House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Mar 1991

Column 1107

days, rushing through legislation which they think will bring them electoral gain, there should have been a statement on that situation.

There is no doubt that the people of Iraq are suffering a great deal, and this has been shown by the many reports from broadcasters and journalists. They have seen their country so badly damaged that it has returned to a pre -industrial stage. They grieve for tens of thousands of sons and husbands killed on the battlefield. According to the direct testimony of the United Nations, Save the Children and Oxfam, all of which have recently sent their observers into the country, they face starvation, serious epidemic and disease. It is disgraceful that I am forced to raise this important issue in an Adjournment debate.

The people of Iraq continue, despite appalling difficulties, to try to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who brought them to this catastrophe. Meanwhile, the killing and the dying continue. Over the past few years, I have chaired the Campaign against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq--a national organisation of which many of my hon. Friends are members. As the records will show, it has continually brought to the attention of the House the appalling human rights record of the Saddam Hussein regime.

We were loud and persistent voices, whose pleas fell on deaf ears. Over six years, we told the House about the disappearance of women and children, of torture, execution and public hangings, and of oppression and dictatorship. After Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds at Halabja, killing at least 5,000 people and razing 4,000 Kurdish villages to the ground, I and some of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) urged the Government to use sanctions against Iraq. I am sorry to say that there was little response. Saddam Hussein continued to be treated as a valuable friend until 2 August last year.

Then came the invasion of Kuwait, and everything changed. There was the Gulf war, but, while Kuwait has been liberated, we still do not know the extent of the death toll inside Iraq. Because of my long involvement with the opposition in Iraq, I have recently attended two international conferences to discuss how that opposition can be co-ordinated internationally, to the greatest effect. I went to Washington to a meeting organised by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to Sweden, to a meeting organised by the Swedish Save the Children Fund. The Kurds argued in all those meetings that they wanted autonomy within Iraq and the protection of their language and culture in the other countries in which they live.

Throughout the Gulf war, we said that we had no quarrel with the Iraqi people. If that is the case, we now have a responsibility to show that. That responsibility is enshrined in the Geneva convention of 1949, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the world summit for children. The UN mission found in Baghdad that normal life had almost come to a halt. The situation in the south and Basra is believed to be dramatically worse because of severe fighting. With military attention now reportedly turning to the north, the situation there might deteriorate further. Certainly for refugees in the south, the allied forces in the area may be able to play a humanitarian role.

Column 1108

No meaningful quantities of food supplies have been imported since the start of sanctions. Until then, 70 per cent. of Iraq's food came from imports. There is immediate danger of major disease and epidemic. Water and sewerage services are in a critical state, with a consequent danger to health. In the children's hospital in Baghdad, the admission of children with diarrheal diseases has increased fourfold. Cholera, typhoid and hepatitis threaten the population. The health service is in a state of collapse because of the lack of power, fuel and communications. In numerous places, sewage is flowing in the streets. Maternal and child health services are particularly affected. The medical immunisation system, which had been one of the most advanced in the developing world, has broken down almost completely. Antenatal care has almost ceased, There are reports of high-risk delivery at home, with no help. Medicines and drugs are in short supply. At present, the central warehouses are empty. Distribution of relief supplies of drugs are being held up for lack of fuel.

The United Nations report states bluntly :

"It is unmistakable that the Iraqi people may soon face a further, imminent catastrophe which could include epidemic and famine, if life supporting needs are not rapidly met."

The United Nations Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, said this week that he was shocked by the scale of Iraq's humanitarian problems. The Minister said this morning that he, too, thinks that this is a troubling situation. All the evidence shows that basic foodstuffs such as flour are now critically low, and the supplies of sugar, rice, tea, vegatable oil, powdered milk and pulses are also in short supply or have been exhausted altogether. The situation for women and children is desperate, because they are the most vulnerable at times of war. Sufficient water for basic needs is not available in most homes and, when available, is in short supply. The collection of water from rivers and the search for fuel put a great strain on women. All the children are at home as the schools have been closed since the start of bombardment. The team was repeatedly informed of and observed the fear felt by children at being left alone. Women bear the burden of these additional care needs. The rations available are less than half of the daily requirement of a five-year-old child, or less than one third of the daily requirement of a pregnant woman. Obviously, that is not enough for subsistence.

The United Nations has warned of an impending disaster, in which large numbers of civilians will die needlessly from disease and, perhaps, starvation, unless a major international aid effort is undertaken. Iraq's needs are enormous. The required emergency aid has been evaluated at $23 million, and includes food, medicines, fuel for electricity generators, alum and chlorine to clean and disinfect the water supply, and new pipes and spare parts for the water system. The United Nations committee on sanctions against Iraq has agreed to allow unrestricted food shipments, but so far donors have pledged--and, more importantly, contributed--only $4.5 million. The west has a humanitarian responsibility to provide and to speed up that aid. It should try by every means to bring about a conclusion to that ghastly war, so that millions of innocent men, women and children are not made to endure even more suffering.

Column 1109

10.41 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd) : The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is to be congratulated on raising this subject for debate. The contribution of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was forceful. Everyone listening to the debate will share the outrage and indignation that they expressed. The Government are under no illusions about the appalling nature of the Iraqi regime. We have made clear our deep concern about many aspects of Saddam Hussein's policies, and we have taken the firmest possible measures to register that fact. Our close involvement in removing Iraq from Kuwait is, as I am sure hon. Members would agree, just the latest evidence of our determination to ensure that Iraq is forced to respect internationally accepted standards of behaviour. I address the House against the background of a considerable amount of activity at the United Nations in New York. The United Nations Security Council is currently discussing the terms for a formal ceasefire in the Gulf, and we anticipate a resolution before Easter. I am sure that there will be tough terms in any such resolution, and it is right that they should be tough. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we want included in those terms an internationally supervised destruction of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological facilities and weapons, and of Iraq's non- conventional and ballistic missile capabilities. Iraq must never again be in a position to threaten the security of her neighbours.

I am sure that hon. Members will understand that, because of the deliberations, discussions and exchanges of views between the members of the Security Council in anticipation of a debate and resolution, I cannot go into much detail about what is being discussed in New York. The hon. Members for Workington and for Cynon Valley should be in no doubt of the determination being expressed by our representatives. I can say with some confidence that although the resolution may not satisfy every point raised by the hon. Member for Workington, I hope that there will be some aspects relevant to those points. We shall continue closely to monitor the position in Iraq. The Baghdad regime can be in no doubt about our determination to ensure that it continues to meet its international obligations. In particular, no one here, or anywhere else in the world community, will tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the people of Iraq. We shall take the severest measures if the Iraqi regime resorts to the use of those dreadful weapons.

Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South) : I have supported virtually everything that the Government have done during the past few months. The Select Committee on Defence visited Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Bahrain last week. Is the Minister sure that in this volatile situation--especially with the requirement that Iraq complies with the terms of the ceasefire--there are sufficient British forces remaining in the Gulf for the next few months to act as a lever? As the Minister is well aware, it is a very delicate position which still requires the threat of the use of force to ensure compliance.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : As the hon. Gentleman is aware, and as I have already made clear, it is not our intention to have permanent security forces in the middle east.

Column 1110

However, I take his point. I am satisfied that we have the capacity to deal with any possible problem, and that we can reinforce that capacity if necessary. However, we are not contemplating the need for any such activity, and I speak today against that background. One of the most important concerns has been Iraq's treatment of its Kurdish minorities over many years. Some 20 per cent. of the Iraqi population are Kurds, concentrated largely in the north and north-eastern areas. They are a distinct cultural and ethnic community. We have taken action whenever there has been clear evidence of human rights abuses against the Kurds. At the 1989 meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Britain co-sponsored a resolution condemning Iraq's human rights record. This year, the commission--with our support--has appointed a special rapporteur to investigate the human rights position in Iraq. We expect the Government of Iraq to co-operate with the rapporteur in completing his report.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : The Minister has used such phrases as, "We expect the Government of Iraq to co-operate," and, "We have supported resolutions condemning," and so on. He must know that such words mean nothing to Saddam Hussein. Helicopter gunships are being used to bomb civilian populations with all sorts of weapons. What action are the Government, the United Nations, the Americans and the coalition forces taking to ensure that that stops today, before a major battle breaks out? I am referring not to protests or to condemnations but to action.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to make my speech in my own way. I have a passage in it that specifically deals with his question. I may not be able to satisfy him, but I will not shirk the issue.

In 1988-89, we reacted firmly to reports that the Iraqi Government were acting systematically to quell what they considered to be action by Kurdish rebels in the north, and to relocate large numbers of Iraqi Kurds against their will. The most notorious example of Saddam Hussein's brutality against the Kurds was the use of chemical weapons at Halabja in March 1988. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of people were killed. When the massacre became known, we played a major role in securing the adoption of Secretary Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of such weapons.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : It may happen again tomorrow.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I wish that the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue with my speech.

Britain has some of the strictest controls in the world to ensure that precursors for chemical weapons do not reach brutal regimes such as that in Iraq.

Before I deal with the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Workington, I want to say something about past arms sales to Iraq. Since 1980 Britain has had in place clear guidelines preventing the sale of arms to Iraq. Those guidelines were further tightened in 1985 and, despite the end of the war with Iran, the Government have quite deliberately maintained the policy of not selling arms to Saddam Hussein. British weapons were not used in the invasion of Kuwait ; nor are they now being used by the Iraqi regime in its brutal repression of its own people.

Column 1111

The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the need for tighter arms control. We have made it clear that arms proliferation is one of the issues that need to be addressed following Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait. I know that other leading members of the allied forces in the coalition share that concern. We shall certainly be considering what more we can do to control arms exports and we have already begun discussions on the subject with our EC colleagues, the United States and the Soviet Union. It is not a matter which will be in any way overlooked in the months ahead.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Will there have to be legislation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : That will have to be considered. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

We have, over the years, been in contact with Kurdish groups in Iraq to exchange views with them and to hear their representations. Those contacts have continued and on 7 March the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), met a representative delegation from the Iraqi opposition, including a representative of the Kurdish minority. The hon. Member for Workington referred to Jalal Talabani, the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and we have also met and talked to him. We recognise the intelligent way in which the PUK approaches its problems. We welcome the desire of the Iraqi opposition to co-operate and their common platform of democracy and respect for human rights in Iraq, as well as their wish to preserve Iraq's territorial integrity and sovereignty. It is of considerable significance that they should adopt such a position. We share those goals. They would allow the Kurds in Iraq their legitimate right to self-expression, which has always been our goal and will continue to be so.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Does the Minister accept that one of the great injustices in the region since the first world war has been the treatment of the Kurdish people? It is a deeply felt belief among Kurdish people throughout the region that they have been suppressed and oppressed by the national Governments and by the ignorance of the international community. Will the Minister make it clear that the British Government accept the right of Kurdish people to their own culture, language and autonomy--it is clearly stated by the Kurdish Democratic party and the PUK--within the national frontiers of Iraq? That would go a long way towards helping people to realise that the Kurdish people have been so badly treated for so long.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I think that everyone is aware of the interest shown by many hon. Members on both sides of the House in the Kurdish people and how they have been brought into focus as a result of the Gulf war. As I say, we share the goals of the Kurdish people to enjoy their legitimate right of self-expression. That has always been our goal, and that encompasses and underlines the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) : I apologise for the fact that I was not able to be here at the beginning of the debate, but on that point does my hon. Friend agree that there is considerable concern about the genocide that is

Column 1112

taking place in the country? Might it be possible for some supplies to be airlifted to those areas that are suffering hardship?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I shall deal with those points, which were raised by the hon. Member for Workington.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the helicopter gunships that appear to be being used in Iraq in breach of the ceasefire. The terms of the present de facto ceasefire--we have not had the United Nations resolution--relate to the conflict with Iraq over Kuwait. It does not relate to the internal situation in Iraq. However, the coalition made it clear in the terms of the de facto ceasefire that fixed-wing aircraft should not be allowed to fly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, action has been taken to ensure that fixed- wing aircraft do not fly. However, while we deeply deplore the use of helicopter gunships, we have to accept that there is no Security Council resolution or mandate to deal with the action that the Iraqis have taken with helicopters. It is not a part of the ceasefire and it is not a part of a United Nations resolution. However distressing it is for me to say this to the hon. Gentleman, and however distressing it is for him to hear it, I think that he will accept that all of us have to recognise that a mandate from the United Nations is essential to underline and to give support to any hostile actions in the Gulf.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : But over and above any decisions taken by the United Nations, General Schwarzkopf came to an oral and written agreement, part of which was that helicopters could be used inside Iraq only for humanitarian and internal administrative purposes. So it could be said that the war ended on the basis of an agreement which is now being breached. Therefore, irrespective of the United Nations position, surely we have some responsibility in enforcing what has already been agreed. In addition, resolution 678, which refers to peace and security in the region and the restoration thereof, is also being breached. Surely we have a responsibility to uphold that resolution without any further United Nations resolution being necessary.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall consider what he reports as the informal agreement of General Schwarzkopf, but I think that he will agree that we cannot make much progress in our debates here if we seek to interpret in minute detail the possible consequences of all United Nations resolutions. As I said to him, the United Nations is debating the matter and we expect further clarification of what transpires there. I shall look into the point that he makes about General Schwarzkopf's agreement, but the de facto ceasefire dealt with fixed-wing aircraft, not helicopters, which is one of the difficulties that we have to face.

The hon. Member for Workington, I think the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, and certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) referred to food aid. We are greatly concerned about the genuine humanitarian needs of all Iraqis. We have already contributed nearly $5 million to the Red Cross Gulf appeal and nearly $1 million to the United Nations Relief and Work Agency appeal. There is clearly a role for the United Nations and its agencies, but it would be unwise for me to say too much about activity to bring humanitarian relief

Column 1113

and food to the Kurdish people. We are facing a civil war, in which all attempts will be made to prevent any assistance of that kind reaching its objectives.

Mrs. Clwyd : I raised the question of humanitarian aid and the fact that so little has been pledged. I am not asking the Government to go into detail ; I am saying that the people of Iraq are suffering greatly. Is Britain prepared to make a further contribution over and above what it has already made, in particular, to aid the people in Kurdistan, whom we know are fighting a pitched battle at the moment? Surely supply lines can be opened up through Turkey. Will the Minister facilitate that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I would like to comment on what the hon. Lady says, but she knows that I cannot give an undertaking from the Dispatch Box to change Government policy. Certainly the issue has been raised and will be considered.

In the last minute I shall touch on one or two other matters. An annual report was produced by the Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Ahtisaari on the present situation in Iraq, which makes the most depressing reading and is a testament to the misguided policies of Saddam Hussein. We are doing all that we can to assist, as I have said, and I have noted what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said. However, we have also made it clear that we believe that aid should reach all areas of Iraq and we shall continue to do all that we can to alleviate the suffering of all the Iraqi people.

In conclusion, we will shed no tears if and when Saddam Hussein is removed from power. That must be a matter for the Iraqi people, with whom we have no quarrel and whom we do not wish to suffer further under political tyranny. We wish to see a truly democratic Iraq in which the Kurdish minorities enjoy full political and human rights, and we look forward to the emergence of an Iraq that can once again be welcomed as a responsible member of the international community.

Column 1114

GATT Textiles Negotiations

11 am

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : I welcome my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box to answer this brief debate. I am sure that he will appreciate that he is just the latest in a succession of his right hon. and hon. Friends who have responded to debates on textiles. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who I hope will also catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will recall that we have sat here on many occasions in past years. He may agree that one of the difficulties has been the large number of Ministers who have been responsible for the textile trade. It is certainly no disparagement of my hon. Friend to say that, by the time that they have been in office for a couple of years, they often come to understand something about the industry, but sadly we then have to start all over again.

Many people are under the mistaken impression that the textile industry favours special pleading with the objective of retaining protection for its interests. Let me therefore make it clear that the textile industry does not want protectionism. What it does want is a market in which its products are free to compete with others from around the world. Given a fair measure of genuine competition, the products of this country's textile industry can more than hold their own anywhere.

The term "level playing field" is a hackneyed one. Sometimes I think that our industry's managers and work force would be prepared to put up with a fairly hefty slope, provided that the goal at which they were aiming was not half the width of the one at the other end of the ground, and if some of the opposition were occasionally penalised for carrying the ball instead of kicking it as they should.

Before I consider the issues relating to the GATT negotiations, I want to spend a moment considering the state of the textile industry generally. An important measure is the number of jobs which it provides. When I come to the House in June 1979, textiles and clothing employed some 780,000 people. This figure itself represented a considerable reduction over the previous decade from the million or so employed at the beginning of the 1970s.

The recession of the early 1980s had a traumatic effect. By June 1983, one in three of the remaining jobs had gone, and the figure stood at a mere 512,000. Let it be said that the impact of the recession was not all bad by any means. While it is a fact that not every firm which went out of business or contracted severely in size was poorly managed or inefficient, some undoubtedly were. The ones which survived the shake-out had to use all their ingenuity and enterprise to survive. Very often they went to secure new export markets, which have stood them in good stead ever since. It was perhaps of little comfort to those who lost their jobs at that time that the shake-out made the jobs of those who remained more secure, but it was nevertheless a fact.

We emerged with a leaner but fitter industry--one which was determined to survive in a sometimes hostile environment, for the industry has always been subject to cycles never experienced by those involved in other sectors. Confidence in the future provided a spur to investment, and productivity improved considerably. Quality had never been a problem, but in the last few years there have been quite amazing advances in our design skills as well as

Column 1115

marketing capabilities--consider, for example, the modern computerised equipment that is now used to design material. As a result of the industry's successes, there were as many employed in it by the autumn of 1988 as there had been in June 1983, confounding the pessimists and giving everyone hope that the future could be a good one. This gave encouragement to those seeking to recruit the brightest and most energetic young people to a career in textiles.

Since 1989, there has been a further and most alarming series of job losses. During that year, 35,000 jobs disappeared, and a further 23,000 in 1990, so that by the end of last year the total number was only 449,000. A particularly worrying feature is that many of the companies which have been hit this time have done all the right things, assessed on any rational criteria. They have invested in the most modern plant and equipment and have become extremely efficient, but there was no way that they could compete with artificially low prices, often brought about by anti- competitive practices encouraged and promoted by overseas Governments.

For instance, Maple Mill at Oldham, closed by Courtaulds Spinning last month, was a highly efficient manufacturer of open-end yarns, operating to the best international productivity standards. However, subsidised competition, in a climate of falling demand and world-wide overcapacity, drove yarn prices down to a point where the mill was no longer viable, despite flexible working arrangements introduced with the full co-operation of all employees.

In general terms, the work force in the textile industry has co-operated in the necessary restructuring of the industry. I am glad to say that another firm in my constituency, Weavestyle, is doing much better and we look for great things for it in future. It is another Courtaulds subsidiary.

The distortions in the international textile and clothing trade take many forms. Some activities make it impossible for United Kingdom producers to compete on equal terms within the market place. Others are intended to create barriers to our exporters by protecting a home market against imported goods in ways that are outrageous by any standards.

One of the worst offenders, in terms of its effect on our industry, is the United States. That country's purchasing power and its preference for quality goods, which we manufacture, make the severe restrictions placed upon imports from Britain especially unacceptable, bearing in mind the attacks by America on the unfair trading practices of some far eastern countries. Import duties of over 36 per cent. on wool cloth represent a terrific hurdle for our exporters, who see their United States counterparts faced with only a 14 per cent. European Community tariff to gain entry to the enticing British home market. If reciprocity is to be our goal, as I believe it should be, then that is as good a point as any at which to start. South Korea is one of the fastest-growing economies, not only around the Pacific rim but in global terms. In the past, it has used high tariffs and quotas as alternative methods of excluding imports that would otherwise enjoy strong demand from its increasingly prosperous people. In

Column 1116

many instances, our protests have ultimately proved successful. Now Korea has announced a £2.5 billion subsidy scheme for its textile and clothing industries.

In India, millions of people live in poverty. Like many other states, India benefits from the recognition accorded to that factor under the terms of the multi-fibre arrangement, which are intended to assist its textile industry--along with others on the Indian subcontinent--to gain a fair share of the world market. Nevertheless, India too has a relatively well- off middle class, which no doubt wants a greater choice of goods. It does not have that choice, because India prohibits imports of textiles and clothing if similar goods are produced domestically, and charges penal tariffs of 200 per cent. or more on the remainder.

Nor is India by any means unique : other developing countries impose duties of more than 100 per cent., and many also have restrictive licensing schemes. Unacceptably high tariffs remain the favoured protectionist device of several countries whose economies could never be considered anything but highly developed. Canada and Australia fall into that category ; yet some Australian tariffs exceed 50 per cent.

Turkish textile and clothing producers may express themselves delighted by the favours that they receive from their Government, but the many British workers who have lost their jobs because their employers closed down as a result of their inability to compete with subsidised Turkish goods feel rather differently about the matter. Among the subsidies enjoyed by Turkish firms are supplies of cotton at prices below those that can be obtained on world markets. Meanwhile, importers--including British companies--are faced with a barrage of duties, including a requirement to contribute to the state housing fund. Although all those subsidies and barriers contravene Turkey's associate treaty status with the European Community, the country seeks yet more favoured treatment from the Twelve. As a state trading country, China sells textiles and clothing at prices that bear no relation to production costs. Former communist countries in eastern Europe, which are only now moving away from state control, operate in much the same way. Their economies are usually fragile, and I believe as much as anyone else-- perhaps more than many--that they should have our support, but not at the expense of the United Kingdom textile sector.

Subsidised exports are another favourite ploy. In some cases, developing countries provide favoured tax treatment for export sales, while many far eastern countries link their currencies artificially to the US dollar, keeping them undervalued and so making their exports more competitive. In Taiwan and Japan, brand names may be registered that give a false impression of United Kingdom origin. I know that, because I have seen the goods in Keighley, where they have openly been sent for processing.

Furthermore, I am afraid that even some Community members--while expressing their commitment to Community policies, and saying how communautaire they are--are less than scrupulous. Spain and Italy continue to subsidise their industries, while some Belgian firms have not been made to comply with European Court judgments requiring the repayment of illegal subsidies.

Let me turn now to the GATT negotiations themselves. Of course I welcome their resumption following agreement between the participants that talks on agriculture should

Column 1117

again proceed. However, continued further progress remains uncertain, depending essentially on United States congressional acceptance of the presidential plea for an extension of the so-called fast-track procedure. The fact that the American textile industry and other interests are opposed to the Uruguay round will put pressure on Congressmen, and the outcome cannot be precisely predicted. Our ultimate objective must undoubtedly be an agreement, as a result of the Uruguay round, which provides for greatly strengthened GATT rules and disciplines to apply to international trade in textiles and clothing. This means that we need not just good intentions--those have been expressed many times in the past--but mechanisms to deal with the practices that I have described. The British textile industry supports the European Community's call for reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers ; for prohibition of all subsidies that distort trade, including the supply of raw materials to an industry at artificially low prices ; for tougher rules to prevent the blatant theft of designs and brand names ; for realistic anti-dumping rules that take account of the complex nature of the industry ; and for a selective safeguards article, with no automatic compensation requirement.

Some progress has been made in negotiating those strengthened rules and disciplines, but much more remains to be done before the round is completed. I do not want now to consider the proposals in greater depth, because the time required to reach agreement will, I think, ensure that we have opportunities for further debate in the future. My priority at this stage is to ensure that we progress further in a way that avoids unnecessary uncertainty, which is the undoubted enemy of all successful trade and commerce.

It is generally accepted--even among developing countries--that the multi- fibre arrangement, which is a derogation from GATT, should be phased out over 10 or 11 years. However, the integration of the textile and clothing trade into normal GATT rules demands the simultaneous achievement and implementation of strengthened rules and disciplines. Some progress has been made in agreeing the details of implementation, but several important issues remain to be settled, including the crucial need for a mechanism enabling the phasing-out process to be suspended for any country that fails to comply with its obligations. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the direct link between the phasing out of the MFA and the introduction of strengthened GATT rules and disciplines. There have been far too many examples of loopholes being exploited in the past.

If extension of the fast track is agreed, it will be for a period allowing negotiatons to continue until 1 March 1993--two years from now. Of course, not only the Government and the Community but also the industry share the hope that the Uruguay round will be concluded long before then--preferably before the end of this year, if that is at all possible. Nevertheless, it may be the beginning of 1993, or even later, before the round is completed, ratified and brought into effect, given the procedural steps required in the United States in particular. Thus, it will be necessary to extend the current term of the multi-fibre arrangement, due to expire on 31 July 1991, together with the Community's bilateral agreements which expire on 31 December, excepting those for China, which continue until

Column 1118

the end of next year. Agreement needs to be reached as soon as possible on the length of the extension to avoid damaging uncertainty for all concerned.

Currently, the participants are considering the length of time for which the MFA and the bilateral agreements should be extended. I understand that most Community member states favour the extension of the MFA for 17 months, to the end of 1992, with the possibility of a further extension if the Uruguay round is not ready for implementation. The industry supports that approach. Many developing countries, too, take a similar view. The United States of America--I point out this fact to the Minister--has proposed an extension for 29 months, to the end of 1993.

Another important point is that most countries envisage a straightforward extension of the existing terms. In contrast, I gather from the Minister for Trade's response to my parliamentary question on 20 March that the British Government continue to argue for an extension of the MFA for only five months, to the end of this year. In practice, that would have no effect, since the bilateral agreements continue until then, in any event. It is impossible for GATT to be ready for implementation at that stage. The Government evidently accept that extension of the MFA for a further 21 months to the end of 1992 may then be necessary, but they argue that the terms of the MFA and the bilateral agreements should be modified for the additional year.

There are several reasons why it would be mistaken to weaken the terms for this further year. First and foremost, it would provide additional concessions to exporting countries, whether or not they were willing to play their part in contributing to strengthening the rules and disciplines that I regard as critical. Secondly, it would increase the base level from which the phasing out of the MFA will be applied, to the obvious detriment of the United Kingdom industry. Thirdly, it could only cause the most damaging uncertainty, not only to manufacturers and processors but to retailers and importers, as well as exporters overseas. We need advance knowledge of the terms on which trade will take place.

As for retailers and distributors, it is particularly significant that senior management of the Littlewoods Organisation, whom I met on Thursday of last week, are equally keen to see a simple extension of the MFA for a reasonable period. I received a short note from that organisation this morning which reads :

"We are concerned that the continuing dispute over agricultural issues may result in the MFA not being replaced when it lapses in July 1991. This is already creating uncertainty and disruption in our forward planning with suppliers for the coming autumn season. We are therefore asking the European Commission as a matter of urgency to give a firm undertaking that, until a new MFA is in place, they will continue to operate the present Arrangement"--

I stress those words--

"and the specific quotas established under it, thus guaranteeing continuity of supply."

It is rare in this industry for all parties to agree in that way. It suggests that it would not be in the interests of consumers to cause turmoil by increasing uncertainty. Finally, a short-term approach would mean duplication of the MFA extension negotiations and a proliferation of complex bilateral negotiations, just at the time when negotiators world wide should be concentrating on a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round.

Column 1119

The Government's position regarding the United Kingdom's approach to the interim period is curiously incomprehensible. It is at variance with our European Community partners, with the United States, with most developing countries, with the British apparel, knitting and textile industries and with United Kingdom importers and overseas exporters. The extension of the MFA does not mean that there would be a standstill, as some fear. The current bilateral arrangements incorporate progressive increases in quotas, which could presumably be carried over into 1992. Thus, the momentum of liberalisation, to which the Government are committed, would undoubtedly be maintained. On the question of the length of the phasing-out period for the MFA, last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry first suggested that it should be between five and seven years. His approach did not endear him to the industry. Eventually, under pressure from the industry and several of his hon. Friends, he accepted that 10 years might not be inappropriate. I hope that this time he will see the logic of the case and will amend his position rather than be thought to be falling into line involuntarily while alienating the industry.

After all, despite the contraction to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, the textiles and clothing industry remains one of the United Kingdom's largest sources of employment. Its work force of nearly 450,000, located largely in the north, the midlands and Scotland, is well placed to play a significant role in determining whether my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State will still be at the Dispatch Box after the next election. It is vital, therefore, that the Government should be seen to be fighting their corner and working for the survival of a vibrant textile industry that is, has been and certainly can continue to be one of our best exporters--a success in the marketplace of the world.

11.27 am

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Does the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) have the Minister's consent to speak in the debate?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Community Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh) indicated assent.

Mr. Madden : I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate. He, like I, has the honour to represent a constituency in west Yorkshire. I wish to emphasise the importance of the clothing and textile industries to west Yorkshire.

A recent study to investigate the economic prospects of the west Yorkshire region in the 1990s highlighted the importance of the textile and clothing industries to the regional economy. The study was commissioned by west Yorkshire's five district councils and was undertaken by the university of Louvain in Belgium and the United Kingdom's Cambridge Economic Consultants.

The main points highlighted by the study were the increased and national vulnerability of textiles and clothing due to the shift of production towards south and east Europe and south-west Asia ; the continuing threats to

Column 1120

the industries caused by exchange rate variations and subsidised competitors ; the difficulties caused by the false labelling of imported materials and products and the dumping of Turkish acrylic yarn ; and the continuing concentration of production to maximise technical economies of scale, with a consequent reduction in jobs. The consultants also point out that textiles and clothing are more than twice as important, in employment terms, to west Yorkshire than they are to the Community as a whole and more than three times more important than within the other industrial regions examined by the study. The west Yorkshire region was included in the European regional development funds' non-quota textile crisis aid programme, but it is considered that there is increased need for measures which could more directly assist the restructuring of key sectors, if the region is to be able to compete more successfully in the single market.

The hon. Member for Keighley rehearsed arguments that we have advanced in defence of the British textile and clothing industry over many years. He came here in 1979 ; I had the honour of first coming here in 1974. It was clear then that the industries were in decline. That decline has intensified during the last 10 years. In the city of Bradford, 14,000 people are directly employed in textiles and clothing. The livelihoods of thousands more, and their families, depend upon companies that supply goods and services to the textile and clothing industries.

We are in the depths of a very deep recession. Certainly it looks as bad as anything that we experienced in the early 1980s. Unemployment has risen sharply. The employment figures in the wool textile sector in west Yorkshire show an 18 per cent. fall between 1988 and 1990. Every part of that industry, including combing, woollen spinning and worsted, has had reductions of more than 20 per cent. Production and export are down. The extension of the MFA for at least 17 months, as the hon. Member for Keighley argued, should be only part of an urgent strategy that is vital if the British textile and clothing industries are to survive and if regions such as west Yorkshire which are dependent on those industries are to return to economic prosperity.

I pay tribute to my union, the Transport and General Workers Union, and to its national secretary, Mr. Peter Booth, who has been actively promoting the argument for a strategy for our industries. The cuts in interest rate have been extremely welcome, but we must remember that the average company in west Yorkshire employs 50 people. Such companies are least able to afford to invest in new technology, research and development.

We should also remember that high exchange rates create difficulties for the industries that we represent, particularly as many low-cost producers link their currencies to the dollar, often at artificially low rates. That gives them an extremely competitive edge and often an unfair economic advantage over home producers. We must also consider training. We welcome the initiatives taken by the industry recently, but in Bradford we have the prospect of losing 600 training places in the coming year. That is scandalous, given the difficulties that the United Kingdom will have to face.

I urge the Minister to listen to the points that have been raised in this and many earlier debates. Our constituents who work in textiles and clothing are often mystified about the Government's policy on those vital industries. The Government's view often appears to be grudging. Today, as the hon. Member for Keighley has said, they are

Column 1121

completely isolated. I urge them at least to accept publicly and quickly in the talks immediately after Easter that 17 months must be the minimum. We want the MFA to continue for at least 10 years. We want the rest of the strategy to which I have referred today to be put in place as soon as possible to assist the industry nationally and regionally.

The Government keep saying that their aim is the liberalisation of trade for the benefit of consumers. I remind the Minister that textile workers are also consumers. If one follows the Government's policy to its logical conclusion, the prospect is that the British textile and clothing industry will be wiped out. British consumers will then depend totally on imported textiles and clothing and will become the victims of whatever prices overseas exporters wish to charge. None of us wants that to happen. Our constituents who work in these important industries deserve better.

11.33 am

Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) : In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), I wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to two specific points. The first relates to the education of people going into the knitting industry, which has been seriously affected. The second relates to Chinese imports.

Hinckley college, with its internationally renowned textiles department, is in my constituency. Sadly, there have recently been seven redundancies at that college. That clearly demonstrates the difficulties that local businesses in the area are facing and the specific impact of the high number of imports causing serious problems to which other hon. Members have referred. In the past two years, imports have increased to represent 50 per cent. of the goods available on the market. That increase has brought about the need to reduce staff in one of the key teaching establishments in the industry in the country. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear that in mind.

My second point concerns imports from China, which were mentioned briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. When I first had the honour of coming to the House to serve my constituents, in 1987, I chose as the subject of my maiden speech Chinese imports, particularly the importation of cheap Chinese underwear. I told the Minister at the time that it was a critical matter. Yet today we are still facing that problem ; if anything, it has got worse. The Chinese knicker market is seriously undermining our industry. In 1990 imports of Chinese knickers surged to 88 million pairs at an average price of only 19p a pair, while United Kingdom production in knitting establishments fell by a forecast 8.7 per cent. to 59 million pairs at an average price of £1.25 a pair. How on earth can we compete? I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need the MFA to be extended for 10 years or a replacement agreement which will guarantee a level playing field, as I believe that to be essential.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for incorrectly identifying him when I called him to speak.

11.36 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley

Next Section

Home Page