 and that those difficulties were coming to a head about the time of the Election. It would have been fairer for the hon. Member, who has a great reputation in the House for fairness, to have asked why the cotton industry was running into difficulties at that time rather than to try to attribute it to a change of Government and, therefore, to a change in policy.
All of us who sit for constituencies outside Lancashire sympathise very much with Lancashire Members today and with the men and women who work in an industry which has contributed so much—nobody needs to tell me that—to the greatness and prosperity of our

939
country in the last hundred years. That is why I hope that the efficient elements in that industry, the forward-looking elements, will be able still to find a niche for themselves in this modern world, despite all their present difficulties, by concentrating on quality production.
But to believe that because we once made stage coaches we must always make stage coaches, and because we were pioneers in railways we must never turn to alternative methods of transport, is the very negation of everything that has happened in this country. We survive here according to our capacity to use our brains and our inventive powers to provide the world outside with goods and services it requires at a price it wants and quality which it expects. There is no alternative.
An examination of the trading pattern of this country in the last fifty or sixty years shows quite clearly that, expressed as a percentage of our national income, our exports have been growing faster than our national income. That is not true of other great States like the United States and the Soviet Union. Their national income has grown faster than their foreign trade. This means that we are in an even more vulnerable position today in these matters than we have ever been before. That is nothing to daunt us or to daunt the people of Lancashire.
I listened carefully for any indication the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was prepared to give to the Committee of the way in which we should march. He said, first, that the future depends upon Lancashire's own efforts. With that I entirely agree, but it would have been better had he spent some time in explaining how Lancashire's own efforts have already resulted, since the end of the war, in a tremendous diversification of her industry. What has been lost on the swings has been more than gained on the roundabouts.
Mr. F. Blackburn: We are talking about the swings.
Mr. Braine: But the roundabouts are important, too. When we are talking about Lancashire's skill, what about her skill in the chemical industry, in engineering, in aircraft and in a whole range of new industries which have come up since the war? I do not wish in any
940
way to minimise the plight of the cotton industry or the anxieties or worries which there must be in the home of every cotton operative. That is something on which it is right and proper for Lancashire. Members to focus attention, and they are doing so in the debate with their accustomed skill and eloquence. But when it came to making a positive proposal for dealing with this situation, in the end the right hon. Gentleman came down to restrictions—quantitative restrictions upon imports and, let us face it, upon imports from Commonwealth countries.
Mr. S. Silverman: I congratulate the hon. Member on his great courtesy in giving way, as compared with the President of the Board of Trade. May I put this question to him? One can go into a departmental store in any Lancashire cotton manufacturing town and buy a well-made shirt of good material at a price with which Lancashire could not compete if the workers worked for no wages at all. What does he think Lancashire should do about that?
Mr. Braine: That is a question which cotton manufacturers in Lancashire are asking. Part of the answer is that if those who are making chemicals, plastics, engineering products and all the other things which Lancashire factories are now turning out expect the people of other countries to buy their products, then the people of other countries must surely find the wherewithal to do so by exporting. This is a question of balance.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West, said, very rightly, that with the liberalisation of trade in Europe there is room for the splendid high-quality goods which Lancashire can produce, but I do not believe that there is much room in this world for producing the other kind of goods which other countries can produce, are producing, and intend to go on producing.
Mr. Silverman: I am sure that the hon. Member does not realise the facts, because he always approaches these matters fairly within the range of his knowledge of the facts. Does he not realise that it is precisely those mills which are best equipped, producing the best quality goods, which are closing now, whereas in the past it may have been the other factories? During the last three or

941
four days three mills in my constituency have been affected—mills founded fifty-three years ago and employing the best skilled labour there is. They are closing down, and what chance is there, once they have closed down, that they will reopen? We are dealing with an immediate emergency against the background of a long-term remedy. No matter how effective that may be, there is no time.
Mr. J. A. Leavey: Before my hon. Friend answers, perhaps it might be helpful to the Committee to realise that those three mills are concerned with rayon, not cotton. That is a slightly different problem, and it would be unfortunate if the Committee were to associate those closures solely with cotton.
Mr. Braine: I hope that I shall be acquitted of any discourtesy if I say that, following that intervention, I do not think that I am called upon to make any further answer. I do not want man-made fibres to cloud this issue, nor, I think, does the Committee. My purpose in intervening in this debate is to draw attention, if I may do so with humility, to some of the broader considerations; considerations that are just as important to Lancashire's future as they are to the rest of the British economy.
I say, with all the force at my command, that at this stage, any plea for discrimination against any Commonwealth country, or group of Commonwealth countries, can do nothing but the gravest possible harm to our long-term interest, especially when we remember that in about two months' time a great Commonwealth economic conference will be gathering at Montreal where trade matters of this kind will be thrashed out in the frankest possible way.
It is not as though that conference will be meeting at a time of general prosperity all round, with just a black cloud hanging over Lancashire. During the last year or two, despite the increasing volume of world trade, the volume of inter-Commonwealth trade has been declining, and I should have thought that that would be a matter of concern to both sides of the Committee. Moreover, the pattern is changing in another way, and this is the basis of my argument that we should not today send out a message that we are in favour of discrimination against a Commonwealth country.
942
The pattern is changing in this sense. Following a considerable period after the war when the terms of trade were against us, the terms of trade have, for the last two or three years, been moving steadily in our favour. At the beginning of the year, they were about 10 per cent. better than they were two years ago. That means that the British economy has been prospering at the expense, very largely, of Commonwealth countries, and particularly of Commonwealth primary producers.
The fall in the export commodity earnings of the Commonwealth countries has led to a sharp decline in their purchasing power. One sees this happening, not only in New Zealand, Australia and Malaya but nearly everywhere in the Commonwealth. That is bound to have its effect on our own export trade. We are doing all right now but, as many of us can testify, order books are beginning to reflect a contraction in Commonwealth purchasing power.
It is for that reason that I say that any suggestion from this Committee that the Government should move in the direction of restrictions—even of only a narrow restriction against one small Colony in the defence of one industry in this country—would be both selfish and short-sighted. It would be selfish, because it would damage Commonwealth trade at a time when we, taking our economy as a whole, are getting the best end of the stick. It would be shortsighted, because it would inevitably result in retaliation against our exports——
Mr. H. Wilson: We all recognise the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in this matter. What he has just said about the impoverishment of Colonial Territories is something that we warned the House would happen when we debated the economic situation, last October. But does he not realise that if he wants to help Hong Kong he can do it to a far greater extent by removing some of the stupid trade embargoes on trade between Hong Kong and China?
Mr. Braine: It is perfectly true that the cause of part of Hong Kong's difficulty is that she agreed to the contraction of trade with China to suit the strategic convenience of the West. On the other hand, in this particular instance, my own view is that opening up trade with

943
China would not help. What would China be exporting to pay for the manufactured goods that we would be sending to China, either through Hong Kong or direct through Chinese ports? I am open to correction, but I should imagine that this country would be asked to accept in payment a whole range of goods that would not assist our economy in one single respect.
Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that China has a trade surplus of£1 million a year with Hong Kong, through the shipment, mainly of food but, to a lesser extent, of raw materials, and that there is no question of dumping Chinese textiles into Hong Kong?
Mr. Braine: We are getting away from the main point. The real issue is that we are now selling more to Hong Kong than she is selling to us. This is the salient fact that has been forgotten. Here we have a proposal from the other side that we should penalise a British Colonial Territory, for which we in the United Kingdom have special responsibility, when, in fact, we are selling more to Hong Kong than we are buying from her.
The figures are interesting. For example, the value of British imports from Hong Kong totalled£20 million last year. The value of British exports to Hong Kong totalled£33 million. And it is interesting to break up the figures, and to see what we sold to Hong Kong.
Mr. S. Silverman: I am following the hon. Gentleman with great interest. If it is not presumptuous on my part to say so, I think that he is making a most interesting contribution to the debate. However, does he not realise that any favourable balance to this country, any profit that we are making as a result of the difference in the figures he has just quoted, is paid for by the unemployment of Lancashire weavers and spinners; that they are bearing the burden out of which the profit is made? Why should they?
Mr. Braine: My whole argument is that the price we would have to pay for the kind of protection for which the other side of the Committee is asking is unemployment in other British industries, and in those industries where we have the best possible chance of paying our way in the world, and of making our
944
mark. This is the crux of the whole issue, and if the Committee does not grasp this—although I am sure that it does—we shall not get anywhere.
Let me now break up the figures I have given. That export figure of£33 million included£3⅓ million worth of woollens and worsted yarn and fabrics. That was Yorkshire's contribution. It included£5½million worth of machinery, and£2½million worth of vehicles and aircraft, some of which may have come from Lancashire. If we were to take the advice of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Mr. Rhodes), who spoke with great force, vigour and feeling, but who wanted to drum Hong Kong out of the Commonwealth, we would lose a market for our woollens, our worsted yarns and fabrics, our machinery, our vehicles and aircraft to a total of£33 million.
Would we go further? Whenever we came against anyone who could undersell us, either because of greater efficiency or sweated labour, what would we do? Would we put up protective barriers and shut them out? One can go part of the way along that road for some time. In fact, in the past we could have done so for quite a long time, but we can no longer do so because the whole pattern of our trade, and of world trade has changed and is changing——
Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman is getting along fast, but before he gallops any further along this "Babycham" line of argument, I hope that he will remember that the President of the Board of Trade himself drew our attention this afternoon to the fact that if cotton textile goods which had been made in Hong Kong, under the conditions which we complain about, were being dumped here, he would immediately deal with that situation under the ordinary tariff arrangements, and put on a stiff tariff. What we are, in practice, doing here is taking the product of sweated labour of the refugees entering Hong Kong in an ever-increasing flow, and we are doing nothing about it.
Over the last eighteen months refugee labour has entered Hong Kong from China to the extent of about 1 million people, and we are taking the product of their sweated labour and doing nothing about it. We say that it is wrong to fall back on the compassionate ties that we have with the Commonwealth and

945
colonial countries—and we all share them—and apply them to this situation. It has nothing to do with the basic colonial problem at all.
Mr. Braine: I am not altogether certain that I follow the hon. Member's argument. If he is saying that goods are being dumped here from Hong Kong that is one thing, but the word "dumping" there is not being used in the sense that it is used in our various trade treaties.
Goods are dumped only if they are produced at below the cost of production in the country of origin, or if the export is being subsidised in any way. In fact, Hong Kong exports to this country do not fall into either category. I am at one with the hon. Member if it can be sustained that the conditions in Hong Kong factories are such that they contravene everything that we in this country hold dear—the dignity of labour and decent conditions of work. I agree that we ought to do something about it in that case.
If that is to be the line of advance, however, the better the labour conditions in Hong Kong textile factories the more easily will she be able to compete with Lancashire. No one in his senses believes that cheap sweated labour is efficient labour, or that the goods produced can be sold more cheaply. That is a dangerous line of argument to pursue, if for only one reason. If we are to adopt protectionist devices here on the score that goods coming from some other country within the Commonwealth—let alone from outside it—are being produced at lower wage rates and poorer conditions than obtain here, what is to be the argument where our goods are sold in North American markets?
We at once present to the tariff lobbies in the United States which President Eisenhower has such great difficulty in restraining, a perfect argument for action against us, as being a country manufacturing goods at lower labour costs than those in the United States. I am not dismissing the argument of the hon. Member. I think that there is a great deal in it, and hope that we shall be able to turn our attention at some other time to the whole question of labour conditions in Hong Kong.
946
There is another reason why, in my view, to impose restrictions on Hong Kong in present circumstances would be unthinkable. I take to task the right hon. Member for Huyton, who a few moments ago, attributed to me certain thoughts which were not in my mind and which I have never uttered in the House. I am sorry that he is not here, because I should have liked to have told him. It has been a cardinal point in our relations with the Colonial Territories that their products should have free and unrestricted entry into the United Kingdom. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind the Committee again, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did this afternoon, that we have special responsibilities for the Colonial Territories. The point is that we could not stop at restricting textiles from Hong Kong. Once we move down that road we cannot stop.
I think I am right in saying that Hong Kong textile imports are only 3 per cent. of the total of British production. Imports of knitted gloves from Hong Kong are 125 per cent. of British production. Does the Committee believe that if a concession is given to the demands of the Lancashire cotton industry the glove industry will not say, "Why stop there? We must take this to its logical conclusion." And that would mean that there must be clear and open discrimination for a whole range of imports hitherto admitted duty-free into the United Kingdom. There must be discrimination against them—a sort of colour bar in trade.
That is a departure from the principles which have guided successive Governments in this country. We have never been frightened of discriminating against the foreigner, and I hope we never shall be, when it serves the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole. But I wonder whether the Committee would seriously advocate discrimination of this kind against one Colony which would be quickly followed by demands for discrimination against other Colonies.
Nor would it end there. Similar demands would be made in other countries for discrimination to be imposed against Hong Kong's exports. The United Kingdom Government has so far successfully persuaded its Commonwealth partners not to impose such restrictions. We have to do that because under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade we are the protectors of Hong Kong. Hong Kong is not

947
a contracting party, nor is any British Colony, under G.A.T.T. How can we protect those interests if we damage them ourselves?
Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman is asking rhetorical questions, so perhaps I may help him in his difficulty. He is asking how we can protect the Commonwealth and carry out our mandate to the people under G.A.T.T., since they are within British sovereignty. I should like to ask him the other side of the question. How are we to protect our own nationals against the kind of unfair competition about which we are complaining today? Is not our first duty, in the event of a conflict of interests, to the people who sent us to this House as British representatives? We are complaining about this infernally unfair competition based on sweated labour.
Mr. Braine: That may well be the case. It is not true that we are doing nothing about it. We have heard this afternoon a description from the President of the Board of Trade of a course of action which we hope will secure the very thing that the hon. Gentleman seeks. I am not defending the flooding of the British market by Hong Kong textiles. I am trying to get the whole question into some sort of perspective.
The hon. Member talks about difficulties. We are up against two special difficulties. First, we have always accepted the principle enshrined in G.A.T.T. that import restrictions should not be imposed except in balance of payments difficulties. I do not think that there is any argument about that. That is accepted. But there are no such balance of payments difficulties in this case. I may be unpopular in saying this, but I must say it because I believe it to be the case; it would be morally wrong to violate the spirit of G.A.T.T. by discriminating against a Colony the protection of whose interests resides here in this country. Hong Kong has no means of protecting her own interests. As long as we are the protecting Power, as long as Hong Kong is a British Colony, we must accept these obligations. This applies not only to Hong Kong, but to every one of the Colonial Territories.
The second difficulty is that in the process of liberalising trade we have from time to time had representations from various Commonwealth Governments
948
exposed to competition from foreign producers here in the British market. As Chairman of the British Commonwealth Producers' Association, I should like to see a great deal more protection accorded in this country to Commonwealth producers. But this would run us into considerable difficulties indeed. However, I should have thought that it was in Britain's, and especially Lancashire's, best interests not to go down a road which would inevitably lead to restriction and a contraction of international trade. There is no future for Britain in that respect.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West, in his interesting speech, referred to the effect of the European Free Trade Area. Suppose the European Free Trade Area is successfully negotiated. We all know that it has run into difficulties, but suppose the negotiations are concluded satisfactorily and a Free Trade Area comes into operation. This will eventually permit free entry, or reasonably free entry, of European manufactures into the United Kingdom and of British manufactures into Europe. If this takes place, Hong Kong, to take that Colony as an example, will suffer. It certainly cannot gain, because it will find itself up against European competition inside the British market.
How could we possibly justify the imposition of controls upon Hong Kong imports at the same time as making ready for the free entry of European goods into the British market? That is the moral side of the argument. That would be a reversal of Britain's pledge and a reversal of the view of nearly every hon. Member of this Committee that Commonwealth interests should not be allowed to suffer through any economic tie we make with Europe.
There is also the possibility that the European Free Trade Area negotiations may break down. This presents an entirely different situation. That would mean that, as from the beginning of next year, British manufacturers might find themselves confronted with a tariff barrier around the six Treaty of Rome countries over which they would find it difficulty to leap. It would be absolutely fatal to our own interests if, in advance of a situation like that, we served notice on the Commonwealth as a whole—any action against Hong Kong would be

949
regarded by the Commonwealth as discrimination against the Commonwealth—that, when we are in a position of strength, we are prepared to restrict and damage its trade.
To impose restrictions upon textile imports at this stage, to give a little momentary protection to an industry which has been declining in the past would be unfair to both the country and to the larger interests of Lancashire. It would strike a blow at Commonwealth unity and, in my view, it would be a stupid and damaging thing to do.
7.2 p.m.
Mr. W. A. Burke: The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) will, I hope, forgive me if I do not follow him very far. I wish to revert to the plight of the cotton trade in Lancashire. I agree that it is necessary for the Government to try to balance the economy. The point we must remember is that it is one large and important group of people, the cotton operatives, which has to bear practically the whole burden of preserving that balance. The other two hon. Members who spoke from the benches opposite both gave an indication of their disappointment with the Government. The only hon. Gentleman who has given them any support does not come from Lancashire.
This debate comes after years of petitions, commissions, negotiations, deputations and delegations from local authorities, from employers and from trade unions. We have the debate now only because the Opposition decided to give up one of their Supply Days for the purpose. It is really the climax of a long series of attempts to get from the Government some statement which we could say was helpful to the cotton industry of Lancashire. Unfortunately, nothing has been said so far by the President of the Board of Trade which gives us any hope, save that he said that negotiations are still going on.
The President of the Board of Trade referred to the fact that, when Lancashire was at its peak, we had 8,000 million yards of cloth as our production and that 7,000 million of those yards were exported. He did not go on to say that very nearly half of the 7,000 million went to India, and now it is the other way around. India is sending us all her stuff because she has a fairly high tariff and
950
her goods come to us free of duty. It may be that these things are necessary, but what Lancashire wants to know is this. Is the present state of affairs to go on and on until there is nothing left of the Lancashire cotton trade?
In 1954, the people of Lancashire became seriously concerned not merely about the immediate threat of foreign competition through sweated labour or subsidised raw materials but also with the potential threat. They saw their industry going down and down. In 1955, the industry met the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). He listened to what the deputation from the Cotton Board had to say and promised urgent consideration. Nothing was done. An appeal was made to the next Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, and, two days before the House was dissolved, he made some concessions. He announced a reduction in Indian tariffs and a reduction in Purchase Tax here. But he would not depart from what he said was the long-established arrangement for duty-free imports from the Commonwealth. Deputation after deputation has approached the Government, but the answer given by various Presidents of the Board of Trade has always been negative.
I listened to the speech the President of the Board of Trade made at the Cotton Conference at Harrogate, in which he paid tribute to the skilful and very patient work of Sir Cuthbert Clegg in trying to reach agreement with India and Pakistan. After all these years, from 1954 until 1958, the result of all our petitions and representations is simply this. We have nothing from the Government which is likely to show the people of Lancashire that they can look for a turn for the better in the downward trend of their trade. The arguments have gone on and on, and we have always come to the same conclusion. It is the conclusion we have today. We are told now that, possibly, there will be an agreement with India and Pakistan if agreement can be reached with Hong Kong also. Why should India and Pakistan stand down for Hong Kong, and why should Lancashire have to stand down for Pakistan, India and Hong Kong?
All this time, mills are going out of production. In 1954, 15 mills went out,

951
and the number has continued to grow. We all know the figures by now. The net result of four and a half years of negotiations, petitions, commissions, and delegations is that Lancashire has over 300 fewer cotton mills now than it had before all this talk began.
I attended a meeting in my own constituency in Burnley on Friday afternoon. It was called by the mayor of the town because of the serious state of the cotton industry in Burnley. There were present at that meeting employers in the cotton industry, representatives from the chamber of commerce, representatives from the chamber of trade, representatives from at least two of the political parties—the Conservative representatives did not come for some reason or another—and representatives of the education committee. They were all people very greatly concerned about the conditions developing in Burnley.
I am sorry to say that what most of the employers were concerned about was not how soon they would be able to start again. Most of them have come to the conclusion that they will not be able to start again. What they wanted to know was whether they would have rate relief if they kept their machinery in the mills in the hope that something might turn up when another Government came along. Most of them had come to the conclusion that it was perhaps wisest to get£2 10s. or£3 5s. for their scrap mules and then they would not have to pay any rates. These employers, Conservative and Liberal, have come to the conclusion that the only thing for them to do is to scrap their mills and, while the going is good, get out with their money and put it in the Burnley Building Society because, they said, they can get more security there than elsewhere. We were told that three more mills in the Burnley area would close down this week, in addition to the eight mills that we have already lost.
What does this mean? It means that skilled operatives will drift away into other industries. During the war leaflets which were published with the authorisation of the Government by Sir Raymond Streat were distributed telling the people how important it was to go into the cotton industry and promising them that if they put their youngsters into the industry there would be a happy
952
future for them. That promise has never been fulfilled, and when the school leavers left school at the end of their school period in Burnley I understand that the number of youngsters who opted to go into the cotton mills was practically negligible. I am not sure of the figure, but I think it was only about 5 per cent. of the school leavers in a town which has always been a great centre of the cotton industry.
I hope that the agreements that are supposed to be coming along materialise, but the chairman of the Indian Cotton Mill Federation, when he left Bombay to carry on talks with industrialists here, said in effect that the outcome of the talks on the reduction or limitation of imports depended upon the position taken up by Hong Kong. These talks remind me of what went on when we had the Anglo-American talks. After discussion, it was said, "We have no solution. We have not even a proposition for a solution, and we did not make any decisions."
The cotton industry in Lancashire cannot be expected to wait and wait while nothing is done. When New Zealand asked the President of the Board of Trade to take action because butter was being dumped here from Sweden and Finland, action was taken straight away. Action can be taken to save the motor industry, and we can subsidise the farmers, so why does a great industry like the Lancashire cotton trade have to wait upon the possibility of a voluntary agreement being made by the industrialists between themselves, each one depending and waiting upon what the other fellow is going to do? Surely this is an industry in which the Government should take action.
The employers whom I saw the other day were, I am sorry to say, very despondent about the future, and I was hoping that as a result of this debate we would get some hope that the Government really intend to do something which would turn the tide and help to get some confidence back into the industry.
Burnley was once the greatest weaving centre in the world, and still today one out of every four of our insured workers is engaged in the cotton industry or would be if they were not signing on for the dole. What is true of Burnley is true of all the towns in the weaving belt, particularly those in North-East Lancashire. I quote Burnley because I know the

953
figures more intimately than for other towns, but it is true in the cotton industry generally. What Burnley is going through now is the same kind of experience that we had between the wars, when there were unemployment queues, people on National Assistance and families being broken up.
This is the position in Burnley. In 1952 our insured population was 46,900; we had that number of workers. At the end of four years, the insured population had gone down by 4,600. The population of Burnley is about 83,900, and in that same four years the population has gone down. But it has gone down by only 1,500, which means that the young insured skilled workers are leaving at a rapid rate, and have been leaving at the rate of 1,000 a year, leaving us with an ageing population which is becoming more and more aged.
There was a time when we bad a population of 100,000 in Burnley, together with 100,000 looms. We have services for 100,000 people. We have the best water system in the country. We have good roads. Incidentally, when the Government allowed us to build an estate in Burnley we had to pay for the roads which could have been paid for out of Government money. We have a good sewage system and we are very proud of our education system. At the technical college students are studying the textile trade. But the majority of them are foreigners. They have come from abroad and they are going back home to compete with us. We are doing what we can for the foreigners and we are willing to help.
I live near to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). When I was a child in 1896, Platt Bros. of Oldham, the great machinists, sent their first load of looms to China. They were the first looms to go across the Great Wall. We were all very proud of it. When I was in China a few years ago I was told that some of those Lancashire looms were still working, after 50 years. They were well made. But some of the cheap cloth that one buys on the Oldham market is made with those old Lancashire looms which Platt Bros. sent out years ago. That is the kind of balance which now exists and which we think ought to be rectified more fairly in favour of the Lancashire cotton industry.
954
I have mentioned the fact that eight of our mills have been closed down. What has happened to the people that were employed in those mills? If we look at the figures we find that the insured population of this country in the last six years has increased by 1½million. Of that 1½million, 50 per cent. is in London and in the South-Eastern region. Of that 50 per cent. in this great conurbation 25 per cent. has come from migration. What was the solution that the Minister of Labour offered the other day? He said with regard to pockets of unemployment that he hoped that when the new Bill was passed he would have more power to deal with them. But he has the power under the 1945 Act. All that we want him to do is to use it.
The Minister of Labour tells us that Lancashire must export more cotton and that if we cannot do so we must export ourselves and he will pay the solicitor's fees up to£50 and£10 instead of£2 for incidental expenses if people will move their families south. How can people find houses in this great conurbation? When a man has to leave to find another job, what will happen to his wife, to his children at the grammar school and to the whole of their connections? It is no solution whatever to say that the Government will pay them to shift. The people in Lancashire have had to be shifting for a long time. What they want now is something to be brought to them rather than having to go round the placing looking for it.
Turning briefly to the unemployment figures, we find that in the last few years unemployment in Lancashire has grown so that the figure for Burnley alone is now 1,400. Eight cotton mills have gone. That lost us 1,538 people. Some of the people from those eight mills have drifted away. When I say that 1,400 is the current figure at our employment exchanges in Burnley, let it be remembered that the married women do not sign on and that there is a lot of short-time working and that this is not counted. Remember, also, that in some factories people are working two looms instead of four or six the whole week round and are getting only half wages. This, too, is not shown in the figures. The 1,400 gives by no means a real picture of the trouble in Lancashire.

955
The Colonial Secretary said the other day that we could not allow the Crown Colony of Hong Kong to be ill treated and that it was the business of the Government to protect Hong Kong. Could Lancashire become a Crown Colony instead of a duchy? Would we get protection then? The Board of Trade has not done anything and all that the Ministry of Labour wants to do is to move our people away still further.
I must not, however, be ungenerous. The Board of Trade has done something for North-East Lancashire. In 1953, we became a Development Area. We have all heard about Mullard's. Every time we mention unemployment in Lancashire we are told that we were given Mullard's, the largest factory ever built by the Board of Trade. It is, however, the only one financed by the Government that we have got. The local authority has done a good deal. The Mullard factory, which is not in Burnley, has been a Godsend, and we are to get another factory—Michelin tyres—in 1960.
The Mullard factory gave work to 1,200 people, of whom, say, 600 are from Burnley. In 1960, when the Michelin tyre factory is completed, there may be another 800 people from Burnley who benefit. From 1953 to 1960, therefore, the Government are giving employment to 1,400 people, but we are losing insured workers at the rate of 1,000 per year.
Mr. S. Silverman: From Burnley alone.
Mr. Burke: I am talking about Burnley, but, as I have said, what is true there is true of Nelson and Colne and many other places.
To sum up briefly, the Government policy concerning cotton is apparently still negative. It is what it always has been. It is dependent still upon getting voluntary agreement, which I do not think is likely to come about, although I hope that it does. If India says that she will not stand down and Hong Kong also will not stand down, must Lancashire go on suffering?
If to balance the country's economy it is necessary to push the motor car trade and other new industries, if the cotton industry must suffer and the policy of the Government is to let it decline, we say that because the Government's policy has caused this decline we are at least
956
entitled to be given some replacement and that the Government should use their powers to ensure that all the burden does not fall upon this great industry, which once was of such enormous importance to the country.
We in Burnley and in Lancashire generally are back now to the position we were in before the war, when Walter Greenwood wrote the play "Love on the Dole." We have our dole queues again. We have our shut-down mills—dark, gloomy places—and National Assistance. All those things upon which we thought we had turned our back have come back to us. I tell the Government that for Burnley Tory freedom does not work, and that never for a long time have the people of Burnley had it so bad.
7.26 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Glover: I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke), who, whether or not I agree with everything he says, speaks on this subject from his heart. This is, I suppose, one of the most difficult debates in which any Member from Lancashire has taken part for a long time. Most of us are drawn two ways. We are quite aware that the Lancashire textile industry has been, not in the last five or seven years, but for forty years, a contracting industry. We are aware also of our responsibilities in the House of Commons to the people who make up the Commonwealth, of which we are all so proud; and that applies on both sides.
The first thing I would like to do is to pay a tribute to the people of Lancashire. The hon. Member for Burnley and many other hon. Members in their speeches today have drawn much attention to the fact that in 1913 this great industry, on which the industrial might of Britain was built—I hope that the Committee will remember that—had a production of 8,000 million yards.
The whole of Lancashire inevitably has watched that industry shrink from 8,000 million yards. Nobody, on either side of the Committee, would suggest that that was the fault of the Government. It was the fault of world economic growth. The adaptability of the Lancashire people, however, has altered their economy and the way in which they have earned their living during that forty years, so that even now, while there are these bad spots—I admit that Burnley is a bad one—where

957
unemployment has risen, unemployment is less than the national average. That says a great deal for the adaptability of, and the facing of the future by, the Lancashire people.
Secondly, I should like to pay a tribute to both sides of the industry during the last seven years. Both sides of the industry have realised that this was not a problem with an easy solution. The two sides of the industry have not been nearly as vociferous in their criticisms and in their suggestions, because they knew that this was something that would need delicate handling.
I was most impressed this afternoon, as I am sure was everyone in the Committee, by the theoretical argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) on the Commonwealth concept, our responsibilities for the Commonwealth and the need for us to have mutual trade.
For a Lancashire man, it is very difficult to see the wood for the trees, but we have to face the fact that we in this country are not only the largest exporters to the Commonwealth, but are the largest percentage exporters in the Commonwealth, and, therefore, we depend on our exports to a far greater extent than any other single country.
Once we start to break and play about with the delicate mechanism that is built up in the Commonwealth by our trading arrangements, then we are asking for the same discrimination to be developed against our favourite product as is developed by us against the favourite product of somebody else.
We are to have a trade conference in Montreal. I think that we should go with our hands very firmly tied behind our backs if we went to that conference and said that we, the Mother Country, had been the first to start discrimination once one of our industries was hurt. I am not saying that the situation may not be serious, but I think that that is something that we in this Committee must be very concerned about. I know that many people in the Lancashire textile industry are just as seized of it as we are.
I would say to the President of the Board of Trade that once some of these problems pass a certain stage beyond the theoretical and the economic they become a matter into which emotion enters. I think that that stage has been reached in
958
Lancashire. Psychologically, textiles are Lancashire. Although we accept that the textile industry accounts for only 20 per cent. of Lancashire's activities, whatever the industry the people in Lancashire are in, they are all conscious of textiles. Psychologically, textiles are their being. They are fearful now that the textile industry is to disappear. That fear, I am quite certain, will not be one about which they need really worry.
I am convinced that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who runs a first-class business in Lancashire, will not, with his ingenuity, go out of business. He is too shrewd and there are many more people like him in Lancashire today. The shrewdest element in the textile industry will carry on, face the future and expand. Some of the present difficulties are passing ones. I think it only right—and it has not been mentioned in this debate—to say that the textile industry in Lancashire is suffering a worse depression at present than is caused by imports from Hong Kong. It is suffering depression because world textiles are suffering depression.
For instance, it is a very seasonal trade, as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne knows only too well, and at present there is not nearly the same off-take from the textile industry, because it has been the worst summer in living memory and that has had quick repercussions in the building up of stocks in Lancashire. As soon as that happens, when there is not the confidence, the mills go on to short time and their order books shorten.
That is one of the reasons why the textile industry is now going through this short period of deepening depression compared with what it was six months ago. I would say, therefore, while I have supported the Government in their attitude to textiles all through these last years, I wish that this debate today was not taking place. I have not been able to decide whether this debate was asked for by the Socialist Party foolishly or wickedly, but it is one or the other.
Mr. John McCann: Honestly.
Mr. Glover: If it was foolishly I forgive them, because I understand the difficulties, but if it was wickedly I will never forgive them.
I believe that the reason the Opposition asked for a debate on cotton was to try

959
to get hon. Members to take up a position from which they could not withdraw, issuing threats to our Commonwealth associates in Hong Kong which would make it very difficult for them to negotiate. It would have been far better if we had waited until those negotiations had been concluded and then had a debate on their outcome.
I hope that these voluntary negotiations will be successful. I believe that they will be successful, but I do not think that the success of the negotiations will be helped if we, in this Committee today, issue threats of the alternative if the negotiations are not successful. Moreover, we shall make our position at any economic conference, at which we are trying to build up and extend Commonwealth trade, far more difficult if we threaten without reaching the point of performance.
It is for that reason that I hope that everyone who speaks in the Committee today will not issue any more threats, because that is not the way in a free society in the Commonwealth to get agreement. I think that we are on the verge of agreement. Everyone who comes from Lancashire must sincerely hope that we shall get agreement. I believe that we shall. I close my remarks tonight by sending my best wishes to all those engaged in the negotiations, with the hope that they may be carried out in the spirit of good will which will knit the Commonwealth together and not destroy it.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. John McCann: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover), whose knowledge of cotton is far greater than mine. I cannot go with him all the way on his remarks relative to whether we should threaten, whether we should cajole, or whether we should go on just as we have been over the last four years, hanging on, and, like Micawber, waiting for something to turn up.
I can assure the hon. Member that this is neither a foolish nor a wicked debate. It is an honest debate forced upon us by the conditions of the people in Lancashire. We are asking for first-aid for the Lancashire cotton industry. It is too late to apply first-aid when the patient
960
has died. The patient has been in a very seriously declining position for four years, so we think it is time that somethng was done.
I, like the hon. Member, enjoyed the contribution by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). In pointing out that the balance of payments position was in our favour in Hong Kong, he showed that£11½million came from wool, textiles, vehicles, aircraft, etc. He did not go on to draw the parallel as to exactly how much we were buying from Hong Kong. We feel that had that parallel been made it would have shown that the Lancashire industry was bearing a disproportionate percentage of the imports which were coming in compared with industry as a whole.
The hon. Member made one very strange remark, quite true, but strange in the context in which he used it. He said that there was no balance of payments problem between this country and Hong Kong. That is quite true. I can assure the Committee that there is a large number of balance of payments problems in the houses of Lancashire people because of the position in which we find ourselves with Hong Kong.
I want first to kill the idea which is prevalent, I believe, on both sides of the Committee, that the Lancashire cotton industry is finished and that we are wasting our time bothering with it. Since 1945 the industry has spent£150 million on new plant and equipment and was on the way to being, and I believe still could be, one of the most efficient in the world. In spite of this influx of capital expenditure, we are the only major cotton goods producing country which does not protect its own goods against foreign imports, and there lies the root of Lancashire's trouble.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) eloquently explained the root of the trouble in Hong Kong, and I am afraid that the Lancashire cotton industry will get no satisfaction from the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade. Not only in his speech did the right hon. Gentleman refuse to show us even an avenue of hope, but he went out of his way at one point to show that if the cotton industry goes the Lancashire cotton towns have no hope of getting any help from the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Bill or even the

961
Finance Act. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to say that unemployment figures in the Lancashire cotton towns are below the national average.
Mr. Glover: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair, and the President of the Board of Trade is not here. My right hon. Friend did not say that unemployment in the cotton towns was less than the average; he said, "in Lancashire as a whole." Also, he certainly did not say that if the Lancashire textile industry went, Lancashire would get no help from the Government.
Mr. McCann: I accept that the President of the Board of Trade said "Lancashire," and I am speaking of Lancashire. The point is that unless a high rate of unemployment exists, and is likely to persist, we cannot hope for anything in the immediate future from the new Bill. Stress has been placed on the question of a voluntary agreement, but to conclude one there have to be two consenting parties. In this instance, it might be as well to look at what the other side are saying against us.
I have here a copy of the Trade Bulletin of the Commerce and Industry Department, Hong Kong for April, 1958. In a long dissertation about the visit of Sir Frank Lee, it goes on to talk about the object of his mission and states:
"The cotton piecegoods industry of Britain, centred in Lancashire, claimed to be in grave difficulty because of competition from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, whose similar products enjoyed unrestricted, and traditionally duty-free, entry into the United Kingdom."
We have heard a lot about traditionally duty-free entries, but it is only fair to remind the Committee that the traditions of the Hong Kong textile industry date back only to the late 1940s, so that I think we can forget long tradition immediately. The article goes on to state that Sir Frank was not the first emissary and that—
"…a year before Lancashire had sent its own representatives to inaugurate discussions which foundered because Hong Kong representatives suspected the sincerity of Lancashire.…"
Of course, that would appear to be just a remark designed to cover up their own shortcomings. It continues:
"The situation confronting Sir Frank was not easy, as Lancashire had, in the opinion of Hong Kong, contrived successfully, but unjustly, to present the Colony to the public in England
962
as the scapegoat for the failure to reach accord with the two independent Commonwealth countries."
This is what Hong Kong, this friend of ours, is concerned about, and is saying about us. I believe that there is at this moment a smear campaign against Lancashire starting in Hong Kong to cover up its own deficiencies. The hon. Member for Farnworth read an editorial from one of the Hong Kong papers which attacked him but did not try to refute what he said.
In the Manchester Guardian of 27th June, Mr. John Keswick, the chairman of the China Association, referred at the association's annual dinner to the question of limiting imports of Hong Kong textiles. He said:
"In Manchester they spin but do not always toil; in Hong Kong they both spin and toil. I wish the people of Lancashire toiled more."
I am wondering if Mr. Keswick wants the Lancashire people to work their women thirteen hours a day, seven days a week, for one shilling an hour. I cannot help wondering, too, how long it is since Mr. Keswick was in a mill and how he would stand up to those conditions. That may be the first shot in the campaign which we are expecting.
We have been told about the British aims in Hong Kong. Three years ago the secretary of the Cotton Employers Association in Rochdale, in a newspaper article, stated that the industry in Hong Kong was based on Chinese capital, Chinese technicians and Chinese labour. Mr. Grimwood, in the Hong Kong office in London, emphatically denies that. Yet the Trade Bulletin stated:
"In the late nineteen-forties, the unsettled conditions of China led far-sighted cotton spinners from Shanghai to transfer part of their business to the protection of the British Crown; subsequent events in China led them to transfer as many eggs as they could to the new incubator; and not long after to hatch out a fully-fledged weaving industry.…"
So it seems that Lancashire is being sacrificed for Chinese profits.
Mr. Glover: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to give way again. On the line of that argument his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke), a few moments ago, made great play, with great satisfaction, about the fact that Michelins were going to open a factory in Burnley.
Mr. Ellis Smith: That is our factory.
Mr. Glover: I do not think that is much criticism of the factory moving from Shanghai to Hong Kong.
Mr. Ellis Smith: It is American.
Mr. McCann: It can hardly be said that they are going there to be under the protection of the British Crown.
The result of the discussions was that Sir Frank took away with him when he left a statement that Hong Kong's cotton weavers were willing to carry on further negotiations for a ceiling on exports of grey cloth to the United Kingdom. We all know that unless made-up goods and double and single yarns, as well as grey cloth, are included, no agreement is worth the paper it is written on.
Finally, on this part—I am sorry to have to say this in case anybody has any hope of speaking—the Bulletin also stated:
"The Hong Kong industry also stipulated as part of any agreement reached that it would consider itself released from its obligations if either:—l. The voluntary agreement was used as a precedent by the Governments of other countries for applying restrictions to the import of Hong Kong products. 2. Significant unemployment and unrest resulted from restrictions on the export of textiles. 3. Restrictions were applied to other items of Hong Kong manufactured exports to the United Kingdom."
In other words, the agreement would be completely useless and could be terminated immediately they wished.
The cotton employers themselves over the past few years have fought the Government on this very question. It was my intention to read from a pamphlet dated 1st January, 1958, entitled, "The U.K. Cotton Industry and the British Government", in which it bases its case plainly. In fairness, I must say—and I think hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree with my submission—that it is the function of government to create a situation in which industry, both employers and employed, can prosper in conditions of fair competition. The pamphlet states:
"The cotton industry does not ask for special protection, provided that the competition from overseas is fair, i.e., from territories where industries pay the same price for their raw materials and where standards of living are approximately comparable with those of Western Europe."
Then it shows how the trade has increased time and time again from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, and accuses
964
the Government of doing nothing about it in the last four years.
The hon. Member for Burnley rightly used as an example his own constituency because he is very familiar with what is happening there, but the problem in Rochdale, which is a cotton town, is very similar. The flight away from the cotton industry in Lancashire towns is shown by the following figures. In 1956 45·5 per cent. of the total insured population in Rochdale and district were engaged in the textile industry. One must remember that "textile industry" covers not only cottons and man-made fibres but bobbins, machinery and all the aspects of the trade.
In 1929, in Preston, 46·1 per cent. of the insured population were engaged in cotton, and the percentage has now dropped to 16·1. In 1929, the figure in Chorley was 61·4 per cent., and that has now gone down to 30·5 per cent. The Rochdale figure has fallen from 65·1 per cent. in 1929 to 45·5 today. It can be seen how any recession in the cotton industry will hit the Rochdale people severely.
The main difficulty about a recession is, as the hon. Member for Burnley said, that people tend to leave the towns to look for work, and young people do not like travelling, and the result is that they buy a house in the town to which they go and we lose them. In 1945 Rochdale's population was 81,100. It went up to 89,000 in 1950—our private "bulge" and in 1957 it was down to 85,310. Thus, each year 1,000 of our people leave. This creates a problem for the local authority. It means that the administration of local services becomes more expensive per head of the population; with declining population we shall find it very difficult to maintain services.
I appeal to the Government to do something before it is too late. If they want an indication of how Lancashire feels about this, I can speak with a great deal of feeling because I arrived in the House from a by-election in which cotton was the major issue, and the Government, which had the seat, finished at the bottom of the poll because the people of Lancashire were expressing exactly what they thought about four years of doing nothing. Apparently the President of the Board of Trade suggests that we

965
have to go cap in hand to the East for voluntary agreements while Lancashire starves. Very shortly the Government will go to the country for votes, and unless they do something about this they might as well go to the Far East as to Lancashire, because they will get exactly the same treatment in Lancashire as they did in Rochdale.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): Mr. Bidgood.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Hoy. We are today debating Supply. As I understand the constitutional principle behind debates on Supply, it is that Supply is not granted to the Crown until grievances have been remedied, and the purpose of a debate on Supply is, therefore, to debate grievances. The matter that we are now discussing causes no greater grievances than in my constituency, because, alone among the constituencies in the country so far as I know, my constituency depends almost entirely, up to 70 per cent.——
Mr. G. B. Drayson Mr. G. B. Drayson (Skipton) rose——
Mr. Silverman: I am on a point of order. The hon. Gentleman cannot interrupt a point of order. My constituency depends up to 70 per cent. on the industry, and I do not know any other constituency of which that is true. I have had the honour to represent my constituents for twenty-three years, and they are entitled to have their grievances heard here as are those of any other constituency, and I should like to know whether they will have that opportunity in today's debate.
The Temporary Chairman: All I can say is that, as far as I am aware, hon. Members representing a number of constituencies wish to refer to grievances, and what the Chair has to do is to share the time available as fairly as possible. While the hon. Gentleman is drawing the position of his own constituency to my attention, the same thing could be said about many other constituencies. Mr. Bidgood.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. John C. Bidgood: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) cannot claim to be the only Member of Parliament with a grievance on the part of the cotton interests in his constituency. I am glad
966
to have the opportunity of rising on this side of the Committee to say what I feel about the problems as they affect my constituency.
I was rather intrigued by the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann). I know the problems which confront him, but throughout his remarks he was perpetuating the theme which has been running through all the Opposition speeches in that hon. Members opposite regard this as an occasion to criticise the Government without offering any constructive solution. I waited hoping that the hon. Member would put forward some constructive suggestions, but I failed to hear them.
It is easy for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to seek a scapegoat for the difficulties which confront Lancashire. In the past I have been critical of the lack of action on the part of the Government, and if I thought that the Government were responsible for Lancashire's ills I should say so during my speech. However, I feel sincerely that there are circumstances which are outside the control of the Government and peculiar to the Lancashire textile industry. We know that for seven years Lancashire's export trade has been declining. We also know that if all the imports of Asian cloths were to stop tomorrow Lancashire's problems would not be solved. I feel that if we are to look for the proper nigger in the woodpile we might look only as far as the people who are importing Asian cloths, for the fact remains that if those cloths, which are freely imported, were not imported, we should find that the problem would not be so acute.
The difficulties of the Lancashire textile industry can be summarised and taken back to a date in 1943 when a report was issued by the United Textile Factory Workers' Association which said that inefficient machinery should be scrapped and replaced by modern machinery and that there should be replanning and re-spacing of machinery in many spinning mills and weaving sheds. We all know that that 1943 report set the pattern for very many subsequent reports by every conceivable type of interest.
In 1943 there were two types of employer and two types of operative. First, there was the employer who said "What was good enough for my grandfather is

967
good enough for me", and the operatives whom he employed usually adopted the same line of thought. Those mills have mostly gone out of existence in the intervening years, and I do not think that any hon. Member will have very much sympathy for them, because they were not prepared to adopt modern methods. But there were some people in Lancashire who took to heart the advice that they had been given. As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, since 1945 no less than£150 million has been spent in capital equipment in the Lancashire cotton trade.
I want to give an example concerning a typical firm which has been responsible for a portion of that capital expenditure. It is within my knowledge that the firm decided that unless it brought itself up to date it was doomed to utter and complete failure. Accordingly, in the last ten years it has spent£600,000 on new plant and machinery. That figure does not include buildings.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Is this expenditure in the cotton industry?
Mr. Bidgood: Yes, the firm are spinners. Hon. Members will realise that, having spent a large amount of money, and having gone so far, the firm cannot retract. Its point of view, which is typical of that of many Lancashire cotton people, is, "We have done all we can to make ourselves competitive. We have sunk all we can into bringing ourselves up to date". Having spent that vast amount of money, what does the firm find? It finds that whereas, at the time it embarked upon this modernisation programme, India was sending us 76½million sq. yds. a year, it is now sending us 200 million sq. yds.; Pakistan, which had been sending a negligible quantity, is now sending 7 million sq. yds., and Hong Kong, which had been sending 20 million sq. yds., is now sending 100 million sq. yds.
The firm says to itself, "If we had reciprocal agreements we could export almost anywhere in the world, because we are competitive." Instead, it finds that if it wants to export to India it has to pay a duty of over 25 per cent., and that imports are controlled at 8 million sq. yds. annually, and that if it wan to export to Pakistan the duty is over 50 per cent., if it can obtain an import
968
licence—which is a virtual impossibility. Nevertheless, both those countries and Hong Kong can export to this country free of any quota or tariff restrictions. I am putting the point of view of a firm in Lancashire which has done its utmost to bring what was a dying industry into a competitive state.
Those firms which have looked ahead cannot retract, and they feel that they have a grievance. The first body of people to whom they turn is the Government. That is the fashionable thing to do. We all know the type of mentality that is involved. If the firm is doing very well, it says, "We do not want any Government interference," but the moment things go wrong it says, "What are the Government going to do about it?" This is only natural and we do not decry such people for adopting that attitude.
But those people who have invested large amounts of money go a little further. They say, "We quite understand that the Government are bound by the Ottawa Agreement, and by Imperial Preference in the case of India and Pakistan. We quite appreciate that Hong Kong is in a different category, because it is a Crown Colony, and we quite agree that the Government have a duty to protect the livelihoods of the people in such a Colony. But we also feel that the Government have an equal duty to protect the livelihoods of the people of Lancashire. In view of the fact that the 1½million refugees from the Chinese mainland are largely responsible for the influx of Hong Kong goods into this country, we cannot understand why the Government should be expected to guarantee their livelihoods."
In view of the fact that the exports from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom are comparatively small in relation to their expanding output, and comparatively large to the contracting Lancashire industry, the Lancashire manufacturer also feels that restrictions on imports from Hong Kong would affect Lancashire more favourably than they would affect Hong Kong adversely.
To the Lancashire cotton operative and employer the Government have never been seen to be co-operative in their attitude to the problems of the industry. This is where I become a little critical of Government policy. We know that various consultations have gone on at Government

969
level and other levels throughout the industry, but Lancashire feels that it has been let down and neglected by the Government of the day. I do not go so far as hon. Members opposite, who lay the difficulties at the door of the present Government, and I certainly could not subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who said—I will quote his words—. "When we were the party in charge of the cotton industry, how many mills closed?" I do not think that even the most aggrieved member of the Lancashire textile industry would accept the fact that any Government, of whatever colour, were ever in charge of the cotton industry. The Government can only set the pattern, and the present Government are trying to set the pattern by peaceful negotiations between the interests of Lancashire and those of the two Commonwealth countries and the Crown Colony involved. When my right hon. Friend winds up the debate, I hope that he will give us a little comfort in this respect.
I know the difficulties which confront the Government at present. I know that many of the criticisms which come from Lancashire are not well founded, because some Lancashire people are trying to find a scapegoat and think that the Government are as good as any other. I hope the negotiations which are now proceeding will prove successful, because I know—as south country Members, who think that industrial activity in this country ends at the northern end of the Barnet by-pass will not know—that cotton is Lancashire and Lancashire is cotton.
The question whether or not people are being dispersed to other industries, and leaving the industry which the same family has carried on for generations, does not affect the position one iota. The little man on the corner, selling sweets and tobacco, in Rochdale, Burnley, Bury, or Radcliffe is steeped in the cotton industry, despite the fact that he has never actively engaged in cotton. It is in his blood. If only we can get that fact across to the people in the South of England we shall have achieved something. I will not repeat what I said before. Any north country Member will agree with it.
I hope that the facts will sink in and that the Government will find a solution to this most grave problem, which I am sorry to see dragged into the political
970
arena this afternoon. I am sorry that has happened, because I am certain that we can settle this problem without politics.
8.11 p.m.
Mrs. Barbara Castle: I am a little bewildered by the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) and which I have been trying to understand. At the end, I cannot get clear whom he is trying to comfort, whether it is Lancashire or the Government.
The hon. Member began with the orthodox line of how he would not wish to blame the Government for matters which were not under their control. He lectured us saying that he had been hoping and waiting for constructive suggestions from our side of the Committee. At the end of his speech he seemed to be putting forward the same arguments as we had been advancing a little earlier, in the excellent speeches which have been made from this side of the Committee, except that he was doing it in such a hard-hearted way that will not have benefited either himself or his manufacturers.
It is not a matter of bringing the cotton industry into the political arena; what we want is to bring the cotton industry into the arena of action. The sort of mood we will find among Lancashire manufacturers today has nothing to do with party politics. In my post this morning I received a pencilled note, anonymouse, and scribbled on a torn bit of paper. It is headed, "In haste" and it reads as follows:
"Mrs. Castle, when will you and all Lancashire M.P.s play hell over our weaving mills closing down 75 per cent.? We are becoming on the rocks, and it's impossible to carry on against foreign cloth prices. I have spent£18,000 on new machines in our weaving department and still lose thousands. We will lose all if we keep on. Is it not time the House did something to stop this rot at once? I am a respecter of all parties, and have even voted for you, too."
The note is signed "Manufacturer".
That is not bringing the cotton industry into politics. That note is the desperate heart-cry of a man who has been doing what many cotton manufacturers have been doing, spending money trying to keep abreast of the demands they get, the unctuous demands, from the Board of Trade that they should make themselves efficient.
The problem arises acutely in my own constituency, and that is one of the

971
reasons why I was so anxious to speak. We have heard from the President of the Board of Trade an astonishing speech. It contained the usual business about, "If only Lancashire would face up to competition and keep abreast of new ideas", and the rest of it. In my constituency one of the most modern mills in Lancashire is "weaving up" as they say. It has taken the decision to close completely when the Lancashire holiday starts on 19th July. That is the Newton Street mill, the last mill remaining in Blackburn to Messrs. Thomas Longworth, Ltd. This mill has a shed which was built only three years ago, with 96 automatic looms making high grade fabrics. The auto-shed has the latest arrangement of preparation, weaving and finishing processes under one shed. It is closing.
The same pattern is to be found in other constituencies. Blackburn has lost 20 mills in the last few years. Of the remaining 59, 36 are equipped with automatic looms, yet a large number of them are on a four-day week. It is no answer for the President of the Board of Trade to come along with the old, old lecture about Lancashire keeping abreast of modern ideas if it is to survive.
The Committee has also been listening to a lecture to Lancashire from the security of South-East Essex, of all places. It is all very fine for the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine)—I wish he were here at the moment—to hold forth in that impassioned way about Commonwealth trade. I have no doubt that he is very sincere about the matter. Both he and the Government say to Lancashire, "We must not do anything to hurt the people in the Colonies".
I do not know which nauseated me more about the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, his sudden concern for the rights of our Colonies—something for which the present Government are not particularly famous—or his prolonged indifference to the human problems and sufferings of Lancashire. We heard a nice, high-moral-tone argument about why there could be no action to help Lancashire at this time. The speeches came back time and again to the colonial theme: what was to happen to poor Hong Kong if restrictions were put on her trade? What would happen
972
to the hundreds of thousands of refugee textile workers if they were to be thrown out of work?
That argument was destroyed by the very people who put it forward, because in the next breath they proceeded to tell us that we did not need to worry because the Government were negotiating voluntary restrictions. If it is immoral to introduce restrictions, it is immoral to press for voluntary ones. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East talked about our wanting to put a colour bar into trade. We have a kind of inverted colour bar at the moment in trade in that we put restrictions on foreign trade and foreign competition of a disastrous kind, but, according to the hon. Gentleman's argument, can never get any kind of planned trade within the Colonies. If it is wrong to restrict imports from Hong Kong because that means a colour bar in trade, it is wrong for the hon. Member to turn round and congratulate the Government upon organising a voluntary colour bar.
So we have the Suez business all over again from the Government. What they do, they do ineffectively. It is nonsense to say that those who represent Lancashire constituencies do not care about conditions in the Colonies because we ask for something to be done to stop the flood of cheap imports. On the contrary, it is those who will not do anything about the flood of imports who are indifferent to conditions in the Colonies and who, by allowing this laissez faire policy to continue are perpetuating those conditions.
This is the same sort of argument that used to be heard about child labour in the last century. It was, "We cannot stop children from working 12 hours a day because their families are dependent upon their wages, and those families would starve." Thank goodness there was a good deal of humanitarian common sense in certain sections of the House of Commons at that time which campaigned against the conditions until they were made illegal.
Experience has shown that we never cure bad conditions by exporting them. That is the moral case that we put against the observations which we have had from Government supporters and the President of the Board of Trade. Theirs was an old, nineteenth century argument that

973
laissez faire will cure bad conditions. Well, it does not cure bad conditions. Only planning will cure those conditions, including restrictions, if lack of restrictions means an open door to the export of goods made under bad conditions. I agree that this House has a tremendous responsibility towards Hong Kong, but this sudden interest by the Government Front Bench in the people of Hong Kong is of very recent date. This concern that the people of Hong Kong should have bread in their mouths has not figured largely in Government statements until recently. It is shown now merely because we demand that Lancashire should be defended, also.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), who, in his excellent speech, said it was not enough to pass labour laws to improve conditions in Hong Kong. That in itself will not necessarily deal with the situation. We have to face a fundamental challenge in the excess population with which that territory cannot possibly cope because of the very special conditions there. This problem will need very careful thought. We shall have to do something fundamental and perhaps work out schemes for resettling some of the refugees in other parts of the Commonwealth, schemes on which a lot of money will have to be spent, but that is something we have to face as a national Parliament.
The Government have no right to put that problem on to the shoulders of 50year-old weavers at the Newton Mill in my constituency, who had a tragic tea party when the mill closed the other day, knowing that many of them, who had spent a lifetime in the industry, would never work in it again. It is absolute nonsense for the Government to say that those workers are being absorbed fairly easily. This thing is insidious and it spreads to other industries. It is already spreading throughout my constituency which, as everyone knows, is not predominantly a cotton industry constituency, although cotton plays an important part in it.
I will return to this later but first I wish to return to the Commmonwealth trade agreement, because that is so important. It would be intolerable if the message went out from this Committee that we on this side were trying
974
to solve Lancashire's problems at the expense of a helpless Colony. Of course we are not. We are the people who have called for colonial advance, but we say it will not help the Colonies to keep them in their present state of misery at the expense of Lancashire. Two blacks do not make a white, and never have. If the Commonwealth is to be a reality and to be developed properly, Commonwealth trade must be based on common sense. It is just not common sense to allow a flood of imports made under conditions of this kind to come into our developed society and drag down its standards. Commonwealth trade cannot continue on that basis, whatever the pattern laid down in the past has been. We may have to look at it again with a view to finding a new basis on which we can knit Commonwealth ties together.
I was a little astonished by the argument of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, when he asked where all this would end. If restrictions are put on the import of cotton textiles from Hong Kong, he said, before we knew where we were the same would have to be done for some other industry. Does he not realise that the argument also works the other way? The speech of the President of the Board of Trade gave the impression that the Government have faced, quite resignedly, a continued contraction of the cotton industry. That was the logic of the speech. What he said was a sentence of death for Lancashire.
The Under-Secretary of State for War may say, at a Conservative garden party at Clitheroe, that there are enough Conservative Members to see that Lancashire is not let down. That is the kind of speech that Conservatives make in Lancashire, but the speech of the President of the Board of Trade today was a sentence of death for the industry on the line of argument that the underdeveloped areas were all developing textiles and there was no means of stopping this kind of low wage competition.
It is true that under-developed countries very often start developing textile industries first because they are some of the easiest industries in which to train unskilled labour, but they are developing all the time and they will not stop there. If the argument is that because an underdeveloped area is developing we must

975
accept an unrestricted flow of its exports, soon there will not be an industry in this country which is not faced with a challenge. The President says Lancashire must switch to other industries. What would happen if Lancashire switched to, say, the production of electrical goods? Before we knew where we were under-developed areas of the world would be producing cheap electrical goods. Then we would be told that that industry was contracting and we must shift to something else. To what could we turn then? Eventually these underdeveloped areas will be producing capital goods. Already Northrops, who make automatic looms in my constituency, have put all the workers in their foundry on short time and declared redundancy in the loom section, because the demand both at home and abroad is contracting. Therefore, we have to plan. That is our approach. We do not believe in the mad laissez faire economics which have always been the foundation of poverty for ordinary people.
I say to the President of the Board of Trade that the really significant thing about the contraction of the cotton industry is not that the contraction has been taking place at a steady pace due to steady changes in the demand for our goods overseas, or to a steady change in the development of overseas competition. The most significant fact about the difficulties of Lancashire is the sudden acceleration in the rate of those difficulties. That is the really important thing which the Government have to face at the moment.
To give an example, in Blackburn, in 1954, we had 79 weaving mills. Since then 20 have closed, but 10 of those have closed since January this year. That is the rate of acceleration, and that is what I have to face in my constituency. There were 27,000 looms in Blackburn in 1954 and today there are 19,400. Eight mills are "weaving up" and they will account for the scrapping of 4,300 more looms. That means a rate of decline in looms of 7,600 in four years rising to 4,300 in four months. As the Secretary of the Blackburn Weavers' Association said in my constituency last week, "If things go on like this, we shall lose another 20 mills by Christmas".
976
The Government must not think that they can isolate this problem in the cotton industry or in Lancashire, because in addition to 800 fully unemployed signing on the register at Blackburn, which is a significant increase, there are 1,800 to 2,000 temporarily stopped or on short time, and this growing factor of short time has a contracting effect throughout the whole of industry. It is not only cotton that is affected. The very basis of the slump which the country faces is that we have under-used capacity in this country. Productive capacity is standing idle, and the amount of it is on the increase.
I hope that hon. Members read the interesting article in the Observer yesterday by the economic editor, reporting on the United Nations latest World Economic Report. This points out that the Western world is now suffering from the problem that for some time past
"there has been an increasing gap between available capacity for making manufactured goods and the effective demand for them."
It goes on to say,
"In the light of this evidence, the behaviour of one Western country after another, in trying to curb demand in an effort to beat inflation, begins to look deliberately suicidal."
This curb on demand is gaining an increased impetus from the shrinking of the cotton industry. I say to hon. Members from constituencies other than Lancashire constituencies, "It will be your turn next if this goes on".
Just as we believe that the Government are wrong in their deflationary approach to the country's economic problems, so we believe that they are completely wrong in their defeatist approach to the cotton industry. This defeatist approach to the cotton industry is typical of the Government's economic policy. They have a naturally deflationary mind which is not worried by a bit of unemployment or human suffering as one case after another brings its load of human tragedy.
The need for action is urgent. If it is right to restrict these imports voluntarily, then it is right to see that the attempt at voluntary agreement succeeds by any means that are necessary, including the threats which hon. Members have mentioned. The Government had better hurry and make the policy effective. That is what we ask.

977
In the meantime, the situation is desperate in constituencies such as mine and those of other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. There is a possibility that 20 mills in my constituency may be closed between now and Christmas, while all this long, argument about voluntary restrictions is going on. Why cannot we have some emergency action now? If the Government cared they could do what was suggested to me by the secretary of the Blackburn and District Amalgamated Power-Loom Over-lookers' Association, who wrote to ask, "Why cannot we have some Government orders placed now while these voluntary talks are going on and while they are taking so much time?"
Why cannot the Government tell local authorities and regional hospital boards that they must buy Lancashire when they are equipping their institutions? There is action which could be taken now if the Government cared, but the answer is that the Government do not care because they are a Government with a deflationary and defeatist mind.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: When the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said that the Government Front Bench did not care in the least about this "load of human tragedy", she very nearly succeeded in driving me solidly behind the Government and in support of them on an occasion on which I am not very inclined to support them, because it seemed to me that she so overstated the case and gave the Government so little credit for their good intentions—even if they have not been effective—that it would be only fair on my part to give them some support.
The hon. Lady must realise that it is quite possible for there to be two views on the subject. It happens that I share her view on this vexed problem of imports from Hong Kong and not that of the Government, but I do not think that the cause which we all have at heart is advanced very much by the kind of extravagant language which she used. I hope that even if we do not agree with those who have the responsibility, we can at least give them credit for good intentions and for a clear, if faulty, approach.
I do not believe that this is a problem which ought to receive the amount of hotted-up air which it receives. It
978
seems to me that it is in a small compass and that what we ask should be perfectly possible without introducing the world considerations which are so often raised. We were told today, for example, that the Imperial Preference system would collapse if some restriction on Hong Kong imports were imposed by Her Majesty's Government. That is what was said—that the Imperial Preference system would collapse. That is rather like the sort of awful warnings that are always given when any new suggestion is made.
One remembers how the military strategists used to say during the First World War, and between the wars, and right up to 1940, "If we lose the Channel ports, we are done for"—or something like that. And then we lost the Channel ports, and survived. In the realms of economics and politics these tremendous warnings are often issued, and we later find that they were all unnecessary, and that the whole danger was exaggerated.
Let us see what we are asking. We are not asking, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade suggested, that Hong Kong operatives should be thrown out of work. He suggested that it was much more wicked to throw Hong Kong or colonial workers out of work than it was to throw out British workers, because colonial workers cannot find another job whereas British workers can. That was one passage in his argument, but the premise is false.
I do not suggest that the present level of imports from Hong Kong should be forcibly reduced, and I do not think that anyone has claimed that. It may be that there are a few Lancashire industrialists who would like that, but I do not believe that any realist, any serious politician or businessman would suggest that we should reduce them. What we say is that Hong Kong imports should be held at their present level, which is a very different matter because it does not involve the throwing out of work of any of those at present engaged in the trade.
What it would do would be to serve on the Hong Kong Government and on the Hong Kong manufacturers a notice that they must not continue recruiting more cotton workers in Hong Kong, encouraging more refugees from China to come in, with absolutely no finality or limit whatever. If that goes on it will prove of no service, ultimately, to Hong Kong or to anyone at all. What we fear

979
is not so much the present level, high though it is—I am sure that Lancashire, with her great adaptability, can cope with that—but the nightmare that there is never to be a ceiling. That is what we fear.
As long as that nightmare is there, it is quite obvious, from the speeches that we have already heard, that no Lancashire manufacturer, no Lancashire spinner or weaver will do all the things that the Government and everybody else, quite rightly, exhorts Lancashire to do, which is to modernise and re-equip. They have all had the experience of which examples have been given, of those who have re-equipped having to go out of business because their capital costs were so high, whereas the small man who, either through obstinacy or poverty, has soldiered on with his old looms is still carrying on.
To modernise, Lancashire must have at least a temporary umbrella and, above all—because this is all a question of confidence—the psychosis of ever-increasing imports from Hong Kong must be removed. Once we can remove that mental, that psychotic fear, something can be done. A lot of it, I willingly concede, is in the mind rather than in reality, but it has now become a fact, because it has got so firmly into the minds of the men who matter there that no amount of mere persuasion will get it out. Unless we do something about that, I have no doubt that the whole industry will go with a rush. Nobody will modernise as long as this nightmare remains.
That is the Government's task. Would it really harm Hong Kong very much if what we asked was done? I do not believe that it would. If it would harm Hong Kong enormously, then one would have to seriously consider a most difficult dilemma; one would have to decide who would be sacrificed. But I do not think that it would harm Hong Kong if her present level of trade were frozen for a short period. It would be quite a different matter if we asked that Hong Kong should turn off a lot of workers, but that has not been asked. It is merely that her trade should be kept at the present level, and that meanwhile this psychosis in the mind of Lancashire—because they talk of nothing else in Lancashire—should be removed and the
980
industry should have a breathing space in which to transform itself and do the things that my right hon. Friend has so rightly suggested.
I do not understand why that is not accepted as a sensible policy. I fear that I differ from my right hon. Friend when he says that that would not advance the voluntary negotiations which are going on. These are negotiations between businessmen, between our businessmen and Hong Kong businessmen, many of them Chinese, all of them pretty tough and all with an eye to making money—not that there is anything wrong with that, for that is the object of their existence as businessmen, and the same applies to our businessmen.
Are we to remove from our team of businessmen the one card which they have—because in all these commercial negotiations it is the power that one can produce that counts? They are not negotiating, as it were, with racquets across a tennis court or anything like that. They are negotiating with the knowledge of relative positions of power behind each other. We must not deprive our negotiators of their one card, which is that unless the Hong Kong businessmen are sensible and come to some sort of an agreement on what to them is not an unfavourable offer, our businessmen will have behind them the possibility—and all we ask is that it shall be a possibility, that the matter shall remain open, and that the door shall not be slammed—that Her Majesty's Government will be obliged to take some action on her own.
That is not very much to ask when one analyses the situation. Yet over and over again in these debates we hear these phrases, many of them shibboleths, which rouse good emotions, such as Imperial unity, Imperial Preference, the open door, free entry, freer trade—all sorts of words which sound wonderful and which people who have not seen this thing in action feel they must support. If only the Government would not continue to rely on these high-flown, and I think overblown, words our negotiators would have a much better chance than they have had.
Mr. Hale: I agree with almost every word that the hon. Gentleman has said. He will probably agree that many of the Hong Kong businessmen are the right wing end of the Communist partnership in

981
China which split up when the Communists came, one remaining to play with the Communists, one going out to play with the Imperialists. This picture of Hong Kong businessmen singing "There'll always be an England" is a rather romantic picture, in view of the fact that Hong Kong will become Chinese before long, and then the hon. Gentleman's observations about restriction of Chinese imports would certainly apply.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says, particularly his reference to the fact that we must take not a romantic view but what I would call a classical view of the Hong Kong position. Although it is painted in red on the map, the people whom our negotiators have to meet there are by no means the sort of red which is painted on the map they are perhaps a different sort of red in many cases. That is why at the beginning of my speech I appealed for the matter to be seen through commercial spectacles—perhaps rather abject spectacles—rather than through these high-flown and romantic spectacles which have blinded the Government far too much.
This vague fear that if the principle of free imports is pierced at the slightest point the whole balloon will burst is quite wrong. I have noticed this now for seven years. Ever since I became a Member of the House, I have been increasingly irritated by it. So long as the Government insist, quite unnecessarily, to my mind—if only they would keep absolutely quiet on the subject it would be far better—on proclaiming the sanctity of this principle in such matters as we are discussing on this Vote tonight, I am afraid that I cannot give them my support.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. F. Blackburn: The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) had to hunt round very carefully to find something to say in defence of the Government, and the best he could do was to say that they had good intentions. There is the well-known saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Possibly, the Government have good intentions, but they have done nothing to carry them into effect.
I entered this debate in a very pessimistic frame of mind. I had very little
982
hope that, whatever was said, we should persuade the Government to take any action at all. The speech of the President of the Board of Trade did not cheer anyone up at all. It confirmed the pessimism. What did his speech add up to? First, he gave us an historical survey. Then he explained the reasons that the Government could not do anything. Finally, he said that if only the Cotton Board would find a solution to the problem the Government would be very pleased.
It is very difficult for a Member representing a textile constituency to speak on this subject without emotion. The problem is not just an economic one. It is a very human one. Since the Government came into office, from 80,000 to 100,000 people have left the cotton industry, many of them men and women who had spent a lifetime in it. Many of the women have been lost to the industry entirely. Being thrown out of work is a tragedy at any time, but when a man realises that, if he is thrown out of work, there will be no possibility of his finding employment again in the industry about which he knows most, it is a double tragedy. There is growing resentment in the cotton towns. If the Government do not know about it, they can take my word for it.
What have this Government and previous Governments since 1951 done? We have had a good many soothing speeches. When things have gone wrong and they thought there was going to be a bit of rebellion in Lancashire, they sent one of their Cabinet Ministers to make another soothing speech. Then they hoped that things would be a little quieter. The Prime Minister recently saw the Cotton Board. It struck me that there was a marked similarity between the statement issued after that meeting and the statement issued after the meeting with the previous Prime Minister.
Lancashire and Cheshire receive plenty of advice from different parts of the country, including South-East Essex, about what should happen to the industry. We are told that we must contract. We have been told to contract since 1914, and we wonder how far we have to go. Have we to disappear altogether before some people are satisfied? The last debate we had was in 1955. Since that date, during years of inactivity by the Government, another 300 mills have closed. Hon Members

983
will remember that that debate took place on an Opposition Motion, to which there was a Government Amendment. I should like to quote a few words from that Government Amendment:
"…and approves the declared intention"—
I stress those words—
"of Her Majesty's Government to take such safeguarding action on imports as may prove to be essential and appropriate."
So the Government are not entirely opposed to taking action about imports. The trouble is that they do not know when a thing is essential or appropriate.
What do those words mean? Were they intended to have any meaning at all? Were they intended to bamboozle the textile industry? Were they intended just to calm down the Government's own supporters from the textile constituencies? Or were those words inserted because they knew that, in a couple of months, there would be a General Election? Has the time since 1955 never been appropriate for action to be taken? The President of the Board of Trade gave us a historical survey. I think that it might be as well to consider the last twenty years.
First, during the war, the industry was concentrated, in the national interest. After the war, it was encouraged to expand; people were encouraged to go into the industry. They were told that Britain's bread hangs on Lancashire's thread, and there was great expansion and development. We thought that conditions were good. Then we had Korea and the rearmament programme and the home demand was so great that even our own industry could not cope with it. Therefore, with the consent of the industry, large orders were placed abroad, and it is no use comparing the imports of those years with present-day imports.
Then we had the 1952 recession. It is quite true that there were, at the end of 1951, first traces of a possible recession, but this recession developed in 1952, and then we had the Japanese Peace Treaty. No sooner was there a slight recovery from the 1952 recession than we had enormous increases in imports from India, Pakistan and later Hong Kong. I will not go into detail about the conditions in Hong Kong; my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) has already dealt in some detail with the conditions there.
984
What I say to the Government is, "Are you quite sure that by leaving things as they are you are doing the best for the industry in those countries? Is not there a danger that you may be giving too much encouragement to India, Pakistan and Hong Kong by saying to them, "Come to this country. Send your goods here. This is the easiest market in the world for you", thereby encouraging them to place too much dependance upon a single industry so that they will make the same mistake that Japan made and have too much of the economy dependent upon the textile industry?
This is not only a problem that concerns the import of gray cloth. In our debate in 1955 I raised the question about the import of yarn and the serious position arising in the doubling section of the industry. That problem tends to be overlooked, because the doubling section is rather small, but it is an important section which has played a great part in the quality section of the textile industry. The problem there is very serious. It is not only the imports from Hong Kong with which they are having to deal, but, of course, changing fashions are also having a serious effect upon the doubling trade.
Not only the gray cloth and yarn, but the finishing trade is also now beginning to feel a little of the breeze, because finished goods are being imported, together with a great many made-up goods. Not only that, but even industrial cotton is coming into the picture. It is the same continuing problem which is growing worse and worse. I know that the Government would be quite happy if somebody else could solve the problem for them, but they are not prepared to take any action themselves.
I have here the details of a great many mills in my constituency. The time is short and I will not go into them. But I suppose that most hon. Members who represent cotton constituencies could bring forward the same sort of figures, about mills running at 25 per cent. of capacity, mills working three days a week, mills working every other week, mills where one-third of the looms are stopped, a mill working on 40 per cent. production last week, 38 per cent. the next, of which half will go into stock, and not having the least idea what they will be able to run the week following.

985
Other factories are either going out of production or, in the hope that there will be some improvement, are trying to continue and are putting material to stock. The Government, however, cannot find that the time is either appropriate or essential.
Finally, I should like to quote what was said by the former Minister of State, Board of Trade, at the conclusion of his speech on 9th March, 1955:
"…and we have made our own studies and preparations for action if that were to become essential and appropriate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 572.]
An Hon. Member: That was before the Election.
Mr. Blackburn: Yes. Is it not about time that we were told the result of those studies? What are the preparations which the Government have made? Will the Paymaster-General, when he replies, please tell us when those preparations will be essential and appropriate? The cotton industry would very much like to know.
8.57 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: This debate has certainly shown three things very clearly. First, Lancashire's whole economic life is threatened by the present volume of textile imports. Secondly, everyone with knowledge of Lancashire's problem believes that something energetic and urgent ought to be done. Thirdly, no one who is off the Front Bench, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), is satisfied with what the Government are doing.
Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman must not be allowed to get away with that. There was nothing in my speech which suggested that I was satisfied with the present position. My plea was that the whole situation should be seen in perspective and that a demand for discrimination against the products of one Commonwealth country at this time would be injurious to the long-term interests of our own country.
Mr. Jay: I apologise. Nobody is satisfied with the Government today.
The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), who is, I believe, chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee of the party opposite, was speaking for Lancashire and for a
986
very large part of this Committee when he said that the Government had failed to tackle this problem, that they had consistently procrastinated and that he himself could detect no change of heart in what seemed to me the complacent, negative and unconvincing speech by the President of the Board of Trade today.
I have always believed that there is one special reason why we should care about the troubles of Lancashire, and that is the exceptional sacrifice that the Lancashire cotton industry made, both in wartime to release labour for the war effort and in the years after the war when the industry was rapidly expanding, and, incidentally, taking on a large number of displaced persons from abroad to get immediate exports. At those moments, the country was in need and Lancashire loyally came to its assistance. We should not forget that today.
Nor is there any serious dispute between us about the facts. Imports of cotton yarn and woven fabrics have risen by 50 per cent. since 1955 and imports from Hong Kong have doubled. Production in the industry is heavily reduced, and everyone agrees that mills are closing at the rate of 100 a year or two every week. Employment in the industry has been falling fast. Indeed, between June, 1951, and the latest month it has fallen by as much as 80,000 or about 25 per cent. Unemployment—I do not think this has been mentioned today—in the North-West region has risen from 48,000 in December, 1957, to 73,000 in April of this year, when it should seasonally have fallen. Indeed, unemployment in the North-West region now is at the highest level since the war and has risen by 80 per cent. since 1956.
Even more serious are the figures in the Ministry of Labour Gazette of short-time working, which totalled 54,000 workers on short-time at the end of April in textiles as a whole, of which as many as 23,000 were in cotton, a far larger total than for any other industry in this country at the present time.
What should be done to stop all this waste and idleness and avert the even greater threat now impending over Lancashire? Hardly a single speaker, not even the hon. Member for Essex, South-East has been satisfied with the timid, nerveless efforts of the Government to

987
date. There are several practical remedies about which I should have thought there ought to be no controversy between us at all.
The first is a far more vigorous and determined drive to bring new industries to the worst affected parts of Lancashire. Surely, everyone in the Committee would like to see this done. The more the Government hesitate about other remedies the more vigorously they should push forward this part of the campaign.
After all, unemployment in Lancashire and Cheshire would be far worse than even the nominal figure of 2·4 per cent. today if the area had not been very largely diversified over the last fifteen years, partly as the result of the scheduling of Merseyside, Wigan and St. Helens in the immediate years after the war. The trouble is that the Government distribution of industry effort, apart from everything else, has been weary and feeble.
Indeed, in the last quarter of last year, the proportion of new factory space approved for Development Areas was a lower proportion as to the whole country than the population of those areas in relation to the country as a whole. This was the first time since 1939 that that was true. If we look at the new North-East Lancashire Development Area for the latest date available of industrial building under construction, we find that the total was only 338,000 square ft. compared with over 14 million in the London and South-East region. That is simply not good enough, particularly when the Government has no other plan for cotton at all.
I believe that in this aspect of the problem the time has come to do the job properly and resolutely. Surely, since Lancashire already includes three separate Development Areas there is an extremely strong case now for scheduling the whole region as a Development Area and going ahead at once with a vigorous programme of building standard factories in all the worst-hit areas, mainly in the North-East of Lancashire. That at least would bring the work where it is needed as quickly as it humanly can be done. Incidentally, such a policy would enable some of the new plants for the manufacture of the new forms of textiles to be located in those areas. Do not let us forget that cotton is not merely losing to Hong Kong and
988
India; it is also losing to nylon and terylene at the present time. Surely, it would be appropriate to bring some of the expanding plants manufacturing these fibres into the area where all this trained textile labour has existed for generations.
Secondly, I should have thought it would be beyond argument at this late day, and after this debate, that drastic steps should be taken to end the present scandal of excessive hours of work in Hong Kong. Let it be quite clear: it is mainly hours of work rather than wages and conditions there which are open to criticism, and the Government here seem to me to have been deplorably weak, dilatory and evasive. The argument for this is overwhelming, and the facts are not really in serious doubt. The case for enforcing civilised hours of work in a British Colony is unanswerable.
On the issue of limiting exports, about which I will say something in a minute, there is admittedly some clash of interests. There is bound to be, between the people of Asia on the one hand and the people of our own cotton manufacturing areas on the other. Yet it is in the interests of all of them that excessive working hours in Hong Kong should be brought to an end. I believe there is a moral as well as an economic and political issue involved in this challenge of poverty in the underdeveloped areas, and if we are honest we must admit that two things are essential if the standard of living of these people is to be raised. First, they must be allowed to trade. And secondly, simultaneously wages, conditions and hours must be vigorously improved through trade union pressure and legislation. We must have both if living standards are to rise.
In Japan, China, India and Pakistan, of course, the British Government cannot act directly to support trade unions and to improve conditions. But in Hong Kong we can do so. We have the whole responsibility. The President of the Board of Trade talked today about our responsibility for the Colonies, but he did not seem to think there was any responsibility to do anything about working hours. Here is a case where a shortening of these hours will almost certainly mean the employment of more workers and not less, to the advantage of Hong Kong. It will mean a cut, of

989
course, in the present excessive profits, and also a slackening of unfair competition with Lancashire, but not necessarily a savage cut in Hong Kong's total trade.
Nor are the facts about these hours really open to doubt. There is no need for me to quote some of the letters which many of us have been getting from Hong Kong in recent months because my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworh (Mr. Thornton) in his speech today, and in his speech in the House on 23rd May, has left the facts beyond serious dispute. Incidentally, his information comes largely from, or is corroborated by, official sources in Hong Kong. So my hon. Friend has put it beyond doubt that a high proportion of men and women workers in the Hong Kong textile mills are working between sixty-five and eighty hours a week. Indeed, Mr. Henniker-Heaton, in his article in the Financial Times today, does not deny that.
I ask the Government: do the Government deny this themselves? I think they can hardly do so because the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in answer to a recent Question about Hong Kong working hours, said:
"The maximum daily period of employment is thirteen hours between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Overtime may be worked up to 9 p.m. with special permission of the Labour Department…. There is no separate legislation governing weekly hours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1958; Vol. 589, c. 885.]
That exactly confirms many of the letters we have been receiving and all the information which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnborough has given to the Committee. It means, to put it briefly, that gross exploitation of labour, involving grossly unfair competition with Lancashire, has been going on in Hong Kong with the knowledge of the Colonial Office and of the Hong Kong Government. What a disgrace this is. And what political folly it is that on the very doorstep of Communist China, and at one of the propaganda listening posts of the world, as one might say, we should advertise what we like to call the free world, and, incidentally, the Commonwealth, by putting this scandal right in our shop window.
Under pressure from this side of the Committee, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies has at last promised an Employment Bill for Hong Kong. The right hon. Gentleman ought, for all the
990
reasons I have given, to have been pushing this forward with the utmost energy. But what did he say in reply to a Question only last Thursday in the House? He said:
"The Employment Bill may cover a wide field and will certainly be a complicated measure. Its contents are still to be worked out in Hong Kong and the Labour Advisory Board will have to be consulted before final drafting instructions are given. I cannot, therefore, say at this stage what detailed provisions it will contain or when it will be introduced…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 607.]
That answer seems to reek of the apathy and inertia that we have come to expect from the present Government over so many fields of policy. I can only say that if the Government do not move with far greater energy to end this scandal of Hong Kong hours of work, they will be convicted of shocking indifference to the welfare of the workers of Hong Kong and the people of Lancashire.
Another aim I should have thought we might all agree ought to be pursued energetically is the attempt to get voluntary limitation in exports of cotton goods from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong to the United Kingdom. But we have had an endless series of delays, postponements and evasions, and all that the President of the Board of Trade can tell us today is that we are still waiting to hear from Pakistan. When we hear from Pakistan we shall then have to go back and talk to the industry and Government of Hong Kong.
I believe the time has come when the Government ought to tell the Government and industries of Hong Kong, Pakistan and India that unless voluntary agreement is reached by some named date we shall be forced to act on our own. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that that would be a reasonable thing to do and would have a healthy effect on the minds of the people with whom we are negotiating.
Before asking, as I shall do, what that action should be, it seems to me that there is at least one other practical step which the Government could take at home to help the hard-pressed cotton industry. Let us remember that, whatever happens, this country will have a cotton industry in the future. In my view, the industry is not dying; it is going through a painful period of re-adaptation and readjustment

991
to new world conditions. But readjustment means the installation of new plant as well as the scrapping of old. Therefore, I should have thought that, among other things, the Government might decide now to grant the cotton industry a special investment allowance as it has done for the shipping industry When the cotton industry is hard pressed, as it is, from all directions, surely we might at least do for that industry what the Government have already agreed to do for shipping.
Finally, are we justified, on top of all this, in imposing a direct tariff or quota limitation on cotton imports? Let us be clear about certain of the facts; I thought the President of the Board of Trade muddled them today. First of all, cotton imports from outside the Commonwealth—from China and Japan, for instance—are already limited by quota and tariff. The only issue between us is whether we should directly limit the Commonwealth imports as well as the others by tariff, quota or other form of limitation.
Let me deal first with tariffs. The President of the Board of Trade seemed hopelessly to confuse the issue of tariffs with the issue of quotas. He spoke of—he repeated the phrase several times as if it were the complete answer to what we were saying—the principle of duty-free entry from the Commonwealth. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that all manufactured and semi-manufactured goods from the Commonwealth come into this country duty-free, he has not taken the trouble to study the duties which he is imposing. A week or so ago he published a new order clarifying and codifying the duties. The merest glance at it shows that Commonwealth preference consists over a vast range of goods, not in duty-free entry but in entry at a preferential rate of duty lower than that for foreign goods.
Indeed, if the Paymaster-General looks at the list he will find that 67 pages are devoted to textile goods which, in the case of the Commonwealth, are subject to import tariffs at present, including silk and rayon yarn and cloth, carpets, and all kinds of made-up goods. All that the cotton industry is asking in the matter of tariffs is to be put upon the level of other textiles for Commonwealth preference purposes. That case at least deserves serious examination. It cannot
992
be ruled out offhand. But the President of the Board of Trade did not seem to be able even to understand the case which was being put.
I agree that to impose upon imports of cotton from the Commonwealth a preferential duty similar to that which silk and rayon imports bear would mean a revision, by negotiation, of some of the Ottawa Agreements and trade treaties. That is not absolutely unthinkable. In the last two years the Government have revised our Ottawa Agreements with Australia and New Zealand, in a sense favourable to them. This is not something to be simply rejected out of hand.
But whether we think that a tariff is right or wrong—and I am only pointing out that the question deserves examination—the situation would not be decisively altered by imposing one. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether we should limit these imports directly by quota or by Government purchase. It is true that other Commonwealth and sterling area countries have frequently imposed quotas on our goods in the last few years, so that this sort of limitation cannot be ruled out as unthinkable within the Commonwealth, although I believe that those quotas have been imposed for balance of payments rather than protective reasons. It is also true, as my right hon. Friend said, that the Government have maintained a system of Government purchase for jute goods for years. Therefore, they cannot reject that suggestion as unthinkable or as being out of court.
I believe, however, that the paramount issue is our moral obligation to the under-developed countries, with very low standards of living—especially those in the Commonwealth. For that reason, I am convinced that we should not go so far as drastically and suddenly to cut down or cut out these cotton imports—although in the case of India we cannot altogether ignore the double pricing system for raw materials which has been enforced there. To say that we cannot make drastic cuts, however, does not mean that we are bound to stand by and watch imports rise at whatever headlong and unplanned rate may result from laissez faire forces, however great may be the resulting ruin and dislocation in Lancashire. There is no moral, economic or political reason why we should do that.

993
There was much good sense in what The Times said on Saturday, namely:
"It is not unreasonable to provide shock absorbers for a strictly limited time, which will allow a breathing space during which competition can be met by efficiency and flexibility."
I also agree with the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich who, speaking for the industry, asked the Government to give it some idea of the industry's future, so that at least it could plan ahead.
Mr. Hale: I know my right hon. Friend too well to think that he meant what seemed to emerge from a sentence which he just used. He does not mean to say that the maintenance of a working week of eighty hours in Hong Kong is a contribution to the war on want. I hope that he will make it clear that we are against that situation, and want to end it, and that one of the means of doing so would be to put an embargo upon unfair imports produced by these penal conditions of employment.
Mr. Jay: I hardly thought I could have said that louder or clearer. I will just repeat this, because perhaps my hon. Friend was not here. I said that what I thought was necessary, for those living in those countries was, first, to allow them to trade, and secondly, to take direct methods to improve wages and hours.
Summing up the argument which I have tried to put, I would urge the Government to approach now the Governments and the industries of India, Pakistan and Hong Kong and say that if voluntary agreement is not reached by some definite date, then the United Kingdom Government will be forced to regulate imports by a system of Government purchase. That would be simultaneous with measures to enforce proper conditions in Hong Kong—on which I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Hale)—and to develop new industries and new work in Lancashire.
Such a programme would have these over-riding advantages. It would enable readjustments and re-equipment in Lancashire and enable the industry to go forward on some sort of phased and regulated plan without upheaval and dislocation. It would not involve a really damaging blow such as we would not wish to give to trade in India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. How
994
infinitely better that would surely be than the present utter chaos and uncertainty which is harmful to the people of Hong Kong, Lancashire and elsewhere. Such a programme would be fair to the undeveloped countries and would give new hope and, incidentally, new employment and new jobs to Lancashire. It would enable the necessary fundamental economic changes to move forward in a planned and orderly manner. Surely that would be far better for everybody than the present drift, waste, bitterness and confusion which we find on every hand.
9.22 p.m.
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): We have been debating a matter of great importance to the country as a whole and particularly to the people who live in Lancashire, which is the centre of our cotton textile industry. I should like to sort out the issues which we have been discussing.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who has just addressed us, referred—I think I have his words aright—to a "threat to Lancashire's whole economic life." That is really rather an exaggerated statement. As has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend, employment in Lancashire, compared with that in the rest of the country, has remained at a high level. Over the last ten years there has undoubtedly been a very big movement of the operatives out of the cotton textile industry, but they have found employment in other industries. There has been a big expansion in Lancashire, a very remarkable expansion, of other industries particularly engineering. People like de Havilland, English Electric and Leyland's, already in Lancashire, have expanded, and other firms like H. J. Heinz, the Michelin Tyre Company and other concerns, have gone into Lancashire.
It would be wrong to underestimate what has happened in the way of providing Lancashire people with Lancashire work over the last ten years. I do not claim that that is entirely the responsibility of, or is to the credit of, the Government. On the other hand, it would be wrong to neglect the fact that the policies of my right hon. Friend and his predecessors at the Board of Trade have been very considerably responsible for the expansion of alternative opportunities for employment in Lancashire.

995
I think every hon. Member in this Committee, if he is realistic about this matter, acknowledges that the cotton textile industry has declined or contracted partly if not wholly for reasons beyond our control. It has been subject to world conditions. Therefore one of the Government's aims has been to ensure that there are alternative opportunities for employment for the people who necessarily, owing to the contraction of the industry, have lost their jobs in cotton textiles. And for the same reason I cannot accept the strictures of the right hon. Member for the general employment position in Lancashire.
The point was made earlier by a number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) who opened the debate, that a change from one industry to another is not easy. A skilled man moving out of cotton textiles can find a job in engineering, but he will not necessarily be a skilled man in engineering. I think that can be exaggerated because I believe the demand for skilled labour in the Lancashire area has been very strong in recent years. At the same time, I accept that it is not just a simple thing to transfer from one industry to another because everyone must recognise that a man who has spent a lifetime, or part of a lifetime, in an industry obviously finds it very difficult to move to something quite different.
Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman must know that many mule spinners, for example, have been working short-time for years. Most of them, valuing their skill, still remain as mule spinners on short-time rather than transfer to some other industry in which they feel they have less skill, dignity and hopes of a future.
Mr. Maudling: I have had the opportunity of seeing mule spinners at work and it is a most interesting process. I have always observed the relatively high age level of people operating in that industry, which itself creates a difficulty if they are displaced and have to find something else to do. I am rather making the point that in my opinion this is not really a Lancashire debate so much as a cotton textile debate. Were it a Lancashire debate, I would argue that the position is rather different from what the right hon. Member said. He made as
996
the first point of his speech, not what we are doing about cotton textiles, but in his opinion what we are failing to do about other industries.
Mr. Jay: I said that experience showed that this could be done and I urged the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government meant to do it more vigorously.
Mr. Maudling: I think there is plenty of practical evidence that we are doing that. The first point made by the right hon. Member was missing the spirit of the debate a little because it is the cotton textile industry we are debating, and that is what I want to deal with this evening. These matters are of very great importance. I understood from what the right hon. Member said in opening that we are to divide. Therefore, I think we should know clearly what the issue is upon which we are being asked to divide. In his opening speech the right hon. Member for Huyton made very clearly a case, a simple case which is very important indeed, about the protection of Lancashire against low-cost imports from Asiatic countries.
I do not know whether we are dividing on that or not. The only other thing on which we could divide would be the proposals of the right hon. Member and his friends for the cotton textile industry set out in his pamphlet, "Plan for Cotton". That is a very clear and interesting pamphlet, which I read over the weekend, but which is not acceptable to my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. Therefore, if we are dividing about the protection of the textile industry by the Government it is a clear issue, but I think that is not the point. The main point, echoed in speeches throughout the day, is how we are to treat this question of the impact on Lancashire of low-cost imports from Asiatic countries. It is to this argument that I will address most of my remarks this evening.
It seems to me that the facts are two-fold. On the one hand, Lancashire is suffering very heavily indeed from a great increase of imports of Asiatic cloth retained in this country, superimposed upon a very heavy loss of exports, which has gone on for many years. That is the fact.
On the other hand, we must recognise the obligations of this country in the Commonwealth system and, in particular,

997
our obligations to Colonial Territories. Those, I suggest, are the two points. In the words of the Manchester Guardian leading article this morning, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman,
"Those who are clamouring most for restrictions must, however, recognise the quandary in which the Government is placed."
That, I think, is true. We are in a quandary, and any Government would be in a quandary here.
I want to put to the Committee what seem to me to be the facts of this very difficult situation. I hope that I shall not be overstating it or be regarded as emotional. I was taught at school that the essence of a tragedy was not the conflict between right and wrong but the conflict between right and right, and that seems to be the point here. We have the rights and the interests of Lancashire and we also have the rights of the Colonies and of the people who live there and the interests of the people who live there. It therefore seems to me that it is a tragic situation in which we must try to make a choice between one and the other, and a choice which is consistent with the duty which we as a House owe to both. I find it very difficult to find the substance of party division in the problem.
It was well put by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech and in his pamphlet that a danger which Lancashire has faced in recent years is the imports from the Commonwealth. Emphasis is laid particularly upon imports from Hong Kong, not only because of the quantity coming from Hong Kong, which is still less than that which comes from India, but because the amount coming from Hong Kong has been rising rapidly and because this question is made in some ways conditional on the negotiations with India. There is also the very important point that Hong Kong is a Colony and not an independent country, but I shall later explain that that cuts both ways.
Mr. Ellis Smith: And because of the conditions there.
Mr. Maudling: The first point to which we must address ourselves is, can we impose quotas upon Commonwealth goods in order to protect our own textile industry? Some mention was made earlier by the right hon. Gentleman of tariffs, and I will argue with him about the
998
origin of the duty-free system in the Commonwealth preference area. I think he will find that such duties as still exist on Commonwealth goods are either revenue duties or McKenna duties which existed before the Ottawa Conference. I think he will accept that on the whole tariffs are not the answer to the problem of Asiatic low-cost competition, because the margin of price is so wide. It is not a matter of tariffs but of imposing quotas.
Can we impose quotas upon Commonwealth goods? What are our obligations under the G.A.T.T. agreement, which we have signed—and which the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out in paragraph 80 of his pamphlet is of very great importance to the whole of British industry, and particularly to the cotton textile industry? We have the right to impose quotas on imports anywhere only if we have a balance of payments difficulty (which we certainly have not with India, Pakistan and Hong Kong), or if there is a question of dumping or subsidised competition, which does not arise in these cases. Under G.A.T.T. and the International Monetary Fund, therefore, we have no right whatever to impose quotas on imports from those countries.
Mr. Jay: What about Japan?
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has himself realised that that is the reason why, under Article 35 of G.A.T.T. we do not accept the position with respect to Japan. That is why we put quotas on China. China is not in G.A.T.T. We cannot put quotas on countries in G.A.T.T. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite signed the G.A.T.T. agreement, and they ought to know. I agree that they were right to sign it and I am sure that it is fundamentally in the interests of this country.
Secondly, there are the Commonwealth agreements. I think that, with the exception of McKenna duties and revenue duties, the free entry of imports from the Commonwealth is basic to the concept of Commonwealth trade. In many cases it is contractual. It is contractual in the case of a number of independent countries. They have a contractual right to free entry into this country. It is not contractual in the case of Colonies. They cannot contract with us, because they are under our control, but if they were independent countries

999
they would have that right. Can we really deny to them that right, which they would otherwise have? I do not think that that is an argument that hon. Members opposite would wish to support.
I think that I am right in saying that this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton said that he and his party have never called for tariffs or quotas on Commonwealth imports. Those are his words that I have written down here. It is very important that the Committee should be clear on this. There appears to be no division between us on this matter. Neither side, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, would propose to call for tariffs or quotas on Commonwealth imports.
I turn now to the question of Hong Kong which has, quite rightly, occupied a great deal of the time of our discussion this afternoon. Many hon. Members on both sides, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood), and many others have said quite a lot about the impact of Hong Kong imports upon our textile industry, but we must bear in mind that, taking the total balance of trade, we sell to Hong Kong twice as much as she sells to us. That really is a very important point——
Mr. Thornton: But is it not correct that Hong Kong's imports are 50 per cent. higher than her exports, and that every country that trades with her has a favourable balance of trade with her? Is it not correct that China, America and Japan all have more favourable balances with Hong Kong than we have ourselves?
Mr. Maudling: I should not like to quarrel with that; but my point is that Hong Kong buys twice as much from us as we buy from Hong Kong. Twice as much value goes into British homes working on goods for Hong Kong than goes into Hong Kong homes working on goods for us. The importance of that is that in all our international obligations like the G.A.T.T., and the Fund, the only reason we can advance for putting on restrictions is balance of payments difficulties. If we look at it from that angle, Hong Kong could put a quota on our
1000
goods, but we could not do so with her. It is important to get that clear; that we sell to Hong Kong twice as much, roughly speaking, as she sells to us——
Mr. Thornton: The same applies to ordinary trade.
Mr. Maudling: That may be so, but in terms of employment it is important to bear in mind. It is not the whole story, I quite agree, and I will come to that in a moment.
The imports that have been affecting Lancashire come from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, but the right hon. Gentleman who opened, both in his own pamphlet and in his speech, has admitted that there is no case on Indian imports at all. He has said in his pamphlet that there is nothing unfair about Indian wage levels, and the only point he made about Indian raw cotton prices is now out of date.
The main point is Hong Kong. What is the complaint there? First of all, is it wages? I think that the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), who speaks with a great knowledge of these things, says that, in general, Hong Kong wages fit fairly well into the Indian wage picture. So the hourly rate is not out of line, and that is the thing that matters. The conditions in the modern mills, which are those that, by and large, export to this country, are pretty good, although I agree that there is room for improvement in some of the old-fashioned mills.
The real argument here is on hours of work. There, the Government certainly admit that there is a considerable point. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies said in an Adjournment debate recently, we are urgently considering new employment legislation in Hong Kong. It may interest the Committee to know—and I think that the hon. Member for Farnworth will be particularly interested—that we are sending Miss Ogilvie, whom he knows, an experienced official on the staff of the Colonial Office, immediately to Hong Kong to discuss the whole situation with the Governor. The hon. Gentleman will probably agree that it is a valuable thing to do in the course of devising legislation. Action is in progress on this question. But it would be wrong for the Committee to imagine that action on the question of hours of work in Hong Kong

1001
is the solution to the Lancashire problem. The hon. Member for Farnworth made the point very clearly that even if the hours of work in Hong Kong were changed, nevertheless it would have very little effect on the competitive influence of Hong Kong goods on Lancashire.
Mr. Jay: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of hours, as it is one of the most important points raised today, can he say how soon there will be actual legislation on this question and not just consultation?
Mr. Maudling: No, I should not like to give an answer. Action is in train, and the experienced official whom I have mentioned is going to Hong Kong at once. I can assure the Committee that we have no doubt about the importance of this matter.
I think that the points made by the hon. Gentleman on hours of work are important, and the Government certainly accept this fact. But as the debate has made clear, this is more a matter of social conditions in Hong Kong than it is a matter of the economics of Lancashire. Even if people were to work shorter hours in Hong Kong, competition in Lancashire would be no less severe. That point has been made in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
Mr. Thornton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because I thought I made it clear that my main reason for raising the question was on humanitarian and social grounds and not on economic grounds. I should like an assurance, though, from the right hon. Gentleman that it will not take as long to negotiate a new labour code as it is taking to reach a voluntary agreement.
Mr. Maudling: I wish I could give such an assurance. All I can say is that I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are struck by the force of what he has said. We are taking urgent steps to look into this problem. Of course, one can always say, "Why did you not do it before?" That is an easy point to take——
Mr. H. Wilson: This Hong Kong problem has been brought up in debates for many years. Is not it a fact that it was not until the Report of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) that the Government took any
1002
action on this at all? Is it any wonder that we want to vote tonight when the Government have allowed the Lancashire cotton industry to decline in this way?
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman is trying hard to find a reason for voting. My answer, first of all, is that it is not true. Secondly, if he is voting solely on the date at which people are sent to Hong Kong, let us be quite clear what is the issue on which he is voting.
Mr. Wilson: Three hundred mills are closed. Answer that.
Mr. Maudling: We must bear in mind that Hong Kong is a British Colony, and we have an interest in the people of that Colony. We have a responsibility for their standard of living. The right hon. Gentleman himself in his pamphlet has said that one of the best prospects for increased textile exports is increasing the standard of living of the under-developed countries. How are the people of Hong Kong to increase their standard of living, except by exporting more? That is a fact that we must face on both sides of the Committee. If the people of Hong Kong are to increase their standard of living they must buy more from the world, and in order to do that they must sell more.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made a point about immigration into Hong Kong. I think I can assure him that that is strictly controlled, but there is a large population there. It is one of our Colonies, and there is a natural growth of population. If the people there are to grow in numbers and in prosperity they must sell more goods.
One fact that the party opposite have not faced when they have talked about Colonial products is, how are those people to sell more goods? They will not sell much more in China. The Chinese are short of sterling, and, in so far as they buy anything, it will not be cotton textiles which they can produce probably more cheaply than the Hong Kong people. Are they to sell in other areas of the world? We hope they will sell more in countries other than England. We hope to see them expand their exports to Europe, for example. It is the duty of the Government to assist them to do that; but we shall certainly not assist them to do that if we put restrictions on what we

1003
buy from them. If we start putting restrictions on what we buy from Hong Kong, every other country in the world will do it even more. That is a perfectly clear progression of ideas.
Mr. W. T. Proctor: What is the object of trying to negotiate a voluntary agreement? Is it to put restrictions on them?
Mr. Maudling: That is a valid point, and I will come to that. The policy of putting compulsory quotas on what we are prepared to buy from Hong Kong is a policy of refusing to give the people of Hong Kong what will contribute to their well-being. There is no answer to that argument.
I feel, therefore, that no case can be made for the compulsory imposition of quotas upon imports from Hong Kong, which is a Colony. In so far as the Opposition were dividing on that issue, I would hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends would oppose them, but I observe that they are not dividing on that issue because they have taken care not to put a Motion to that effect in issue this evening, and, as I said, the right hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear in his opening that they were not proposing tariffs on imports or quotas for Commonwealth goods. Therefore, it cannot possibly be in issue this evening whether or not tariffs or quotas should be imposed on Commonwealth goods.
We come then to the question whether we can have a voluntary agreement. I have been putting one side of the case, and the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor), very rightly, mentioned the other side. I have been putting our obligation to our Colonial Territories and our international obligations. We have also, it is quite true, an obligation to our own people and an obligation to the textile industry of Lancashire which has been suffering considerably.
The Lancashire textile industry, if I may say so, has been suffering particularly for two reasons, first, because exports of cotton textiles from Asiatic countries have expanded so rapidly—it is the rapidity of the increase which is important—and, secondly, because exports from Hong Kong in particular have very largely concentrated on textiles for this country. About 30 per cent. of
1004
the total production of Hong Kong textiles comes to this country. There is, therefore, undoubtedly a case on the other side. There is a case for what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen rightly called a temporary umbrella. There is a case for doing something to prevent this expansion which has been so rapid recently, particularly in exports from Hong Kong.
The Government believe that it is desirable that there should be a temporary check of this kind to the expansion of imports of these textiles from Asiatic countries. Lancashire says, rightly, I think, "You tell us to adapt, to go in for new products, for new and more 'quality' goods. How can we do that when the tide of imports from Asiatic countries is rising fast and spreading so far?" That is a perfectly valid argument. It is recognised in the Asiatic countries themselves, I think. They can see that it is not in the long-term interest of Hone Kong, India or Pakistan to press this competition so hard and so fast and on such a limited sector of the British economy as to cause really great difficulties.
It can therefore be argued, and I hope it will be accepted in those Asiatic countries, that there is great merit in a voluntary agreement. But we come now to what we meant by a voluntary agreement. I say to my hon. and right hon. Friends that this is a very important matter indeed. This afternoon, the right hon. Member for Huyton gave his version of what is meant by a voluntary agreement. It reminded me of a sergeant-major saying, "I want three volunteers, you, you and you." That is not really our idea of a voluntary agreement. The right hon. Gentleman said that people agree to a voluntary proposal only when one has a sanction. [Laughter.] I really do not know what my hon. Friends are laughing at. The right hon. Gentleman said it. There may be much behind it as a statement of practice, but, as a statement of principle, it is, I think, a little lacking. It is certainly not a statement of principle to which this side of the Committee can agree.
The right hon. Gentleman's argument is a very interesting one. He says, "If you do not agree to a voluntary limitation of exports, the Labour Government, when it comes into being, will impose a quota

1005
by the artificial subterfuge of State trading." That is his argument. With respect, I think that it is a deeply disreputable argument. It really is quite impossible for this country, which has responsibility for the people of Hong Kong, to go to them and say, "If you do not agree voluntarily, we shall force you." That is not a voluntary agreement; it is nonsense to pretend that it is. Therefore, our point is that we hope and believe that there will be a voluntary agreement, because we are convinced that it is in the long-term interests of this country and of the Asiatic countries concerned to limit the in-rush of Asiatic competition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) raised two points. The first concerned the state of the negotiations and the second the impending conference at Montreal. I think those are most important points. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made it perfectly clear this afternoon that the voluntary negotiations are still at a delicate stage; they are still at a not definitive stage. It would be wrong to do anything to impede those negotiations.
Equally, with regard to the Commonwealth Conference at Montreal, I am certain that it is safe to say that anything that affects trade within the Commonwealth is open for discussion at the conference in Canada in September. Of course, that must be so. We cannot have a conference unless we have it on a no-holds-barred basis. Anything that people want to raise, be it the United Kingdom or any other country, is open to be raised. That conference lies ahead of us, and I think that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade argued with great force that it would be a pity and a mistake to enter the conference at Montreal having taken unilateral action which breaks all the traditions and rules of Commonwealth preferences and which represents action against the Colony which we could not in international law take against an independent Commonwealth country.
I would ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in considering the Division, which I understand there is to be, to bear this in mind. Commonwealth countries will look at this Division and be concerned with what the issue is. So far as there is an issue, which I rather
1006
doubt, it is whether or not we impose now, as a matter of emergency, restrictions and limitations upon Commonwealth imports. The Government say that the voluntary way is the way to do it. Anybody who does not support that point of view is saying that the alternative is right, namely, that we should do it by compulsory methods. I urge upon my hon. Friends that, with these negotiations going on and in advance of the Commonwealth Conference, to do that is really an action which will not do a great deal of good to any of the parties to the dispute.
Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, because Lancashire wants to know, that if the Government fail to reach a voluntary agreement they will do nothing at all?
Mr. Maudling: That is exactly the point that I answered earlier. The Opposition would like us to say, "If there is not a voluntary agreement, we will compel it." We are not prepared to say that, because we cannot have a voluntary agreement on that basis. The more doubt there is thrust upon the possibility of a voluntary agreement, the less chance there will be of reaching it. I should have thought that it was in the interests of all concerned to reach a voluntary agreement on this matter.
The right hon. Member for Huyton has produced an alternative scheme. He is not going to have quotas; he is going to have a plan for regulating imports, to use his own words. I presume that "regulating" is another word for reducing, because, unless the aim is to reduce imports, I do not see the purpose of regulating them from Lancashire's point of view.
Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman must be fair about this. I said that a ceiling based on the exports for the last three years should be imposed. The right hon. Gentleman has said that what is needed for Lancashire is to stop expansion in this industry and the insecurity which has been caused by it which has led to the closure of 300 mills. My proposal was to impose a ceiling in order to stop any further expansion.
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman used the words—I took them down, although I may be wrong—"plan for

1007
regulating imports". His argument is that a State purchasing commission is not the same thing as a quota, but he is now saying that a State purchasing commission would enforce a ceiling. Where is he on this matter? If he wants to reduce Hong Kong and Indian imports by a State regulating machine, let him admit that it is the same thing as a quota. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about jute?"] The jute point is the worst one I have heard from the Opposition today.
I will not say, because the right hon. Gentleman is such a good dialectician, that he is arguing that two blacks make a white, which would be the case if the argument were a good one, but the fact is that there is a monumental difference between continuing temporarily a wartime restriction and imposing de novo a new restriction totally at variance with every national and international practice. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is true.
The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman's plan for restricting imports by the use of a State purchasing commission is a plan for restricting imports. [Interruption.] We on this side say that we are in favour of a voluntary agreement. We are not in favour of imposing a compulsory agreement. That is the issue between us. If the Committee likes to divide on the issue whether there will be a voluntary or compulsory agreement and the party opposite votes for a compulsory agreement, we on this side know where we stand.
The right hon. Member for Huyton has tried to pretend that his scheme of bulk purchase by a Government commission circumvents the G.A.T.T. provision that quotas can only be imposed in balance of payment difficulties. That is a most bogus argument, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. If it were accepted generally in the trade of the world, where would this country get to? If every country were entitled to say that if British imports were harming its own industry it would go over to State trading and buy no more British imports, where would we finish up? The right hon. Gentleman's plan for dealing with trade in cotton textiles would be the most deadly blow to Lancashire that could possibly be imagined.
This debate today has been about a difficulty of one of our major industries. This industry has faced serious contractions, and will continue to face difficulties. My case today, however, is a simple one. Let not Lancashire be bamboozled by bogus solutions. This is a real problem and a real difficulty. If the party opposite likes to divide the House on party lines, let it do so, but it will not be contributing to the welfare of Lancashire.
Mr. Jay: I beg to move, That Item Class VI, Vote I (Board of Trade), be reduced by£5.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 246, Noes 308.

Division No. 179.]

AYES

[9.58 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Burke, W. A.

Edelman, M.

Albu, A. H.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Callaghan, L. J.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Anderson, Frank

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Awbery, S. S.

Champion, A. J.

Fernyhough, E.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Chapman, W. D.

Finch, H. J.

Baird, J.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Fletcher, Eric

Balfour, A.

Clunie, J.

Foot, D. M.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon, H. T. N.

Bonn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Benson, Sir George

Cronin, J. D.

Gibson, C. W.

Beswick, Frank

Crossman, R. H. S.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Blackburn, F.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Greenwood, Anthony

Blenkinsop, A.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Blyton, W. R.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Grey, C. F.

Boardman, H.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Deer, G.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Bowles, F. G.

Delargy, H. J.

Hale, Leslie

Boyd, T. C.

Diamond, John

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Dodds, N. N.

Hamilton, W. W.

Brockway, A. F.

Donnelly, D. L.

Hannan, W.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Dye, S.

Hastings, S.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hayman, F. H.

Healey, Denis

Mason, Roy

Skeffington, A. M.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Messer, Sir F.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Mikardo, Ian

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Mitchison, G. R.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Monslow, W.

Snow, J. W.

Holman, P.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Sorensen, R. W.

Houghton, Douglas

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Mort, D. L.

Sparks, J. A.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Moss, R.

Spriggs, Leslie

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Moyle, A.

Steele, T.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Mulley, F. W.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Hunter, A. E.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Stonehouse, John

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Oliver, G. H.

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Oram, A. E.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Janner, B.

Orbach, M.

Swingler, S. T.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Oswald, T.

Sylvester, G. O.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Owen, W. J.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

Padley, W. E.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Paget, R. T.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Thornton, E.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Pargiter, G. A.

Tomney, F.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Parker, J.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Parkin, B. T.

Usborne, H. C.

Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)

Paton, John

Viant, S. P.

Kenyon, C.

Peart, T. F.

Warbey, W. N.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Pentland, N.

Watkins, T. E.

King, Dr. H. M.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Weitzman, D.

Lawson, G. M.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Ledger, R. J.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Probert, A. R.

West, D. G.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Proctor, W. T.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Lewis, Arthur

Rankin, John

Wigg, George

Lindgren, G. S.

Redhead, E. C.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Lipton, Marcus

Reeves, J.

Wilkins, W. A.

Logan, D. G.

Reid, William

Willey, Frederick

Mabon, Dr, J. Dickson

Reynolds, G. W.

McAlister, Mrs. Mary

Rhodes, H.

Williams, David (Neath)

McCann, J.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

MacColl, J. E.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

MacDermot, Niall

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

McInnes, J.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

McLeavy, Frank

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Winterbottom, Richard

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Mahon, Simon

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Woof, R. E.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Short, E. W.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Zilliacus, K.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Aitken, W. T.

Bishop, F. P.

Cooper, A. E.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Black, C. W.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Alport, C. J. M.

Body, R. F.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Bonham Carter, Mark

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Boothby, Sir Robert

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Anstruther-Cray, Major Sir William

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Arbuthnot, John

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Armstrong, C. W.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Cunningham, Knox

Ashton, H.

Braine, B. R.

Currie, G. B. H.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Braithwalte, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Dance, J. C. G.

Atkins, H. E.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Davidson, Viscountess

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Baldwin, A. E.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Deedes, W. F.

Balniel, Lord

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Barber, Anthony

Bryan, P.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Barter, John

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Batsford, Brian

Burden, F. F. A.

du cann, E. D. L.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Duncan, Sir James

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Duthie, W. S.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Campbell, Sir David

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Carr, Robert

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Cary, Sir Robert

Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Channon, Sir Henry

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Bidgood, J. C.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Errington, Sir Eric

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Erroll, F. J.

Bingham, R. M.

Cole, Norman

Farey-Jones, F. W.

1010

1011

Fell, A.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Ramsden, J. E.

Finlay, Graeme

Leather, E. H. C.

Rawlinson, Peter

Fisher, Nigel

Leburn, W. G.

Redmayne, M.

Forrest, G.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Foster, John

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Renton, D. L. M.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Rippon, A. G. F.

Gammans, Lady

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Robertson, Sir David

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)

Robson Brown, Sir William

Glover, D.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Roper, Sir Harold

Godber, J. B.

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Goodhart, Philip

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Russell, R. S.

Gough, C. F. H.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Gower, H. R.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Graham, Sir Fergus

McAdden, S. J.

Sharples, R. C.

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Green, A.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Gresham Cooke, R.

McKibbin, Alan

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Grimond, J.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Speir, R. M.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

Gurden, Harold

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Maddan, Martin

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Storey, S.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Hay, John

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Summers, Sir Spencer

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Marshall, Douglas

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Hesketh, R. F.

Mathew, R.

Teeling, W.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Temple, John M.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Mawby, R. L.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Thorneycroft, R. Hon. P.

Holt, A. F.

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Hope, Lord John

Moore, Sir Thomas

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Hornby, R. P.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Turner, H. F. L.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Howard, John (Test)

Neave, Airey

Vane, W. M. F.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Nicholls, Harmar

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Hurd, A. R.

Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Wade, D. W.

Hyde, Montgomery

Nugent, G. R. H.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hn. Sir Harry

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Iremonger, T. L.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Wall, Patrick

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Osborne, C.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Page, R. G.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Webbe, Sir H.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Partridge, E.

Webster, David

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Peel, W. J.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Joseph, Sir Keith

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Kaberry, D.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Keegan, D.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Pitman, I. J.

Wood, Hon. R.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Woollam, John Victor

Kershaw, J. A.

Pott, H. P.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Kimball, M.

Powell, J. Enoch

Kirk, P. M.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Lagden, G. W.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Mr. Heath and Mr. Oakshott.

Lambton, Viscount

Profumo, J. D.

Original Question again proposed.
Mr. Ray Mawby Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes) rose——
It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

FIREWOMEN (PAY)
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Fire Services (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 759), dated 1st May, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be annulled.
Although all of us who represent Lancashire constituencies are emotionally exhausted after a day of discussing the position in Lancashire. I make no apology for raising at this stage of our discussions the question of the remuneration of firewomen.
I do so for three reasons. The first, is that it affects a number of women who are doing an extremely arduous and responsible job, indeed one of the most responsible jobs in the public service. I think it right at this stage to point out that firemen and firewomen cannot go to arbitration, take industrial action or invoke the industrial disputes machinery as most other workers can do. Secondly, the Prayer affects all workers in the public service because the Government's action involves a repetition of their regrettable conduct in the case of the Health Service employees and the senior and chief probation officers. The third reason, and perhaps in a way the most important, is that the issue involves a principle of great importance to all trade unionists.
On 22nd May, in a Written Answer, the Home Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that he:
"…had decided that a re-assessment of the basis on which the pay of firewomen is calculated should be deferred until a more appropriate time, and that for the present the revision of firewomen's pay should be limited to the consequential increases which they would have received on the basis of the Local authority salary scale to which the pay of firewomen has hitherto been related, with corresponding increases for the higher ranks.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May. 1958; Vol. 588, c. 91.]
I hope the House will bear with me if I go through the history of this dispute. Last June the local authorities and the Fire Brigades Union reached a pay settlement in respect of lower ranks of firemen.
1014
Following that settlement, the union sought to put the pay scales for firewomen on a basis which would mean that any future pay increases for firemen would be automatically followed pro rata for the women. They therefore proposed to the employers—the local authorities—that women's pay should reach its maximum after five years' service and should roughly correspond to 80 per cent. of firemen's pay on that five-year scale of increments. That would mean an increase of£55 a year on the maximum rate and£30 on the minimum; that is to say, a scale ranging from£405–£475 a year. Perhaps I should add that it was proposed that the firemen's service increment of 6s. per week after 9 and 14 years' service was to be ignored.
After very full consideration, the employers agreed to the union's proposal and recommended that the new scheme should operate from September last year. The appropriate recommendation went to the Home Secretary in October, 1957. I think I ought to interpolate here the fact that throughout the discussions the union and the local authorities had kept the fire services department of the Home Office fully informed so that there would be no undue delay in implementing the recommendation once it had been agreed. However, although the recommendation went to the Home Secretary in October, the Home Office did nothing. Over a substantial period, both the union and the local authorities tried to get a decision from the Home Secretary.
On 31st January of this year a letter was sent to the Home Office signed by the secretary of the Fire Brigades Union and the secretary of the Local Government Conditions of Service Advisory Board, as joint secretaries of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades. An identical letter was sent at the same time to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The letter referred to the decision taken in October, which was a unanimous decision reached by the local authorities and the union, and it went on to say:
"We were obliged to report to the National Council at its meeting on 23rd January last and to the Officers' Committee later on the same day that the Secretaries of State had not signified their approval of this recommendation nor, despite inquiry, had any indication been received whether such approval would be forthcoming in the near future. The

1015
National Council was disturbed to learn of this situation, and we were directed to bring its concern to your notice, and to refer in particular to the disparity of treatment and the measure of hardship which has resulted for women members of brigades compared with their male colleagues. It is the earnest hope of the National Council that in these circumstances there will be the least possible delay in now approving the recommendation, and that the adjustment of pay will then operate from 1st September last in accordance with its terms."
That letter was sent in the name of both the employers and the firewomen.
On 14th February the Home Office replied to that letter, turning down the recommendation—that being four months after the recommendation had been submitted by the National Joint Council. The letter from the Home Office rejected the proposals on two grounds. It was said, first, that the proposal would mean a percentage increase for firewomen which would be greater than that granted to firemen the previous June. It was further said that the increase would be:
"greater in certain respects than would be justified on a basis of strict comparability with the local government scale to which firewomen's pay has previously corresponded."
The letter went on to say:
"In the circumstances the Secretary of State does not feel able, in the light of the Government's policy as regards wage increases, to agree at present to the proposed reassessment…"
The recommendation was therefore referred back to the National Joint Council.
The next step was that an emergency meeting of the National Joint Council was held. At that meeting the councils and unions representing the local authorities—that is to say, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the London County Council and the Scottish local authorities—decided that they saw no reason to modify the terms of their original recommendation, and they asked for an interview with the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. A meeting took place on 26th March, and the Home Secretary, in the course of the discussion, said that wage increases had precipitated inflation.
He also said that wherever the Government could exert any influence in wage settlements to effect economy, however
1016
small the saving, they would do so. He would, however, approve an increase if it did not exceed the scale for women employees in grade I of the miscellaneous grades of the local government services. That would involve the acceptance of the recommended starting rate of£405, but a maximum of£445 after two years.
That was the basis from which the National Joint Council had consistently been trying to depart over a considerable period, and if it had accepted that proposition it would have meant that fire-women, responsible for mobilising appliances and working a 48-hour week in three shifts, would in some cases have earned less than copy typists employed by local authorities, working a 38-hour week. There have been cases of fire-women leaving the fire service and taking better-paid employment under the police in the same local authority area.
The National Joint Council therefore wrote to the Home Secretary on 28th April making three points. At this stage I should like to say that that letter was signed by the two gentlemen to whom I have already referred, and also by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris). That letter made three points, which I should like to read:

"(a) The Council was committed to a reassessment of firewomen's pay before the announcement of the Government's present policy on wage increases. Unfortunately it was not possible to reach a decision until October, 1957. The settlement, however, was based on comparisons and relativity which existed before the critical developments to take account of which the Government's policy was formulated.

(b) The resulting reassessment of pay is fully justified on grounds of merit and can have no inflationary repercussions. Indeed, at certain points, it is less costly than the alternative course indicated by the Secretaries of State.

(c) In similar circumstances in the Civil Service and elsewhere other salary increases have been negotiated or awarded since October, 1957, and have been duly implemented. It is reasonable to infer, both from the implementation of these agreements and awards, and also from expositions which have been given of the Government's policy, that the policy does not exclude wage increases of this character, distinguished from other wage increases because they rest upon a revaluation of the particular employment concerned. The Council, therefore, submits that the agreement in respect of firewomen ought not, in equity to be excluded."

The document also states:
"For all the foregoing reasons the Council is persuaded that it ought to persist in its original decision."

1017
It is not unimportant to say that throughout these negotiations and this correspondence the local authorities, the Fire Brigades Union and I think the Fire Officers' Committee have all been in complete agreement.
The decision of the Home Secretary was announced, as I have already said, in response to a Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn who will second this Motion. We ought to remember, in considering issues of this kind, that it is the National Joint Council which is responsible for all the discussions with the firemen and firewomen concerned. There are not normally direct negotiations between the Home Secretary and the men and women in the Fire Services. If the Home Secretary is to set aside decisions which have been reached by the National Joint Council, whether on matters of pay or on other matters, that is bound to impair the authority of the National Joint Council.
In this case the Home Secretary has flatly refused, on grounds apparently laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to implement a decision which was unanimously reached by both sides of an important public service. It is a public service, moreover, which is already seriously undermanned, possibly to the point of danger.
It is a decision that the Home Secretary has taken which has been condemned by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress. On 25th June, Sir Vincent Tewson wrote to the Prime Minister saying:
"The General Council are…concerned at this further intervention in the process of collective bargaining and share the view of both sides of the National Joint Council that this is an unwarranted interference with properly constituted negotiating machinery. They wish therefore to register a strong protest at the Home Secretary's action."
It is that protest that we repeat in this House. I hope that even at this late stage the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be able to indicate that the Home Secretary has not a closed mind on this issue and is prepared to reconsider the claim put forward by the Fire Brigades Union and unanimously accepted by the employers concerned.
10.25 p.m.
Mrs. Barbara Castle: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood)
1018
has outlined the history of this case so effectively that there is no need for me to detain the House very long in seconding the Prayer, but there were three points of principle in the excellent speech he made which I should like to underline.
This may seem a very small matter, involving a very small number of people and a very small amount of money, but that, in our opinion, makes it all the more serious because it seems extremely unfortunate that the Government should have undermined the confidence in collective bargaining machinery for such a small sum as that which is involved. It shows a frivolity of approach to the whole question of collective bargaining which to us on this side of the House is quite shocking. We have here an interference by the Government in the exercise of a judgment by the National Joint Council as to the proper relationship between the wages in the service they are controlling. Here we have not only a unanimous decision of the National Joint Council, but a unanimous decision, unanimously reaffirmed after the Home Secretary had sent the matter back. That shows the importance the employers attached to the question and that it was not a matter of no significance.
I hope that the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, will agree that we should take a special interest in questions which involve the relationship between rates of pay for men and women in a service or in industry. I agree that the question of equal pay is not involved directly here, because firemen and firewomen are not engaged on equal work; but there is a relationship here which ought to be established. It is a point which the N.J.C. has made in the statement, which my hon. Friend quoted. It says that while the Council does not consider the principle of equal pay is applicable in the circumstances of the Fire Services, the male rate of pay must influence the female rate. It says:
"since firewomen have to work in Control Rooms with firemen receiving operational rates of pay, their rate should be brought into a settled relationship with that of firemen and should move correspondingly."
I certainly attach very great importance to the establishment of that principle. I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not seem to attach the same significance to the demands which the N.J.C. has been

1019
making to give women in the Fire Services the reward they ought to have.
As women Members of this House we would always expect that our rates of pay should be brought into proper operational relationship with those of our male colleagues. We must admit that we have not yet reached that point because, if we had, we should get a greater rate of pay than they would get. Still, we are progressing in the right direction and it is wrong for any member of our sex to deprive women in any other calling of a proper relationship with the rates for male colleagues.
The second point of principle is in the Answer by the Home Secretary to my Question on 22nd May, to which my hon. Friend has referred. That makes it quite clear that the Government accept the merits of the N.J.C. argument. In fact it would be very difficult for them not to do so. The N.J.C. is the authority on the subject and knows the conditions. It knows what it is talking about. It would be a very serious reflection on the judgment of the N.J.C. if it did not. The Home Secretary does not say, "We do not agree that the firewomen's rates should be related to those of the men," or that the ideal relationship is not that they should continue to be related to the local government miscellaneous services rates. On the contrary, he said:
"We had decided that a re-assessment of the basis on which the pay of firewomen is calculated should be deferred until a more appropriate time…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1958; Vol. 588, c. 91.]
When is it more appropriate to do justice than the present? What is the appropriate time? We are given no further indication of that. Is the "appropriate time" the return of a Labour Government, on which the present Government are so clearly relying to clear up so many injustices? Is this another, to be deferred until we have a Government with a proper sense of what is right? There is no indication that the Home Secretary sets a time limit on the delay in reassessing the relationship.
He made the position clear in the statement which he made to a deputation from both sides of the National Joint Council which he saw recently, because, according to the journal of the Fire Brigades Union, the Fire Fighter, he made the following astonishing statement:
1020
"Wherever we can exercise any influence on wage settlements to effect economy, however small the saving, we shall do so."
That is an intolerable statement, because it means that it is on the weaker sections of the community that the burden will fall. However small the economy, the Government will effect it if they can. We know that it is the Government's policy to effect these economies at the expense of little groups which are impotent to hit back and that it is before the more powerful groups, which have a way of hitting back against injustice, that the Government yield. It is intolerable that because this is a small section it should have to contribute a saving which, though small in total amount, is important to the people concerned.
Finally, there is the point of principle to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is not only a question of the Government deliberately impairing the authority of a National Joint Council and therefore interfering with machinery for collective bargaining. It is just another step by the Government which has the effect of undermining the confidence of all workers, in whatever unions they may be, in the Government's approach to wage claims. Here workers see once again that the Government have accepted the merits of the case, by implication, but have rejected it on the ground, not that it has not gone through all the due processes of collective bargaining and independent judgment but that they can pick on people here and there for these economies and that these people are to be the victims of that policy. That kind of step produces resentment throughout the whole trade union movement, as the letter from the Trades Union Congress showed. It creates deep suspicion of Government's economic policy and it has an effect on wage rates which is liable to lead us to one industrial problem after another. From this small matter big consequences flow. We register our protest most vigorously.
10.34 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I wish briefly to support the case which my hon. Friends have already put very clearly and distinctly. I do so because of the small number of firewomen within the Fire Services—I believe it is between 450 and 500—about one-fifth are in Wales. The Welsh authorities make considerable use of the services of women, and find

1021
them extremely reliable and conscientious in these very responsible duties.
When this matter was under discussion, the firewomen in my own County of Flint asked if I would see them and, by courtesy of the chief fire officer, I saw them at work. I went to the control room and saw exactly what these women had to do. I might say that in the County of Flint—and I know that this is the case in other places as well—the fire-women are responsible, not only for the controls for the fire services but also for the county ambulance services. That means that they have constant calls to deal with in addition to their work for the fire services. They not only have to know the geography and the resources of their own area most intimately, but have to be very clear-headed; able to take quick decisions, and know precisely to whom they have to refer in a great variety of emergencies, where human life may be at stake. That, obviously, applies to the ambulance service, too.
It really is quite ludicrous that women who are asked to undertake work of that kind should find that their maximum rate of pay is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has said, less than that for copy typists in local authority offices. There is absolutely no comparison in the degree of responsibility that these women have to undertake. That is particularly so in the case of those who have had some length of service, because the peculiar thing is that the Home Secretary did not reject the application entirely and out of hand. As my hon. Friends have said, he accepted the principle.
As was said in the letter of 14th February, he was not averse from the principle that the pay of firewomen should be related to that of men in the fire services, and he went so far as to suggest certain increases for the first year's service. He proposed to start at the same figure for the first year, and suggested that the figures for the second and third years should be larger than those proposed by the National Joint Council. But then, according to the Home Secretary, there was to be an absolute stop—no further increments.
Surely, women doing this kind of work should be encouraged to remain in the fire services when they have gained the experience that gives them the necessary
1022
confidence and poise in dealing with this sort of work. There is here, of course, as in all services in which women are employed, a tendency to leave for marriage, but I think that those who stay on should be reasonably encouraged to look forward to something better, and not reach their maximum after three years.
I think that the Home Secretary's action has really been most regrettable. Justice is not being done to women who are doing very responsible work. I would absolutely agree with the proposal of the National Joint Council chart in their pay arrangements the firewomen should be related to the men with whom, after all, they work side by side. I quite understand the dissatisfaction so very clearly expressed to me, and most sincerely felt by the women whom I saw, that they should be regarded as something quite different, whereas they would like to feel themselves as a genuine part of the fire services, of which they are proud to be members.
The Home Secretary has shown a most lamentable lack of imagination in dealing with the situation. The amount at stake is infinitesimal, and cannot really have any effect on our inflationary position. He has not even entirely refused some increase—in a way, that is one the irritating things about it—but he has done so in a manner that I think is not in the best interests of the efficiency of the service.
I hope, therefore, that the Home Office will look into this matter again, and will find that the appropriate moment for accepting this principle will be in the very near future.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. Reader Harris: There is no doubt that the firewomen had a very raw deal over this pay increase. It was not their fault that it was not until October, 1957, that the National Joint Council was able to get round to the job of deciding what their pay should be. There had been in the previous months three pay increases for the male members of the fire services. In November, 1956, February, 1957, and again in June, 1957, the male members were fortunate in getting whatever they got in little bits and pieces. Perhaps, therefore, it was not so noticeable. But it is no fault of the firewomen that it is a frightful

1023
job to try to get the National Joint Council together.
The firemen had been dealt with at the beginning of July. Then the summer holidays came, and it is not so easy to get local councillors and other representatives to come from all over the country, including Scotland, particularly at the beginning of the holiday period. It was, therefore, quite fortuitous that the firewomen's pay question was left until after the summer holidays, during which time the Government decided on a certain line of policy on wages generally in connection with their battle against inflation.
If this increase in pay had been a pure cost-of-living increase the Government might have been justified in saying, "We think that a 13 per cent. cost-of-living increase is too much." But, in fact, this was not a cost-of-living increase at all. It was a revision of the wages structure for the firewomen in the fire services and was consequential on what had been happening in the fire services during the previous four years for the male members of the fire services, both firemen and the officer ranks.
It took at least that time to carry out a revision of the wages structure and a complete revision of the hours of duty. The National Joint Council—both the full Council and the officers' committee—had been extremely heavily engaged with these revisions of all the conditions which applied to the male members of the fire services, and the Joint Council was a bit exhausted, but it got round to the job of the firewomen's pay in October.
The recommended increase of 13 per cent. was not just a cost-of-living increase. It was the result of very careful deliberation and the realisation that we could not go on any longer in justice aligning a firewoman's pay to that of a typist in a local government office. These firewomen do an extremely responsible job in a most unobstrusive and efficient manner. It is no exaggeration to say that on their efforts lives depend, because if a firewoman does not turn up to work awake, alive and fit she may make a mistake which may result in a fire engine going to a wrong address. It is the easiest thing in the heat of the moment to take down a message wrongly, and lives may be lost.
1024
These women do a very responsible job indeed. They are not like other local government employees wearing their own clothes and more or less doing what they like provided they do not murder anybody or steal the cash. They wear uniform and they are subject to a very strict code of discipline, as are the firemen. It is exactly the same code for the firewomen as for the firemen.
Because of these extra responsibilities, the National Joint Council got round to the job at last—possibly it ought to have done it much sooner—of working out a fair and just rate of pay for the firewomen. While I am on this side of the House I will not say anything against the Government's efforts in their battle against inflation, but I must say that in this case I do not think that any of their efforts would have been in any way jeopardised if they had given the fire-women what was after all very natural justice. After all, the Government do not have to worry that the employers' side on the National Joint Council is composed of weak-kneed chaps who will say "Yes" to anything that the employees' side put up. They are a very tough lot indeed, and, if someone wants to get anything past them, he has to make out a very good case.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: Is the Home Secretary represented on the employers' side of the Council?
Mr. R. Harris: No, the Home Secretary is not represented on the employers' side of the Joint Council, and has not been since the fire services were denationalised. Some of us have tried to make up our minds since whether the fire services would be better off if he were; but the answer is that he is not, although everything has to go as a recommendation to him.
Because of the longer hours and the much stricter discipline, it is obvious that, sooner or later, firewomen should have the proper rate for the job. The fact that the Home Secretary has seen fit to turn down the recommendation has been very unfortunate, and it makes one wonder why this treatment has been meted out to firewomen when, evidently, it is not to be meted out to other classes of people in the Civil Service, who may have increases in pay recommended for them as a result of the activities of the

1025
Civil Service Pay Research Unit. Will the Home Secretary turn down all those recommendations, if any of them happen to be for more than, say, 4 or 5 per cent.? If so, I should think that the Civil Service would like to be told fairly soon. In fact, the Civil Service Whitley Council has been told that any increases recommended by the Pay Research Unit will be paid.
I hope that it will not be long before my right hon. Friend finds some way of doing justice to these firewomen. To my mind, they have been surprisingly quiet during the last ten years since the service was denationalised. They have not made nuisances of themselves, like some other people may perhaps be considered to have done in the fire services. Others have fought hard for their rights, but the firewomen have been very quiet until now. Now, they are becoming a little militant, and I cannot say that I blame them. I hope that my right hon. Friend will soon find a way of giving them the whole increase which was recommended after such careful thought by the Council.
10.47 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: I thought that the Civil Service might come up in the course of the debate on these Regulations. I have heard references to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris). It is true, as was said in some of the correspondence which passed between the Home Secretary and the secretaries of the National Joint Council, that some increase in the pay of the Civil Service had been made during the last nine months. Most, if not all, of this stemmed from the Report of the Priestley Commission on the Civil Service, which settled many general principles——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that this is within the terms of the Regulations before us.
Mr. Houghton: The criticism of the Regulations is based, in part, on what has happened elsewhere in the public service, and I was seeking to bring into proper focus that criticism.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the criticism to which the hon. Member refers is misplaced, but that would not allow us to
1026
debate conditions in the Civil Service on these Regulations.
Mr. Houghton: I know how strictly limited the scope of debate is on a Prayer on a Statutory Instrument, and it was only because reference had been made to action in another part of the public service as a basis for criticism of these Regulations that I ventured to make some comment on what had actually happened elsewhere. However, I will not pursue that. It would only bring me into further conflict with the Chair and I have no desire to detain the House on a matter which is not strictly relevant to the debate on the Regulations.
What I wanted to say is that it seems to me that the machinery of negotiation in this case, as, for example, in the case of the National Health Service, reveals a weakness when the Home Secretary, who is not represented on the employers' side of the National Joint Council, nevertheless has the power of veto over its whole proceedings. The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth said that he sometimes wonders whether it would be better if the Home Secretary were represented on the National Joint Council.
I do not venture any practical suggestion as to how the machinery of negotiation should be adjusted to meet this situation. What I do know is that this kind of action by the Home Secretary, comparable with the action of the Minister of Health in relation to the Whitley Council recommendation in the Health Service, excites bitterness and resentment out of all proportion to the issues involved. Having swallowed the camel of the men, he strains at the gnat which are the women, probably due to the fact that the men were settled before the Government decided on certain stringent economic measures last autumn and, as the hon. Member said, the women's case had to be considered at a most unfortunate moment for the women. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman crashes down on the scheme.
That is unfair, especially since the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not crash down on civil servants, whose cases were being considered after that period but stemmed from earlier settlements precisely in the way that the women's case in this instance has done. That is the weakness of the whole set-up. The Home

1027
Secretary not only has responsibility as a member of the Government, but has a responsibility because a large part of the expense involved will be borne by the Exchequer. That is where he comes into it. If, however, he comes into it at the end with the sole voice of veto and has to be asked to see a deputation before he can be required to explain himself to the parties concerned, that reveals a weakness in the machinery of joint negotiation.
It is only when this kind of thing occurs that this sort of weakness is revealed with acuteness and with the consequences and bad feeling which it arouses amongst the staff's and the employers' representatives who have been responsible for the negotiations, who have thought it all out and who have reached what they believe to be the right decision. They make a recommendation to the Home Secretary and find that he slaps down on the whole thing, partly on the ground of comparison and partly on the ground of economic climate, but whichever ground he chooses the right hon. Gentleman has refused the proposed increase.
There is a further point. It seems to me that the proposals regarding fire-women derive to some extent from the adoption by the Government of the principle of equal pay in the public service. This increase, as the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth said, is not a cost-of-living increase. It is a consequence of the adjustment of the rates of pay for the men and a consequence also of the new approach to relativities between the pay of firewomen and the pay of firemen.
Again, in the public sector generally, the Government have adopted the principle of equal pay for equal work. If the firewomen were doing the same duties and all the duties of the men, they would have the clearest case to be paid equal pay with the men, even though it were introduced on the seven-year instalment plan, in the same way as in the Civil Service; but the principle of equal pay would have been accepted and they would now be in their fourth or fifth year of progress towards the attainment of absolute equality. The fact of it being a 13 per cent. increase or a 30 per cent. increase would have been beside the point. It would have followed from the adoption of a principle long overdue and one which, it is generally acknowledged,
1028
should be applied where women are doing equal work with men.
There is a difference here in the nature of the duties of firewomen and those of men, as, indeed, in the Civil Service there are grades in which women perform duties distinguishable from those of men. Therefore, the principle of equal pay has not been conceded. We make no complaint about it. However, women in grades whose duties are distinguishable from those of men are given what we describe as sympathetic increases to establish or maintain proper relativity between women and women, those who are given the full equal pay and those not in grades where the duties are fully the same as those of men. These increases seem to be of that kind. Therefore, there seems to be less justification for the Home Secretary's turning them down.
I must say I was quite astonished when this matter was reported to the Joint Council of the Trades Union Congress only recently. There was strong feeling that it was a misfortune that the Home Secretary had intervened in the way he had. It gives rise to a lack of confidence in the negotiating machinery, and if there is a lack of confidence in the machinery of negotiation then there is all the more impulse behind strike action—not, I know, in the fire services, but generally. Any damage to the machinery of negotiation, which is the only basis for reaching agreements, is a blow to an amicable settlement of disputes and is an encouragement to direct action, which may have grievous consequences in more ways than one. It is, therefore, the Home Secretary's special care to see that this machinery is properly used and its authority is not impaired, and in my judgment he would have done far better to have accepted the recommendation, whatever he may have wished to say afterwards about any matter coming before the Council in future or any question he may have raised about having representation on the employers' side or other matters in which he has concern.
10.57 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I do not dissent from the very clear diary of events which the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) outlined at the opening of his speech tonight, and I do not

1029
propose to go over again what was a very fair analysis of what has happened over the past year in relation to this claim. As the House will be aware, this matter was debated on the Fire Services Estimates on 17th March, and thereafter my right hon. Friend received a very full and representative deputation from the National Joint Council on 26th March to which he fully explained the Government's attitude and the reasons for his decision.
Some very harsh words have been said about my right hon. Friend—"crashing down on the women," and firewomen having a "raw deal." Let me say straight away that there is no question of the Government's having imposed any freeze on the firewomen's wages. They have not been denied a wage increase, and they will receive, under the Regulations we are debating, increases which are back dated to 1st September, 1957, and which range from£23 to£45 per annum according to their grades.
This increase, as some Members have pointed out, compares favourably with the last award to the firemen, who received a 3·6 per cent. increase at the maximum of the scale compared to the 6 per cent. increase at the maximum which the Regulations we are debating will apply to the firewomen. In contrast, the recommendation put forward by the National Joint Council would have resulted in an increase at the maximum of 13 per cent.
When my right hon. Friend met the deputation he made it clear that, whilst he accepted that increases would be justified on the basis of the local government scales to which firewomen's pay had hitherto been related, he could not accept the proposal to relate those scales immediately to the firemen's scale, which would have resulted in a very considerably larger increase in certain respects and at certain points of the scale. At the same time my right hon. Friend made it plain—and he has particularly asked me to reaffirm this tonight—that his decision was based on the overriding necessity for all-round restraint in wages, and that he would willingly review the situation when circumstances permitted. That position still applies.
It is not, I think, fair to suggest that because the sum involved is small, the principle and the stand taken by the
1030
Government should therefore be thrown overboard. Discussion tonight has revolved round the recommendation that the firewomen's pay should in future be linked to that of the firemen. The recommendations for a pay increase provided a scale which, at a time when all sections of the community were being asked to exercise restraint in wage claims, my right hon. Friend felt he was unable to accept.
It has been suggested that because of the smallness of the sum, the principle of wage restraint should not have been imposed on this particular section of the public service, and that there might be less need now for wage restraint. That view the Government do not accept, and it was made emphatically plain in the Budget speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that our first priority was still to maintain the value of the pound. He felt it necessary to point out that if wage increases in general were beyond the national increase in productivity it was bound to damage the national interest and that of everyone.
Mrs. White: The hon. Lady has not given the estimated cost of the increases compared with the estimated cost of the proposed scales. She has worked only in percentages. But as the Home Secretary's own proposals made larger increases in the earlier increments than in the proposed scales, and as the proposed scale comes higher for a number of people who stay on in the service beyond five years, only those who have been in for a longer time would be getting more under the proposals which have been objected to. The House is entitled to know the Home Office's estimate of the real difference in total cost—not in percentages.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: The difference in total cost is about£4,000. I have said earlier that it is a small sum, but that does not invalidate the principle at a time when all sections of the community were being asked to accept wage restraint. The Council's proposals would have meant an increase at the maximum of 13 per cent., compared with an increase at the maximum under the new Regulations of 6 per cent.
Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Lady is talking about principle, but does she not appreciate that, for the sum of£4,000 a year, the Government are throwing overboard the principle of joint negotiation

1031
and destroying confidence in the trade union movement in the Government's intentions in these matters?
Miss Hornsby-Smith: That may be the hon. Gentleman's interpretation, but I shall be dealing with the question of the principle of joint negotiation, and I do not accept what has been said by hon. Members opposite in relation to my right hon. Friend's conduct in this matter. Since the Chancellor's statement, nothing has happened to change our view of the necessity for wage restraint, although the Government have shown that where they believe there is a claim for a reasonable increase—as is provided for in these Regulations—an increase to that extent has been granted. It cannot be argued that because a service cannot be productive in the industrial sense it need not be required to conform to restraints which are applied elsewhere. In our view it would be both idle and irresponsible of the Government to exhort others to apply restrictions if, in the field of public service, where the Minister has a statutory responsibility—as has the Secretary of State in this case—he should decline to do so.
We accepted that the firewomen had a just claim to an increase of pay, and the Regulations provide for it. When we analyse the increases provided for in these Regulations and compare them with the recommendations of the National Joint Council we find that the four officer ranks will receive less under the Government recommendations than they would have done under the National Joint Council proposals, as will firewomen at two points in the scale; that firewomen at six points in the scale will receive the same increase as that recommended by the Council, and that at two points they will receive more under the Government proposals than under the Council's recommendations.
It has been suggested by nearly every speaker that the action taken by my right hon. Friend constitutes an interference in the rights of employers and employees freely to negotiate agreements about pay. I emphasise most emphatically that we do not accept that the Secretary of State's attitude impairs the authority of the National Joint Council. Under the Fire Services Act, 1947, he is statutorily empowered to refer back to the Council recommendations which he does not
1032
approve. The fact that that has not happened on many occasions does not lessen his powers as laid down in the Act, which says that if he approves the recommendations he may, by regulation, give effect to them. The Act does not say that he shall do so. As I have explained, the Secretary of State is given express power to refer back to the National Joint Council any recommendations that are not approved by him.
So long as the Secretary of State is so empowered he has a duty to fulfil that responsibility. It is for him, if he deems fit, to refer back recommendations to the Council, and to suggest that the responsibility given him under the Act is meaningless, that he should not exercise it, and that if he uses the authority given him by Parliament he is undermining the whole authority of the Council, is a gross exaggeration of the position. If he is to be denied that authority it undermines the authority of the Minister and Parliament to control the expenditure of public funds voted by this House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) said in reply to the question raised by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), the Government are not represented on the National Joint Council, but the Government contribution towards the overall cost of the fire services is 25 per cent. It runs into some millions of pounds, and features in the Estimates of the Department, and is voted by the House. I cannot accept the view that the Secretary of State, by using the powers statutorily given him, is undermining the authority of the Council by virtue of the fact that he is using those powers to refer this question back to that Council.
I say again that my right hon. Friend made it plain to the deputation—and he still stands by the undertaking he gave then—that the door is not closed on the re-assessment of the basis on which fire-women's pay is calculated, as was hoped for in the original recommendation of the Council. He made it plain to the deputation that he certainly hoped that he would be in a position to do so in the not too far distant future.
The firewomen have received increases which are not ungenerous, and I hope that the House will not accede to the Prayer.
11.10 p.m.
Mr. John Diamond: I will detain the House for but a few minutes, and only because I myself received a delegation from firewomen a little time ago in relation to the subject of this Prayer.
I did not attempt to speak earlier because it seemed to me that hon. Members on all sides of the House virtually made the same points, that in two major respects these Regulations were a fatal mistake. It has been suggested that they hit at the most tender point of wage negotiations, namely, belief in machinery of this kind, and seem to be bearing down as in a previous case on a section of the community because it was weak and unable to fight back. As the arguments were wholly one way, and most important arguments, it seemed only right to listen to the reply of the hon. Lady in the hope that there would be some possible explanation for the action proposed.
There are two arguments in respect of the action proposed against which we are praying. The first is the argument about inflation; namely, that we cannot afford to pay any section of the community more than what is compensated for by an increase in productivity. That argument was utterly destroyed by two things the hon. Lady said. First, at two points in the scale the Home Secretary is proposing to pay more than the National Joint Council itself proposed, and in total the Home Secretary is proposing an increase of 6 per cent., as opposed to the 13 per cent. which the National Joint Council suggested.
Mrs. White: At the maximum.
Mr. Diamond: At the maximum. The 6 per cent. is far in excess of any increase in productivity that anyone is possibly looking for in the overall increases in the country. Until the figures came out,
1034
yesterday or today, productivity was generally regarded as stagnant, but as we know now, that—as usual—was an understatement and in fact productivity is falling. In other wage negotiations 3 per cent. has been discussed, and 6 per cent. must be well up on anything so far contemplated.
The other argument was that this was not an interference with the work of the National Joint Council. I imagine that in this case, as in other cases, these matters have been very carefully considered. As the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) pointed out, the employers' side on the Council is not made up of a lot of simple individuals who will not pay full regard to the economic implications. They decided on a general structure and a general series of variations of wages which they thought appropriate to the circumstances. All those who, like myself, have seen fire-women at work know how right it is that they should be paid wages commensurate and comparable with the duties they do alongside their mates, the firemen.
The Home Secretary has seen fit, not to reject the four years' work—it has taken four years to come out, I do not know how long it was considered—but in three major instances to give more in certain cases and less in others, and has destroyed the whole basis of the suggestions which were put forward. It would be difficult to find a more certain way of destroying the value of that work and giving every member on the employers' side the feeling that this is the last time they will go out of their way to devise suitable rates of wages. Therefore, I hope that, as the reply of the hon. Lady has given the case away in these two major respects, we shall do whatever is in our power to fight against the suggestion which is now being made.
Question put and negatived.

PRISONERS (COMPASSIONATE TRANSFER)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
11.16 p.m.
Lord Balniel: In opening this debate at this rather late hour I must begin by thanking my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for undertaking to be present to answer the questions I wish to ask. I have no doubt that the best way in which I can express my thanks is to be as brief as possible and to put the arguments as concisely as possible. I am glad to do this, because the arguments which I wish to advance and the points which I wish to make speak for themselves. They are very simple and straightforward.
I am raising the case of the welfare and happiness of one, or at the very most, two, of my constituents. In normal circumstances I should wish to mention their names but I have decided not to do so, although I have given my hon. and learned Friend who is to reply the name of the person concerned so that he has been able to acquaint himself with all the facts and so that he will be able to answer the points I wish to make. I have decided against giving publicly the name of the person or persons concerned, because at present one of those persons is in prison and if any publicity were attracted locally to his family it would only add more grief and distress to that which this family already has in good measure.
He was convicted in 1956 and sentenced for an offence which is not relevant in any way to what I have to say tonight. The sentence was one of twelve years, which he is now serving in Parkhurst Prison in the Isle of Wight. At the time of his conviction his father was alive, and his mother, although elderly, was in good health. Now his father has died, and his mother is not only elderly but in weak general health, and her eyesight is failing.
It was because his mother's sight was failing, and so that before it was too late she could see him once again, that he dispatched a petition to the Home Secretary on 30th January this year, asking
1036
if it was possible for him to be granted a temporary transfer—and I emphasise the word temporary—to a prison nearer to Hertfordshire; say, at Bedford, so that he could be visited by his mother before it was too late. This petition is completely self-explanatory, and I cannot do better than quote it to the House. He writes:
"I am submitting this petition on the following compassionate grounds for your kind consideration. I am very worried about my mother, who is an old-age pensioner, and who has recently gone totally blind and has not much longer to live. She would be only too pleased to travel down here"
that is, to Parkhurst,
"to visit me, but the expense is too much for her, apart from, the further expense of a friend to accompany her now that she has lost her sight. It would certainly give her a little happiness and myself peace of mind if you would kindly allow me to go to Bedford Prison with the usual monthly draft from here so that we can both have the pleasure of meeting again before it is too late. I fully realise that I have another two years or so to wait before I am eligible for the privilege of visits on temporary transfer. Hence this petition to you to enable me to go there and have the pleasure of seeing my mother, who is 84, before it is too late. I would sincerely appreciate and thank you indeed if you would kindly grant me this privilege and my only means of seeing her. If you require further confirmation that this is a genuine case you have only to ask Dr."—
he mentions the name of a doctor well known to me personally as a responsible and fully qualified doctor in Hatfield—
"to confirm this."
When my constituent originally wrote to me on this subject I had not in my possession a copy of this petition, but he set out fairly fully in his letter to me the main contents of the petition, which he had sent to the Home Secretary. Although I had not the petition in my possession, I felt that prima facie here was a petition asking for a temporary transfer which seemed to have some worth and some value and which, one would have thought, merited very serious consideration. I am led to believe that it was answered within seven days from its dispatch from Parkhouse Prison, and I am told that the answer from the Home Secretary was to the effect that the petition had been carefully considered but there were—I quote the words—"no grounds for a transfer".
I think my hon. and learned Friend would be the first to agree that, especially

1037
where prisoners are involved—persons cut off from ordinary, everyday life, who may well feel that it is more difficult for them to obtain fair and just treatment—it is very important that petitions of this kind should be very carefully considered and that when it is stated, in reply, that careful consideration has been given, these words should not be merely an automatic phrase which has little meaning. My concern is accentuated by the fact that when I took up the matter with my hon. and learned friend, I wrote on 20th February and it was not until 28th March, one month and one week later, that I received a reply.
I make no complaint about that. I realise, as do most hon. Members, that the Home Office and other Government Departments deal with Members' correspondence as expeditiously as possible, and I feel sure that the delay of a month and a week was used for a very careful investigation of the circumstances of this case. I have no complaint about the delay in answering my letter. My concern arises from the fact that there was that delay, while the Department dealt with my correspondence as expeditiously as possible, whereas the petition was answered within a week.
I should like an assurance from my hon. and learned Friend that this petition, which was dealt with so promptly, was seriously considered by his Department. Could he confirm, for instance, that advantage was taken of the suggestion in the petition that he should contact the doctor in Hatfield? Was the doctor in Hatfield able to confirm the truth of the points which were made in the petition? Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend can reassure me in this respect. I should be exceedingly grateful if he could let me know exactly what steps were taken by his Department to investigate this petition.
When I received the details as set out by my constituent, I made my own investigations. I visited his mother, and I must tell my hon. and learned Friend that, having visited this lady, I find it really beyond the realms of probability to think that she could ever have the chance, on general health grounds alone, to make that long journey from central Hertfordshire to the Isle of Wight. She did, indeed, make the journey on one occasion, but it proved too much for her,
1038
and she spent several days in bed afterwards as a result.
In my view, the fact that the mother of my constituent is not able to visit her son in prison is having a very serious effect on her own health. She realises as well as anyone else that her eyesight is failing fast, and if a temporary transfer cannot be arranged it is patently obvious to her that she will never see her son again. The district health visitor was also able to tell me, from her own professional knowledge, that the journey to the Isle of Wight would be quite beyond this mother's strength.
I also took the trouble to ask the doctor referred to in the petition whether he would confirm or deny the truth of the statement in the petition, and perhaps I cannot do better than to quote what the doctor says. He writes to me:
"This lady is an old lady of 84 years of age. Her vision is extremely poor. She can at present see the outline of persons and can see movement of the human hand. Her dimness of vision is due to two causes"—
and then he explains that it is due to haemorrhages and to early cataracts. He goes on:
"I would expect her vision to improve slightly if she did not have cataracts…but, of course one has to take into account that the cataracts will increase in density and this, I feel, will negative any improvement in the other condition. I therefore feel that on the whole this lady's sight will deteriorate inexorably until such times as her eyes are ripe for operation. Then her operation would give her back a very poor vision.…I would not like to give a decision on an 85-year-old woman to restore her from complete blindness to a state where she could only discern light and the outlines of human beings. At lot would depend on the person involved, and, on the whole, I think I would advise against an operation on this lady."
The man is serving a prison sentence of twelve years. All he has asked for is a temporary transfer—I imagine that, literally, a temporary transfer of one or two days would be adequate—from Parkhurst Prison on the Isle of Wight to Bedford Prison, or, indeed, to any prison reasonably close to Hertfordshire. It is merely a transfer that he seeks, and if my hon. and learned Friend cannot see his way to grant what is, I imagine, a very small matter to the Home Office but a very important one to the family concerned, it means, almost inevitably, that the mother of this person, because of the deterioration—to use the doctor's

1039
words, an "inexorable deterioration"—of her eyesight, will never again see her son.
I appreciate that the rules in these matters are very strict and that, perhaps, once they are stretched in any way it tends to be a precedent for other cases, perhaps less worthy and less deserving. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to look personally into this matter again with a view to granting what, in my opinion, is a very reasonable and honest request from this constituent of mine who is in prison.
11.30 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): My noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) has done a useful service in raising this subject tonight. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary receives many petitions from prisoners about this matter of visiting aged and sick relatives, and both my right hon. Friend and I know from our correspondence with hon. Members that it is a matter on which prisoners frequently write to them, so that I am very glad of the opportunity which the debate provides of explaining why it is often not possible to grant prisoners' requests to be placed nearer to their homes.
In doing so, I would ask the House to bear in mind that, as those who have had experience in the criminal law know so well, one of the tragic consequences of crime is that the families are deeply hurt by the sentences which prisoners have to undergo because of their crimes, and that is a fact of which we should not lose sight.
The Prison Commissioners do not purposely send prisoners to serve their sentences far from their families and friends. The fact that it often happens is a natural and, indeed, unavoidable result of a prison system. Of course, prison officers have to serve wherever they are required to do, and we have to have a sense of proportion when considering the wishes of prisoners themselves.
There is an excellent pamphlet called "Prisons and Borstals," of which a revised edition was published by the Stationery Office last year, describing the policy and practice in the administration of the prison and borstal system in England and Wales, and in the appendix
1040
to that pamphlet there is a complete list of all prisons. It is worth bearing in mind that there are now 25 general local prisons, 9 special local prisons, 10 central prisons, and 14 regional prisons of a specialised kind. Some prisons, however, are used as allocation centres and others serve more than one purpose and so appear in more than one category.
When a man is sentenced by the court he goes first to the nearest local prison. If he remains there he is likely to be as near home as is possible while serving his sentence. Much depends on where his home is and whether it happens to be within reasonable reach of the local prison. But if a local prison is overcrowded, which alas is often the case these days, he would be sent somewhere else where there is room for him, or he may have to be sent away to make room for newly committed prisoners until they are allocated.
The difficulty to which my noble Friend refers arises most frequently with regard to central prisons, which mostly contain men doing preventive detention, as this prisoner, the constituent of my noble Friend, is doing, or long-term recidivists, of whom there are a great many at Dartmoor. Different types of prisoners require different prisons for their treatment, for experience shows that training is best carried out in prisons which contain so far as possible the same sort of prisoners. That is another factor which has a bearing on this matter, because we cannot without completely upsetting the prison system, move men about with the principal desire of dealing with compassionate circumstances.
Further, we have to remember that when a prisoner is moved from one prison to another an escort is required, as indeed is usually the case when a prisoner is taken on a visit outside a prison, whether a central or a local one, in case of exceptional hardship.
The Prison Commissioners already provide a vast number of escorts every year. It is a considerable strain on their resources, and they have to be careful not to add to that burden. Nevertheless, transfers from a prison where sentence is being served to a prison nearer a prisoner's home are allowed, in certain circumstances.
The case about which my noble Friend wrote to me, which he has in mind tonight, is that of a preventive detention

1041
prisoner. As my noble Friend said, the man's sentence is being served at Parkhurst Prison in the Isle of Wight, and he is in the second stage of his sentence already. It is a fact that the prisoner was very worried about his mother, who, he said in his petition to the Home Secretary, had recently gone totally blind and might not live much longer. We made inquiries about the medical facts, and found that there was some genuine hardship; but the mother was not totally blind, although her vision was undoubtedly poor. I am glad to say that there is no evidence that she was then, or is now, in a critical state of health. It is a fact that she could not travel to Parkhurst to visit her son, and he, therefore, wanted to go to Bedford, which is the nearest local prison to his mother's home.
Even if circumstances had justified the expense and inconvenience of transferring the man to Bedford, he would not have been allowed out of the prison to visit his mother, in the medical circumstances relating to her which I have described, and she could not have visited him more than twice during any stay he might make there even if all the visits due to him were allowed. The conclusion, therefore, was reached by the prison authorities that compassionate circumstances at the time of the application did not justify the exceptional treatment which I have mentioned.
However, as I have informed my noble Friend, it is the practice, where the health
1042
of a near relative takes a critical turn for the worse, to allow a visit, either under escort or, in cases where a prisoner can be trusted, on parole. The prison governor himself has authority to act at once where the need arises, without reference to the Prison Commissioners.
My noble Friend asked me to explain the apparent disparity between a petition dealt with promptly within seven days and a much longer period required—over a month—for me to reply to a letter of his. I am relying on my recollection at this moment and I shall have to verify this and let my noble Friend know about it, but it may well be that the inquiries required to enable me to answer him were rather more exhaustive than those needed to answer the petition. I assure my noble Friend that, when these requests are made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or myself, we consider them with real sympathy. There are formidable difficulties about granting many of them, It is surely right that we should apply a stringent test, not only because of the practical difficulties I have mentioned but also in order to avoid causing jealousy or discontent among other prisoners. I assure the House, however, that, when very exceptional cases arise, we can and do take steps to deal with them, and deal with them promptly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.

COAL
  Opencast Mining, West Riding (Land)
  Opencast Mining, West Riding (Land)
  Mining Accidents, West Riding (Deaths)
  Mining Accidents, West Riding (Deaths)
  Agecroft Colliery (Accident)
  Agecroft Colliery (Accident)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Administration
  Administration
  New Petrol Stations
  New Petrol Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations (Plutonium Production)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Plutonium Production)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Thorp Arch
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Thorp Arch
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Hospital Staffs (Radiation Hazards)
  Hospital Staffs (Radiation Hazards)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Transistor Hearing Aids
  Transistor Hearing Aids
  Poliomyelitis (Vaccine Supplies)
  Poliomyelitis (Vaccine Supplies)
  Japanese Tinned Salmon
  Japanese Tinned Salmon
HOSPITALS
  Whitley Councils
  Whitley Councils
  Student Nurses
  Student Nurses
EGYPT
  British Schools
  British Schools
  British Refugees (Loans)
  British Refugees (Loans)
  GERMANY (NAZI JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS)
  GERMANY (NAZI JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Royal Commission on Common Land (Report)
  Royal Commission on Common Land (Report)
  Potatoes (New Guarantee System)
  Potatoes (New Guarantee System)
  Gin Traps
  Gin Traps
  Cattle Imports
  Cattle Imports
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Calf Subsidy Scheme
  Calf Subsidy Scheme
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Harris Tweed
  Harris Tweed
  Cotton Industry
  Cotton Industry
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  N.A. 39 Aircraft
  N.A. 39 Aircraft
EMPLOYMENT
  Older Workers
  Older Workers
  Bank Employees (Negotiating Machinery)
  Bank Employees (Negotiating Machinery)
RAILWAYS
  Passenger Fares
  Passenger Fares
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Czechoslovakian Citizens (Visas)
  Czechoslovakian Citizens (Visas)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Dartford Exchange
  Dartford Exchange
UGANDA
  Machinery (Safety Guards)
  Machinery (Safety Guards)
NYASALAND
  African National Congress
  African National Congress
SEYCHELLES AND TONGA
  Banking Facilities
  Banking Facilities

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers

THE LEBANON
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, since the Lebanese question is presently before the United Nations, independent national action can be justified; and what is meant by the words used on May 19 by Her Majesty's Government "the established rules of International Law"; and, further, whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the proposal to extend the Lebanese President's term of office.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the Lebanese President's term of office is a matter for the Lebanon. It is true that the Security Council have passed a resolution authorising the urgent despatch of an observation group to proceed to the Lebanon, so as to ensure that there is no illegal infiltration of personnel or supply of arms or other material across the Lebanese border, and some observers are now in position. It is Her Majesty's Government's policy to do everything within their power to see that effective Action is taken to implement this resolution.
Her Majesty's Government have stated that they will not intervene contrary to the Charter or the established rules of International Law. Exactly what rules would be applicable would depend on the circumstances, and I cannot answer in detail questions on hypothetical situations. Therefore, I would ask the noble Viscount to be satisfied with this reply. I repeat that this matter now rests with the United Nations, and the Government believe that all efforts and attention
352
should be concentrated on making the United Nations operation succeed in its declared purpose.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Earl's reply. The pressure of public opinion has undoubtedly changed the policy of the parties in this matter, so I make no apology for putting down this Question. As to the first part of the Answer, it is true that the election of the Lebanese President is a matter for the Lebanon, and if the demand for a second term is the cause of the trouble, clearly outsiders have no right to interfere. That is the relevance of that part of the Question, and therefore I could have wished that the Government could have given your Lordships their opinion about it.
So far as the words "the established rules of International Law", are concerned, what I should like to know is, who judges these rules and whether they are established? If, having weighed all of the facts, through their observers, the Security Council give a decision which does not please Her Majesty's Government, can we be assured that Her Majesty's Government will not then bring into parade what they call the "established rules of International Law" and shatter the machinery of peace of the United Nations?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I have said in my Answer, we have set ourselves certain standards, and we shall stick to them and judge the situation in the light of them as it arises. What the noble Viscount has asked me is a whole series of further hypothetical questions, and I am afraid that in the present situation I cannot go beyond the Answer that I have given him.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Government in Canada have made any representations to Her Majesty's Government here concerning the declaration of policy made by the Foreign Secretary in another place as regards Article 51 and the established rules of International Law?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should need notice of that question. Of course, we are constantly in touch with all Commonwealth Governments on this matter and on all matters concerning our

353
policy in the Middle East. As to specific communications between Governments, it is not our usual practice to disclose them. I should need notice if the noble Lord has any specific question in mind.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it is very convenient that the noble Earl is Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Did he consult Dr. Nkrumah, who was lately in Cairo, as to what he thought about such an expedition?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am in close touch with Dr. Nkrumah, as I am with all the Prime Ministers and Ministers in the Commonwealth Governments, but it is not the practice to disclose the intimate conversations and consultations which we have with them, as they would lose a great real of their value if they were made public.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for the Answer he has given. Is the noble Earl aware that the type of Question on the Order Paper to-day is educed from a good deal of fear and anxiety in the nation? On the other hand, is he aware that many of us are pleased with the announcement on the wireless last night about the measure of agreement between the Prime Minister and the leader in France in refraining from any special entry into the Lebanon?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. Naturally people are anxious about this question; it gives us all a great deal of anxiety. I think the great thing is that all nations who support the United Nations in their determination to maintain the independence of this country should try to make the United Nations operations a success and support the advice given by Mr. Harrimarskjoeld, the Secretary-General.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, my noble Leader made a statement which I had not heard until he told me. Is it the fact that the Government have issued a communiqué saying that, in harmony
354
with the United States, they have abandoned any suggestion they might have made for another military intervention?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think that here I ought to say that I merely remember what was said on the sound radio last evening, to the effect that General de Gaulle and our Prime Minister were in agreement that now was not the time for an expedition to enter the Lebanon.

COSTS OF LEASES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (INDUSTRIAL FINANCE) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a., and to be printed.
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.

NEW GOVERNMENT CHIEF WHIP
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we did not greet with cheers the last two Motions, but may we offer our congratulations from the Opposition on the new appointment of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn? We look forward to pleasant, if sometimes controversial, relations.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Viscount in his statement.

DOMICILE BILL
4.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Meston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD TERR1NGTON in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Domicile of married woman
5. The domicile of a married woman is that of her husband unless there is in force an order of a court by virtue of which she is not bound to cohabit with him.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out all words after "woman" and to insert instead:
" shall be determined on the same grounds as if she were a feme sole."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of other distinguished noble Lords. I should like to say at the outset that, although the majority of noble Lords whose name is down to this Amendment sit on this side of the Committee, this Amendment is in no sense a political one; I have not the slightest idea of what my noble friends think about it and they are entirely free, so far as I am concerned, to take whatever view they please. I hope therefore that noble Lords on all sides will feel themselves able to consider this Amendment on its merits.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. My noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Avonholm has an Amendment down which is not the same as this but is on the same subject matter. I do not know whether he would think it convenient that we should have a general discussion on the matter, and then he can make up his mind whether he wants to move his Amendment.
LORD KEITH or AVONHOLM: I think that would be a convenient course. I intended to speak on the Amendment that is being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and, as I shall show later,
356
to support it. My Amendment is something in the shape of a second line of defence.
LORD SILKIN: I am happy to hear that, and perhaps we might exchange views later as to which of the two Amendments we should press. Whichever it is, the purpose of the Amendment is perfectly simple: that in this Bill we should now provide that married women should be entitled to be treated as having a domicile as if they were single women; that is to say, that they should no longer be tied to the domicile of their husbands. On Second Reading this matter was fairly fully discussed and the case for this Amendment was put with great force by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning; and the fact that he has put forward the case in that way saves me from having to repeat it in detail. I should like to say, however, that it is based upon two points. The importance of domicile is, first, that it often governs the place where divorce or other matrimonial proceedings can be taken, which may be a matter of some importance to a wife: and secondly, that it involves questions of devolution of property—and it may make all the difference in the world as to whether the property devolves in accordance with British law or in accordance with the law of some other country in which the married woman may be deemed to be domiciled.
The noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, quoted a number of extremely hard cases showing how married women have suffered as a result of the law of domicile both as related to matrimonial affairs and as related to the devolution of property; and I do not propose to repeat those. I base the case on the fact that this is one of the last of the sex disabilities from which women suffer at the present time; and I put forward this Amendment in the interests of justice and the removal of hardship. There is a good deal of support for this principle both from other countries and in our own country. We have recently had the report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, and one of their unanimous recommendations was that the law should be altered to provide that a woman should have her own domicile. The Royal Commission were not, of course, in a position to deal with the question of property, which was outside their

357
terms of reference; but so far as matrimonial proceedings are concerned, they were quite unanimous that the law should be altered in the terms of the Amendment that I am now moving. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, explained, it is the law in the United States of America, on the Continent of Europe and in New Zealand. So we are not venturing into unexplored territory.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, in speaking on the Second Reading, invited further discussion on this point in Committee, without, of course, committing himself; and this Amendment now appears on the Marshalled List, not necessarily because he invited it (I can assure him that it would have appeared, in any case), but we are glad that he approves of this discussion. In the course of his remarks he drew attention to the Report of the (I think it was) Committee on Private International Law, which referred to the experience of the United States. It would appear that in their view the experience in the United States has given rise to many complications and difficulties, and that, for that reason, the Committee were not in favour of making the change. I do not know what these difficulties are—no doubt they will emerge in the course of the discussion—but in any case I do not think your Lordships' House ought to be deterred from remedying a wrong and putting right a grievance merely because there are difficulties of administration or procedure standing in the way. Whatever complications may arise, I think that somehow we have got to meet them.
After all, as many of your Lordships will know, complications and difficulties can arise even from the simplest of provisions. I think I am right in saying that one provision which has given rise to more legal decisions than any other is the simple expression, an accident "arising out of and in the course of employment." One would have thought that there should not be any difficulty about that. Nothing could be easier, and yet the amount of money that has been spent, and the amount of time taken up by the courts, in getting legal decisions has been colossal. Nevertheless, no one would suggest that that clause should have been deleted from the Workmen's Compensation Act. Whatever difficulties
358
arose they had to be met. So I hope that the complexity of the matter will not be prayed in aid as a reason for not accepting this Amendment, or an Amendment similar to it. Nor can it be said that this is not the time, that this is not the place, and that this is not the Bill. This is a Domicile Bill. It deals with this very point, and if we do not get this Amendment now we may have to wait many many years before this wrong is put right. I doubt whether anybody can suggest that it is not a wrong and not an injustice.
Finally, I want to make this point. We have recently passed the Life Peers Act, and in due course, possibly, we may see Life Peeresses on the Benches. It would be a great pity if this last remaining sex disability were not put right before they came; otherwise we shall probably hear a good deal about it later on. I hope that we shall clear up our House before they come and introduce this simple Amendment into the Bill, thus removing any cause for grievance on the ground of sex disability which women may have. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2. line 6. leave out from (" woman ") to end of line 8 and insert the said new words.— (Lord Silkin.)
4.24 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I
should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Silkin. He said, quite rightly, that this is a matter of an injustice which ought to be removed. I should have thought that when it was decided that women should get back their right to have a separate nationality from their husbands it would have followed as a corollary that they also obtain separate domicile—though, of course, I would not suggest that the matters are entirely the same: they are subject to different considerations. Nevertheless, I should have thought that one would have been the corollary of the other. My noble friend also said that the present situation is a flagrant injustice. While this Amendment is supported by the women's societies, who have been pressing for a long time past for the removal of the present presumption at Common Law, I should like to make it perfectly clear that they do not do so merely with a desire to have equality for the sake of equality, or

359
merely from any sense of pride or anything of that kind. It is because of the practical disadvantages of the present state of affairs.
Much has been said by my noble friend, and I am sure that many other points will be made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who has put his name to this Amendment, but I should like to point out what the present law really involves. I should point out that we are not dealing here with the usual case. The usual case, of course, is that a man and his wife live in the same place and have the same domicile, so no such question arises. But we are dealing with those exceptional cases where the divergence does arise. I will put a typical case—it is not a question of unhappy marriages: this sort of case may perfectly well arise, and does arise, where the marriage is a perfectly happy one and there is no breach of confidence, love or friendship between the parties concerned.
An Englishwoman marries a man—it does not make any difference, for the purpose of this Bill, whether he is an Englishman or a foreigner—and lives happily with him in this country for several years, very likely bears children by him and sets up a home in this country where she resides with her children. It not infrequently happens that a man finds it necessary to go overseas. It may be by his choice or by the necessity of his business, and quite frequently he stays away a considerable part of every year and occasionally, at any rate, stays away for years on end. It may suit his purpose or his business, or whatever it is, that he acquires a domicile in another country. It may be in the British Commonwealth; it my be in another foreign country in Europe; it may be in South America, or some entirely different part of the world. That is by no means an uncommon thing, and, it does not at all imply that the marriage has broken down.
There comes a time when the husband has been away for some little time. He may not even be a good correspondent, and his wife may not know exactly where he is. There comes a time when, in all good faith, she makes a will, and the lawyers of this country prepare a will for her on the assumption that the law which will decide the working out of the
360
testamentary dispositions will be English law. Unknown to the woman, her husband has acquired a domicile in some other part of the world, and when she dies the will is not interpreted according to English law. The people who have to deal with the will find out that at her death her husband was domiciled in this foreign land, and the will is interpreted according to the law of that foreign land.
That situation is really fantastic, because it does not enable the wishes of the woman to be carried out. It is very unfair to the beneficiaries and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out during the Second Reading debate, it may work unfairly to possible petitioners under the will. I can see no reason for that absurdity. The simple fact is that the woman, as an Englishwoman, has retained her nationality. Her husband has gone away and been domiciled in a foreign country, and when it conies to her property she makes a normal English will which is construed, not in terms of English law but in terms of the law of the country where her husband resided and had a domicile. She may know very little about that country and may never have set foot in it in the whole of her life. I venture to think that that is an absurd position. As other speakers will be dealing with other aspects, I will confine myself to that one point, and beg your Lordships to carry this Amendment.
4.30 p.m.
LORD DENNING: I said my say on the Second Reading. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor said he was troubled by the United States' experience—the Private International Law Committee had said they were not encouraged to recommend this because of the experience in the United States—and he invited me to look into the matter. I have done so, and it seems to me that the Committee were under a complete misapprehension. The law of the United States as to the domicile of a married woman has from the very beginning, for over a hundred years, been that a married woman is capable of having a domicile separate from that of her husband. They started the law there to remedy the same injustice which occurs here and elsewhere, that if a woman is domiciled in one State, or a husband and wife are domiciled in one State and the husband goes off to a far distant State,

361
there is no reason why she should have to follow him to his domicile in order to get a divorce. So they laid down that a wife could have her separate domicile. The Supreme Court affirmed that in 1869 and United States law affirms it to-day. Dean Griswold of the Harvard Law school, when speaking at our Australian Conference a few years ago, said that the rule was sound and right. Why has the Committee said the contrary? It is not because of any trouble with the married woman's domicile, but because some States., like Nevada, find domicile when they ought not to.
Let me give an illustration of the sort of case which has caused some of the divorce muddle in the United States. A man and woman live in North Carolina on the eastern seaboard, each being married to somebody else. Those two people cross the United States some thousands of miles to Nevada. They live in Nevada six weeks and they each bring divorce proceedings in Nevada. The man says his domicile is there and the woman says her domicile is there. They get divorced in Nevada, marry in Nevada, and then recross the United States to North Carolina. North Carolina says, "We do not like these Nevada divorces. We will prosecute them for bigamy ". Then it is claimed that the Constitution of the United States says that every State must give full faith and credit to the decisions of another State. North Carolina says. "We do not mind about that; we are going to prosecute for bigamy". That was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. So you had one State, Nevada, saying that these people were domiciled there, and the other State, North Carolina, saying that they were not domiciled in Nevada. It is the method in which one or two States in the United States find domicile which is the trouble.
May I remind your Lordships that sixty years ago your Lordships' House were concerned with a similar case, because the noble Earl of those days, Lord Russell, went across to Nevada, stayed there the requisite time and obtained his divorce there. He said he was domiciled there, and he married another woman there. Coming back here, he was indicted for bigamy, claimed to be tried by your Lordships' House and was tried here; 160 of your Lordships
362
attended and tried him. He pleaded that bigamy outside this country cannot be tried here, but your Lordships overruled it. When that legal plea was disposed of he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment in the First Division.
The trouble is not a question of the married woman's domicile at all; the trouble is that the law of one or two States of the United States of America allow domicile to be found simply on six weeks' residence. If this Amendment is brought in and passed, there is no fear that there will be any such mischief here. Our courts would not recognise a domicile which was not fully and fairly found by a court having jurisdiction over it. So the reasoning behind the report of the Private International Law Cornmittee is unfounded. I may say on that point that I have made inquiries of experts on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, not only Dean Griswold of Halyard but Dean Read of Canada, Dr. John Morris of Oxford and Professor R. H. Graveson of London. The weight of that authority is all one way: that the fears of the Private International Law Committee on this point are unfounded.
That being disposed of, what do we find? The present law as to a married woman's domicile is indefensible. The married woman, by our English law at the moment, takes her husband's domicile, no matter that they have lived separate and apart for twenty or thirty years, no matter that they are judicially separated. If he goes off to a far country, in point of law she has to follow him there to get a divorce. If she dies here after living here twenty years, her property descends according to the law of the far off country. Everybody recognises that it is indefensible. The Commission under my noble and learned friend, Lord Morton of Henryton, unanimously recommended that it should be changed for divorce. So far as the Private International Law Committee is concerned, they recommended that it should be changed so as to permit a married woman to have her separate domicile after a court order for separation. That does not meet the facts of the case. There ought to be a remedy now to put the law in line with law in the great majority of other countries and to do simple justice.
4.38 p.m.
LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: I am prepared to support the principle of this Amendment, but in case it might be thought to go too far I have put down another Amendment which is perhaps not quite so extreme. As I was not able to speak in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading of the Bill, may I say now that I think the clause, as proposed in the Bill, is much too limited in effect, and the Amendment now proposed is, I think, sound in principle.
Perhaps at the outset I may make just one criticism. This Bill, I understand, is a United Kingdom Bill: it will apply to Scotland as well as to England—in fact, it would be very unfortunate if it did not.Perhaps I might remind the noble and learned Lords who have spoken on this
Amendment that in Scotland Scottish lawyers do not speak Norman French, and I think that there would have to be some slight alteration made to indicate what exactly the effect of this Amendment is. I do not say that Scottish lawyers do not fully understand what it means in the context, though I am not sure whether, in English law, the expression " feme sole" has not perhaps wider repercussions than the Scottish conception might have in Scotland. That is not a matter on which I am able to express an opinion, but clearly I do not think feme sole will do for a United Kingdom Bill without some addition in an interpretation clause or otherwise.
The criticism of this Amendment, as I understand it, is that it suggests disunity in marriage. In a sense, that is true. But it is a clause which I think will work perfectly well. At present, the wife's domicile is supposed automatically to follow that of the husband. Under the present clause the result will be that the wife has the same domicile as her husband, not because her domicile will follow that of her husband but because she chooses to live with him. In the same way, I suppose, it may be said that the husband's domicile is where his wife lives if he chooses to live with her. Thereby you will, I think, establish the principle of the equality of the sexes.
There is one matter upon which I am not quite lear—namely, how this Amendment will fit in with the presumptions on Clause 3 of the Bill. I think there will be no difficulty with regard to subsection (1) of the clause, which reads:
364
" Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person who has a home in a country is presumed to intend to live permanently in that country."
Therefore, a wife who is living with her husband, I suppose, may be assumed to have her home in that country, and her domicile will be in that country it this Amendment is passed. I am not quite so clear about subsection (2), which reads:
" If a person has a home in more than one country he is presumed, subject to the next following subsection, to intend to live permanently in that one of them with which he is most closely connected."
It may well be that a Scottish woman may marry an Englishman; she may have a house in Scotland and lie may have a house in England, and they may shuffle backwards and forwards in perfect amity, both living together in Scotland for part of the year and both living in England for the rest of the year. It may be difficult, I think, to say that this Amendment will not result in a different domicile being given to the husband and wife in that situation, because the wife may say, "My home is in Scotland", and the husband may say, "My home is in England." Under this clause the result will be different domiciles. Thereby it would introduce what I suppose would be regarded by some people as a disunity in marriage. It does not mean that they are not going to live perfectly amicably together, but they are certainly going to have a different domicile. I do not know that that is a very serious objection, although it may give rise to certain difficulties.
There is, perhaps, one point here—namely, that nothing is said in this Bill about domicile of origin. If, say, a Scotswoman who has married an Englishman is to be treated as a feme sole, she may say, "I wish to retain my domicile of origin." That would certainly result in a rather curious position. She may intend to live with her husband all her life and to die when in the husband's home. At the same time, she may say, "I was originally a Scotswoman and I wish to retain my domicile of origin; therefore I hope to die a domiciled Scotswoman." I do not know how the courts would look at that case, because then the situation might arise that arose in the case that was referred to on Second Reading—that of Ramsay v. The Liverpool Hospital. One of the suggested reasons why this particular Bill

365
should be passed is to remedy such a situation. Unless something is done to solve that problem in the case of the wife who wishes to retain her domicile of origin, I think similar difficulties may arise.
I believe that the only way in which it could be made perfectly clear would be to introduce into the Bill something that will deal with domicile of origin in such a case, and to say that if the wife has taken up a home with her husband she must be presumed to have abandoned her domicile of origin. On the other hand, that would entirely meet the situation where she has a home in Scotland and he has a home in England and they both live together from time to time, sometimes in Scotland and sometimes in England. That is just one of the difficulties that might arise under this particular Amendment. I think that this change will have one most important result, because it will extend jurisdiction in divorce decrees. One of the results, I believe, will be to promote, greater recognition of divorce decrees among different countries—in other words, we shall be more likely to accord recognition to divorce decrees in any country where wives are allowed to acquire a separate domicile, and, simiarly, courts of other countries will, I think, be more inclined to grant recognition to decrees granted in this country to a wife who has acquired a separate domicile under this proposed Amendment.
On Second Reading references were made, as my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, has just reminded us, to the difficulties that have arisen, or are supposed to have arisen, in the United States. I entirely agree with his estimate of the position there. The difficulties there I think have nothing whatever to do with the right of the wife to acquire a separate domicile; they are due entirely to a misapplication of the law of domicile, and that misapplication can, and did, arise just as much in the case of the husband as in the case of the wife. It does not matter one whit in the United States, so far as I can see, whether the wife has a separate domicile or whether the husband has a domicile, as he is: entitled to have. The situation that arose in the United States in certain cases which have already been referred to was due entirely to what I see to have been a misapplication of the law of domicile
366
I do not think that there is more that I need say. I am prepared to support this Amendment; but, as I have said, in case it might be thought that it goes too far I have put down an Amendment in my own name. I do not know that I need raise that Amendment at the moment. I can bring it forward if the Committee feel that the present Amendment goes too wide and too far.
4.49 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I first say how grateful I am to everyone in the House who has tried so well to help with this difficult point? I said that I had a perfectly open mind on the matter, and undoubtedly the swing and play of debate have shown an overwhelming desire to make this Amendment. May I say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that, following upon what my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Avonholm, said about the drafting, I shall have something to say on that before I sit down? But, as in all our discussions, that is a minor matter compared with the question of principle. If the Committee will bear with me, I should like to sum up the position as I see it at the present time.
The Committee have heard the strong arguments adduced on Second Reading and during to-day's debate. In dealing with the arguments in favour of this change I should like to enlarge slightly on three points that have been mentioned. The first is the position of New Zealand, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned. In the provisional comments on the First Report of the Private International Law Committee sent by the Government of New Zealand on March 30, 1955, it was said:
" If any alteration of the existing law should be made, the New Zealand authorities incline towards the view that a married woman should be given the capacity to retain and acquire her own domicile in exactly the same way as an unmarried woman. This development would be an extension of a longstanding trend in New Zealand legislation of departing from the principle of unity of domicile. The present common law rule is considered to give rise to many injustices without compensating advantages."
Then (a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin) the statement went on:
" New Zealand law concerning jurisdiction in divorce and matrimonial matters already has abandoned the principle of unity of domicile, although there are still exceptions and gaps."

367
From Canada we have received the views of Dean Read of the University of Dalhousie, Halifax—which I understand are not necessarily the views of the Canadian Government. Dr. Read says this:
" From my rather extended observation of the operation of this branch of the law in the United States I have seen no more practical difficulties arising from their permitting a married woman to acquire a separate domicile, when the fact is that the married pair are no longer making their home together, than arise from the present English and Canadian rule that insists on the maintenance of legal unity of domicile in the absence of a common home in fact. The Committee is in error if it believes that the power of a married woman to acquire a separate domicile under Section 28 "
that is, of the American Restatement of Conflict of Laws—
" is a significant contributing factor to the so-called ' divorce muddle ' ".
It is important that I should state the third point in which there has been a great deal of interest. That is the view expressed by Dr. Morris, of which I have been furnished with a copy, in which he says that the American difficulties are due not to the rule of separate domicile but to conflicting decisions by States which the Supreme Court has to try to resolve. And I think it is important that those who are considering this matter should read the article by Dr. Morris in Volume 29 of the British Year Book of International Law (page 290), in which he sets out his position. I will not go through that article to-day, because my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has summarised it; but, as I indicated on Second Reading, this was a point which worried me, and his arguments appeared to be strong in attributing the divorce muddle in the United States to quite another reason.
Undoubtedly a very strong case has been developed, but I feel that one ought to note the position of the Royal Commission. No doubt my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Avonholm will correct me if I state it wrongly. That is certainly not my intention. They consider this question in paragraph 796, and again in paragraphs 819 to 826 of their Report; and, on the basis that their recommendation that a wife living apart from her husband should be able to claim a separate domicile for the purpose of divorce proceedings would be imple
368
mented—which I understand was the basis of their further remarks—they think that for other purposes a wife who has not obtained a separation order against her husband should retain her husband's domicile until the marriage had been finally dissolved. In paragraph 820 they adduce two arguments in support of this: first, that the organisation of separate permanent homes is inconsistent with the concept of the lifelong duty of the spouses to cohabit; and secondly, that in practice an element of uncertainty would be introduced into the legal relations of husband and wife by the competition 'of conflicting systems of law. The Commission said:
" Under the doctrine of unity of domicile a wife may suffer hardship since her husband may capriciously impose a new domicile on her and thus subject the marriage to a matrimonial law that is distasteful to her and at variance with her reasonable expectations. But to allow the wife to acquire a separate domicile would only add to the difficulties. The husband's rights would then become subject in certain respects to the law of his wife's new domicile. At the same time the husband would still be free to exercise rights against his wife based on the law of his domicile."
They concluded therefore that husband and wife should continue to share a common domicile.
I hope that I have put fairly the arguments each way and, if your Lordships will bear with me, they can be summarised as follows. In favour of the complete abandonment of the unity of the domicile there are these arguments. First, to retain the principle of unity at a time when foreign systems which take the law of domicile as the personal law are tending to make married women capable of acquiring a separate domicile would be unwise. The result might well be that our concept of domicile would differ from theirs increasingly. Secondly, it would be of some advantage that jurisdiction in all matrimonial suits should be able to be based on domicile and no longer on residence or on the place of celebration of the marriage. There is no danger that our Courts would tend to recognise Reno (Nevada) divorces more readily since the "domicile" which would have to be sufficient to ensure recognition of them would have to be domicile in our sense of the word.
Thirdly, those who support women's rights are likely to continue to resent this dependence of married women in this

369
field, however little justification there may be in practice. Fourthly, it seems doubtful whether any real difficulties would arise, either in the sphere of matrimonial jurisdiction (we cannot tell if the number of "limping" marriages would be increased or diminished, but my own guess would be that instead of about twenty annually which come to light they would diminish to about ten) or in the sphere of property relationships; and the fears about disputes in succession being encouraged are conjectural only.
I have only stated the argument of the Commission the other way, and I would only point out to your Lordships that the solution proposed in Clause 5 of this Bill can be supported on three grounds. First, it has the merit of certainty and of ensuring that a married woman would be able to have a separate domicile only when it has been proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the marriage has broken down and when the relationship has been placed on a clear basis. Secondly, there is the danger that the complete abandonment of unity of domicile might encourage disputes about domicile in the field of succession when the propositus is dead. Thirdly, if the marriage is subsisting in a real sense there is no reason why a wife should have a separate domicile, and the Royal Commission point out that recognition of separate permanent homes is inconsistent with the concept of a lifelong union and the duty of spouses to cohabit.
With the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Avon-holm, who has not developed his own Amendment, I should say that it raises this difficulty. The words which he uses.
" the spouses are living separate and apart in circumstances from which it can reasonably be inferred that cohabitation between them is not likely to be resumed,"
go further than the present Bill and, where the marriage has broken down, are an attempt to recognise the realities of the situation more fully than does the present Bill. Against that, however, the Bill provides a simple test of the cessation of cohabitation, and my noble and learned friend's suggestion might involve the risk of litigation, involving an investigation of the spouses' matrimonial affairs, probably after the death of both or one of them. If the change is to be made, I myself would rather go the whole way
370
than leave that difficult question of fact outstanding.
However, this is a Private Member's Bill, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, would agree with me that, when we have had such unity in debate on the side of the Amendment, he, As the sponsor of the Bill, and I, as representing Her Majesty's Government at this Dispatch Box, should be very hesitant not to accept the position. I do not think that that would be consistent with my duty to your Lordships' House. Therefore I feel that we ought to go further in this matter, and I now come to the point which has already been raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Avonholm—that is, as to the formalities of the Amendment.
May I say how the matter appears to me? I think it will probably be easier to achieve the result which Lord Silkin has in mind by leaving out Clause 5 altogether, with a consequential Amendment in Clause 2. Then I think we should have to consider the desirability of retaining subsection (3) of Clause 3 and subsection (2) (b) of Clause 4, because, if the unity of domicile of husband and wife is no longer to be preserved, the presumption contained in subsection (3) of Clause 3 ceases to be appropriate. I think that Lord Keith of Avonholm had that in mind. In addition, Clause 6 would need to be amended to make provision for the case in which two people domiciled in different countries are equally entitled to custody of the child. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman has made a final consideration of this point; but I think he would agree with me that if a wife is to be able to acquire a separate domicile it will he necessary to consider whether any Amendment is desirable in Section 18, subsection (1), paragraph (b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, which gives the court jurisdiction in the case of a wife who has been ordinarily resident in this country for three years immediately before commencement of proceedings. That provision was designed to mitigate the hardship caused to married women by the present rigidity of the rule, and the need is less clear where a married woman can acquire a domicile of her own.
I should like your Lordships' permission to work out these Amendments. I

371
should also like to consult my right honourable friend the Attorney General upon them, but I should be very willing, before the Report stage comes, to meet, not only the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is in charge of the Bill in this House, but also the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, having, I hope, had the advantage of discussing them with my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman before that stage. If that course commends itself to the House I would ask my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, not to press the Amendment to-day, on the understanding that I, as representing the Government, have given: that I am not doing anything to discourage the inclusion of the Amendment in the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: I am very grateful indeed, as I am sure are all my noble friends who supported this Amendment, for the very clear and full explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given. Of course we realise that this matter is not free from difficulty and that a case can be made, as generally it can, against the Amendment. As he rightly says, however, I am quite sure that, in these days, the prevailing opinion is in favour of giving married women a separate domicile; and the noble and learned Viscount, as I understand him, has accepted that principle and is prepared to go through the Bill to see what are the correct Amendments to be made to it. I accept the fact that the Amendment which is in my name may have been effective in raising the matter but that it is probably not entirely effective in carrying out our desires. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MESTON: I should like to raise a point as to what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said on one matter. Did the Lord Chancellor say that Clause 5 of the Bill should be omitted altogether? I understand the Common Law of this country at the present moment to be that a married woman automatically takes the domicile of her husband.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is why we had to consider whether a statement of that principle
372
should continue to be set out. I should like to go into the minutiæ of the drafting with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and I will consider the point. That is certainly one of the points that I think needs consideration.
LORD MESTON: I thank the noble and learned Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

VARIATION OF TRUSTS BILL
5.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Cones ford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Jurisdiction of courts to vary trusts
1.—(l) Where property, whether real or personal, is held on trusts arising, whether before or after the passing of this Act, under any will, settlement or other disposition, the court may if it thinks fit by order approve on behalf of—

(a) any person having, directly or indirectly, an interest, whether vested or contingent, under the trusts who by reason of infancy or other incapacity is incapable of assenting, or

(b) any person who may become entitled directly or indirectly, to an interest under the trusts as being at a future date a person of any specified description or a member of any specified class of persons, so however that this paragraph shall not include any person who would be of that description, or a member of that class, as the case may be, if the said date had fallen at the date of the application to the court, or

(c) any person unborn,

any arrangement (by whomsoever proposed, and whether or not there is any other person beneficially interested who is capable of assenting thereto) varying or revoking all or any of the trusts, or enlarging the powers of the trustees of managing or administering any of the property subject to the trusts, being an arrangement such that the carrying out thereof would be for the benefit of that person.
(2) Where property is held on trusts being or including protective trusts, and the interest of the principal beneficiary has not failed or determined, the court shall have power under

373
the foregoing subsection to approve an arrangement on behalf of the owner of any discretionary interest without regard to the question whether the arrangement is for the benefit of the owner as such.
LORD COHEN LORD COHEN had given Notice of several Amendments, the first being in subsection (1) (b), after "person", where that word first occurs, to insert: "whether ascertained or not". The noble and learned Lord said: There are. I am afraid, a number of Amendments standing in my name, but with one exception they are all formal and are merely intended to prevent any misconception as to what the true meaning of the clause may be. This is a drafting Amendment to put it beyond doubt that paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill covers unascertained persons. The purpose of paragraph (b) is to enable the Court to approve an arrangement on behalf of a beneficiary where the obtaining of his consent is prevented not by any disability but by uncertainty as to his identity. This may arise in one of two ways. Both are illustrated by the following example. Property is held upon trust for A for life, with remainder to his widow for life, with remainder to his children, and on failure of the earlier trusts with an ultimate remainder to the people who would be the settlor's next of kin were he to die on
the failure of the earlier trusts.
At the time when the arrangement falls to be made A is still a bachelor. The only way of binding the possible interest of a future wife is for the court to approve the arrangement as respects that interest; for the wife is so far unascertained in that A might marry anyone. Apart from persons unborn (who are dealt with by paragraph (c) of the subsection) the people who would be the settlor's next of kin if he died on the failure of the prior trusts are not in this sense unascertained as a class; but at the time of the application to the Court it is not possible to predicate which members of the class are relevant because it cannot be foreseen how many of them will have died by the time the prior trusts fail, if they do. I hope your Lordships will see your way to adopt the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, after (" person ") insert (" whether ascertained or not.")—Lord Cohen.)
LORD CONESFORD: I welcome this Amendment which improves the language in the clause and puts the matter beyond doubt.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COHEN: This Amendment is even more elementary, if may so put it: again it is a drafting Amendment. As the Bill stands, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 1 refers to persons becoming entitled as beng "at a future date" either of a specified description or members of a specified class. While the words "at a future date" are apt to some of the contingencies which may be contemplated by settlements, other contingencies are better described as the happening of an event, rather than the falling of a, date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, after (" date ") insert (" or on the happening of a future event ")—(Lord Cohen.)
LORD CONESFORD: I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COHEN: This Amendment is purely consequential on the Amendment which the Committee have already adopted.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, after (" fallen ") insert (" or the said event had happened ")—(Lord Cohen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COHEN LORD COHEN moved in subsection one, at the end of paragraph (c) to insert or
(d) any person in respect of any discretionary interest of his under protective trusts where the interest of the principal beneficiary has not failed or determined,".
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is not purely a drafting Amendment but it is within the intention of the Report of the Committee over which Lord Justice Jenkins presided and it was always intended to be the basis of this Bill. The Amendment, together with the Amendments to page 2, line 5, page 2, line 8 and page 2, line 22, deal with potential beneficiaries under protective trusts—or rather the clause as drafted so does. These are trusts which give a life interest to a beneficiary but provide that in the event of anything such as bankruptcy happening, whereby

375
apart from the protective trust the life interest would vest in somebody other than the beneficiary to whom it was given, it shall come to an end and be replaced by a discretion in the trustees to distribute the income among a class of people of whom the original beneficiary would normally be one, and his wife, children and relations would be the others.
The Amendments, like subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill as it stands, deal only with the state of affairs where nothing has happened to determine the original life interest. Subsection (2) of the Bill provides that in these circumstances the Court, in exercising its powers under subsection (1), need not consider whether the proposed arrangement is for the benefit of the people who might be interested under the discretionary trust if the principal beneficiary's original life interest were brought to an end by bankruptcy, et cetera. But subsection (2) does not enable the Court otherwise to go outside the bounds of subsection (1). Thus if a person potentially interested under the discretionary trusts is ascertained and of full age, the Court, quite apart from any question whether the arrangement would be for his benefit, would have no power to approve the arrangement on his behalf; and it therefore could not be carried out unless he could be persuaded to give his consent.
The Bill as it stands, therefore, goes less far than the Law Reform Committee recommended in paragraph 19 of their Report. As they pointed out, where property is held on a protective trust—and I quote their words here:
" … very comprehensive classes of persons are commonly included as objects of the discretionary trusts on which the property is directed to be held in the event of the failure of the interest of the principal beneficiary. It has been the practice of the Court, in sanctioning modifications under its existing powers, to treat the objects of the discretionary trust as being interested in the property and therefore entitled to receive some benefit in return for exclusion from any of their potential future rights.… Where a discretionary trust has become exercisable it seems reasonable that all its objects should be treated in this way. But we think that where the trust has not yet become exercisable, the interests (if such they can be called) of potential objects of the trust may be of a nature too shadowy to deserve consideration; and that in these cases the Court should he free to consider only the benefit to the other persons interested in the trust
376
property and should have a discretion to disregard entirely the interests of those who would be the potential objects of the trust if and when it ever becomes exercisable."
I would stress that the effect of these Amendments is to enact not only the letter but the spirit of what the Committee were recommending in paragraph 19. If the Amendments are made, it will not be possible for a potential beneficiary whose interest, as the Committee put it, may be of a nature too shadowy to deserve consideration, to obstruct from good or bad motives the carrying out of an arrangement which is for the benefit of everyone really concerned. It will be remembered that the Bill merely confers a discretionary power on the Court. In any case where it seemed that the interest of the potential beneficiary was a real one, it would be open to the Court to refuse to approve the arrangement on his behalf, with a view to his personal consent being required. In those circumstances I venture to recommend to your Lordships that this is a wise Amendment to adopt, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 1, line 21, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Cohen.)
LORD CONESFORD: I advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. If it is embodied in the Bill it will more accurately carry out the intentions expressed by the Law Reform Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COHEN: This Amendment is purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out (" being an arrangement such that ") and insert—
("Provided that except by virtue of paragraph (d) of this subsection the court shall not approve an arrangement on behalf of any person unless ").—(Lord Cohen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COHEN: This Amendment also is purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (1) and (2).—(Lord Cohen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COHEN: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, leave out "subsections (1) and t2)" and insert "subsection (1)".—(Lord Cohen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS VISCOUNT SIMONDS moved to add to the clause:
"(8) It shall not be an objection to the exercise by the court of the jurisdiction conferred by this section that a main purpose or consequence of its exercise is or may be to avoid the exigibility of tax which would otherwise be exigible."
The noble Viscount said: In putting down the Amendment which stands in my name I have been animated by a motive which must appeal to anybody who has spent fifty years or more, if there be any besides myself in your Lordships' House, in the practice and the administration of the law that is to say, I deem it important that, so far as possible, there should be clarity in legislation and certainty in the law. We are very far from reaching either of these ideals.
The relevance of these principles in this matter is this. I think that everybody knows that one of the main reasons which have animated those who want a change in the law, so that a new and wide jurisdiction should be given to the Courts, was the desire to get through schemes or family arrangements which had as their object (and I do not use the word in any sinister sense) the avoidance of tax. I think there is no doubt about that. It is an object from which I, for one, do not dissent in any way. But could I say, as I read this Bill, that it was quite certain that everybody would take the view that
a scheme which had that object would commend itself to all the Judges of the Chancery Division before whom such schemes would come for sanction? I felt grave doubts about that, and accordingly I thought that it would be better, in the interests of certainty, that this should be made clear on the face of the Bill, so that it would be impossible that a scheme brought before Mr. Justice A should receive the sanction of the court and an exactly parallel scheme brought before Mr. Justice B should not receive sanction, because they took different views of the propriety of invoking the jurisdiction of the Court on tax avoidance or tax evasion schemes.
If that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, if it is right that the jurisdiction of the Court should be exercised in this way, it seems to me right that that intention should be made clear on the face of the Bill. As I understand the answer to that point which was made in Second Reading, it was simply this: any
378
body would know that jurisdiction would be exercised; no Judge in the Chancery Division would be so foolish as to do anything else. I wish that I could be satisfied of that. If I could, then I should be content, but I cannot be but aware that some people at least hold a different view about tax evasion schemes.
During the debate on Second Reading of the Bill I ventured to cite to your Lordships what the late Lord Simon, a man greatly honoured in the law and whose name will be remembered when our names are forgotten, had said upon what I deemed to be a parallel case. I was met as to that by my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, and it was echoed by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who said that it was a very different sort of thing he contemplated. I was not much convinced by that argument, because nobody can say whether it was a different scheme until we have one of these schemes brought before the Court for sanction: the schemes will be infinitely various, some simple, some exceedingly complicated. Therefore, that argument did not move me much. By coincidence (and this made a forcible impression upon me), at the very time this matter came before your Lordships for consideration I was engaged in hearing an appeal in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in which we were considering the drastic provisions of Australian legislation, which had their counterpart in New Zealand legislation., which made all arrangements for avoidance of tax void as against the Commissioners of Taxes. Therefore, it was clear that in a large part of the world this sort of scheme of avoidance was not the sort of thing that universally commended itself. Accordingly, I could not but feel that it was not impossible that Chancery Judges would take the same view.
This further consideration moved me. I felt that when Personal Bills which had as an object, partly at least, tax avoidance, came before your Lordships' House, a very unfavourable impression was created. That moved me also to think that we cannot predicate that all Judges will take the same view. Lastly, there is this point—and I say it with the greatest deference to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. Maybe I did not understand him, or maybe I did not hear him very clearly, but certainly it seemed to me that, when

379
I asked him to say unequivocally that this was a form of scheme that would obtain the sanction of the court, he did not willingly reply that it was just what was wanted. I do not know—maybe I misunderstood him. If the noble and learned Viscount will now say that I am quite wrong, and that he knows that this is what is intended by the legislation, which I understand Her Majesty's Government support, and that in his view no Chancery Judge who knows his business would refuse sanction on the ground that the purpose of the scheme was tax avoidance, I shall be satisfied. Perhaps I am old-fashioned and wrong about this and that no Chancery Judge could take that view. I really feel that if we want this to get through and want to have justice administered equally and upon a certain important principle, it should be made clear upon the face of the Bill.
I venture to ask: why not? Why run this risk, if it can be averted by putting in a dozen words? If we do so, the risk will be averted; there will be equal justice to all. The principle of the Bill, as I understand it, will be accomplished by putting in a few words saying:
" It shall not be an objection to the exercise by the court of the jurisdiction conferred by this section that a main purpose or consequence of its exercise is or may be to avoid the exigibility of tax which would otherwise be exigible.
I am well aware of course that this matter has to some extent been dealt with in the Report of the learned Committee which dealt with the subject. If I may say so, with the greatest respect, it is dealt with in the least satisfactory part of the Report, because they seek an analogy in what was done by Parliament in removing what was called "restraint on anticipation". I think that it was the least satisfactory part of a Report which in many respects was admirable. Anyway, how can we predicate that a Judge to-day or to-morrow will have read that Report? I am quite sure that many of them have not, and I do not suppose that they will.
I would ask my noble friend Lord Conesford to consider this point: we are not legislating only for settlements made in the past; we are legislating for settlements made yesterday, to-day and to-morrow. Therefore, we are legislating for cases of a settlement, not where something unexpected happens, but where the
380
settlor knows perfectly well that if his trusts are carried out according to his direction, then heavy duties will be paid. It seems to me that the Court might well then say: "Why should we alter this settlement when just that happens which the settlor, dealing with his own money, knew would happen?" That is a matter which the Court might take into consideration, and I should like to have it made plain on the face of the Bill. However, if the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, with all the authority of a member of the Government and as titular head of the Chancery Division, says that I am quite wrong and that no Chancery Judge who really knew his business would refuse on the ground that the main purpose of the exercise of the jurisdiction was to avoid the exigibility of tax, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.(Viscount Simonds.)
5.31 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am always anxious to try to help, and everyone in this Committee appreciates the authority and experience with which my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds speaks. I hope he will take what I say as from the heart. I am sorry that in the course of the Second Reading debate, when I was dealing with a number of aspects of the Bill, I did not reply to his point. The last thing I would intend would be not to reply to a point which my noble and learned friend raised. I assure him that I shall come as straightly as I can to that point. But I want to make it clear that I recognise that the subsection is couched in wide terms, and that if it becomes law the Court would have jurisdiction to sanction an arrangement notwithstanding that a main purpose or consequence of the scheme would be to avoid the exigibility of tax.
My noble and learned friend has emphasised the difficulty of applying to this situation a discretionary jurisdiction, and that there may be different results from different Judges; and he wishes to remove the risk of a difference of opinion by forbidding the Judges to consider the tax effect of the scheme. I am unable to support that solution, but I hope that a statement I shall make in a moment

381
will be of some help to my noble and learned friend. I would remind the Committee that the Bill was introduced and passed in another place as being a Bill to give effect to the Sixth Report of the Law Reform Committee, presided over by Lord Justice Jenkins. That was a unanimous Report, and it dealt in paragraphs 15 and 16, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, with the very point raised by this Amendment. If those of your Lordships who have the Report would look at it, you will see these words in paragraph 15:
' Nor is it likely that any Judge of the Chancery Division would give his sanction on behalf of infants or potential beneficiaries under a settlement to any scheme of a kind which, as a citizen and a taxpayer, he would not think it right to enter into with regard to his own property. The fact that some adults enter into 'tax avoidance ' schemes of questionable character is no ground for refusing the Court jurisdiction to sanction on behalf of infants dispositions of their property which are beneficial to them and are morally unobjectionable."
Then, paragraph 16 says:
"We would add that, so far as concerns those cases where the object of a variation is to lessen the impact of taxes or death duties, we can see no valid reason why the Court should not be able to do on behalf of persons who are not sui juris or are not ascertained what the law allows to be done by persons who are sui juris. It appears to us that the Legislature, while taking great care to prevent anyone from escaping the payment of taxes or duties by methods of which it disapproves, has shown no intention of adopting a policy of preventing the freer circulation of money and its division between the members of a family rather than its concentration in the hands of a few, so long as this is done by methods which are riot forbidden by Statute."
They then draw attention to remarks of my predecessor, the late Lord Jowitt, on the Married Women (Restraint upon Anticipation) Act, 1949. I hope my noble and learned friend will forgive me for quoting so much, but it leads to the point he mentioned as to the argument of the Committee. The late Lord Jowitt said:
" The effect of this Bill on the Exchequer is purely incidental. If a man or woman, not subject to restraint, spends or gives away half his or her property, there is, of course, less property to be taxed. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue cannot and do not complain of this; they continue on their way, taxing what they find and not taxing what is not there … To single out one particular class of married women and to restrain them from doing what they wish with their property, for the sole purpose of being able to tax it. Would
382
be most unfair. That is not part of the policy of His Majesty's Government … "—
that was the Government of our predecessors, the Government that was in office from 1945 to 1950. The Report goes on:
"Similar words were used by the Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross, Q.C.) in the House of Commons. We see no justification for treating an infant more harshly than a married woman and no indication that the Legislature intended to do so."
They then say that they are fortified by the views expressed by the Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income, which I read to your Lordships last time. They also quote two decisions in the Court of Appeal which they say support that view. Speaking as Lord Chancellor, with, I hope, a full sense of the responsible anxiety of my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, I agree with the words of the Committee:
" We see no justification for treating an infant more harshly than a married woman and no indication that the Legislature intended to do so."
I can, therefore, see no objection to the Chancery Judges to-day applying the same reasoning to the cases covered by this Bill. In other words, the fact that the result was, or indeed that the purpose might be, to avoid exigibility of tax ought not to be a bar to their doing so. This must, however, be subject to the limitations which are included in paragraph 15 of the Report, which I have just read and which, indeed, has often been quoted. I hope that that, which is as straight a statement as I can make, will do something, it is stated, and its object is to assist the doubts of my noble and learned friend. I hope that in the circumstances I have made it as clear as I can and that he will not press his Amendment to-day.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I could have wished for something a little better, and, in particular, I could have wished that the noble and learned Viscount had not pursued the analogy of the Married Women (Restraint upon Anticipation) Act, 1949, because that was a bad analogy on the part of the Committee that sat on this matter. However, I cannot resist an appeal from the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—in fact, I never can resist an

383
appeal from him—and I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

PHYSICAL TRAINING AND RECREATION BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
DEFENCE CONTRACTS BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LITTER BILL
5.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. I shall not adduce any further arguments to add to those so powerfully adduced by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, but I will avail myself of the opportunity of congratulating him on behalf of his many friends, both inside and outside this House, on his promotion to the Government and also, if I may say so, on a totally remarkable Parliamentary feat of submitting a measure for the approval of your Lordships and the Government and piloting it through nearly all its stages, and now confronting your Lordships at the Dispatch Box to give it Government approval.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Tweedsmuir.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I intervene for a few moments? As one who had the good fortune when in the House of Commons to pilot three Private Member's Bills through Parliament, the Worn-Out Horses Exportation Bill, the Plumage Bill and the Coursing of Rabbits and Hares in Enclosed Spaces Bill, I know somewhat intimately the difficulties of passing a Private Member's
384
Bill through the Legislature. It is therefore with all the greater warmth that I should like to congratulate to-day Mr. Rupert Speir and his associates in the House of Commons, and the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, for the success with which they have passed this Bill through its present stages up to Third Reading, which in effect means its passage into law. I earnestly hope that when the Bill becomes law it will be enforced rigorously and vigorously in order that we may get rid for all time of these abominable litter-mongers who have defaced the fair land of Britain for so many years.
There is one more thing I should like to say. A few years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, piloted through this House the Protection of Wild Birds Bill which had been initiated and admirably piloted through the House of Commons by his noble relative Lady Tweedsmuir. That Bill, though it did not contain the all-time protection for the kingfisher for which I pressed so vigorously, has been a most successful Act. I earnestly hope that this Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has asked the House to give a Third Reading to-day, will be equally successful.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I am delighted that the House has welcomed this little Bill. I do not think it merits a normal Third Reading speech, but I should like to assure noble Lords who intervened on Committee stage out of, I will not say an excess of zeal, but out of great zeal, and who were concerned that no stone should be left unturned or avenue unexplored, or whatever the correct phrase is, to see that no one was left out and that it was going to be possible for anybody to prosecute who found litter being deposited, that the best advice we have been able to obtain is that it would be quite unnecessary to add any words, and that everybody is covered.
The only other thing I should like to say is that I never dreamt for a moment that we were going to have this position—I will not call it this back to front process —and that I was going to have two rôles in the passage of this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, said. I should like to mention that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, raised a point in Committee

385
which I did not answer. He was, of course, perfectly right: that if someone deposited a bedstead—I think it was that which was worrying him—in a pond from the highway he would be caught by this Bill, but if the person managed to crawl through the fence with the bedstead and go on to private land before depositing it in the pond he would not be caught by this Bill. I am advised that he would be caught by plenty of other legislation, and, therefore, I think the noble Lord's point is met.
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.

DIVORCE (INSANITY AND DESERTION) BILL
5.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I rise to say quite briefly that this Bill began in another place, and I think we should be grateful to Mr. Deedes for his work in having introduced and piloted the Bill through another place. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Meston.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I should like to say quite shortly that this Bill began in another place, and I think we should be grateful to Sir Hugh LucasTooth for the work he did in explaining the Bill. I am sure he did it much better than I did. Without any further delay, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Meston.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at nine minutes before six o'clock.