XN000022-1980-07-16 — Page 15

3

Again many argue that if unemployment was less it would be

easier to face job loss in declining industries. But objective studies have

shown that job losses in textiles have been caused very much more by pro-

ductivity increases than cheap imports.

Jobs would therefore be shed from declining industries much

faster in prosperous times than in dull. In addition, these studies show

that jobs created in industries exporting to the countries that make textiles

pretty well offset job loss caused by imports. In any case, in 1958 when

restrictions were first imposed unemployment in Britain was 1.9 per cent.

None of the economic arguments bear scrutiny. I think it is

much easier to explain protectionism in simple rough political terms.

Whenever textiles are debated in the House of Commons there is no debate.

Few, but the members from textile constituencies from either party, catch

the Speaker's eye.

There is a real debate but it seldom surfaces in Parliament.

The real debate is not between Conservative and Labour but between

the industry and the consumers.

The whole business of textile protectionism needs a new look.

Are textile job losses really caused by the one-third of imports that come

from countries whose exports are under restraint?

Since the last MFA in 1978 imports from rich countries have

grown faster than those from poor. Even in depressed times and times of

high unemployment, do not these countries create more jobs than they destroy

by buying more than they sell?

If they do, would it not make sense to let them sell more of

what British consumers went so that the other countries have more money

to buy things that Britain can make well?

/If the