HC Deb 19 May 1933 vol 278 cc657-75

Not amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) who has had charge of this Bill up to the present is compelled to be in the Law Courts this morning, and has asked me to undertake the task of moving the Third Reading of the Bill. It is a very easy task; for the Bill does not require much explanation. In Committee upstairs it passed without any Amendment, and I notice that there is no opposition to it on the Order Paper to-day. It is backed by such a good and ardent Conservative as the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side, by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and myself; and if hon. Members will take the trouble to trace our pedigrees they will find that the roots of all three hon. Members are deep down in the good soil of Lancashire. We are entitled, as Members representing constituencies in that county, to put forward the Bill and ask that it shall receive an unanimous Third Reading. It is a non-party Measure. In the case of most Bills there is acute differences between the Opposition and the Government; the Opposition representing the working people and the Government representing the Capitalist class. This Bill, however, is supported, not only by employers and employed, by merchants, traders and manufacturers, but by the textile trade unions as well. There is therefore no difference of opinion on the Measure.

In Committee I asked whether anything had happened Since the Second Reading of the Bill to warrant any comments upon the Measure, and I was told that nothing at all had transpired. Since then, however, a very severe attack, I will not use the word malicious, has been made on the cotton industry by the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. J. P. Morris), and I gave him notice yesterday that I intended to deal with his remarks this morning. I presume he is not in London to-day, otherwise he would have been in the House. The Bill, in fact, is a complete denial of every word which the hon. Member said about the cotton industry.

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

Hear, hear.

Mr. DAVIES

The Board of Trade seems to be applauding everything I say this morning. That is all to the good, but I am a little suspicious of my own point of view when the Government support me. I am afraid my own constituents would not re-elect me if they thought that any Member of this Government supported my point of view. I can only retain my seat by being definitely against all the policies of the Government; but as this Bill has been taken clean out of party rancour, contest and debate, I am on safe ground. On the Second Reading the hon. and learned Member for the Moss Side Division took it for granted that hon. Members knew what the Bill was about, but I am afraid that there are many hon. Members who have not the remotest idea as to what the Lancashire cotton industry is like. There are a few hon. Members like the hon. Members for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and myself, who represent divisions where there are textile mills, and who are elected by textile operatives, are familiar with the cotton industry. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to say a good word this morning for the splendid work done by the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation and for the cotton industry as a whole. The hon. Member for North Salford on May 10th said: The cotton trade ought to remember that the Anglo-Danish Agreement affords very distinct advantages to certain specific basic industries in this country, and that, as a result of those advantages, by the increased number of people who are found employment and the increased purchasing power of the people in those industries, the cotton industry will benefit indirectly from the better conditions obtaining. Then he makes the statement about which complaint is made— It ill becomes any industry to make allegations against the Government, when that industry ought to put its own house in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1933; col. 1581, Vol. 277.] That is a most serious charge to make against any industry in this country, and particularly against the cotton industry.

Mr. PIKE

You have been making that allegation all your life.

Mr. DAVIES

Whatever allegations I have made I have never fouled my own nest by making remarks of that kind. Comments have been made outside this House as to what this Bill actually means and what it does, and on the Second Reading very little was said as to the provisions of the Measure. May I quote an explanation of the nature of the Bill. The Cotton Industry Act, 1928, under which the Corporation receives the proceeds of the Spinners' Levy expires in July next. It will be remembered that this Act provides for the rate of the levy to be 3d. per 500 lbs. of cotton purchased, or such less rate as the Corporation, with the approval of the Board of Trade, may fix in respect of any year. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade tell us what has been the total income from the levy for the last few years, and whether the trade has been charged the full three pence per bale, which they were allowed origiNaily by the Act. I was under the impression that the Bill was introduced because the 3d. has not been levied in full, that only 1d. has been levied, because of the depression in the cotton trade. It is only right that the House should know whether the full three pence has been charged under the present Act, which comes to an end in July of this year, and, if not, what is the actual amount per bale that has been levied? I should also like to know the annual revenue of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation from a levy of a 1d., 2d., or 3d. as the case may be.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill on behalf of the Government will be able to say something about the use of this levy by the Corporation. It ought to be made known that this Corporation owns a very remarkable laboratory in Didsbury, Manchester, where a great deal of research is carried on not only in analysing the properties of raw cotton and in the manufacture of cotton goods, but in respect to planting operations within the Empire. I take it that the money which will be provided under this Bill is for that purpose. Is it true that it is the intention of the Board of Trade, through the Corporation, to keep outside of this country absolutely all cotton that is not grown within the Empire? Is it intended that all the raw cotton required in Lancashire shall be grown within the Empire, and that the cotton industry shall be able to subsist in future without turning to America for its raw cotton?

I notice that there is a list issued on occasions to tell us where Empire cotton growing operations are carried on. I have been amazed at the operations of this great Corporation abroad. As a Lancashire member I, unlike the hon. Member for North Salford, would therefore pay my tribute to the remarkable achievements of this Corporation. Where we can pay tribute to intelligence, to research, to education and to initiative, in connection with any industry, I think we ought to do so. I shall not be entitled to spread my arguments unduly outside the scope of the Bill, but I think I am entitled to ask how long this Bill is intended to operate, whether, when the Bill is passed, it is the intention of the Board of Trade to say to the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, "Now you have achieved your object; you are growing a vast proportion of our raw cotton requirements within the Empire, and consequently the levy must come to an end at some future date." I do not know how long the Bill will last. I am not told it is for five years. But this five years' business in Acts of Parliament rather irritates me. The other day we were dealing with the Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Bill, and there was a five years' plan there. Are we to take it that the Government of this country is adopting the Russian psychology of a five years' plan? Is this Bill part of a five years' plan? As stated, I trust the Bill will be supported unanimously.

11.20 a.m.

Dr. BURGIN

This Bill is, of course, not a Government Measure. It is a private Member's Bill, and the Government intervene merely to give the Bill their blessing. The Bill has so far passed its Second Reading unanimously, and it passed through Committee without Amendment. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is a Bill which commands a very large measure of unanimity both in and out of this House. The hon. Member made a number of references to the speech of the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Morris). I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for North Salford must have had in mind, when he made that speech, something very different from this Bill. As I understood the remarks which have been quoted from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 10th May, the hon. Member for North Salford expressed the view that the cotton industry was one of those which could profitably go in for some measure of reorganisation inside its own limits.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

Is this really not the best example of organisation in the whole of the industries of the country? The whole of the cotton industry of Lancashire contributes to one fund, and no one declines to make the contribution.

Dr. BURGIN

It is quite true that this is a very fine instance of an industry realising the value of research, and putting no obstacles in the way of the creation of a fund out of which that research can be facilitated, but of course it is within the knowledge of Members that there is much to be done in the way of reorganisation inside the cotton industry, and that Lancashire is the first to recognise the need for that on rather a large scale if the industry is to succeed in a competitive world. I mention the matter all the more keenly because I have been approached by Lancashire Members to know whether it is possible in any way to give encouragement to schemes of reorganisation that are even now under consideration. However, the remarks of the hon. Member for North Salford in my view did not apply in any way to this Bill.

Certain questions have been put to me, and I would like to give an answer. I wish also to take the opportunity of saying a word or two about the British Cotton Growing Corporation and the most valuable work which that Corporation has done in the advancement of the study of cotton growing, and in fact in applying the research which this fund makes possible to the practical needs of the Empire. I was asked what rate of levy had in fact been charged. The House will recollect that in 1923, on the occasion of the first Cotton Industry Act, the levy was 6d. per 500 lbs. of raw cotton. When that Act, which was a five years' Act, came up for renewal in 1928, the 6d. was halved and the rate became three pence for every 500 lbs. gross rate or portion thereof, "or such less weight as the Corporation may, with the approval of the Board of Trade, determine in respect of any year." That is why I am here to-day; it is because the administration of this levy fund is by Parliament specifically placed under the control of the Board of Trade.

When the question of the renewal of the Act was considered in 1928 it was the Board of Trade who suggested that the figure be reduced to 3d. A ballot of the trade was taken, and 80 per cent. of the entire trade were in favour of the levy being continued but of the rate being reduced. Since 1928 Lancashire has bad an unhappy experience. Markets have shrunk, prices have fallen, and great distress has prevailed, and the Board of Trade, watching these matters, felt that the levy of 3d. per bale was unduly oppressive. So in 1930, mainly on account of the depression in the industry, the levy was reduced from 3d. to a penny, and authorisation has been given for the continuance of that penny rate until 17th July of this year, when the present Act expires unless, as I very much hope, the House gives a Third Reading to this Bill to-day. So the present Bill follows exactly the language in the earlier Acts and makes the contribution one penny for a period of five years.

The hon. Gentleman asked me what that penny yields. I will see whether that figure can be obtained. I have not got it before me at the moment. Since the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation was formed in 1921 the cotton crops of the Empire have increased in a most remarkable way. The Corporation does not operate in India, but in 1922 the total crop of Empire cotton, excluding the Indian crop, was 112,000 bales. In 1932, in a period of ten years, it had risen by 400 per cent., and it is now 470,000 bales and I am informed that a very large part of that improvement is directly due to the work of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

What proportion does that figure of 470,000 bales bear to the total number of bales brought into this country?

Dr. BURGIN

That is an arithmetical proportion which I think I shall be able to ascertain for the hon. Gentleman with a little inquiry, but I have not got it before me at the moment. India is excluded because India has a cotton com-mittee of her own. Obviously in research work of this description there must not be overlapping and the House will understand that if the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation do not operate in India it is merely because there is an Indian committee, but the closest contact is maintained by them with the Indian Committee. Among the countries where the results of research have been striking is Uganda, where there has been a record crop due to the work of the Corporation. A large number of men are employed under the Agricultural Departments of the Union of South Africa and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in connection with this work and a large number of men are also trained on the Corporation's own staff. The principal centre for the experimental work is Barberton in the Transvaal and there is also a research station in the West Indies. A great and valuable work has-been done by this Corporation, and I take this opportunity of paying a tribute to it. The House will appreciate that the type of Bill in which a levy is asked for by an industry, in order that research work in connection with that industry may be encouraged, is a type of Bill which is obviously destined to come very frequently before this House until such time as it is possible to have a general enabling powers Bill to permit industrial research of this kind to be undertaken wherever it is found necessary.

11.29 a.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD

It is not my intention to detain the House for long especially as I thought I detected some uneasiness on your part, Mr. Speaker, during an earlier speech and I realise the difficulty of keeping inside the scope of a Bill which deals as this Bill does with the cotton trade in Lancashire. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having put before us in his usual clear and lucid manner the arguments in favour of the Bill. I appreciate those arguments but I think that what we all deplore is the need for the Bill. I should have preferred to hear that the industry was so flourishing that this work could be continued on the former basis, but the industry is in such a state that that is not possible. Recognising that fact, I think it will be agreed that if any industry deserves consideration from this Government it is the cotton industry. I have been consulting "Dod 's Parliamentary Companion" and I observe that there has been a marvellous change in the representation of the cotton constituencies of Lancashire. In the last Parliament this party had 30 Members in this House representing that area. At present we have five. It would seem that the cotton workers thought that this Government would do more for them than the Labour Government had done. They are beginning to find that they made a mistake.

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that he had been given the task of moving the Third Reading. I do not think it was a task to him. I have never known it to so a task to him to speak from that Box, Indeed I think nobody enjoys doing it as much as he does. Those Members who are here from Lancashire find it necessary on this occasion to emphasise the deplorable condition of the industry which is indicated by the reduction of this levy by fivepence to one penny. Research in cotton is vital and it is deplorable that the industry cannot maintain the former levy. We have another industry in Lancashire about which very much the same thing might be said. The situation in regard to welfare work in the mining industry has to be considered because of the deplorable condition of that industry. There we have the two staple industries of Lancashire in such a state that they have found it necessary to protect their activities in such vital matters as these. I support the Third Reading whilst deploring the need for such a Bill.

11.33 a.m.

Mr. LAWSON

I think the House must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) for having given the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity of making the explanation on this Bill to which we have just listened. In my experience it very often happens that the really important debates in this House arise quite accidentally. The pre-arranged "big debate" never comes off, and it is quite by accident that the most important subjects come before this House and receive its serious attention. It would have been a great pity had a Bill of this, description received a merely formal Third Reading. We are dealing with an industry which used to be regarded as the very heart of individualism. Some years ago this industry set about doing things which other industries to-day are only talking about, which they only regard as a kind of far-off dream in a sort of Utopia.

The cotton industry long go had an eye to the possibilities, to impending changes and to the need for applying science to its investigations. The results have been so valuable that they have continued this levy even though at a reduced rate, a levy imposed upon themselves for the purposes of research. That fact indicates a realisation of the value of the industry to the country and to the great mass of people whom it employs. When this Bill was being explained just now there came before me a vision of the hundreds of thousands of people and their families who depend upon this industry for their very lives and whose whole fibre is bound up with it. I think to this extent the employers in the industry have realised their obligations and are entitled to the approval of the House from that point of view. We have had commission upon commission, dealing with one industry and another, and we have had review upon review of the country's industrial and economic resources—we have had a multiplication of blue books and reports, but that is about all that we have got out of them. The cotton industry, however, almost without any investigations or commissions, has set itself to look forward, in order to take hold of any particular scientific advantage that there may be which touches it. I wish that some other industries would do the same thing, because there are industries which have an infinitely greater need in that direction, and—

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid I have been unwise to allow the Debate to wander as far as it has. I am sure we ought not to review the whole of the cotton industry and then go on to review others as well.

Mr. LAWSON

I very much appreciate having been allowed to say what I have. I only wish we had an opportunity to point the narrow way that leads to life for other industries, but I am sure we shall have a further opportunity of doing that.

11.36 a.m.

Mr. BURGIN

Perhaps it would be convenient that I should give the figures for which I was asked just now. The consumption of cotton in this country has tended to fall. In 1929 the figure was approximately 3,000,000 bales, and the Empire production, excluding the Indian production, was roughly one-seventh of this figure; in 1930 the figure was slightly over 2,500,000 bales, and the Empire figure one-sixth.; and in 1931 the figure was only just over 2,000,000 bales, and the Empire figure approximately one-fifth. It will therefore be seen that the total consumption is decreasing and the Empire proportion increasing. So much for the total imports and the percentage of Empire grown. With regard to what the levy of a penny produces, obviously that is a multiplication of the total number of bales handled. On a basis of 3,000,000 bales, the figure is £12,500 a year; on the basis of 2,000,000 bales, it is a little over £8,000 a year.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

That is very interesting. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is a good balance in the hands of this corporation? I think we are entitled to know, when we are passing this Bill for the First time—

Mr. SPEAKER

I thought the hon. Member moved the Third Reading of the Bill.

11.37 a.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I prefer to speak from this position at the end of the Bench rather than from the Box on this occasion, as my viewpoint may not be in complete agreement with that of the hon. Member whom I should face across the Box. I view this Bill with the greatest possible suspicion. I came here thinking that perhaps it might be desirable to utter a word of caution about a Bill such as this, but Since listening to the speech of the hon. Member opposite, I feel that if there is in this House any recognition of the danger in which Measures such as this involve the country, we ought to divide against this Bill and register our protest in the Lobby. This is an example of Socialism of which I cannot approve. It is worse; it is an example of the thin end of that dangerous wedge, the building-up of a corporate State a la Mussolini and Hitler. We have heard the hon. Gentleman opposite anti- cipate in glowing colours the development in every industry of a similar compulsory levy, used by those people who happen to have charge of the machine to look after the interests of their particular industry. Well, all that I can say is that I am not interested in the cotton industry except as a wearer of cotton goods, and I do not see that the wearer of cotton goods will get any reasonable representation on this body.

I think we ought to realise that, although this Bill is apparently popular with 90 per cent. of the cotton industry, you are going to tax 100 per cent. of the industry for the funds. All these schemes and, may I add, all the hundred and one schemes which are put before Members of Parliament for effecting much good in the world—societies for the propagation of proportional representation or for the propagation of any of the hundred and one vital interests to some, but fads to others which afflict Members of this House —are all supported on the same ground, that they are in the interests of the whole. Whether or not we should make it compulsory for all to join these schemes, all of them have exactly the same result—they provide an adequate and sufficient remuneration for a secretary, who lives on the fund for ever after. I know that in these days of increasing unemployment it is highly desirable that we should find useful occupation for gentlemen who have a genius as very few of us have not, for what is called organisation. They all get the secretarial job. Here you are providing a comfortable endowment of £12,000 a year in order that one of them may study the interests of the cotton industry and secure sufficient publicity for all that he is doing in that direction.

I recommend to the attention of my hon. and right hon. colleagues on these Benches a better method of looking after their industries than this departmentalising of each industry and Boistering it up by these compulsory powers to wage fierce war against all rivals. The fuel research people in the mining industry, who inquire into the distillation of coal and so on, do not rely upon a compulsory levy on the collieries of this country. They rely upon the State giving its assistance in the interests of all, controlled by this House in the interests of all; and that is likely to prove a far more satisfactory method of preserving the corporate state of each of these industries than any action such as that which is proposed for the cotton industry. Why do we take over the cotton industry and foreshadow for all the others this narrow control by compulsory power over the direction in which they shall develop? Because we want to get away from the control of the public. You are giving them the right to tax, but you are keeping over that taxation no public control I say that when money is raised by public taxation, by the use of powers conferred by this House, the use of that money should likewise be controlled by the public and by the Government, and I would far sooner see work of this sort done by a general levy on all taxpayers, even though I was one myself, than that it should be imposed upon a narrow industry by a special levy, whether the people like to pay it or not, and the use of that money controlled, as it always will be in the long run, by the endowed secretary of the institution. I said at the beginning that I did not feel very strongly about this Bill. The more I think about it the more angry I am to think that a National Government, with the backing of colleagues of my own who ought to know better, should foist this Bill on the House on a Friday morning before an insignificant attendance when everybody is anxious to get rid of it in order to save the restaurants of the country; and that our minds should be fuddled by arguments for a bastard Socialism which ought never to find a place on the Statute Book.

11.46 a.m.

Mr. LANSBURY

I have risen because my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has taken up a little time on this Bill. It looks a very harmless Bill, but I am doubtful whether all Members in the House understand its full implications. It is one of those little Bills which refer to something else that has happened. It is legislation by reference, which we are very often told, when a Labour Government is in power, is the very worst kind of legislation. Clause 1 of this Bill says: Subsection (1) of section two of the Cotton Industry Act, 1923, as amended by subsection (2) of section one of the Cotton Industry Act, 1928, shall, as from the eighteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, have effect as if for the words 'a contribution at the rate of three pence' there were substituted the words 'a contribution at the rate of one penny'. I sent for the 1923 Act so that we might be sure what we were dealing with. Section 2 of that Act is very long, and I will not trouble the House by reading every word of it. [HON MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have mercy on my colleagues, and I am more reasonable than most people who desire to do what I am doing. Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 says: Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall so paid to the Corporation by every cotton spinner in respect of every purchase of cotton made by him a contribution at the rate of sixpence for every five hundred pounds gross weight or portion thereof of the cotton so purchased. The amount of the said contribution may be treated by the cotton spinner as an addition to the cost of the cotton and shall be recoverable by the Corporation from the cotton spinner as if the same were a contract debt due by the cotton spinner to the Corporation and payable on the date on which payment. becomes due for the cotton in respect of which the contribution is payable. As I understand it, this bastard Socialism, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman described it, was for the purpose of aiding the growth of cotton in British Dominions. That was apparently so successful that in 1928 we passed another Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of that Act reads as follows: Section two of the said Act, as so continued, shall have effect as if for the words 'a contribution at the rate of sixpence for every five hundred pounds gross weight or portion thereof of the cotton so purchased' there were substituted the words 'a contribution at the rate of three pence for every five hundred pounds gross weight or portion thereof'. Now it is proposed in this Bill to reduce that to one penny. We would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how much money remains. This smaller contribution will, of course, mean a considerable reduction of the amount necessary for reseach, which I understand is mainly the object for which the money was to be raised. How much is there in hand? I had the figures showing the increase in the growth of cotton within the British Dominions, and I would like to know what evidence there is that this penny will provide the sum necessary to continue the work, and if there is any evidence that there cannot be a great extension of Empire grown cotton.

Dr. BURGIN

The right hon. Gentleman means without a levy at all?

Mr. LANSBURY

No, I am not opposing the levy. I disagree with my right hon. and gallant Friend. I am sure that if this money were being spent to develop some raw material on behalf of china—I do not mean geographical China—but chinaware, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not be so eager to denounce it by the nasty word which he applied to Socialism. I well remember the two Debates on Empire cotton growing when these Measures were introduced. Mr. Saklatvala made a speech in the House of about one-and-a-half hour's length very late one night or early in the morning, which we all thoroughly enjoyed, and he proved conclusively that this was a thing we ought to do. Apparently Mr. Saklatvala was right. OccasioNaily even a Communist is right. All the evidence goes to show how successful the levy has been. In the Sudan, in. 1921–22, the production was 24,074 bales and that is increased to nearly 235,000. The gross total for the whole of the Dominions was 112,000 in 1921–2, and that has gone up to 480,727. This House ought to be convInced that this penny will really continue to do the work.

We have not yet been told what money there is in hand, and whether we have reached the end of research. I think the word research indicates something that never ends but will go on for all time, and it seems a pity to bring in a Bill to reduce the amount. My right hon. and gallant Friend treated the Bill as though it concerned private industry alone. I do not very much complain about that, because it is more true to-day than it was when Sir William Harcourt or, I think, the late Lord Salisbury said it some years ago, that we are all Socialists now. Anyhow, we are all socialistic now, and every trade and in dustry comes to the State, even the china ware or pottery industry. Only the other night I heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order that that in dustry might be saved.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I was appealing for justice.

Mr. LANSBURY

Staunch individualist as he is, he is bound to come cap in hand to the State for assistance, and everybody else is in the same boat. Everybody wants to get something to aid and abet them in the nefarious task of getting profits—and rent, as I would remark to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman— out of the community. The interest of our party in this proposal is two-fold. We certainly want the cotton industry to be assisted in every possibly way. It needs it, God knows. I suppose there is no industry, short of the coal industry, that is in so bad a plight as the cotton industry. The other reason, strange as it may sound in the ears of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, is that we are interested in the Dominions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"]—Yes, certainly we are. We think that long ago there ought to have been much more co-operation not merely with the Dependencies but with the British Dominions, and that we ought to have done much more in developing the wide open spaces that are under the British flag and are crying out for development.

If we could grow all our cotton within the Empire we should be very glad indeed, especially if larger numbers of our own people could find employment in one way or another in connection with that work. I believe that we granted a loan, or guaranteed a loan, of a very considerable amount in order to develop cotton growing in the Sudan. We are all in favour of that, because we think that instead of allowing our people to eat their hearts out at home with no employment we should have developed these countries which are under the flag. This is not any theoretical view. It is a view which I have held persoNaily for a very long time, and I believe all my colleagues would support me when I say that any money we can spend on developing our own resources in our own country and developing the resources of the countries which are undeveloped under the British flag would be well spent. If we spent very much more money on research, not only in the cotton industry, but other industries, it would be of great advantage not only to ourselves but to the world. It is not to the disadvantage of the world that any country should open up new avenues of production, and for that reason, I would have supported the continuation of the levy of 3d.

I think that possibly we are reducing the figure too low. Only a few years ago it was 6d., then it was reduced to 3d., now it is to be only 1d. The cotton trade and the House would have been well advised to leave the charge at 3d. It is well worth the while of Lancashire to have a continuous supply of cotton from these sources, because the people who grow the cotton may buy the cotton cloth when it is manufactured—and they may even take some pottery, too. We think this little piece of Socialistic legisation—not Socialism, but Socialistic legislation—that is, the State helping an industry to get its raw material in the best possible way, ought to be supported, and that it is a pity—at least, I think it is a pity—tfhat the amount of the levy is being reduced. I cannot vote against the Bill—to do that would be to cancel the whole thing out, I suppose—but I wish the hon. Gentleman would tell us—if the Speaker will allow him to address us again—what amount there is in hand and why it is that 1d. levy will do all that is necessary.

12.3 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING

I share the point of view of my right hon. and gallant Friend when he referred to this Bill as a piece of "bastard Socialism," because the hon. Gentleman opposite, in giving figures just now referring to the alleged increase in that portion of our cotton supplies which comes from the Dominions, explained it rather by the decline of importations from other areas. It simply means a relative decrease in a given period of time, and I suggest that progress of that kind might well end in the disappearance of the industry altogether in this country. It is a form of increase which I cannot assume will give any real satisfaction to the House or to the industry. I am further dissatisfied because I regard such legislation as this as another example of the trading policy which the Government seems bent upon pursuing in almost every direction. The time has arrived when we ought to ask the Government what their trading policy really is, because the recent Trade Agreements all bear the same imprint that there is on this one. In effect, the Government say, "We are satisfied if we can get a limited development of any industry in this country." They say to Norway or Sweden or Germany or the Argentine, "We are prepared to limit industry in this country to give you a chance in yours." Surely that is not the point of view the Government would put forward in any electoral campaign. They would urge that they were out to develop every industry in this country to the exclusion of that same industry in any other country. Yet in the legislation introduced into this House the Government tacitly agree that they will do all in their power to keep, for example, the mining industry at a low level of production, or the fishery industry at a low level of output. They will keep the cotton industry—

Mr. SPEAKER

Does the substitution of the penny for three pence really include all these things?

Mr. MAINWARING

I submit that this is in order in this case, because the Bill reduces the ability of those industries to pursue research and development. If the same policy is pursued in the mining or any other industry, we can see how it will affect those industries. The policy of the Government is that of agreeing to limit the development of any one of our industries and of doing everything they can to encourage the development of similar industries in foreign countries. I agree with one of my hon. Friends who says that in this sense it is bastard Socialism. It means that we are prepared to give every possible advantage to other countries at our own expense. If the National Government believe in their own theories, and if they are serious, I am not concerned how far they pursue this policy. The further they go in their folly, the better pleased I shall be. I am only pointing out how far they are negativing their published statements and how they are gulling the people of the country. If they want a flourishing industry in this country and in the Empire they ought, instead of reducing the amount from 3d. to 1d., to be intensifying efforts in research and in the development of those industries.

12.7 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN

It is only with the consent of the House that I can make any further observations, but I gather that there were one or two inquiries to which it is desirous that I should give a response. I understood that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down did not speak for the cotton industry. He made two Capttal errors; one in thinking that this is a Government Bill, and the second in his rather fanciful description of the Government's trade policy. The Leader of the Opposition asked me one or two questions, to which I will endeavour to reply. He told the House that he was not here during the earlier portion of the Debate, and, consequently, he did not hear that the reduction from 3d. to 1d. took place as long ago as 1930, and that it took place at the request of the industry by arrangement with the Board of Trade, because of the depression. It was felt that the charge of 3d. was too heavy and that it should be reduced. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right when he said that we should not reduce the fund below a certain minimum. He asked: "Are you quite sure that your penny will do what you want?" It is to that portion of his argument that I desire to address my remarks.

The House will recall that when the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation was established by Royal Charter in 1921, there was a large Government grant of nearly £1,000,000 sterling, in fact, £978,715. Consequently, by far the larger part of the income of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation is not from the levy, but from investments. There is no particular reason why the work of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation should necessarily be done entirely out of the annual levy. There is no reason why some of the Capttal found when the Corporation was formed by Royal Charter should not be used for the purpose for which it was incorporated. The Corporation's expenditure over the period covered by the two years, 1931 and 1932, was roughly about £150,000 and included £90,000 odd, which was expended abroad, studentships which took up £6,000 odd, and research which took over £30,000; there is a review published dealing with cotton growing all through the world, and that cost a little over £2,000 in the two years, and then there are headquarter charges. That accounted for the £150,000 expended. The penny levy produces something between £8,000 and £12,000 a year, according to the total number of bales spun,

The actual revenue for the year ended 31st March, 1933, from the penny levy was £10,554. The right hon. Gentleman asks if we have no money in the till, and whether there is anything left. We have the investment interest of just over £60,000 a year, and consequently there must be a large Capttal sum to produce such a figure. The answer therefore is that there are adequate funds for the present.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether this will cut down research. I have, a letter in front of me from the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation showing what this penny levy means. The House will be interested to know that an ordinary good sized Lancashire mill of 100,000 spindles makes a contribution, under this penny levy, of about £30 in the year. Consequently it is not, at its present figure, a heavy burden. Thirty pounds in the whole year for a mill of 100,000 spindles cannot be said to be extravagant. We cannot reduce below 1d. because that would entail extremely difficult calculation and collection. I am assured by the Cotton Growing Corporation that the penny will be adequate. Requests are being put forward from new places like Tanganyika which will increase our expenditure. It will be a hard fight to save this fund from disintegration unless the levy is continued. The levy has the support of both masters and men, and no voice, apart from those in this House, has been raised against it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.