I suppose that wherever wool is produced in the world, branding takes place for the purpose of identification. I wish to deal, briefly, with the materials used in branding, which are pitch, tar and paint. The use of these materials is causing financial loss, frustration, loss of export trade and, above all, waste.

I raise this subject, not on behalf of any association but for thousands of people engaged in the woollen industry, either as employees or employers. I declare my interest and that of my employees without any hesitation, because before I came to the House this week my own employees gave me a terse and colourful brief consisting of two sentences, but I shall not risk being called to order by quoting it.

Manufacturers first petitioned this House on this subject in 1752, but without success. That must have sickened the manufacturers somewhat because, as far as I can ascertain, no sort of protestation or official representations have been made here since, perhaps for a simple reason. In our trade we do not believe in getting mixed up with Governments, politicians and the like. We work on the principle that if a Minister is very able the less we have to do with him the better, and if he is not so able it is no use bothering with him anyhow. That is no reflection on the leaders of our industry, whose wisdom and judgment, born of experience, have no equal in any other industry. They have a capacity for saying what they mean and sticking to it, as Governments in the past know very well.

I do not wish to minimise the great efforts which have been made to solve this problem by the Wool Federation, the Woollen Industries Research Association and other authorities at home and abroad; for instance, the New Zealand Government's action in prohibiting the sale of soluble marking material and the South African Government's efforts to keep contaminated wool separate. I am well aware of the efforts of other bodies in education, exhortation and propaganda. But all this has failed; we are having more trouble now than at any time since I started work in this trade when I was 12 years old.

From my experience of the last few months it would seem that at branding time the word goes out to empty all the motor car sumps and to mix the contents with tar to provide an indelible brand, with no consideration for its effect during the later stages of manufacture. For the past few months, to my knowledge, many firms have been spending 10 per cent. of their wages on the eradication of these faults. There is, in addition, a heavy cost in solvents and I may say that it does not apply to the wool in the fleece so much as to the later stages of manufacture.

For instance, if raw wool, after scouring, is dyed and made up into pieces the faults in a piece cannot be removed. A tremendous lot of our export trade with the United States and Canada is in highly selective fashion-type goods which demand the finest workmanship and materials. More often than not the material is dyed in the loose before it is woven. In that case there is a tremendous loss, and there is a tendency in the trade not to make this kind of material for fear of the loss that may be involved if the material is full of tar and pitch.

The producers are working against their own interests. Today, there is quite a lot of competition in our trade from other fibres. In the case of one of the newer industries like rayon, most meticulous care is taken with material which costs something in the region of 24d. a pound. How much more care should be taken with material that costs 160d. a pound, and I put it to the people in the Dominions that they are working against their own best interests in the long run in permitting this state of affairs to continue. Technically, the crux of the matter is that the needs of the grower and manufacturer are contradictory. The farmer demands indelibility for 12 months, while the manufacturer needs to be able to clean his wool as satisfactorily as if no brands are used at all.

I suggest that pitch, tar, or any other substance which cannot be removed by scouring should be prohibited altogether. Secondly, I suggest that the wool producers should be forced to remove all staples contaminated by these substances. Thirdly, financial penalties should be introduced. In the case of prohibition, Eire is already doing this. South Africa is trying the second proposition, and this country is trying to do the third. The Wool Marketing Board gives a premium for tar free wool, or at least it imposes a penalty of 4d. a lb. if there is tar in wool produce. But even after you have paid the 4d. you cannot be sure you can get wool without tar in it.

In the dim and distant past it was considered virtuous to daub sheep with tar. In fact, William Camden wrote in 1605: He who will lose a sheep for a ha'penny-worth of tar cannot deserve the name of a good husband. Now it is a mark of inefficiency, carelessness, and indifference to the future well-being of an industry. I can do no better than finish in the words of the petitioners of 1752: That the increasing quantities of pitch, tar, and redding now made use of by the growers of wool is an increasing evil, and therefore pray that this House provide such a remedy as to them shall seem meet.