COTTON INDUSTRY.

HC Deb 20 December 1933 vol 284 cc1385-447

7.39 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON

I beg to move, That this House views with grave concern the position of the Cotton Industry and, whilst holding that the problems of the industry cannot be solved under a system of competitive capitalism but only by its reorganisation under public ownership as a national service, is of opinion that, as a temporary expedient, a statutory authority representative of the various sections of the industry on the one hand and the organised workers on the other should be appointed and vested with the necessary powers to secure a co-ordinated policy for the industry, improve its efficiency, establish adequate marketing arrangements, and safeguard the standard of life of the workers. We have been rather fortunate in having these two Motions before the House to-day for Debate. They are both of great importance so far as the industrial side of the nation is concerned. In moving my Motion I wish, first of all, to make it clear that the Motion is not the policy of the Labour party in this direction, but it is what we believe to be a temporary expedient necessary for the industry at the present moment, and one which has, of course, been accepted by the operatives with a view to overcoming the present difficulties and trying to lead on to something greater and more secure in the future. Hon. Members will realise that the problems of this industry are very vexed problems. They have very wide ramifications, which cannot be dealt with m 'a day. It struck me, while the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon) was speaking about what the Socialist Government would have to do in the first five years, that the cotton industry has been in the hands of private enterprise for over a century and is today in a condition more chaotic than it has ever approached before.

I notice that there are several Amendments on the Paper. One seems to be clearly out of order, but the main Amendments simply ask for improvement of the organisation by the formulation of proposals in the industry. That is all we are asking for, so that they do not go very far. In another Amendment, I notice that the same thing is attempted by asking the Government to form a Commission to report to the House within a certain number of months. These are both in the same direction as the Motion which we have on the Paper, but they are not adequate; they will not meet the needs of the industry and are not in any way commensurate with the requirements of the moment, as I hope to be able to show.

Hon. Members will, of course, notice that in this industry chaos has been reigning for some considerable time. We have had a number of reasons given why the industry has remained so long submerged under heavy burdens, but I think that, if the cotton operatives and manufacturers would admit it, the greatest part of the trouble arises through the non-observance of a grievance which has already been laid before the manufacturers, and also, probably, to some extent from the fact that the organisations are not worked in the best interests of efficient or cheap management, as they should be. The House will remember that during the last cotton Debate, on the question of Japanese competition, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that the troubles in the cotton industry were both economic and industrial, and he went on to point out the large over-capitalism of the industry or, I might say, the influx of extra capital into the industry during the period of the boom. He pointed out also that this had caused heavier overhead charges and heavier costs of management, and he ended up by saying that the number of people who had invested in the industry had been disappointed and it had left a very nasty taste behind it.

In dealing with this question, I should like to quote a statement made by one who stands very high in the cotton organisation, a man who can speak with authority, a man who knows his business, a man who has worked himself into the highest position it is possible to attain. In one of his statements, he used these words: The continuous decline of the industry; the internal competition for business on a limited market; the stoppage of mills; the breaking-up and disposal of machinery; the large measure of unemployment amongst our members, and the loss in capital resources, are creating a very dangerous situation. Both employers and employés are losing heart, and there is now a very definite decline in moral. Hope is giving way to despair, and the failure to grasp and understand our problems, and the difficulties of responsible authorities in applying remedies, are arousing bitterness and animosity. Our industry has earned an unenviable reputation. The continuous strife and internecine warfare have helped nobody. More working days have been lost in our industry through disputes than in any other single industry.

Mr. RADFORD

Who said that?

Mr. PARKINSON

Mr. Andrew Naesmith, the secretary of the weavers' organisation. I am sure that there is a large amount of truth in the statement that he makes here. That is a very heavy indictment from one who knows externally and internally the conditions applying in the industry, whose word ought to be taken as authentic and taken to heart by the operatives and the employers. I shall try to show the chaos in the industry before dealing with the subject of the Motion. The number of looms in operation is constantly declining. In 1913 the number was 800,000. I do not know the number of spindles, but probably it is in proportion to the looms. In 1929 the number was 739,000. In 1913 the per- centage was 28.69 of the world total. To-day, according to the latest available figures, the figure is 600,000 and the percentage is 18.12 of the world total. It is estimated that approximately 325,000 looms are working or just over 50 per cent. of the total number. On the 19th December, 1927, the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) made this statement: At least 200 mills in Lancashire were in the power of the banks and 90 per cent. of these were under the financial control of four banks. Hon. Members will find that statement quoted in a book which aroused a certain amount of interest when it was published, under the title of "Lancashire under the Hammer." I think that statement justifies the writing of the book. I am sure the hon. Member for Stockport does not make statements unless he is quite sure of the statement he is making. In order to elucidate the position I have put down in the last few weeks certain questions to Ministers. I asked the Minister of Labour if he could give the number of (mills closed in the cotton industry in Lancashire from October, 1931, to October, 1933. In reply I was informed that during the period October, 1931, to October, 1933, the number of cotton mills closed down in the North Western division of the country was 128, of which 116 were in Lancashire, and that during the same period 47 cotton mills, of which 44 were in Lancashire, have been re-opened. Those figures are depressing.

On the same day, I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade. I asked how many companies had become bankrupt, or had gone into liquidation during the same period. The question was replied to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who stated that 30 limited companies and one firm in the cotton industry centred in Lancashire had gone into liquidation or become bankrupt in the period named. Thirty-one mills owned by six concerns had closed down. These figures constitute an indictment which shows the truth of what the President of the Board of Trade says, namely, that the influx of capital into the industry has more than broken down the whole position and has led to chaos, both financially and economically.

Let us look at the number of people totally unemployed in the manufacturing section of the industry. I have before me the details of six towns in Lancashire. The range of total unemployment on the 24th July, 1933, is from 25.9 to 47.9. The highest figures were in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir Herbert Samuel). Practically one-half of the people there are totally unemployed. I well remember the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Japanese competition, but I am afraid it does not seem to have had any effect in the country. It appears to me that some hon. Members who are concerned in the cotton industry blatantly cry out about Japanese competition instead of trying to bring about some internal reorganisation of the industry that would improve not only the position of the employers but of the workpeople as well.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin)

Will the hon. Member be kind enough to give me the names of the six towns. He has referred only to Darwen.

Mr. PARKINSON

Yes. Blackburn, 42.7 per cent.; Burnley, 28 per cent.; Barnoldswick, 25.9 per cent.; Darwen 47.9 per cent.; Accrington, 28.9 per cent.; and Padiham, 38.9 per cent.

Sir H. SAMUEL

These are cotton operatives only.

Mr. PARKINSON

Yes.

Major PROCTER

Does not that show an improvement?

Mr. PARKINSON

I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not interrupt. I want to stick to the point. If a question is asked by the Minister, well and good, but I am not going to be sniped. Perhaps it would be better to put the position in another way. In the Burnley area before the War there were approximately 107,000 looms. To-day there are something like 50,000 looms actually working. In Blackburn, the largest cotton manufacturing town in the world, there were over 90,000 looms in 1913, but to-day slightly less than 35 per cent. are running in about 67 mills out of 132. In Preston, out of approximately 45,000 looms 16,000 have gone out of commission, leaving 29,000 in work. Could a more gloomy picture be painted?

Let us look at what we believe to be the feelings of the people who are directly responsible for this industry. We cannot put the blame upon the operatives in the industry as a whole. What is the cause of the depression? Is it world conditions, or the lack of co-ordination and organisation with the industry, or is it that the management buying and marketing are not quite so efficient as in other parts of the world, or is it the rampant individualism of employers? If it is due to individualism—I believe that that has much to do with the trouble at the moment—then it is time that the organised manufacturers took a strong hand to stop this kind of thing. It is up to them to stop it, because they are being ruined and workpeople are being thrown out of employment. If the latter is the cause, then control is inevitable.

There is another aspect of the industry which I want to mention, and that is the reductions in wages that have taken place since 1920. The first thing which seems to appeal to the employers, particularly in the cotton industry, is to apply for a reduction in the wages of the operatives. I heard one man, who knows the cotton industry very well, say that the only thing on which the cotton manufacturers of Lancashire were agreed was to call for a reduction in the wages of the operatives. If that is their highest aim and the one thing on which they are agreed, their hopes of security in the future are, I am afraid, doomed to disappointment. If they reduce the wages of the operatives to a level upon which they cannot live they cannot expect the operatives to remain quiescent. if they are not receiving a decent rate of wages. The reductions since 1920 have amounted to about 9s. 5d. in the £. An operative earning £3 in 1920 would get to-day 31s. 9d. for a full 48 hours week. That gives a net wage of 37.55 per cent. over the 1914 wage level, while the cost of living index, according to the Ministry of Labour Gazette for last October, was 41. Therefore, relatively speaking the operatives are poorer and in a lower condition than they were in 1914.

The question is, whether reduced wages have brought any increased trade. Unless a reduced wage does bring a greater market, it is lost; it does not improve the position of the manufacturer and certainly it lowers the standard of life of the workers. Although the manufacturers are prone to ask for reductions in wages, if that reduction is either forced or is accepted by the operatives it is lost if it does not bring a widening of markets and other opportunities for selling the commodities which are manufactured. Therefore they are in the same position that they were in before the reduction of wages so far as trade is concerned, while the reduced wages bear very hardly upon the operatives. During the past few years the position has been very much aggravated by breaches of agreements by the employers. The cotton industry, like the coal industry, is one of our main basic industries and we find that the same short-sightedness and the same lack of appreciation of the workers in the industry applies to both sets of employers in those two industries. I do not know where the coal industry would have been had it not been for the legislation of 1930, but I am sure that it would have been in a worse position than it is to-day, and God knows it is bad enough now.

The same thing seems to be applying in the cotton industry, except that the cotton manufacturers will not admit that there is any difficulty within their internal organisation. There are manufacturers to-day who seek their end either by reduction in the wages of the workers, or by breaking agreements in one of the many ways in which they can be broken, such as underselling those who have agreed to a standard rate. That is one of the things that is damaging employers and employed and lowering the standard of life throughout the industry. Certainly it does not strengthen the position of the cotton industry in Lancashire. If the maintenance of agreements cannot be observed voluntarily by the people inside the industry, it is time for control and for legal power to be given which would compel these men to remain on the level. I do not believe in either workmen or employers getting behind agreements. If there is an obstacle, let them face it manfully and not try to get over it by subterfuge. The accepting of orders at a price lower than manufacturing costs in many cases is bringing the industry very near to bankruptcy. Breaches of agreements are widespread.

From the information I have received breaches of agreement are taking place in many of the towns of Lancashire, including Blackburn, Burnley, Barnolds-wick, Padiham, Great Harwood and Haslingden. Employers in those districts are not observing agreements as they ought to do.

The Board of Trade returns place the pre-War earnings of weavers at 23s. 4d. per week for men and 22s. 7d. per week for women. Everyone will agree that those wages were low indeed; even in 1914 the operatives did not enjoy a standard of living to write home about, but in 1933 they were comparatively poorer than they were in 1914. On the other hand, in 1920 about 130 spinning companies returned a profit of over 40 per cent. Let hon. Members try to realise the difference. The operatives were having higher wages in 1920 than in 1914, but not to the same extent that employers and capitalists were enjoying increased dividends. We must get away from the 1914 standards as far as we can and try to see the position as it is in 1933. Not long ago a manufacturer said that they were sliding into chaos. When asked why, he replied—these are his own words: There is a solid block of conservatism in the real meaning of that word, which together with sectional interests will stubbornly oppose any reorganisation. It can only come by compulsion by law. I do not know what he meant by a "solid block of conservatism," I have my opinion as to what it means, but as he is a Conservative he may put a different meaning upon it. If it means sticking to all you have and to that which belongs to other people, he may have been right. In 1930 a commission was sent out from the Lancashire cotton trade to study the conditions in the East. They put forward constructive proposals, but neither the Government Committee's recommendations nor the conclusions of this Commission appear to be reflected by any changes in the industry. Why? [An HON. MEMBER: "Japanese competition!"] Hon. Members opposite seem to go to bed with Japanese competition and get up with it; they dream about nothing else but Japan. Surely we as a nation are not going to be lead by other nations? Surely we can rise to the competition and do the best possible for our own people?

Surely those who have seen the industry in operation in other parts of the world must have come back with some knowledge which they did not possess when they went out. It is somewhat unusual for an industry to send out a commission of that kind and then not act upon its recommendations. Many schemes have been talked about and several have been tried, without any success. Surely reorganisation inside the industry is essential. I am not going to deal with external factors, because that is a matter which can come on at some other time with a fuller opportunity for debate.

At the moment the cotton industry is in the grip of world economic forces. It is dependent for its raw material on imports and for its commercial success on exports. Those are two essential factors. How are we going to improve the position unless we make strenuous efforts to reorganise the whole industry and see that as far as competition is concerned we are as efficient and as able to compete with other countries as ever before? Like the coal industry there are too many people in the cotton industry buying the raw materials and too many people selling the commodity on the market, and then there are a whole lot of middle men who are taking profits to which they are not entitled. This is where the organisation should be tightened and perfected.' Whether this will be done remains to be seen. This industry although confined to a county has international ramifications. What are the internal factors which are preventing a full recovery? I think that the first is individualism, which has been the Liberal philosophy in the past, if it is not now. There are more Liberals than Conservatives in the cotton industry. Individualism is at the root of the difficulty, and I want to know why it should remain there for ever. Surely the changing conditions of the times ought to lift people out of themselves and show them that their mission in life is to help people who come within their authority and instruction. Secondly, there is the gambling and speculation which goes on, while the finance of the industry is in the hands of the banks; shall I say the industry is in pawn to the banks. Do we expect the Lancashire cotton industry to get out of pawn as long as there are no strenuous efforts made to secure recovery?

An unlimited competition in a limited market makes it difficult for the industry. When there are more sellers than buyers, it is rather a difficult proposition to go on to the market. When there are more sellers than buyers we do not need so many, and if we had bigger units of organisation, bigger amalgamations, there would not be anything like the same number of people buying the raw material or selling the manufactured commodity. This is one of the ways in which, in my opinion, reorganisation could be definitely tightened. Again, countries which were formerly our customers are now producing their own cotton. We must not forget that. During the period of our prosperity we were so anxious to equip other countries that we sent out our best machines and our best men; now we are paying the penalty. Japanese competition is now very keen, and also the competition of China and India, but the foundation was laid by ourselves in the belief, of course, that the supremacy of the Lancashire cotton industry would stand for all time. This is bad policy. It imperils the financial position of good firms and generally reduces the standards of life of the operatives, who in my opinion have a right to live the best life they can get from the proceeds of the industry. No employer has a right to take for his own purposes any more than he really requires to reimburse himself for his outlay. At the same time, more consideration ought to be given to increasing the wages of the people who are living now on a bare margin, and who have a right to expect something better. Production is the basis not only of the cotton industry but of every other industry.

There seems to be no semblance of concerted action to deal with the root causes of the decline of the industry. I might have put the case better, but in my view the chaos has been brought about through the short-sightedness of employers and the position they have taken up in not taking their operatives more into consultation. The trouble in the cotton industry is that we are not bringing the best brains to the front and employing them. The best brains come from the working operatives, who have been responsible for more improvements than can be attributed to the employers.

Cotton is the largest export trade in the country. What are we going to do about it?

I come now to the proposals of a scheme for dealing with the industry, which it must be remembered is divided into four or five different sections, completely independent of each other. There is the raw cotton market, then the spinning, manufacturing, finishing and marketing. The scheme which I propose to refer to briefly is one which would set up committees, perfectly equipped, with a knowledge of each section, working inside the industry, not something imposed upon them by Parliament or from the outside. They would have an opportunity of selecting people from the manufacturers side and the operatives would have an opportunity of selecting an equal number from their side. If we had small committees of that kind inside the industry, who thoroughly understood the problem, something more might be done than has been the case up to the moment. It would bring cohesion and mobility to the industry, two things which are of great importance. If they could be brought to the industry and a concerted policy agreed upon I am sure that half the difficulties would be over in a short time. It would also be the first attempt at self-government by people directing an industry, although we had a board during a period of the War. Beyond that it would give an opportunity for those in the industry to get together and do more than has been done towards stabilising the industry.

The question of a board is rather a large proposition and might not meet with the approval of people connected with the trade. According to a Press cutting I have seen it is not quite understood. In Manchester on the 6th of December there was a meeting when the operatives laid before the employers a schme which they thought would be in the best interests of the industry. The first thing I did when I bought an evening newspaper was to read the headline, "Rebuff of Trade Union" in letters about one and a-half inches deep. As if that was something of which to be proud. I do not think there is anything to be proud about in turning down a scheme that has not been thoroughly examined. Evidently they had no intention of making the scheme a success. The same bodies are meeting on Friday next, but an employers' representative has said, "We are meeting, not to discuss the scheme, but to bury it." If that is the spirit of the conference, it would be much better to leave it outside. Success cannot be built up in that way.

The scheme has been accepted by the operatives in the cotton industry. It would give the industry three or four committees. It would be a Government Measure; it would have statutory authority and would be imposed upon those who did not carry out the requirements of the Act. The Control Board would consist of 15 members, in addition to a chairman. There would be four representatives of the spinning section, two from the employers and two from the workmen; four from the manufacturers' side, two from each body of workers and manufacturers; four from the finishers, two from each side; and three members appointed for their knowledge and experience in the marketing of goods. I am sure that a body of that kind would be able to do a lot of work which has not been done hitherto. The scheme would be carried through entirely by people who are inside the industry. The four members of each section would form themselves into a committee to deal with that section, and the chairman would be a man of wide experience. If the scheme became law, the question of remuneration would be dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in consultation with the Treasury. I do not need to say very much about that now.

It is contemplated that the scope of the Control Board should be as wide as possible in the interests of the industry as a whole, that the board should be given unlimited powers to deal with every phase that presented itself to them, and that their function should be to issue licences in conformity with the Act. They would have the right to exercise all functions in connection with licences, collective agreements, reconstruction and finance. They would have an opportunity of going fully into the whole question and doing their best, both as committees and as a whole.

I would recall to "the House that during the Debates on Japanese competition the President of the Board of Trade said that any suggestions brought to him by both employers and employed would receive the most careful consideration of the Government. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman meant every word that he said. I believe also that his words were in the nature of an invitation to leaders of the industry to get together and at least to try to do something which would help them through the present difficulty. I do not think they have done anything of the kind, because we have only to look in the daily Press to find many statements of manufacturers, which lead one to think that the industry is chaos from top to bottom. I have many quotations here, but I shall not read them. One speaker said that what they needed in Lancashire was "guts not law." That is putting it very nicely and quietly, but at the same time it is using a good Lancashire word. I think that the manufacturers in the cotton industry are short of guts. This speaker went on to say, in reference to the Egyptian side of the industry, that they wanted something by which their agreements would have the force of law. In this morning's. "Manchester Guardian "one finds the same thing. Two or three people are saying that the industry is all right, but that they must have something by which they can force the application of agreements upon recalcitrant people who refuse to accept their responsibilities.

Here is the opportunity which has been wanted, if the leaders in the industry will only strike straight and honestly; and they know it. If they would only sink their dignity and get down to the level of humanity, and realise that though they may be higher in the social scale they are only one on earth and do not count any more in the well-being of the country than does the decent. honest, working man or woman, some good might come of it. That is the line of thought that I hope to get into the minds of the employers of Lancashire. An opportunity is here for the cotton industry to do for itself what no one else can do for it. If the leaders will get together and come to agreement, and then approach the President of the Board of Trade, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will give them all possible help.

Of course, we want the employers to welcome the assistance of the employ és. Surely it is not to be said in these days that there are not working men in in- dustry who are equal in intelligence to those on the boards of directors? Members of the working community are sure to come more strongly to the fore in the near future, not only in industry but in the government of the country. I want both sides to come together in the spirit of necessity. I want them to accept this Board of Control, to realise that only in that way can they bring order and prosperity out of chaos. Then the cotton industry will rise higher than it has ever been before, to the benefit not only of the manufacturers but of every one in the industry. I want the employers to remember that every person employed by them is to some extent dependent upon them, and on the other hand to recognise that, no matter what capital they have sunk in the industry, they are dependent on the work of those whom they employ. Surely it is time for them to look at this matter with a more humane eye, and to realise that they have some responsibility for the upbringing of the next generation, and for providing decent conditions of life for those whom they employ.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE

I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words: noting the desire of the cotton industry to improve its organisation, would welcome the formulation by the industry of proposals calculated to bring about that end. Although the question of the internal organisation of the Lancashire cotton industry may be regarded as important, I think I am speaking for most Lancashire Members when I say that we do not regard it as the most important question affecting that industry. What we regard as most important is the question of the foreign markets which have largely been lost to Lancashire, and coupled with that question, of course, is the very urgent matter of Japanese competition about which we have made many speeches in the House. To-night we are discussing a Motion which has been moved on behalf of the Labour party, and I would direct the attention of the House to its terms. We have not heard much about the Motion itself from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), but it is, undoubtedly, based on a scheme prepared by the research department of the Trade Union Congress and published, I think, on 8th December. We are made familiar by that means and by that means only with the real basis of this Motion.

I oppose the Motion strongly because it amounts to the socialisation or nationalisation of the industry. It is true that the Motion has been cleverly drafted, especially the latter part of it which seems mainly designed to draw into its net the two hon. Members for Oldham (Mr. Crossley and Mr. Kerr) and some others who have Amendments standing lower down the Order Paper. I do not know what, importance the Mover of the Motion attaches to the passage which reads as follows: whilst holding that the problems of the industry cannot be solved under a system of competitive capitalism but only by its reorganisation under public ownership as a national service, and goes on to recommend a control board as a temporary expedient. But it follows that anyone who votes for the Motion is voting ultimately for the nationalisation or socialisation of the industry and as a temporary expedient for a form of semi-socialisation. What is the scheme proposed by the Trade Union Congress? It is modelled on the operations of the Cotton Control Board during the War. I do not think I need say more of that than to point out that the task of the Control Board during the War was very different from the task which would confront a control board such as is proposed in this Motion. The task of the Control Board during the War was mainly to ration the limited supplies of raw material and to organise employment to the best advantage. There was no difficulty then in selling the products of Lancashire. The questions of prices, of profits and of our export markets were of comparatively minor importance during the War. It was a question of utilising to the best advantage a limited supply of raw material and a limited supply of labour. What is the task which would confront such a control board as the Motion proposes? I submit that that task would be precisely the opposite of the task which faced the Control Board during the War. Now, the trouble of Lancashire, as is well known, is overproduction with very severe internal competition largely caused by the shrinkage of our foreign markets. To take the example of the Control Board which existed during the War will not therefore assist the House in coming to a decision on the Motion.

What then is the scheme proposed by the Labour party? I am not sure that they themselves understand its full implications. The scheme provides that no mill is to be allowed to operate without a licence; that no new mill is to be started without a licence and that, if an amalgamation or reconstruction scheme involves the suppression or elimination of a mill, the licence of that mill is to be withdrawn, and that is to be the end of it as far as future operation is concerned. Amalgamation schemes, redundancy schemes and marketing schemes are to come into operation as Orders-in-Council which will be laid on the Table of the House. One can imagine the interminable discussions in the House as each amalgamation or redundancy scheme is laid on the Table. What a prospect for the House and what a prospect for the industry! This is not a case in which the Government ought to be asked to produce a cut-and-dried scheme for the organisation of the cotton industry. In so far as further organisation is necessary, it is for the industry to put its own house in order and to bring its proposals before the Government. I have in my Amendment used the words, noting the desire of the cotton industry to improve its organisation. I know there are Lancashire Members who think that there is no such general desire in the cotton industry with regard to its own organisation, but I do not take that view. I think there has been considerable evidence of the desire of the cotton industry to improve its organisation. I need only mention one or two instances. The House is familiar with the redundancy scheme of the joint committee of the cotton trade organisations in 1932, known as the levy scheme. That scheme was that a levy should be imposed on every cotton mill with a view to providing the compensation necessary to buy out and eliminate such plant and machinery as were considered redundant. As regards the Government position on this question, I would draw attention to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade when the joint committee inquired whether the Government would be prepared to provide the legislation required to enforce a scheme of that kind. On 19th March, 1932, the right hon. Gentleman replied as follows: If the joint committee decide to prepare a suitable detailed scheme for concentrating production, through a levy for the (purchase of redundant machinery, and are able to secure for it a measure or support of a kind that would commend it to Parliament, I should be prepared to recommend my colleagues to authorise me to promote the legislation needed to give authority for the collection of the levy. That was the statement then made by the President of the Board of Trade, so it is clear that the Government have expressed their readiness, if there was sufficient unanimity of demand in the cotton industry for a redundancy scheme, and any legislation were necessary to carry it into effect, to promote that necessary legislation. That scheme was submitted to a ballot of the firms in the cotton industry, and only 17 per cent. of the members voted in favour of it, so the scheme was dropped. In 1930 there were quota and price fixing schemes submitted by both the American and the Egyptian sections of the cotton spinning industry, and these were submitted to a ballot, and only 27 per cent. voted in their favour.

Then, more recently, there has been a series of voluntary price agreements entered into by different sections of the cotton spinning industry. It started, I think, with an arrangement between the Lancashire Cotton Corporation and the Royton spinners, and since then it has been adopted in medium and finer counts, and these price fixing schemes have undoubtedly given a stimulus to the spinning industry. Whether that stimulus is only artificial, and whether there will be a danger of breaking away from the agreements unless the question of redundancy is dealt with, is a matter on which many people feel some anxiety. But on the question of redundancy and on any larger questions of organisation, such as marketing and so on, I understand that the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners and the Cotton Manufacturers' Association have sub-committees now examining that matter, and we may find proposals submitted by them at a later stage. Everyone knows that there is no industry which has more complexities and difficulties involved in its organisation and operation than the Lancashire cotton industry, and to think of imposing the red tape and the heavy hand of Government, without making quite sure that any suggestions emanated from the industry and would be worked by the industry, would, I think, be attempting an impossible task.

There is a problem, undoubtedly, which has to be faced, and that main problem is represented by the term "redundancy." I will give only a few figures to show how acute this problem is. It is generally estimated that the total spindleage in Lancashire is about 48,000,000 spindles, and of that amount 18,000,000 spin Egyptian cotton and 30,000,000 spin American cotton. Of the 18,000,000 Egyptian spindles, the present production only amounts to what would be an equivalent full-time production of 16,000,000 spindles, whereas of the 30,000,000 American cotton spindles, there is only a present production which is equivalent to a full-time working of 16,000,000 spindles, so that you have there undoubtedly a very serious problem of redundant capacity.

Mr. CROSSLEY

There are 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 spindles interchangeable.

Mr. ENTWISTLE

Yes, and if we take the total amount of spindleage, we have 48,000,000 spindles, of which the present production is only equivalent to 32,000,000 spindles in the aggregate. You have there a problem of some redundancy, and as they are endeavouring to work the whole of this machinery, though not, of course, on full-time production, you have this acute internal competition, which has resulted in a ridiculously low market price. There is undoubtedly a serious problem, which the industry is considering. Nobody can say that the industry has not plenty of representative associations by which each section of it can express its views on these complex and difficult questions. I have mentioned the spinners and the manufacturers, but when we come to the finishers, I have a letter here from the Calico Printers Association, which was addressed to the Committee of Lancashire Members in this House, in which they say: They are in agreement with your Committee's views as to the desirability of unanimity amongst all sections of the industry. For many years they have been endeavouring to bring about solidarity in the trade, and to arrange for the various constituents to meet for joint discussion of its internal problems with a view to removing the intense individualism on the one hand and sectional specialisation on the other, which make unity of action so difficult. With this end in view they supported the setting up of the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations which was formed to investigate into the problems, to concentrate on those which are more or less within its own control, and to adopt a definite programme of action.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY

That was the Calico Printers Association.

Mr. ENTWISTLE

Yes.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY

I want to make it clear that that association owns 500 machines and the outside printers own another 500 machines. Both those bodies were members of the Federation of Calico Printers, and the Calico Printers Association broke away from the Federation because they could not agree.

Mr. ENTWISTLE

I was only using this as showing the general desire of the industry to get unanimous action, and I was making the point that there are numerous representative bodies in the industry which are fully capable of expressing its views. Personally, I have a good deal of sympathy with the speech which was made at the annual meeting of the Egyptian spinners by the hon. and gallant Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Colonel Shute), in which he said that the industry ought to be able to settle this question for itself and not keep asking for Government interference. I said at the outset of my speech, and I say now, that this very competition between Lancashire spinners, resulting in this very low market price, is largely due to the shrinkage of foreign markets, and it is the one question which we Members for Lancashire constituencies regard as much the most urgent. I cannot go into this matter to-night in any detail—I can only indicate the problem—but the largest market is that of India, and we are very glad to see, in so far as they have already achieved something, the results of the efforts of the deputation of Lancashire manufacturers and spinners who visited India recently. We are also looking forward very much to that agreement being entered into between the Indian Government and the British Government which will' secure for us a larger share of the India market. Then we regard as of vital importance the Colonial markets, as they are now affected and greatly diminished, so far as Lancashire is concerned, by this question of Japanese competition.

Those are matters in which we say the Government can help, and ought to help. We submit that the first steps which the Government should take are to denounce the Anglo-Japanese Treaty and indicate to the Japanese Government that, unless an agreement is arrived at, the Government are prepared to take drastic steps themselves to protect Lancashire's industry. But in regard to the internal organisation of the Lancashire cotton industry, we say that the initiative for that reorganisation should come from within, and not from without, in so far as any proposals made by the industry will need legislation to carry them out. Then, as I have already quoted from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, the Government have shown their readiness to act, but so far as the scheme which underlies the Motion proposed by the Labour party is concerned, that is, as I have said, pure socialisation, and as a temporary expedient semi-socialisation, and I am sure I speak for most Members of the House when I say that we want to have nothing to do with a scheme of that sort.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. RADFORD

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) made it clear in his Motion that the socialisation of the industry is the only basis upon which his party look forward with any confidence. After all, the scheme which has been prepared by the research committee of the Trades Union Congress is only to serve as a stopgap. The House during the earlier part of the evening expressed in no uncertain terms their view of the socialisation of our industries. I have carefully considered the scheme which has been prepared by the Trades Union Congress. At first glance it appears to be on sound, equitable lines, members being chosen to represent cotton spinners and the workers in cotton spinning, and so on for each department in the trade, but when one goes carefully through it, the scheme reveals itself to be the most ridiculous one-sided scheme that it is possible to conceive. The most plenipotentiary powers are to be given to the board to deal with the unfortunate owners of businesses, whether spinning or weaving sheds, or of other businesses in the cotton trade, but no powers are to be given to the board to deal with the operative side of the question. In fact, it is specifically provided with regard to the operatives: It is contemplated that the wages and conditions of labour should, as hitherto, be negotiated by the trade unions and the employers' organisations in the industry and the board would not be empowered to override such agreements or to impose conditions of labour other than those set out in such agreements.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD

Which are agreed to by the employers.

Mr. RADFORD

Quite so, but the employers are not to be asked to agree to any of the things which they are to suffer under any of the clauses of the scheme.

Mr. MACDONALD

No.

Mr. RADFORD

The board is to have power to license existing firms and, under certain conditions, to take away their licences, and in the event of their licences being taken away, they will be left with plant which would be derelict and which they would have to sell for what it would fetch.

Mr. MACDONALD

They would have equal representation on the board with the operatives.

Mr. RADFORD

I agree, but the fact remains that whereas the representatives on this board will have the most complete powers over the cotton industry it will have no power whatever relative to the conditions of labour and the number of looms to be operated by weavers. None of these points may even be touched by the board except to see that agreements between the operatives' unions and the employers are duly carried into effect. I think it is obvious to the House that this is an entirely one-sided agreement. The hon. Member for Wigan complained very much that there have been no efforts to carry out the recommendations of the mission that went to the East, which was called the British Economic Mission to the Far East, 1930-31. It is possibly true, as he points out, that their recommendations have not been carried out, but on whom does the blame rest as much as on anyone? It rests on the trade unions and their members. During the last two years the trade unions in the weaving section have shown lamentable obstinacy with regard to the operation by a weaver of more than four looms. Two years ago my hon. Friend referred to the number of looms lying silent in Lancashire. He said that the 800,000 looms of 20 years ago had shrunk to 600,000, and that of those only about 325,000 were working.

Surely these figures should have been enough to make the weavers' unions adopt a different attitude with regard to their members operating more than four looms, because they want to get back some of the trade that Lancashire has lost to other parts of the world, where the ordinary Lancashire type of loom is being operated to the extent of six, eight, 10 and 12 per operative. There was a lamentable stoppage for about seven weeks two years ago, as the result of which many of the weaving sheds started again with the operatives working six looms. I am not a technical man, but any hon. Member who knows the weaving section knows that what I am about to tell them is true. A weaver, with the assistance which is given when he is operating six or more looms, has easier work than he has when operating four looms without help. He can earn from 10 to 15 per cent. higher wages per week, and the employer is able to reduce his costs of production by 10 to 15 per cent. also.

Three days ago I was talking with an old friend of mine who has been an operative in his time, and who is now the owner of about 1,000 looms. I said to him: "Suppose you were working in your weaving shed; which would you rather do: operate four looms yourself without help, or six looms with help?" He laughed and said, without a moment's hesitation, that he would rather operate six, and that his weavers and any weaver who was working would say the same. I am surprised at the effrontery of hon. Members opposite who talk about the complete failure of the industry to do anything to put itself on its feet when they know that this obstinate attitude has been adopted by the unions concerned to prevent the operatives, who were anxious to work this system, which will earn them more money with easier work and enable our country to get back some of the markets it has lost.

They are equally obstinate on the question of the two shifts. I remember when I was in this House before, an old friend of mine, one of the most respected Lancashire manufacturers whose name is known to the hon. Member for Wigan, a man who is respected and trusted by his workpeople and the unions, told me the experience he had had in his own works. They are manufacturers and they make a high class of goods. They had one particular market which kept a big number of their workpeople fully occupied. Some continental manufacturers copied their cloth and were able to sell it at a slightly lower price than his firm could possibly produce it. In this connection we were not talking about those astronomical figures of Japanese competition, but about a case where a 10 to 15 per cent. reduction in costs would make all the difference. He said he sat down with his colleagues to work out a plan. They had had to dismiss their workpeople and the department manufacturing this particular cloth was silent. They made a calculation of the amount by which they could reduce the cost of that cloth were they to work two shifts. Working two shifts would mean reducing the hours per day which each operative could work, because a woman may not work after 10 o'clock at night or before six o'clock in the morning.

It was proposed under this scheme to reduce the number of hours per day to 7½, so as to make a 15-hour day with the two shifts, leaving a margin of an hour for the requirements of the internal organisation of the factory. They increased the piece-work price for their operatives, so that an operative could earn as much in 7½ hours as he or she had earned in the longer day. Then they called together the leaders of the operatives in their works and submitted the whole of the facts to them, and showed them that if this two-shift system were adopted in the factory it would be possible to reduce the cost of the cloth by a figure which would bring it to a level which would enable the firm to regain this market. The owner 9aid to the leading operatives, "Now, get the whole of your people together and talk it over—you can choose for yourselves exactly how you work these two shifts—and then let me know whether the operatives are interested."

The leaders came back to him a day or two later and said, "We have submitted it, and the operatives are enthusiastic with regard to it, and are prepared to start next week." The owner said, "All right, but have you mentioned it to the union?" They said, "There is no need, Mr. So-and-So, we are unanimous—all the men and women." He then said—and I regret that he did say it—" You had better just mention it to the union to avoid any discord afterwards." They did so and, the union said, "No. on no account." So the brothers and the sisters, and possibly the fathers and mothers, of the very operatives who are working in that factory remained out of work owing to this obstinate, hide-bound attitude on the part of the trade union. I cannot understand how hon. Members have the effrontery to continue to talk about want of organisation in the cotton industry, and of the wicked over-capitalisation of the boom period, when there are such abuses as that at their doors which have contributed in so large a degree to Britain losing so much of the cotton market as it has lost.

Since the hon. Member has drawn attention to the state of the cotton industry, I feel that I am not out of order in looking at the state of the cotton industry from a point of view other than that of its purely internal management. We know quite well of the depression which has fallen on our cotton industry. We know of the scores of spinning mills and weaving sheds which have been closed, dismantled and broken up; of the scores of others which are closed but which are being kept heated and cleaned ready to spring again into activity the minute there is any sign of improving trade; and we know also that nearly all the remaining ones are working at far below their 100 per cent. capacity. Has the demand for cotton goods in the world gone down? If one looks at figures of exports, whether of lineal yards or square yards, of cloth there are the complications that some of it is in the grey and some bleached and some dyed, and there is also the complication of how much yarn has been exported, and how much the home trade absorbs apart from export.

I think the simplest way of putting this subject before the House is in terms of the bales of raw cotton consumed by the mills in the various countries. I will take first the year 1913, as the last year before the War—the last what we call "standard year"—and then the year 1933. The world's consumption of raw cotton of all grades in those two years was practically the same—23,000,000 bales of cotton. The year 1913 to which the figures refer ended on the 31st August of that year, and for that year the figure was almost precisely 23,000,000 bales. If we take the year ending 31st January, 1933—which is the one for which the figures were most readily available to me—one finds a figure which is about 1 or 1½ per cent. less—22,625,000 bales. If we took a date later in 1933 then, owing to the improvement in trading conditions, the figure would be rather over the 23,000,000; but if the House will allow me I will take the figures for the two years as being practically the same. The diminished consumption of raw cotton in various countries must be accounted for by the increased consumption of cotton in certain other countries, and by comparing the figures we can get a fairly clear idea of what has become of our British cotton trade which we have lost, how much of it is recoverable and how much is irrecoverable, and we can see with greater clarity what contribution from employers, what contribution from employed and what contribution from His Majesty's Government may enable us to recover that which is recoverable.

I will give the House only a few figures, but they are unavoidable to secure the necessary clarity. In 1913 Great Britain consumed 4,274,000 bales—I am giving only the round thousands—and in 1933 only 2,254,000 bales, a fall of 2,020,000 bales, or about 47 per cent. Germany consumed 1,728,000 bales in 1913; the figure had fallen in 1913 to 1,152,000 bales. Poland recorded a fall, and Austria and Czechoslovakia; and in the United States of America there was a serious fall of 693,000 bales. But I will leave out of account the various countries where unimportant changes have occurred, and ask the House to look at the eastern countries which have got the greater part of the cotton trade which we have lost. I am omitting other European countries; some have increased and some have diminished, and we can ignore them and come firstly to Japan. Japan has increased her consumption in those 20 years from 1,588,000 bales to 2,761,000 bales, an increase of 1,173,000 bales, or 74 per cent., which is very striking. India has increased her consumption from 2,177,000 bales to 2,739,000 bales, an increase of 26 per cent., another very striking figure. Now I come to the one which staggered me—China. The figures for China for the year 1913 are not available. They were so trifling then that they used to be lumped together with those of some other countries which were not big consumers. China's 1921 figure is the one I have to take for comparison with 1933. China's figure in 1921 was 542,000 bales of cotton, and it has grown in the 12 years to 2,390,000 bales, an increase of 341 per cent. Her increase in consumption of bales of cotton is an actual physical increase of 1,848,000 bales, far outdistancing anything which Japan or India has done.

Major PROCTER

Are not the owners of the mills there Japanese?

Mr. RADFORD

I will come to that next. The hon. and gallant Member asked, "Are not the owners of the Chinese mills Japanese?"

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

Do the figures include all home production—all home used?

Mr. RADFORD

They were bales of raw cotton, whether Egyptian, American or East Indian, irrespective of varying weight. It is impossible to split them up. The Egyptians are 720 lbs. mostly, while the Americans are mostly 480 lbs. or 500 lbs. The hon. Member asked me a question about Japanese mills. He is quite right. I looked into the question of the ownership of these cotton mills anxiously, because I had already looked into the conditions under which they were worked, and I dreaded to discover that many of them belonged to Britain. The Chinese mills work two shifts of 12 hours each, that is, the whole 24 hours. The day-shift works six days a week as a rule, that is 72 hours as the working-week. The night-shift works the whole seven days, or 84 hours per week. Women and children are operating in those mills under conditions incomparably worse, not only than ours, but than anything in Japan. There were not many British-owned mills among them. I am glad to be able to tell the House that approxi- mately the ownership of those mills, whether spinning or weaving, was 55 per cent. Chinese, 40 per cent. Japanese, and 5 per cent. other nationalities, includnig British.

My excuse for troubling the House with these figures was in order to examine which part of the trade we have lost, and the way in which we can hope for recovery. Although we can look with confidence to His Majesty's Government to help us to recover some of the markets that we have lost I do not see how we can look to them to help us to recover the trade of a country which is now doing its own manufacturing and employing its own nationals inhumanly and under such bad conditions. We cannot compete in price with goods which are now being produced under conditions of such absolute slavery as those which obtain in the mills of China. I am reluctantly compelled to say that we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that that tremendous increase in the trade of China, which has been possibly our greatest customer for the past 100 years, means that we cannot recover the great percentage of the trade, which is irrecoverably gone. We ought to frame our plans and make up our minds accordingly. These facts ought to fortify us, and convince even the sceptical ones, as to the absolute necessity of some of those redundancy schemes for scrapping mills and plant which there is no hope of our ever again employing. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Hon. Members say "No." I admire their courage, but I do not admire their judgment. I do not know how they suggest that we are going to get back the Chinese trade, which is not being done outside China, but inside China, under conditions of two 12-hour shifts at starvation wages.

Mr. BAILEY

Sufficient spindles are already being scrapped to account for redundancy that would occur because of the loss of the Chinese trade. After the figures given by an hon. Member who spoke earlier, does not the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) agree that if steps were taken to recover the trade which Japan has taken, there would be no redundancy at the present time?

Mr. RADFORD

I am reluctantly unable to agree to that suggestion. Now let us come to India. There are features in regard to India which render the position less hopeless. I read with interest about a fortnight ago that an All-India Lancashire Trade League had been formed. It was attend by 40 Delhi merchants the officials comprising six Mohammedan and four Hindus. The meeting passed a resolution that it was advisable not to hamper trade with Lancashire, as the prosperity of nations depended on reciprocal trade relations. In view of the political ambitions of Japan and the propaganda in favour of Khaddar—hand-spun cloth—actuated by commercial and monopolistic motives Indian Nationalists should prefer Lancashire cloth to Japanese, or Khaddar. I am going to take that resolution at its face value until we have reason to believe the contrary. I have no doubt that those merchants have always been interested in British cloth, and that they still want British cloth to go to India. I believe it shows the way the wind is blowing, although it may only be a small wind and not a hurricane. Now take the question of Japan—

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES

Before the hon. Member leaves the subject of India—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

I would point out that speeches are rather long. A number of hon. Members want to speak, and I therefore think that it would be advisable for hon. Members not to interrupt.

Mr. RADFORD

Japan works two shifts of eight and half-hours or one shift of 10 hours. She pays her workpeople at a rate with which we. cannot possibly compete. I suggest to hon. Members and to the Minister that there are two factors which give us ground for hope that we have seen the worst of Japanese competition during the period which is now ending. About six years ago, the Japanese cotton interests, which are wonderfully organised and practically act as one body, were in a speculative frame of mind, and after an American crop of 17,000,000 bales had sent cotton prices down, they decided that the time had come to buy, and they bought enough cotton to last them for two or three years. That supply will all be used up now, but they backed a winner, because cotton went right back again and rose 50 per cent. above the price at which they made that purchase.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL

Japan had gone off the Gold Standard.

Mr. RADFORD

That was a further purchase. The right hon. Gentleman is not alluding to six years ago, but to last year. They went off the Gold Standard at about the beginning of 1932. I think it was in the spring. Immediately before they went off the Gold Standard they bought cotton, and the cotton interests in Britain which were best informed as to the position of the market knew that heavy buying was going on with Japan. I remember being told about it at the time. Japan is supposed to have bought then between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 bales of cotton, which is about two years' supply, before she went off the Gold Standard. Then she went off the Gold Standard and proceeded to reap the benefits. In the early part of 1932 Japan exported 91,000,000 yen of specie and bullion, doubtless to pay for those heavy purchases which she was making. If our Government had given the cotton trade a week or two's notice that we were going off the Gold Standard, and we had bought 1,000,000 or so bales of cotton in anticipation, it would have saved the cotton trade a few millions sterling, but no doubt it would not have been in accordance with our British notions of honour, and the border line between smartness and dishonesty is frequently ill-defined.

I apologise very sincerely for speaking so long on this subject, but I have not spoken in this House for four years and two months and I have allowed myself a, little indulgence on that account. In conclusion I would say this: I personally consider that there are some matters in regard to which employers in the cotton trade are still as obstinate as a gang of mules, and I would be very glad to see compulsory powers or action by the Government if an agreed majority of the trade wanted something done and could not make the minority toe the line. In that case I should be all in favour of this House giving the necessary powers, but I should be dead against any powers being given to any board or any body which simply meant that, as under the Trade Union Congress scheme, the employers and owners of businesses would be compelled to do as they were told while the operatives and their unions were absolutely free and unfettered. I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD

I shall take note, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of your very apt suggestion that speeches are far too long on a short night. It seems to me that not only are the speeches too long to-night, but they are very widely separated from the Motion, and I want to get back to the Motion for a few minutes. It emphasises in its first few words the fact that the position of this industry is grave. I was interested to find that the Amendment started without considering the question of the grave position of the industry. I am surprised that any Member of the House should doubt the gravity of the position of the cotton industry today. Not only do the workers in the industry agree that the position is grave, but the most enlightened employers also agree. I have here a quotation from Mr. Frank Piatt, the managing director of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation. This is what he says: As things are moving there is every reason to suppose that the decline of Lancashire will continue unless drastic action is taken. I believe, further, that if we merely hope without taking that very drastic action suggested, there will be no Lancashire trade with which to act in three years. Your comments on the marketing end of the industry are particularly timely and very well earned. Had you been able to go in to the manner of the finance and manner of control of the firms in this section, you would have easy proof that no reorganisation of the whole industry could be started at that end. You will see that reorganisation must begin at the end furthest away from marketing if reorganisation is to proceed without injury to trade or to other sections. Reorganisation must proceed as a complete plan embracing reduction of costs by way of concentrated production, the elimination of redundant plant, and a control of production. That is not the opinion of a leader of a cotton trade union; it is the opinion of the Managing Director of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation. Not only do both sides of the industry agree that the position is grave, but, in reading a book dealing with "British Trade and Industry, Past and Future." I find these words: The organisation of the Lancashire cotton trade, both on the productive and on the distributive side, is obsolete. It includes, in both spinning and weaving, a very large number of firms, acting almost without co-ordination; and the export trade, which takes most of the product, is in the hands of a host of rival shippers and merchants competing one against another in most markets without any co-ordination at all. Moreover, the industry is in a far worse condition financially than any other, as a consequence of past excesses; and unsound finance forces up the cost of production, and at the same time causes what is known as 'weak selling' by firms which must have ready money as the only alternative to closing down. That expresses our claim to-night in regard to dealing with this industry. I agree that there may be differences of opinion as to methods, but surely no hon. Member is going to suggest that the position is such that it need not be dealt with.

I do not mind the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) telling us in his breezy Lancashire style that the suggestion we put forward is ridiculous and one-sided, that he is alarmed at the effrontery of the trade unions and of the Labour party. I rather admire his Lancashire style. I do not mind any criticism provided that it is constructive, but I deny the right of anyone to oppose this proposal if he does not put a more effective proposal in its place. That has not been done to-night. I listened to the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), who has now gone out of the House. He put forward no proposal, and the hon. Member for Rusholme put forward no proposal. All that they say is that they do not accept this proposal. But, in common fairness to both sides of the industry in Lancashire, whoever opposes this proposal ought to put before the House a more effective one.

It is all very well to say that it is onesided, but honestly I cannot see any one-sidedness in this suggested scheme. Let it not be forgotten that it is because the industry is not being dealt with in an effective way that the workers in the industry think it ought to be so dealt with, and have put forward this proposal. If the employers in the industry had done their duty by the industry, if they had reorganised to the extent that they ought to have done, the workers in the industry would never have thought it necessary to bring forward a plan. The Amendment speaks of noting the desire of the cotton industry, but desires are not of very much help in this world unless they take an actual shape. They are invisible and often very ineffective, and never more so than in the cotton industry. There may be desires in the industry, but, judging from what has been done, or rather, what has not been done, in the last three years, no one could say that there was any desire on the employers' side of the industry to reorganise effectively.

It is not suggested that this scheme is sacrosanct. I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Bolton should think it necessary to emphasise that this scheme is the outcome of the work of the Research Department at Transport House, but should not think it necessary to say that it has been adopted unanimously by the cotton trade unions. [An HON. MEMBER: "By their orders."] Here is a Government which has taken all its orders from the Federation of British Industries. The cotton trade do not claim that it is not possible to amend this scheme. They put it forward as their idea of the best way of dealing with the position in which the industry now is. If there is something wrong with the scheme, let amendments be brought forward; let the scheme take the form of a Bill introduced in this House, and let every person interested in the cotton industry move all the Amendments they desire in order to make it a good scheme from their point of view; but let it not be suggested that the employers, who have allowed this industry to get where it is, who have done so little to improve its position, are the people to deal with the business of the cotton industry. There are defects in the cotton industry, as stated in a speech by the senior Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) when he was referred to, most unfairly, by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) as the "hon. Member for Tokio." I wish to say to the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington, that the senior Member for Oldham placed before this House the sanest statement on the cotton industry that has yet been placed before it from that side of the House.

Lieut-Commander ASTBURY

He is not in the industry; he is asking you to join him.

Mr. MACDONALD

He may not be in the industry—

Mr. SHACKLETON BAILEY

He certainly talked about it.

Mr. MACDONALD

That is all he did.

Mr. BAILEY

The senior Member for Oldham had better go over to him.

Mr. MACDONALD

There are many hon. Members OIL that side whom we would not welcome as quickly.

Mr. CROSSLEY

I am afraid the hon. Member would be disappointed. I hope that I shall have an opportunity of replying.

Mr. MACDONALD

This suggestion of a control board is a sincere effort to deal with the difficulty. The employers have talked for 10 or 12 years about organisation, and they are still talking, but their attitude outside in dealing with the cotton trade is such that we have no faith in any so-called organisation brought about by the employers in this industry. Hence we say that the cotton industry, according to Lancashire, is so vital to the general wealth of this country that we have a right to ask the Government to take a hand in it.

I want to put one or two direct questions. I notice—and I wish this point to be very clear to-night—that one of the things to be done by this control board is to supervise the honouring of agreements. On 29th November, when the House was discussing the Japanese menace, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said: My Hon. Friend behind me pointed out a very short time ago how far we were from complete organisation even as regards wages and hours in Lancashire. The last arrangement that was made there was largely the work of the best of our civil servants, whose name I am proud to mention in this House—Mr. Leggatt. Very largely owing to his efforts, arrangements were made between employers and employés which reflected much credit on both sides. Unfortunately, however, some individuals have gone behind these arrangements. My hon. Friend asks me if anything can be done to bring them to book. I do not wish to say anything on that subject this afternoon; I would rather leave it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. Here is the point: But I can promise that, if any representation comes from those affected in Lancashire both employers and employed, they will receive sympathetic consideration by my right hon. colleague."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1933; cols. 952-3, Vol. 283.] Are we to understand that if the employers in Lancashire in the cotton industry refuse to come forard and make a joint application with the operatives' trade unions to deal with the refusal to honour trade agreements, the Govern- ment are not going to do anything to see that the work of one of their civil servants for the cotton industry proves effective? I can sympathise if the employers say: "We will not join hands. The fact that some employers are guilty of dishonouring agreements may play into our hands; we can certainly say that you cannot expect us to keep on paying these rates for the various reasons given." I wish, however, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, if the employers refuse to come forward and the operatives' trade unions come along, we are to understand that the Government are not going to do anything to enforce the honouring of the agreements made through the agency of the civil servant referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. I expect that, when the Parliamentary Secretary rises, he will reply to my question.

Furthermore, hon. Members on this side realise all the complications of the cotton industry. We in the mining industry know something about complications, but we find that the complications in this industry far exceed the complications in the mining industry. Complexity in an industry is oftentimes a good reason for Government control. This Government ought to be the last Government to refuse to set up a control board. No Government in the history of this country has ever been so willing to set up marketing boards and control boards of various kinds in all branches of industry. I cannot understand why the senior hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) should wax so eloquent when he deals with the question of marketing and control boards. He is never afraid to go into the Lobby supporting every other control and marketing board, but here, though he tells us that marketing is good for pigs, for bacon and for milk, he says that no control board should be set up by the Government for cotton.

Sir JOSEPH NALL

Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if he knows that the proposals for the marketing boards to which he refers have all been formulated and brought forward by the industries concerned, and merely sanctioned by this House after agreement was reached?

Mr. MACDONALD

Their being brought forward was to a large extent due to pressure. It was made a condition; they were told, "If you want the Government to safeguard your industry first of all reorganise your industry, submit schemes for our approval." I agree with the hon. Member, but why not put forward the same condition for the cotton industry? If the question of Japan is going to be raised, and we are going to talk about Japanese competition, is it wrong to say to the Government, "Before you take any measures as to the Japanese cotton industry, we will submit to this Government a scheme which will be settled with the Government"? All we ask is a real, honest, sincere examination of the scheme. We do not suggest that it has not its faults and could not be improved by amendment in this or that direction. We on this side of the House believe that this is, up to date, the best proposal for dealing with this difficult position in this industry in Lancashire. We are not opposed to dealing effectively with Japan. We feel that Japan ought to be dealt with, but we feel also that one way of making a very substantial contribution is to make the industry at home in Lancashire as effective and up-to-date as possible, in order to deal with the Japanese menace. Then, we say, take the other measures, but do not suggest that nothing needs doing in Lancashire, and that all that needs doing is to deal with Japan. We suggest that something needs doing in Lancashire. We put this proposal forward as the best that has yet been formulated for dealing with the cotton industry.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING

Up to now there has not been, so far as I know, one hon. Member speaking on this Motion who has had practical experience of the cotton industry. I notice that the two hon. Members who spoke from the Opposition benches are both, either directly or indirectly connected with the colliery industry. I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) said a short while ago. Although he is connected directly with the colliery industry, he is still entitled to discuss any other industry. I claim the same privilege for myself, and I think that the majority of hon. Members present in this House this evening would have to ask the same privilege. But whenever I hear the subject being dealt with by people some of whom have undoubtedly a direct contact with the industry and some of whom have merely a theoretical knowledge, I am driven to rely on the old adage that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.

As I have listened to the discussion this evening, I could not help but think of the discussion a fortnight ago when a Member spoke who unfortunately is not present to-day, the senior Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley), who we shall all agree is undoubtedly an expert in the industry. His speech was in no sense impassioned, but was full, not only of practical knowledge, but, as I thought, of common sense. Although the Motion we were discussing then was in different terms from the present one, it undoubtedly revolved round the same great problem that is affecting Lancashire to-day, and in fact the whole of the country.

I should like to deal with this Motion from the particular point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), because it is obvious that it is an attempt to persuade the House that Socialism is the only hope for the Lancashire cotton industry. The second part of it is merely a sop to those who may be opposed in some way or other to the Government in slight details with regard to the cotton question, and an attempt to rope them in so that they may once again vote against the Government. I am afraid it is too obvious to gull even the most simple-minded, because earlier this evening we have discussed another Motion, which in a sense includes this, and the House clearly showed that it has no intention of handing over any industry to the tender mercies of those who represent Socialism. So that, in so far as the Motion is an attempt to persuade the House to accept Socialism as a cure for the ills of the Lancashire cotton industry, I need not dwell any further on that point of view.

I want to deal for a minute or two with one point which has been raised very forcibly by both the Socialist speakers. The trend of their remarks was undoubtedly an attack on the employers from beginning to end. The whole of the blame for Lancashire's sickness was put at the door of the employers. I ask Members who are not interested in Lancashire constituencies directly, or who know little about Lancashire, to look at that attack. Throughout the world it is recognised that one of the finest business men to bump against, and one of the hardest nuts to crack, is a Lancashire cotton employer. Would you for a moment believe that he would deliberately go out of his way to ruin his own business, because that is in effect what the hon. Member for Wigan said. I think we must look elsewhere for the real trouble which Lancashire has to face. The real trouble is not lack of organisation. I agree entirely with what the President of the Board of Trade said a fortnight ago, that there is quite a sufficiency of organisation in Lancashire to-day to meet any problem that arises. He recognises as much as any Conservative Member for Lancashire recognises that the real trouble is not in Lancashire itself, but is in the unfair competition which it has to face, chiefly from Japan.

The right hon. Gentleman deplored Lancashire Members in particular saying that Lancashire is beaten. Lancashire Members do not say they are beaten. They say they are being treated unfairly and that, unless the Government do something to assist the main industry of Lancashire, there is no doubt whatever that Lancashire will have to admit defeat in the end. That is what Lancashire is afraid of. When people ask us to wait for weeks or months, to be patient perhaps for another year, we say to the Government that we cannot afford to wait much longer. We are not beaten. We have plenty of guts, in spite of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Liverpool Exchange (Colonel Shute) has put in the "Daily Express" to-day. When you consider what Lancashire has gone through in the last 10 years, it proves conclusively that Lancashire has plenty of guts. We will continue to fight against this unfair competition, but we really want a little more help from the President of the Board of Trade. We want to see him do something positive which will help us and cheer us up, so that we can continue this fight against unfair competition and refuse to be beaten.

9.44 p.m.

Sir H. SAMUEL

As has been mentioned by the Mover of the Motion, my constituency is harder hit, perhaps, than any other; it is certainly among the most hard-hit and that is my reason for addressing the House. I shall do so with that brevity which is incumbent upon us all. Indeed, the facts have been fully stated and are generally known and acknowledged. The problem of the cotton industry in Lancashire has two ends. One is in Lancashire, and the other is in the markets overseas. Both are of importance. The Motion lays emphasis on the former and is rather disposed to put aside the second. The hon. Member who has just spoken lays emphasis on the question of markets and says that with regard to organisation all is well. For my own part, I very strongly urge upon the House that it is essential to attend to both. Our British industries—not only cotton—are loosely organised, and when the cotton industry finds itself in acute competition with the Japanese cotton industry it is really like a militia force finding itself engaged in the field against a highly disciplined army provided with every modern weapon and under the direction of a highly trained general staff. There is perhaps only one of our national industries which is highly organised—the chemical industry—and that industry to-day is succeeding, in spite of difficult conditions, in most parts of the world.

The remedy suggested by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench above the Gangway is Socialism. They say that if the State conducted the cotton industry its distresses would be remedied. They denounce the existing system, but they do not give any cogent evidence to prove that a nationalised system would be an improvement. It is easy to denounce and to criticise, but we have yet to have it shown to us that a nationalised system of industry would make things better, and not make things worse. If there is any industry in the country which is unsuited for nationalisation it is the cotton industry, with its rapidly changing processes, subject to the vagaries of fashion, dependent largely upon export, and subject to the keenest competition from acute business men and manufacturers all over the world. So that for our part we certainly could not vote for any Motion which suggested that as a remedy for the present evils. The Motion suggests for immediate adoption the creation of a board of control. Whether any such authority should be established must de- pend upon the powers intended to be conferred upon it, and with regard to that we have not had a very specific statement made to-day.

Finance is the essence of the whole matter. You establish a board of control, but this question arises: If there is a loss on its working, who is going to meet that loss? That is the essence of the whole matter. Nothing could be worse than to establish a system in the cotton trade which would mean that one person would manage and another person would pay. If, however, the suggestion is that the trade associations in the cotton trade, employers and employed, should be brought together and that powers should be conferred upon them, it is a proposition which deserves the very closest attention of the House. In most of our industries, it is, in our view, desirable—and I speak for those who sit upon these benches—that trade associations should be strengthened. It is the weakness of many British industries, that trade associations are not sufficiently representative and have not adequate powers.

In the cotton trade collective agreements as mentioned this evening, between employers and employed are, in fact, being dishonoured. There was a dispute in the cotton trade which lasted some time. The two parties were brought together under the chairmanship of Mr. Leggett. A settlement was reached. The whole nation was greatly relieved, and it was thought that these troublesome matters had been settled, but now, after some months, it is found that many employers undercut the rates agreed upon, and thereby compete most unfairly with the employers who honourably observe the conditions which they have signed. We used to be able to rely upon the trade unions to enforce collective agreements, but in these days the trade unions sometimes are not strong enough to succeed in doing so. Before the War the Government, of which I had the honour to be a Member, brought in a Trade Board Act for dealing with what were called the sweated industries or the unorganised industries, and there were set up boards of employers and employed which had the power to specify minimum wages. The passage of that Act practically abolished what was called the sweating system in those trades. It was assumed that it was unnecessary to have anything of the same kind in the organised trades, because the trade unions would be strong enough to enforce in all the different establishments the collective agreements, but that has proved in this case not to be so.

The Amendment which is now before the House speaks of the desire of the cotton industry to improve its organisation, but when you speak of the cotton industry you are not in fact dealing with one entity but with hundreds of different firms, and some of them desire to improve the organisation of the industry, and some do not. That is the essence of the problem with which you are now faced. The employers are dissatisfied with the present position because they are unfairly undercut by others who do not observe the agreements. The employed are dissatisfied because they suffer in their wages. And the whole district is dissatisfied. Now we have the corporations taking up the matter, and the Town Councils of Blackburn and Darwen, and, I believe, some others, have sent resolutions to the Board of Trade and to other Government Departments urging that powers should be given to secure the proper enforcement of the agreements arrived at by the two sides of the trade. I put a question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade a few days ago asking whether the Government would introduce legislation with that purpose, and the answer was that the Government would await proposals from the industry. These Debates in the House of Commons have been repeated again and again. Hon. Members make speeches, all are agreed as to the gravity of the situation, suggestions are thrown out here and there, and we disperse, and nothing happens.

I do hope that there may be some definite outcome from this Debate. The hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) said that he on his part was ready to agree that statutory authority should be given to a properly constituted body representing the two sides to ensure that agreements arrived at should be enforceable throughout the country. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has made the same observation, and now I would add my own voice in the same sense so that spokesmen of all three parties in this House have endorsed that proposition. If that were done, I think that we should have the beginning of a constitution for the cotton trade. No doubt with these powers such a body consisting of employers and employed might have its activities extended on its own motion, not to conducting particular businesses, but to framing and, as far as possible, enforcing what might be called a trade policy for the cotton industry. It would be necessary for such a body to act only if a specified and large majority were obtained of each side of the board. I believe that if that were done we should at last succeed in raising the cotton industry out of its present position of inadequate organisation.

I do not propose to speak with regard to the market end, but the market point probably is the more important of the two. I agree there. Even if you have had organisation you can succeed if the markets are good, but even if you have good organisation you cannot succeed if the markets are bad. You need the two, but of the two, the markets are the more important. We have had a Debate in this House quite recently on the specific question of Japan in which I ventured to intervene and expressed fully the views which I held, and I shall not repeat any part of them to-night. I only wish to add to what I said then, that the question of international currency stabilisation is undoubtedly one of the most important of all these problems, and any action taken by the Government to secure international currency stabilisation would greatly improve the trade of this industry and of others. Further, if we could succeed in agreements to allocate markets, it would, of course, be the best way of dealing at the present time with the keenest competition to which we are subjected from Japan and other countries.

We await now the declaration of the attitude of the Government. Only two days ago we had a Debate on the dye industry, in which all the representatives of cotton constituencies who spoke urged the Government not to insist upon the quasi-monopoly that had been given to the dye industry, and six Conservative Members voted against the Government, appealing to them not to injure the cotton industry by making more difficult the acquisition of dyes, one of its principal raw materials. However, the Government took the opposite point of view and voted down the representatives of Lancashire. I hope that to-day my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will redress his fault of Monday and that on Wednesday he will give some consolation to those whom he rebuffed two days ago. What is wanted is not general sympathy but an assurance of specific action.

9.56 p.m.

Sir GERALD HURST

The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) referred to the Lancashire cotton industry in relation to Japan as analogous to the position of militia against a highly-trained army. I should say that the position was rather that of veterans against a newly-raised army, the veterans being starved of the munitions of war and the necessities which are required for carrying on successful warfare. The real way and the only way in which the State can help the cotton trade is to give such assistance and power as it can to those who are now negotiating on behalf of the cotton industry with the Japanese cotton industry, and if those negotiations fall through to secure our overseas markets so far as State action can secure them. That is the only way, in my view, in which the State can help the cotton industry.

The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), who opened the attack upon the Socialist Motion, exposed its follies and faults very effectively, but I regret that his own Amendment is so colourless and feeble. I should like to see a fuller blooded Resolution directing the attention of the House and the country to the real cause of the depression in the cotton trade, which is Oriental competition in overseas and Colonial markets. The hon. Member who supported the Motion seemed to think that it is a concern only of the workpeople and not of the employers. One hon. Member alluded to the fact that wages had gone down 9s. 5d. in the £ since 1920. Have not profits also gone down since 1920? We all know that the depression is not confined to one part of the industry, but to everybody engaged in the industry, not only in the manufacturing section but also in the merchanting section. There is no better sign of the cotton trade depression than in Manchester where a very large proportion of business premises are empty and are unlikely to find any other tenants, and where a very large number of the oldest established firms of merchants have lost their everything and their employés are unable to find jobs. There is only one way of meeting that depression, but it is not the way that we have heard of this evening. When hon. Members say that the root cause is want of organisation in Lancashire, it seems to me that they do not understand where the real difficulty lies.

In a famous phrase of Disraeli: With words we govern men." Co-ordination, reorganisation, planning, rationalisation. What are these but empty catchwords, as a rule? It is not owing to bad organisation, it is not owing to irrational administration, it is not owing to difficulties in planning, it is not owing to unfortunate financial speculation in 1920 that the cotton trade is depressed, but it is owing to Oriental competition, and it is political pendantry to assign it to causes which do not account for it. The proposal in the Motion is to set up a council, with what the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) describes as unlimited powers. Who wants unlimited powers? It means that this council could stereotype, for all time, hours, wages, working methods in the Lancashire cotton industry. It could not be to the interests of progressive industry that hours, wages and methods should be stereotyped. It is wrong to assume that minorities are always wrong. All the inventions, the methods and the adventures by which the trade has developed have come from minorities. To impose for all time what must in the nature of things be a temporary arrangement with regard to hours or wages is to stop all chance of progress. The more elastic, the more voluntary trade agreements are, the better it is for the trade.

When hon. Members talk about enforcing wage agreements on employers, are they in favour of enforcing wage agreements on employé s? Are they going to prosecute an employé who refuses to work for certain wages? The thing is impossible. You cannot have unilateral action. It is either bilateral or nothing. It is inconceivable that the law courts of this country would ever think it right to enforce working agreements upon employés who did not want to work. You cannot enforce these things. The more elastic and voluntary an agreement is, the better.

I do not agree that Lancashire, apart from the artificial curtailment of its foreign markets, is in any way unfitted for modern industrial conditions. Everything that has made for mechanical and inventive progress has emanated from Lancashire. The division of labour in the spinning, weaving, finishing and marketing sections has given Lancashire in past times its great supremacy in the world, and given a fair field in overseas markets I have not the slightest doubt that, so far from being short-sighted, the Lancashire cotton industry will be able to hold its own against all coiners. I think the underlying idea of the Motion of compulsion and State interference is absolutely wrong: State interference in the wrong direction, and compulsion where the industry as a whole does not want it. I do not love the Amendment which seems to me, if I may say so with respect, a trifling and feeble Amendment. It is the better of the two propositions before the House. I hope the discussion and the fact that we are debating a Motion and an Amendment which bear little relation to the realities of Lancashire life to-day will not deter the House from keeping watch and ward over the trade necessity of Lancashire, which is the opening up of our overseas markets and is not a matter of reorganisation at all.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY

I rise literally for two minutes, because I have no time to make the speech that I had hoped to make. I will say one sentence only about the Amendment. I also think it is a most insipid Amendment, and I think so for opposite reasons from those of my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken. I think it is an insipid Amendment because in fact it means nothing at all. It means that the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) and his friends who drew up the Amendment wish to shelve this problem. It is a very convenient form of words to find which, like the weathercock, in any wind that blows, will signify a different direction. I want to ask the hon. Member who is going to reply to the Debate what sort of proposals from the trade he would accept in order to persuade the Government in some way to set the ball rolling. There are various ways but there is not time to go into them. I am informed, however, that if my hon. Friend would accept a signed document from the leaders of the Masters Federation of Cotton Spinners that such a document would be signed and presented to him early in the new year. If that in itself is not enough, on what basis of spindleage would he accept proposals? Would he accept as a basis of spindleage a majority of spindles now engaged in production, to-day? That is all I have to say, but I hope he will find it in his power to answer that specific question.

10.6 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN

We have had an extremely interesting Debate and the House is indebted to the hon. Member for selecting this topic and bringing it before us. But what an immensity is the task before us? I suppose that cotton penetrates to almost every part of the world. I doubt whether, apart from the Eskimos in the Arctic and perhaps some of the Pigmy races in the interior of Africa, there is any class or race which does not wear some article of cotton. Long may that be the case, may they wear it longer in both senses of the word, for if they do many of our problems would be partially 3olved. The real problem is that the cotton industry is not one industry but a whole series of industries, spinning, weaving, finishing, and merchanting, all separate from each other, and within each of these sections there are hundreds of separate units with sub-divisions and inter-relations of the greatest complexity. It is really idle to talk in present conditions of imposing some external statutory control over such a vast and complicated series of organisations. The cotton industry is under the constant pressure of world competition under which each section has evolved, from within, along lines dictated by economic considerations, and a control from without might paralyse the working of the whole industry and lead to absolute chaos. We think that the safer course is to encourage the tendencies towards reorganisation as they develop in each section of the industry, with the linking up of the various sections as the object to be achieved.

But not only is this industry a whole series of industries, it is centuries old, many of the practices carried on are absolutely engrained from generation to generation; and the industry is so geographically situated that it is one of the difficulties of complete reorganisation. Any one who will look at the cotton industry map and consider carefully the raw cotton from the moment it reaches Liverpool, coming up the Manchester Ship Canal to Manchester and then being sent either to coarse or fine spinning, then sent back to the various processes, put into the warehouses and finally sent out as an exported article—he would do much better if he visited the area—he would find how hopeless it is to suggest to unify everything in one centre and only carry out one operation there. It is a proposal that has no bearing, in a practical sense at all, in dealing with the matter in December, 1933. Therefore, I start by saying that this is a vast and complicated problem the magnitude of which is only appreciated by those who have had a life long experience in the industry and who can appreciate at first hand what it involves. But that does not mean that the task is not one which we ought not to approach with every possible consideration, and it is in that way that I desire to approach it.

Let me give the House one or two figures which are somewhat encouraging. I share the views of the President of the Board of Trade that bad and disastrous as many of the signs of the textile industry are all is not gloom, and that we may take some comfort from the rays of light that are visible. Take the number of bales of cotton imported. I do not want to give a lot of figures, but from 1st August to 14th December in 1931 the number was 892,000; in 1932 963,000, and in 1933 1,071,505. These bales of cotton are not imported merely to be placed in the warehouses but in order that they may be handed to the spinners and be dealt with and processed.

Sir H. SAMUEL

What about 1929?

Dr. BURGIN

I have not the figures for that year, and I am only making the point that there is a progressive improvement. It is nothing like enough. I am not making a false point; I am saying that we should be grateful for the measure of improvement that is shown. These imports of bales of cotton are, in fact, delivered to the spinners. Then the unemployment figures, the number of insured persons and the estimated number in employment, show a gratifying improvement. There were 9,000 more in employment at the end of November this year as compared with two years ago. That is only a slight increase, 2.3 per cent., but it means a considerable drop in the percentage of unemployment. It means a drop of 8.9 per cent. With regard to exports from the United Kingdom, there is some comfort in the fact that while in the month of November, 1931, the exports of cotton piece goods were 126,000,000 square yards, in 1932 they were 159,000,000 square yards and in 1933 170,000,000 square yards. Again I am not making undue capital out of these figures, I mention them merely in passing.

Let me come to the speech of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) who introduced the Motion. I think he made an extremely moderate, well worded and well presented speech. His views on the fairness and good sense of the operatives in the textile industry and their having rather a larger share in the management will not, I imagine, find much disagreement in the House. All that he said as to the wisdom of utilising the brains, energy, adaptability and invention on the part of the operatives of Lancashire, is entirely echoed by the employers. These matters are borne upon us by the old Lancashire quotation, "Clogs to clogs in three generations." He called attention to the fact that many of the operatives were engaged over long periods of time; many employers were previously operatives. The proposal which the hon. Member for Wigan put forward finds its origin in the Control Board set up during the War.

The first that was heard of this particular proposal was when the Textile Factory Workers' Association put it before the Committee of the Economic Advisory Council in 1929. That is the origin. But it is quite clear from looking at the scheme that the Research Department of the Trades Union Congress in working out this scheme modelled a good many of their plans upon the Control Board as it operated in the War. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) rightly pointed out that because something was done in the War it was a non sequitur to assume that it was a good thing in peace, and he called attention to some of the differences. I would remind the House of one or two of the differences confronting the Control Board in the War and any board that is set up now. In the War there was a difficulty in procuring raw material; there was a difficulty in procuring manufacturing facilities; there was no question of a market; there was no question of a price; there was no competition between manufacturers; there was no price-cutting and under-cutting. At the present time there is a glut of raw material and redundant manufacturing capacity; there is every difficulty in finding a market: there is every difficulty in controlling price; there is much competition between makers and there is many an instance of price-cutting.

So that on all these specific points on which I have attempted to test the position confronting the Control Board in the War and any control Board set up now, we find the conditions exactly the opposite. It is dangerous indeed to compare a War expedient with a peacetime suggestion, for one of the measures adopted by the cotton Control Board in the War was to restrict the percentage of machinery worked in any cotton mill or weaving shed. Such a measure now would raise costs, whereas it is essential in the cotton industry that costs should be lowered, for it is the plain fact that our costs are excessive when measured by those of our foreign competitors. In present circumstances we must eliminate the working of part-time or part machinery in any mill or shed and must not encourage it, for we have to bring costs down.

I do not need to deal further with the hon. Member for Wigan, for great parts of his speech with which I found myself in complete agreement, had no special bearing on the Motion which he moved. His speech was a very fair, general putting forward of the case for the operatives in any industry, but it was not an argument in favour of control of this industry by any particular body. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), who followed, asked for a counter-proposal, and said that surely no one ought to criticise this particular scheme unless he was willing to make some substitute proposal. That is an attractive argument. "If you know of a better 'ole go to it," was an expression we heard in the War, and we recollect Bairnsfather's cartoon indicating a short way to the "better 'ole." But in this case we have to deal with an industry in the working of which it is necessary to have capital, ownership of shares, appointment of directors, management, and operatives, and unless a mill has adequate capital with which to procure its plant and its buildings, and has management available, and has its shareholding control and directorate, it cannot function. Without its operatives a loom cannot turn. Nor can the operatives work the looms unless there is capital at their disposal, management available, and ownership within their control.

It is essentially a matter in which both sides must be prepared to work in the same cause, and it would be quite impossible for the Government to give statutory powers to a proposal put forward by one part of an industry to which two parts at least were essential partners before you can proceed. Although I accept the hon. Member's argument that if you criticise a proposal you should be prepared to put forward a constructive alternative proposal, yet I would point out that his proposal has not yet found acceptance in the industry as a whole. He puts it forward as having been accepted by the operatives, but I have yet to learn that there has been a conference in Manchester at which the employers have even been asked to express an opinion on this scheme. There is no evidence before the House that any employers, either regionally or in the industry as a whole, have accepted the scheme. Consequently, the question of the Government giving it their blessing does not yet arise.

Mr. G. MACDONALD

Are we to understand that no proposals put forward by the employers to deal with this industry, would be accepted by the Government if the workers trade unions objected to it?

Dr. BURGIN

The hon. Member is to understand this that any proposal which does not command some sort of majority of the interests of the industry, taken as a whole cannot fulfil even the first condition necessary for inviting the Government to express an opinion upon it. He asks me a hypothetical question. He says supposing a scheme is approved by the employers but (has not yet been put to the operatives—

Mr. MACDONALD

Has not been approved by them.

Dr. BURGIN

Has not been approved by them. He asks is there any risk of danger of the Government giving such a scheme some sanction. That is a hypothetical matter and one on which it is not possible to express more than a passing opinion. I think, as regards asking Government assistance in the organisation of an industry, it is an indispensable preliminary that there should be a majority of that industry which asks for Government intervention.

Mr. MACDONALD

Including the operatives.

Dr. BURGIN

A majority means a majority of the whole and I should say certainly that there must be some element of co-operation on the part of the operatives before a scheme would stand any chance of obtaining Government approval. I express that as my personal opinion.

Mr. REMER

Is it not a fact that the Federation of British Industries recently put to the Board of Trade a proposal to get rid of the most-favoured-nation clause, and that the Government as yet have taken no action on the matter?

Dr. BURGIN

The hon. Member had better look into the facts a little more closely. I think he may assume from me that, whatever recommendation was made from the quarter which he has indicated, it would have to represent the majority in the industries Which were concerned.

Mr. REMER

I only refer to it because the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) specifically indicated that the Government were always supporting the Federation of British Industries but would not support the trade unions.

Dr. BURGIN

I think the hon. Member for Ince was quite fair. He put a question to which I was endeavouring to give a perfectly straightforward answer, and I think he understood both the answer and the reasons which prevent me from going any further at this stage into what is a hypothetical matter. The hon. Member for Ince dealt at some length with the question of wage agreements. It is clear that in an industry like this, one of the main causes of internal weakness is under-cutting in wage rates. It is impossible for manufacturers to give attention to the problem of cooperation for the general good of the industry, if there are continually changes in course of production or prices, on account of lack of loyalty on the part of other manufacturers. That is clear and it is equally clear that the general policy of any Government, in considering the giving of any sort of sanction to wage agreements, must always pre-suppose that agreement has been voluntarily come to by employers and employés and that the agreement, thus voluntarily come to, has not been upheld in conditions which other parties, besides the employers and the employés, recognise to be wrongful. It is only under conditions of that kind that a Government has in the past thought it possible to apply what one may call trade board principles to wage agreements. The hon. Member puts to me an entirely hypothetical question, as to what would happen if the employers continuously refrained from approving an agreement, because they knew that if they did, some Government sanction would be applied. Have I rightly put the question?

Mr. G. MACDONALD

Not quite. I said that the President of the Board of Trade on the 29th November stated quite clearly that they would only intervene in dishonouring a wage agreement brought about by civil servants if both sides agreed. Did that mean that the Government would not intervene in dishonouring an agreement if only the workers came forward?

Dr. BURGIN

I think we are talking of different things. The question put to the President of the Board of Trade, which I have before me, was to the effect that if any representation came from those affected in Lancashire, both employers and employés, it would receive sympathetic consideration. The hon. Member asked if that meant that if only one side came, something else would happen. The President of the Board of Trade was referring to the ordinary practice, that if both masters and men agreed and came along to the Government and said, "Here are wage agreements which we desire enforced; will you lend the machinery of Government sanction? "—that then would be very carefully considered. That is the problem to which the President directed his answer. The question that is put to me to-night is an entirely new one. It is on the assumption that only one side comes forward. Obviously, there has been no opportunity of my consulting my right hon. Friend on a purely hypothetical matter, and I could only express my own opinion. It is an entirely new matter. I am not sure that it has ever arisen before at all, and I think we should have to deal with that position on its merits when it arose. I am sure the hon. Member will not expect me to deal further with that across the Floor of the House by way of question and answer. The hon. Member made the point that control boards and marketing boards which had been adopted in other cases had invariably been asked for by the industry concerned, and consequently we could gain no real analogy from those adoptions in the present case.

On Japanese competition, I do not propose to say much. The matter has been debated on the 9th, 23rd, and 29th November; and I always remember the barrister addressing the Court of Appeal, with three Judges, and being reminded by the President that because there were three members of the Court, it did not necessarily mean that every argument had to be repeated three times. I think we do no good service to Lancashire, and we do not help the position of negotiations between this country and Japan, by constantly bringing this question of Japanese competition before the House week after week. It is an extremely important matter, which is having constant and continuous attention, but whether it be sub judice in a technical sense or merely a matter for negotiation, I am sure the House will not expect it again to be dealt with to-night.

Now I come to reorganisation, and I think the House will probably agree that there is no short cut to reorganisation. It is not a matter of waving a magic wand and saying, "Let the industry be changed." We are dealing here with a vital structure, with its roots deep in the past, with tremendous complications over an enormous field and affecting a very large number of insured workers, and that cannot be dealt with by any short cut. I want to make it quite clear that nothing that I am saying at this Box to-night is in any sense a censure on any organisation in Lancashire or on anything that has happened in the past. I would much rather be understood, as I genuinely mean, to be saying that I applaud the efforts that have been made in attempts to reach a solution of a problem the difficulties of which are fully appreciated by the Government. Those efforts must naturally be continued. No one would imagine that they had yet reached a successful conclusion. I hope those efforts will be continued on all sides with a view to arriving at practical results, and I hope that the question of research will not be overlooked.

I trust that the cotton industry will appreciate that research, both into the question of the production of the raw material and in its use, will constantly be borne in mind, for one of the ways of Lancashire helping herself is certainly by keeping as up-to-date as is physically possible. I ask myself whether there is any further ground for more committees. As far as investigation is concerned, the ground has already been covered by the Committee of the Economic Advisory Council. The need is not for further investigation of the problem. It is for the industry itself to decide whether, and if so to what extent, it is proposed to adopt the many remedies that have already been recommended. The industry is taking some time in coming to a decision, but it is far better that they should work out their own schemes and immediately proposals commanding an appropriate majority are forthcoming., the Government will do their part and will consider the extent to which legislation is necessary and desirable to implement the matter.

Mr. CROSSLEY

Does that apply to each section of the trade? Would it apply to the spinning section as apart from the weaving section?

Dr. BURGIN

It depends on the suggestion brought forward, but the hope is that in bringing forward any proposals for Government assistance these various sections, having worked out their own internal troubles, will then propose a scheme which will cover the industry as a whole and it then hardly be a question of dealing with the matter on a sectional basis. An hon. Member has described the Amendment as insipid and one that was intended to shelve the question, while a number of other adjectives have been used. I do not propose to qualify the Amendment in any way. I am prepared to accept it on the definite footing that nothing that I say in accepting it implies any censure on the organisations in Lancashire for not having earlier come to a decision. The Government recognise to the full the difficulties which confront these bodies. They are anxious to give a helping hand wherever it is possible. They commend the continuation of their studies, and earnestly hope that practical results may be achieved.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I am sure I am voicing the opinion of all those who have not spoken when I say that we have listened to some interesting speeches in this Debate. Those Members who do not know Lancashire ought to take it from those of us who represent constituencies in that county that great portions of Lancashire would have long ago become famine areas were it not for the social services that have come to their aid. So desperate has the position become in some Lancashire towns that the operatives themselves have been called upon to buy their own looms in order that they may find employment at all. It is like telling a shop assistant that in order to find work in a shop he must buy a counter. That is a sad state of affairs. Every Member of the House must agree that such a situation is really terrible.

In the short time at my disposal I propose to comment on some of the objections to our Motion. I could almost wish that the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) had delivered a speech to-night on the textile industry of Lancashire in the scathing terms he used when he wrote of the coal mining industry after he had presided over that notable Royal Commission. Every word he said then about the coal mining industry would apply equally to-day to the textile industry of Lancashire, except that he could emphasise those statements ten-thousand fold. In fact, the remedies proposed by the right hon. Gentleman's commission for the reorganisation of the coal industry are, in part, what we would like to apply to the cotton industry.

If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will not be offended, I want to say to him that his was the most acrobatic speech he has yet delivered. If we had asked him to deliver a lecture on the Lancashire cotton industry I could have understood his speech, but he spoke for nearly half-an-hour without telling us anything that we did not know. Although this Debate will, no doubt, please the Lancashire people to the extent that they will know that their conditions have been brought vividly before the House of Commons, I am sure on the other hand they will be terribly disappointed over the attitude of the Government towards their problems.

The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that the most pertinent question put from this bench to-night was this: If these proposals of ours are not good enough, if they lack merit, what are the alternative proposals of the Government? When the hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), I would almost say to him, "Thank you for nothing," because that is what it means. Imagine an Amendment in these terms: Noting the desire of the cotton industry to improve its organisation. Really, these words convey no meaning at all to the Lancashire people, especially to the operatives, and it would have been very much better had they never appeared in print at all. It is playing with the question. There are four Amendments on the Order Paper signifying the attitude of mind of hon. Gentlemen towards this problem and our proposals. I have already referred to the first one. The second one asks for a policy which would ensure fair competition in home and Empire markets. I think it is worth while saying a word on that subject, in this way, that hon. Gentlemen seem to take the view that we in this country, because we are the centre of the British Empire, can determine for Canada, Australia, South Africa and India what goods they shall admit to those Dominions.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS

Hoar, hear.

Mr. DAVIES

An hon. Member says "Hear, hear," as if he agrees with that policy. So far as I know the Dominions, there has grown up among their people since the last War a greater desire than ever to say that they are masters in their own households.

Mr. MORRIS

I agree.

Mr. DAVIES

If the hon. Gentleman agrees, what on earth is the use of coming to this House and suggesting that we in this Parliament can compel any of those Dominions to accept our commodities?

Mr. MORRIS

I never suggested that.

Mr. DAVIES

But the hon. Gentleman interrupted me to say "Hear, hear," and I thought he expressed agreement. I should apologise profusely to the hon. Gentleman. I made a. statement about the hon. Gentleman some time ago, and he got into trouble as a result.

Mr. MORRIS

I replied to it.

Mr. DAVIES

But the hon. Member is still in trouble. The next suggestion is the appointment of a commission. The Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly right when he said that we know sufficient about the situation without any more commissions. There is not one suggestion in any of these Amendments that would provide assistance to the cotton trade in Lancashire. Whatever may be said of our proposal, it is, at any rate, a definite one. Let me ask hon. Gentlemen to follow the argument for a moment. They object to control of any kind. That amazes me. I have been in this House for about 12 years and I have seen Conservative Government after Conservative Government adopting the policy of bringing certain industries and undertakings under public control. There cannot be any argument against bringing the cotton industry under public control when we remember what has happened in the recent past.

I might mention the London Transport Board as an example, which has brought under public control an industry which is as complicated as the Lancashire cotton industry. I imagine, that the transport problem of 8,000,000 people in London is indeed as complicated as the cotton industry of Lancashire If that is not the case, let me put another illustration. What about the marketing schemes connected with agriculture? The Parliamentary Secretary talks about complications, and says that the cotton industry is not a single unit, but is divided into spinning, weaving, marketing, and all the rest of it. Would he object to the agricultural industry being called a single unit?

Dr. BURGIN indicated assent.

Mr. DAVIES

He would object to that. All economists, on the other hand, would speak of the agricultural industry, as one unit, whether in the production of eggs, meat, turnips or cabbages. I think the hon. Gentleman was greatly exaggerating when he said that the cotton industry was not a single unit. It is at any rate situated very largely within one county, and that ought to weigh with him when he considers its control. We have appointed a board of control for what is called the Carlisle scheme, and another called the Electricity Control Board. Unless I am mistaken, there are hon. Gentlemen who will live long enough to see a national water supply board established in this country. It is on the way, because it is imperative. The conditions of the life of our people consequent upon the recent drought demand that it shall be established. Economic forces in Lancashire will, I am sure, in a very few years, compel the Government to do something by way of controlling the cotton industry and bringing it up-to-date.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. "Radford) has returned. If he had delivered the speech which he has just made in this House at the by-election at which he was returned, I would not be sure of the result being the same. I think he ought to understand, when he talks of the two-shift system that the organised employers of Lancashire in the cotton industry, be it understood in their favour have never yet suggested that the two-shift system ought to operate in the industry.

Mr. RADFORD

I gave the House an example of a specific ease which would not involve trade unions or the trade in any precedent, but which would get a number of our people back into work and some of our trade back, without harm to any other part of the industry. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the case.

Mr. DAVIES

Yes, I did; I was here. Then the hon. Member argued in favour of the two-shift system, the implication of his speech being that, if Lancashire adopted that system, and worked night and day—young persons, women and children as well as adults—we could then compete with the Japanese in the markets of the world.

Mr. RADFORD

I understand that one of the principal arguments of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) was that we are not up to date in our organisation or in any way competitive with other nations, that we have been left behind in the race, and that it is no use our talking about buying cotton as one buying entity and so on when we are going to leave the industry to run on other lines, not parallel with those of other nations, which latter result in cheaper production than ours.

Mr. DAVIES

I think I was perfectly right in assuming what the hon. Gentleman meant, in spite of what he has said now. I take it for granted, therefore, that that is the attitude of those who oppose this Motion—that, if we had the two-shift system operating in the Lancashire textile industry, we could all the better meet Japanese competition. It may interest hon. Members to know that one of the best authorities on the employing side in Lancashire has made a calculation that, if the two-shift system were introduced in his mills, it would only lower the cost of production by less than 3 per cent., and he does not think that less than 3 per cent. gain is worth the trouble of changing from the single to the two-shift system.

I desire now to turn to another aspect of this problem. I think it was the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) who said that schemes ought to be introduced for fixing prices. I am assured, however, by those who know best, that, if the hon. Member's suggestion were adopted, and prices of raw material were fixed, that would naturally increase the price to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer in turn would not be able to secure from the merchant an advantage corresponding to the increase in price. That suggestion, therefore, seems to be totally inapplicable to this case.

The Parliamentary Secretary made great play about increase in exports, but I should like to inform him quite frankly, and without any political bias, that there are people in Lancashire of all political parties who are a little offended at representatives of the Government using figures in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has used them tonight. I will explain why. He started with 1931, the very worst year in the his- tory of this trade, and he went on to make all his comparisons with that worst year of all. I do not think that a Minister ought to do that, because it is really playing with the problem, and in any case does not give a true picture of what is happening. Of course we are all delighted—tlhere is no Member on this side who will not be delighted—to see even the slightest increase in the export trade from Lancashire, We should be foolish if we were not pleased. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not use figures in that way again.

Dr. BURGIN

I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, and will, of course, give him figures for any year that he likes. But he will at least agree with me that 1931 was an important year, as it was the last year in which his own party was in power. That is the reason why I thought I would start from that point.

Mr. DAVIES

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned 1933, which may be the last year that he is in office, too. But that sort of argument really does not get us anywhere. There is another very technical point upon which I hope the hon. Member will not mind my touching, and the same applies to the argument of the hon. Member for Rusholme. He calculated the trade of the country according to the bales of raw material. I am assured by those who are expert in this business that the bales used by a country do not always signify the volume of trade done in manufactured commodities, because the number of commodities depends on whether the country using the bales of raw material spins fine counts or the coarse; consequently, the number of bales of raw material are vitiated when you transform them to the manufactured article. I think that point ought to bo borne in mind when hon. Members deal with these things. The hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary must think that I am very learned in this business, but I ought to tell him that I have been advised on these two technical points. That is why I appear to speak so cleverly about them!

The situation in Lancashire must, however, be pressed to the notice of the Government, and the Government must take very much more heed of the situa- tion than they have taken up to now. The cry of some hon. Members opposite was voiced by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), and also by my own Member of Parliament, the hon. and learned Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming), that all the troubles of Lancashire come from Oriental competition.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY

Most of the troubles.

Mr. DAVIES

I was using the words of the hon. and learned Member for Withington, and the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side. All Tories do not by the way speak with the same voice. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor do all the Labour party!"] Some of the Conservative Members of Parliament are very much more intelligent than others, and those Conservative Members who voted against the Government the other night are of course the most intelligent of the lot. As I said, however, it is not sufficient to argue that Lancashire trade declines because of Oriental competition. I think I am right in saying on behalf of every hon. Member on this side of the House that we do not depreciate for one moment the evil effects of Japanese competition. We deplore conditions of employment in Japan as much as do other hon. Members. I repeat what I have said before on the subject. What I fail to understand however is that the only instrument extant that can deal with the problem of the standard of life and the working conditions in the world to-day has never yet been used for that purpose, that is, the International Labour Organisation. I have been amazed that the textile employers of Lancashire have not pressed the Government to utilise that machinery in order to secure the desired effect of improving the conditions of employment of the Japanese textile operatives.

I want to conclude by saying that the reply we have received to-night from the Government is not good enough for us. Not only will the reply not satisfy the Parliamentary Labour party which has championed this Motion to-night, but I am certain that the Lancashire people as a whole, to whatever political party they belong, will not be satisfied with the Government if they do not accept this scheme, or this scheme with modifications. They consider that it is the Gov- ernment's duty, and one of the purposes for which they were elected, to help Lancashire and make suggestions of their own to help the industry out of this situation.

Everyone has been asking what is wrong with Lancashire. Some argue that Lancashire is suffering because of Japanese competition. We are entitled to reply that the hon. Member for Moss Side cannot possibly be correct ill his assumption about Oriental competition because, if we accepted his point of view, we should never make a single suggestion to our cotton employers at any time. According to him there is nothing wrong with Lancashire. The mills are there, the technique is there, the capital is there, the workpeople are there, consequently why should we bother, except that the Government must do something with Japan? Is it not really begging the question to put it that way? Is it not better to propound some scheme whereby Lancashire, faced with this fierce competition is better able to meet it in the markets abroad and, if our Motion means anything, it means that much, at any rate. If I wanted to be critical of Lancashire employers, I would say to them that within the capitalist system itself it would be worth their while to turn to the iron and steel trade

and see what they have done by way of reorganisation, or to the tin plate trade of South Wales and see how they have reorganised themselves. Those trades are every bit as technical and as difficult as the Lancashire textile industry. Hon. Members may vote against this Motion, the Government will accept the very feeble Amendment of the hon. Member from Bolton but, whatever the House may do to-night, the problems of Lancashire will come up again and again until the cotton industry, the greatest export industry in the land, shall be redeemed from the terrible position in which it now finds itself.

10.58 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY

In a Debate like this one looks for progress, and I should like, therefore, to thank the Government at least for one indication that they have given which I think has never been given before, that they are prepared, at any rate, to consider taking action on the recommendation of any majority in any section of industry.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 135.

Division No. 66.]	AYES.	[11.0 p.m.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Edwards, Charles	McGovern, John
Banfield, John William	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Maxton, James
Batey, Joseph	Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)	Parkinson, John Allen
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Groves, Thomas E.	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Buchanan, George	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Tinker, John Joseph
Cape, Thomas	Hicks, Ernest George	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)
Cove. William G.	Lawson, John James	Wilmot, John
Daggar, George	Logan, David Gilbert
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lunn, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Dobbie, William	McEntee, Valentine L.	Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.
NOES.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Albery, Irving James	Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)	Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Fuller, Captain A. G.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Clayton, Sir Christopher	Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Ganzoni, Sir John
Astbury. Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe	Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Golf, Sir Park
Bailey, Eric Alfred George	Conant, R. J. E.	Goldle, Noel B.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	Graves, Marjorle
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Craven-Ellis. William	Grigg, Sir Edward
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Bernays, Robert	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Blindell, James	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Hanbury, Cecil
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Cross, R. H.	Harbord, Arthur
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)	Crossley, A. C.	Headlam. Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Broadbent, Colonel John	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Brocklebank. C. E. R.	Duggan, Hubert John	Holdsworth. Herbert
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, M.)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Emrys-Evans, P V.	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	O'Connor, Terence James	Somervell. Sir Donald
Janner, Barnett	Pearson, William G.	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Penny, Sir George)	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Percy. Lord Eustace	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster. Fylde)
Leckie, J. A.	Pike, Cecil F.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Leech, Dr. J. W.	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Lees-Jones, John	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)	Sutcliffe, Harold
Lloyd, Geoffrey	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Ramsden, Sir Eugene	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
McKie, John Hamilton	Ray, Sir William	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan	Rea, Walter Russell	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Held, William Allan (Derby)	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Remer. John R.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Martin, Thomas B.	Rickards, George William	Weymouth, Viscount
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Robinson, John Roland	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Mitcheson, G. G.	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Moreing, Adrian C.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wilson. Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford. N.)	Rutherford. John (Edmonton)	Wise. Alfred R.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart	Womersley, Walter James
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Morrison. William Shephard	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Nail, Sir Joseph	Smiles, Lieut-Col. Sir Walter D.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald	Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)	Mr. Entwistle and Mr. Radford.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Several HON. MEMBERS rose —

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.