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 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 cooperation 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 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 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 I o 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 he 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 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.

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.