COTTON INDUSTRY

HC Deb 04 November 1949 vol 469 cc836-60

2.44 p.m.

Mr. Austin (Stretford)

I am most grateful for the opportunity, provided at such short notice, of raising the subject of cotton. May I also say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I am sorry I could give him only such short notice, which must have inconvenienced him to some degree. When we talk about the staple industries of this country, we talk about coal, cotton, iron and steel and agriculture. Of those four major industries, it is my submission that, in the desperate economic straits in which we find ourselves in these years of our postwar recovery, cotton has done less towards helping our recovery than any of the other industries.

Any person with even a nodding acquaintance with pre-war Lancashire will have some knowledge of the dreadful conditions which existed there, particularly in the coal and cotton industries, and in what desperate plight many people in the cotton industry found themselves in those years of mass unemployment. In those years, when one went into a cotton town one found stark and empty mills, and chimneys thrust up into the sky, but smokeless. The position has changed tremendously since then and I, for one, welcome the pollution of the sky by the belching smoke from those chimneys, because it means full employment in an industry which can make a vital contribution to our recovery.

There have been vagaries in the history of cotton. Under private enterprise it has been thought fit sometimes to embark upon a policy of contraction and then a policy of expansion. There have been quotas and there have been all manner of devices for the purpose of manipulating the industry for the convenience of those who had a major profit-making interest in the industry. Today the position has greatly changed. Not only has the industry great responsibilities in shouldering its share of the burden in recovery, but it also has great opportunities—opportunities provided to cotton for the first time, and certainly greater opportunities than those provided to any other industry in this country.

A fortnight ago the attention of the public was directed to the cotton industry because of the Cotton Board conference at Harrogate. Many worthies and many notabilities attended that conference, amongst them my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Labour, and I believe, subject to confirmation, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. A fairly cordial atmosphere was generated throughout that conference, I understand. I have been reading some of the reports of the conference and I wonder whether my right hon. and hon. Friends did not sometimes tend to deceive themselves because of the superficial atmosphere of cordial goodwill which was generated. It is my considered view, and it has been given to me by various agencies in the past four years, that a very substantial section of the cotton industry, particularly on the employer's side, is not well disposed towards this Government. I think that in stating that fact and in passing it on to the Government, I am rendering some service.

I expected there would be a great deal of reference at that cotton conference to the operation of the Cotton Spinning Re-equipment Act, but I found there was only a passing reference to it. That Act provided an opportunity for stimulating the spinning section of the industry to a greater degree than anything known in the industry previously. Originally, it was intended to last for only one year. It enabled mill owners to group themselves together in units of, I think, 400,000 spindles. They would then qualify for a subsidy of 25 per cent. under the Act.

I have never yet heard, in the industry of this country, of any measure of subsidy approaching that of the 25 per cent. which was offered in this case. One might imagine that there would be enough public-spirited employers in the industry who would leap at this opportunity of using the subsidy for the purpose not only of re-equipping and putting their own house in order but for the wider, public-spirited and national purpose of helping this tremendous industry to play its part in the export trade, particularly in the dollar area, and to play its part in supplying cotton wear and cotton apparel at home.

I put some questions to the President of the Board of Trade as recently as yesterday and while it is true that, because of the failure of the Act in its first year, it had to be extended for a second year, which expires on 1st April, 1950, all the information I have obtained goes to show that the operation of the Act during its first year was a miserable, pathetic and abject failure. The second year has shown some slight improvement, but that improvement is not sufficient and illustrates how there is a wilful refusal on the part of cotton spinners to take advantage of the subsidy in order to re-equip themselves and help the nation.

I want to absolve those public-spirited employers and mill owners who have been broadminded and progressive enough not only to re-equip under the provisions of the Act, but who re-equipped before the Act came into force. I have had correspondence with mill owners who, I understand, began to re-equip directly after the end of the war, All the more credit to them. But there is a substantial number in the industry who have not done as they should have done—re-equipped with the aid of the 25 per cent. subsidy.

I do not want to over-simplify this problem, but I think there are three broad reasons for it: first, I believe there is a very deep-rooted prejudice on the part of certain employers against taking any action which might help themselves because it might help the Government as well. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) may shake his head, but he was one of those referred to yesterday as having invoked the term "Quisling" about a minority of employers who were prepared to co-operate with the Government. I will not be so venomous in the use of such a term; I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to find another label for those employers who still refuse to co-operate with the Government.

I was referring to those who, I believe, are prejudiced against the Government. During the Cotton Board conference Professor Devons seemed to indicate this frame of mind by deprecating the use of automatic looms, and he was answered by the managing director of British Northrop, Ltd. the foremost manufacturers of automatic looms, who said—I can only paraphrase—"The Professor and those of like mentality are content to utilise in industry the legacy of their grandfathers." He said they were prepared to use looms left to them by their grandfathers 50 years ago. That is absolutely true about this important section of the industry.

In the second category there are those in the industry, business men, who have to weigh the merits of a proposal with regard to re-equipment and the capital outlay involved and one cannot blame them. They say that some of the textile machinery is not as up to date as it might be and propose to wait a little later until they can obtain more modern and more efficient equipment. The major manufacture of this textile machinery is carried on by Textile Machinery Manufactures—a company whose largest factory is in my Division and which, I believe is working at only one-third or a half of its capacity. If it be true that the machinery that is manufactured and available for cotton spinners in Lancashire is not of the best, it is up to Platt Brothers—the name of the subsidiary—to take the hint, and take it rapidly, by embarking on research that will lead to the provision of new machines which will satisfy cotton spinners.

The third category consists of those who are reluctant to invest in re-equipment on the lines I have indicated. They say, "While there is such a conservative mentality among members of the trade unions in the industry, while we are in doubt as to whether we shall get a sufficient return for our capital outlay because of this Luddite philosophy and mentality in the industry, we are not prepared to re-equip and reinvest in other cotton mills and take advantage of the Government subsidy." I have been laying strictures upon the employers, but it equally behoves me to say a word or two about the trade unionists in the industry, who have equal responsibility in making their industry as progressive as possible.

I regret to say that it has come to my knowledge that in the cotton industry there is to be found a conservatism which is nowhere to be found in any other trade union element of industry. That attitude is most unfair, not only to their trade union comrades in the coal, iron and steel, engineering and agricultural industries, but is also unfair to their fellow citizens and to their country. I hope something will be done, not necessarily as a result of this short Adjournment Debate, to create a new spirit among cotton workers, and impress upon them the fact that bceause we are going ahead in re-equipping this industry with new machinery they will not necessarily be thrown out of work in five or 10 years' time.

I suspect that at the root of their distrust of new machinery is the legacy of old-time conditions and bitterness and hardship that were prevalent when so many thousands were thrown on the scrapheap. I hope they will realise that in the Labour Government they have economic security, and that if the industry becomes efficient they will not suffer as a consequence, because we propose to promote full employment as a permanency in industry. I think I ought to read an item relating to this attitude of mind on the part of trade unionists in the industry. It is as follows: A particular firm arranged a ballot among the whole of their employees who agreed, by a very substantial majority, to work a third shift. This shift came into operation and proved a success in producing full output, to meet an increasing dollar-earning order book. Subsequently, a member of the overlookers' union objected to working under the agreement arrived at and complained to his union. Shortly afterwards this particular firm was advised that the third shift must be discontinued, otherwise strike action would be taken. This mill reverted to a two-shift principle, and is at the moment negotiating to get back to full production as outlined. I have two other cases which illustrate that point, but I do not propose to weary the House by quoting them. This is a wrong mentality, particularly in view of the need for increased production.

I mentioned earlier the question of textile machinery. On a number of occasions my hon. Friend the Senior Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst) and my hon. Friend the Junior Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) and myself have raised the question of redundancy of labour in the manufacture of textile machinery. It is a very serious matter. Yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade answered a Question relating to the increased competition we were facing from Japan in regard to textiles and textile machinery. From my own knowledge, we have already suffered as a consequence of this competition in regard to our orders in India and elsewhere, owing to the cheap labour conditions in Japan under the MacArthur administration. If that is the case, and if we are faced with declining prospects abroad for our textile machinery, then it is up to the Government to do what they can to make this section of the industry as efficient as possible in order to enable it to compete in the markets abroad, apart altogether from whatever representations it may wish to make at a Government level to either the American authorities or to the MacArthur administration.

It was because of that fact that I had a Question down yesterday about the number of factories in this country which the Government own and lease to private enterprise. The answer I received was that some 1,300 factories were involved. That is a very considerable number which could very well be utilised in the national effort if the factories were concerned with the right sort of production, especially for export to the dollar areas. If in the case of the factory of Platt Brothers it is not working to capacity—and I have every reason to believe that it is not, and this may apply equally to other Government-leased factories—I cannot see why we cannot get back to a policy of concentrating certain of the resources of firms in the factories that are available and allowing these factories to be used for other purposes.

For instance, if the Austin Motor Car Company or the Morris Motor Car Company require more factory space owing to their success in the export field, why could not the Barton factory in my Division, which is one of the most up to date in the world, be used for the production of motor-cars, or, in fact, for anything else connected with our vital dollar exports? On this matter of available factory space, therefore, I believe that the Government ought to do something about making a survey of factories leased to private enterprise.

I will now turn to one other point with regard to the cotton industry as a whole. Some time ago, because of the more plentiful supply of cotton yarn, the President of the Board of Trade discarded certain controls. In answer to a Question which I put to him yesterday, it was revealed that the Yarn Spinners' Association are now maintaining a price ring. Whereas my right hon. Friend discarded controls in order to allow prices to reach a normal modest level, a price ring is now being maintained by the Yarn Spinners' Association, thus keeping up the price of yarn to a minimum at which they can earn handsome profits. Whatever merits there may be in that from the point of view of profits, this anti-social practice is having adverse repercussions on the cost of cotton to the industry at home and to our vital exports abroad.

I thought that the President of the Board of Trade gave me a very weak and ineffective answer when he said that this is a matter which may be referred to the Monopolies Commission because it seems to savour of monopoly. Of course it savours of monopoly, but it is not the sort of thing that a Government Department ought to refer to the Monopolies Commission. We have power to stop this monopoly which is antisocial and a danger to our export policy, and I believe we have power to say to the Yarn Spinners' Association that we are going to stop them from maintaining a fixed price ring and that they will have to allow the price to reach its normal level in an ordinary commercial market. I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will say something about that.

There is one other point with regard to the Yarn Spinners' Association. Not only have we got this peculiar capitalist outlook with regard to monopoly and a price ring, but the ex-Cotton Controller and some of his staff are actually housed in the premises used by the old Cotton Control and engaged in this restrictive arrangement. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will look into it.

I suggested a little while ago, in a letter to the "Manchester Guardian," that, in view of the cotton industry being burdened by a restrictive outlook and by restrictive action on the part of trade unionists in some respects, the time was ripe for an inquiry. There was an inquiry and a report on weaving in the cotton industry under Mr. Moelwyn Hughes, and I believe that there should be a fresh report on the industry by a panel, if necessary, set up by Manchester University. Something must be done about this vital industry which can help not only our dollar export earnings but our trade all over the world and our supply of commodities to the public at home in much cheaper and greater quantities.

It would be out of Order if I were to advocate legislation, but may I paraphrase a passage from the Cotton Working Party Report of 1946? In this report there was a minority viewpoint expressed by Mr. Andrew Naesmith—who is the most prominent trade unionist in the cotton industry—and others working with him.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards)

Will my hon. Friend please tell me to what report he is referring?

Mr. Austin

I am talking about the Working Party Report on cotton. Mr. Andrew Naesmith and his colleagues, who formed the trade union minority, quarrelled with some of the views of others who had been appointed. They implied that if the industry were not to operate in the best interests of the nation, then nationalisation was the only alternative. I submit that to my hon. Friend, and perhaps in the circumstances he will consider whether we might not revive something in the nature of the working party coming to the country with a progress report of achievements in the industry and of its defects.

I believe that this question applies not only to cotton but to industry in general. Are we taking advantage of the powers we have? Earlier I referred to the Supplies and Services Act, which provides the Government with tremendous powers that they could and should exercise in the interests of the nation. For example, in wartime the criterion was not the amount of profit but the amount of production necessary for the prosecution of the war, and where an industry was not doing its best the Government had power to requisition a factory. That happened in the case of Short Bros., it happened in the case of General Aircraft, it has happened in the field of agriculture in the case of many farmers who were not farming efficiently and whose land was taken over by the war agricultural committees to be used in the interests of the nation.

We have other sanctions which we can apply to those elements in industry that will not respond to exhortation and goodwill. We have the sanction of the diversion of raw materials. If we do not supply a man with raw materials because he is not playing the game, he will soon learn to respond. We have the sanction of diverting labour from those who will not support the nation in this critical time; and if a producer cannot have the labour for his industry, he will soon mend his ways and reform—at least, that is my view of the Government's powers.

Finally, I believe, as has been evidenced by the result of the by-election in North Kensington, that the country appreciates what the Government are doing. I believe that beneath the superficial quibbles and criticisms which we get from people about their rations or certain other of the difficulties which today face us all, there is a deep-rooted appreciation of what the Government have done. There is an appreciation of what is meant by social security; an appreciation of full employment and of the welfare State. It may be an unconscious appreciation, but it is there. What people are asking today is that the ethics employed in government, which have relieved many people of untold distress and misery, must be matched by an economy equally to be used and directed in the interests of the nation.

We on this side of the House at least must turn our minds in the direction suggested by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who made one of his most unusual interventions in the industrial field in a speech a few evenings ago. He said that where industrialists will not co-operate with the Government, the Govern-must review their powers with a view to making that industry and that employer co-operate. This is a testing time for the Government. These critical days provide us with an opportunity of utilising the resources of the nation in the interests of the nation. I hope that because of this the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department will take some notice of what I have said about making a beginning in the cotton industry, which badly needs a firm and resolute hand and a new lead from the Government.

3.13 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd (Bucklow)

I did not intend to intervene but the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) has made so many perfectly outrageous statements, which do little service to the industry, to the Government—as, I feel sure, the Parliamentary Secretary would be prepared to admit privately if not publicly—or to the country, that I must do so. The hon. Member has given very good reasons why the attitude of some employers towards the Government is not particularly agreeable. The suggestion that any one can get hold of employers, in cotton or any other industry, and start banging their heads together, with the imposition of sanctions of all kinds to make them do what, apparently, the hon. Member says they do not want to do, is a perfectly absurd judgment of the present situation.

I have always been prepared to admit, in this House and elsewhere, that both the employers and the employees in the cotton industry are obstinate. In fact, almost the entire population of the counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire are obstinate by nature. Many things which ought to have been done in the industry have been left undone, largely because of obstinacy and pettiness. There is one man in this country who is more responsible for the lack of progress in the cotton industry than anyone else: he is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was he who, 18 months after the war, allowed the Lancashire cotton industry hardly any aid at all; and when the interim policy was produced by the Board of Trade it was left to the working party to find out all about the industry and then to come back and explain their findings to the Chancellor.

The result was that no real action was taken in the industry for almost two years; and up to 1947 and, I believe, the early part of last year, we had the extraordinary spectacle of textile exports being roughly only one-third of their pre-war volume.

Mr. Austin

The hon. Gentleman said that no real action was taken by the Government until 1947. Is he aware that within three months of the election of this Government—that was in October, 1945—a working party was appointed to examine the cotton industry and that it reported in 1946?

Mr. Shepherd

That is what I am objecting to. I say that what required doing for the Lancashire cotton industry had already been determined and was in the offices of the Board of Trade when the war ended, and that instead of getting immediate action, we had the working party sorting out the problems which were already pretty well known to those connected with the industry. Then we had interminable discussions upon the report of the working party. The result was that nothing positive was done until at least two years after it might have been started. The recruitment of labour, to which I agree great energy has been devoted in the last 18 months, was almost completely neglected for a time.

I say that it is due to the fact that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer misinterpreted the situation and also to the fact that no one went into Lancashire and really tried to get things going. I agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be put into Lancashire to get things going. He would have no more response from the people of Lancashire than an iceberg. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not do it himself, but if he had not the personality to appeal to the people of Lancashire, he ought to have got someone to do it. If anyone bears the full responsibility for Lancashire not getting back to its position as quickly as it ought to have done, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The hon. Member for Stretford has made the most extraordinary allegations against people who have not operated the Cotton Spinning (Re-equipment Subsidy) Act. When the Bill was put forward, the Opposition made it clear that they believed that it could not succeed in the form in which it was presented. I have tried to find out the reason for the absurd retention of the 400,000 spindles limit. Everybody knows that that limit is the reason why the Act has not been operating. The Parliamentary Secretary may shake his head, but that is why the Act has not been implemented. It is for the very good reason that people are not prepared to enter into financial manipulations to get the advantage of the subsidy in cases where the limit is 400,000 spindles or in certain cases, such as with certain vertical organisations, where the limit is as low as 250,000 spindles.

What the Opposition then prophesied has come about. It is the Government's fault in trying to be too rationalistic in their outlook and trying to force something upon the mills. Our view is that if a factory can be certified as being pretty up to date, it ought to have the advantage of the subsidy. I am sure that if that had been put into operation we should have seen a much more effective result than we do now.

The hon. Member for Stretford catalogued a list of objections to re-equipment on the part of individual employers. It is true that some of those arguments have some substance, but another factor is that the cost of re-equipment today is extremely high, and in the disturbed condition of world markets it is very doubtful whether some employers would be advised to indulge in heavy capital expenditure which the subsequent price level of the industry might not justify. Many employers have very carefully to consider whether they can afford the cost of re-equipment at present. They would be doing the industry generally a grave disservice if they launched into capital expenditure which was subsequently proved not to be justified. The House ought to be reminded of that.

The most important thing which the hon. Member and any hon. Member can do so far as the cotton industry is concerned is to try to speed up the process of re-deployment. At a meeting we had upstairs about 18 months ago it was said in reply to a question which I asked at the end of the meeting that it would take 20 years to re-deploy the Lancashire cotton industry. That is far too long. We can, without exaggeration, by re-deployment get at least 25 per cent. more output from the existing industry. That is the most important thing we can do in the industry and for the industry at the present time.

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he gets all the Members of Parliament on his own side of the House while they still represent Lancashire—there will be many fewer of them in Lancashire in a short time—to go round the cotton towns in an endeavour to secure greater approval for this policy of re-deployment, because nothing can be more valuable to the industry than a wider acceptance of re-deployment—much wider than obtains at present.

Mr. John Edwards

I was interested in the point which the hon. Member was making but I cannot see any good reason why I should confine my efforts to Mem- bers who sit on this side of the House. I should have thought if this was worth doing, everyone should be doing it. I regret that he contracts out.

Mr. Shepherd

Oh, no, I did not, contract out because I have now been pressing this point for two years in this House and elsewhere. Obviously it is as much the duty of Conservative Members as of Labour Members to press this point. There are men in the unions in Lancashire who are doing extraordinarily good work in this direction, but there is a terrific amount of prejudice against it. The Government must make a greater effort still to obtain a degree of re-deployment which will save the industry.

The most discouraging thing that has happened to the cotton industry is the action of the Government in devaluing the £. The enormous increase in the cost of material is causing grave concern to manufacturers. Not only do we have in the ordinary way bad materials which are poor to work with and the making up of which into good quality finished articles causes great difficulty, but we are now having these enormous increases in the price of cotton. All the efforts of the Government will be required to satisfy the manufacturers that they will be in a more competitive position as a result of devaluation than they were before. Many feel that they will be in a less competitive position overseas than before.

I have made these few observations because I feel that much of what the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) said was really in the wrong spirit so far as solving the problem of Lancashire is concerned, if it can be solved. Let us remember that the Lancashire textile industry is in a most difficult situation. It may be that we shall never recover fully the overseas markets we had before the last war. In fact, I believe it to be the view of the Board of Trade that we shall not get them back. Therefore, we have a great battle to fight which will not best be fought by individuals such as the hon. Member for Stretford simply kicking the employers around. It will have to be done by an effort to eradicate prejudice and affection for old-fashioned or traditional methods which exist among the employees just as much as among the employers.

The Government will have to make greater efforts. I am sorry that we had the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Board of Trade in 1945. If, in 1945, we had had another man to do that job and if he had seen the problem in Lancashire and talked to the people there, the textile industry might be in a much better state today. That is past history, and I hope that in the few remaining months left to this Government, they will do all they can to get the textile industry on its way. They have not done enough in the last 12 months to justify the expectations we had of them a few years ago.

3.25 p.m.

Mr. Parkin (Stroud)

I hope that the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the line of argument he took. It is a good thing to have as many discussions of practical industrial problems as possible and I am glad that he has brought this matter forward. I come from an area which has a considerably older textile industry, the woollen textile industry.

I want to follow up one or two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford in connection with machinery and to ask further questions of the Parliamentary Secretary. I was very alarmed to hear my hon. Friend speak as though the machinery industry were going downhill and working part time, and to hear him suggest that some other occupation should be found for the factories designed for the industry. I do not think that motorcars offer much hope, in view of the fact that the motorcar factories are not working to full capacity. I want particularly to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can tell us something more about the Government's policy in regard to textile machinery.

When the Evershed Report came out—it is a very interesting document—we were all given to understand that the textile machinery monopoly had taken certain decisions, with the utmost goodwill and determination, to put their house in order, expand the industry and bring it up to date to meet the needs of re-equipment. We were also given to understand that we must naturally expect them to concentrate all their energies upon the textile industry which was in direst and most immediate need. That was cotton. I am sorry to say that the task does not occupy them to the full and that it is time that other textile industries began to press their claims a little and to ask the Government a few questions about the textile machinery industry in general.

I should like to know, for instance, how much research and development are going on in machinery for other textile industries, particularly woollens. We must not forget the man-made fibres of one kind or another which will develop, in the long run, a type of machine not necessarily as closely related to the older machinery as is the case at the present time. I should like to know what co-operation there is between the technological research resources available to the Government and those available to the machinery monopoly. There is ample precedent for the Government to give help. I believe that my hon. Friend's Department is still in charge of the flax research station. I wonder whether any corresponding research is going on about machinery to weave the alternative to flax, which is rayon and which has made so much progress recently.

Finally, I want to ask if the Government have any views or intentions about helping textile machinery, not only by the method of subsidy which is very often clumsy, but by entering into a sort of partnership with the industry in the same spirit and with the same enthusiasm that the Government are showing now in the Export Credits Guarantee Department. That department is willingly co-operating with private firms and guaranteeing a large part of their market surveys and advertising campaigns to sell goods abroad. The Government are in that case content to remain a partner with the private firm as long as the private firm desires it, giving help but not exercising control.

Something of the same kind could be done in the case of machinery. Of course, there is ample precedent in the steps taken in war-time to get up-to-date machines installed on loan wherever they were most urgently required. I hope to learn that the Government have not sat back and allowed the textile machinery industry only to concentrate its efforts on the cotton industry. I hope that plans are well advanced not only for the maintenance of this industry but for its expansion for export reasons as well as others in the near future. Lastly, on the point of exports, I should like to ask what is the priority today between export and home needs in the matter of textile machinery.

3.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards)

A number of points have been made which have covered a wide field. A good deal of attention has been paid by my hon. Friends to the matter of textile machinery. At such short notice I am not able to deal with those points of detail that have been raised which are not the responsibility of the Board of Trade but that of the Minister of Supply. If the kind of details about the industry which have been mentioned are really required, then they must be obtained from him.

Mr. Parkin

Surely the Ministry of Supply must base its own plans upon the overriding policy enunciated by the Board of Trade. In what way can the Ministry of Supply make its plans for the production of machinery if it does not know the mind of the Board of Trade and the Government in general on the question of textiles—the right fibres to be used, where they are to be obtained, and what is to be done with them?

Mr. Edwards

My hon. Friend is quite right, but that does not alter the fact that the Department concerned with textile machinery happens to be the Ministry of Supply. They are the people who talk to the trade about research facilities, and so on. I was saying that, important though these matters are, they do not happen to be points which at a moment's notice I ought to be required to answer. I have taken very careful note of all that has been said and I will see that the points are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and that, in due course, such information as he is able to give is passed on to my hon. Friends.

I begin by agreeing entirely about the very great importance of this industry. It is central to our purposes both in respect of our home needs and in the contribution which it can make overseas. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) seemed to speak, I thought, a little disparagingly of the Harrogate Conference. That is a pity. In fact, there were some 1,300 people there, of whom the overwhelming majority were representatives of cotton firms or cotton trade unions. Since there does not happen to be another industry in the country which could hold such a conference, it seems to me that, however short it may have fallen in my hon. Friend's estimation, it was a thoroughly desirable conference to arrange. I wish that more industries were in a position to do that, and not least the industry about which the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) spoke a few days ago—the clothing industry. This, of course, is one of the benefits of having a good development council.

In particular, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford misunderstood the point that Professor Devons made at Harrogate. I was there, and if I understood what Professor Devons was saying aright, it was that he had sought very hard and tried to find adequate cost material on the basis of which to decide whether it was a good thing to instal automatics or not. He had come to the conclusion that there was singularly little cost material available. On the very scanty material which he had he put forward a tentative view, but the moral which all of us who were present at the conference should draw is not a moral about the use of automatic machinery, but the moral whether indeed, if this adequate cost material were available, we should be able to form a more intelligent judgment on the whole matter of installations of machinery of various kinds.

Mr. Austin

I do not want to do an injustice to the professor, who cannot answer for himself, but, surely, the attitude of mind of the professor has been responsible for the issue of a statement by the managing director of British Northrop Looms, Ltd., to the effect that they were relying on the legacy of their grandfathers?

Mr. Edwards

But it was suggested that Professor Devons was reactionary, and I do not think he was anything of the kind. To make him say anything that even remotely suggests that automatic looms are not the last word, would result in anybody who speaks for automatic looms taking up the other side. So much the better for that, and that was one of the merits of the Harrogate Conference. I am not taking sides in the matter at all, except to say that the main point which Professor Devons made at Harrogate was that we should have some better cost material in order to take intelligent decisions rather than take decisions without all the details that are really necessary.

It is said by my hon. Friend, and it was also suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that we have not really got as much out of the Cotton Spinning (Re-equipment Subsidy) Act as we expected. In general, I agree, but for rather different reasons from those which have been advanced. First, in respect of the number of spindles which we brought in to qualify. The hon. Member for Buck-low is wrong. We have been accepting groups of about 250,000 spindles and they have not all been vertical. The number of groups which have registered is 28, which is the equivalent of 59 per cent. of the spindles in the industry, and we say that this has brought within the scope of the scheme a fairly high proportion of the cotton industry, and I have no reason to believe that the qualifications of the group have proved unduly restrictive.

Mr. W. Shepherd

Is it not true to say that, since the Board of Trade have been more lenient over the number of spindles involved, they have received more acceptances, and that, if this figure of 400,000 had not been insisted on in the first place, we should have got a much better response?

Mr. Edwards

I really should deny that. The point is that we have got about 60 per cent. in at present, and it looks as if there may be one or two others as well. The real trouble does not arise there, and the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It arises when we come to consider the progress made in actual modernisation. There are over 280 mills in the approved groups and we hoped to receive modernisation proposals in respect of about two-thirds of that number. Today, modernisation proposals have been received in respect of 60 mills. I hope that we can expect more, especially as the contracts do not have to be placed until 5th April, 1950.

The general indication so far is that the groups are holding back. There are economic as well as technical considerations here, and I know that at present firms are finding it necessary to increase their working capital for the financing of stocks, following devaluation and things of that kind, but, even making allowances for that, the progress made up to date is disappointing. The disappointment is not in respect of the groups registering but in respect of the progress that has been made with the groups that have been registered; but it does not seem to me to be easy to go from there and say what should next be done.

There is the subsidy, which is a considerable inducement, but, it having been on offer, it does not seem to me that we have been able to urge the people to take up the offer in the long-term interests of the industry. Doubtless there are improvements to be made in textile machinery. The textile manufacturers—the T.M.M. which has been referred to—have, I am assured, a research organisation. Textile machinery research workers are at work in all the fields, and although I do not pretend to be an expert on this aspect of the matter, I should have thought that in recent times there had been a good shake-up in this industry and considerable progress had been made. Reference has been made to other difficulties, chief of which is said to be the conservative attitude of many of the trade unionists employed in the cotton industry.

We had hoped to proceed more rapidly than we have been able to with redeployment. On the spinning side, we are redeploying something like 30 mills a year; but that is not enough. I am not sure how many we should re-deploy a year, because the number would depend in some measure on the number of industrial consultants and similar expert people who would be available. On the weaving side, I think that the main obstacle to redeployment of Lancashire looms is the existing legalised uniform list. I think, however, that it is a matter of congratulation that both sides of the weaving industry look like reaching agreement in the near future on introducing the more rational system recommended by the Moelwyn Hughes Commission. I think that is a triumph for the leaders of both sides of the industry.

It remains to be seen whether agreement is completed and how quickly it will be possible for individual concerns and workers to get the most out of it. Knowing Lancashire as I do—and I have had fair experience of it since 1945 and in the years before the war—I would say that the efforts of the trade unions in the cotton industry, generally speaking, to rationalise their wage structure on the weaving side of the industry compare very favourably with what has been done elsewhere in British industry.

I would wish that all other industries could be as far advanced as cotton on the manufacturing side is now in respect of an adequate wage structure. On the spinning side, we have further to go, and anything that any Member can do to help the move towards greater re-deployment is, I am sure, a very good thing. In present circumstances, with labour very short indeed, there can be no reason why both the workers and the employers should not stand to gain from increased productivity; and on the workers' side in the money which they take home at the end of the week. I am glad that very great attention has been paid in this discussion to their point of view.

The hon. Member for Bucklow seemed to take a great joy in attacking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his alleged failures when he was at the Board of Trade. I happen to have been in those days the Parliamentary Private Secretary under the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and, knowing Lancashire, I think as well as the hon. Gentleman does, I would say that Lancashire liked my right hon. and learned Friend because he was straight, and because he was honest, and they liked him in contrast to many of the people who had been to see them in the years before the war because he did not come just for "a talk" but to get something done. The impression I formed in Manchester was that on the whole the Manchester community were very relieved to find somebody who, at any rate, meant business. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubts about this, I would like him to look up the history of the relations of various successive Tory Governments in the years before the war with Lancashire, so that they may see how Lancashire was completely neglected, as a result of which we have many of today's problems. It is not for the hon. Gentleman, or anybody representing his party, to talk in these terms about my right hon. and learned Friend.

Moreover, let me say this to him. He seemed to be sure that in the archives of the Board of Trade at the end of the war there were all manner of schemes ready to be put into operation at once. There were in the archives of the Board of Trade proposals coming over from the days before the war. But what kind of proposals were they? They were, almost without exception, restrictive proposals; proposals which were a carry-over from the time when the capacity was much greater than the demand. But the hon. Gentleman is wrong in supposing that there were at that point in time the kind of proposals that have since emerged in the working party reports and in the various wages and similar commissions. All that meant new work, and the Government were quite right to ask Sir George Schuster and his colleagues on both sides of industry to get down to the job of surveying the position afresh in the light of the circumstances as they were in 1945.

Mr. W. Shepherd

I do not deny, and indeed I think it is true, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made some impression among the business leaders in Lancashire, and that he was well received in Manchester. What I said was that he was incapable of making the appeal to the ordinary worker, which I thought ought to have been made at that time instead of allowing it to be delayed for two years. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary should be the last man to talk about the conditions between the wars as long as he belongs to a party which took pride in allowing sweated goods from Japan to flood the markets of this country. He also ought to know that immediately after the war it was extremely difficult because of Government restrictions, to make slight amenity changes in mills, which would have had the effect of attracting labour and would have done something to solve our problems. He ought to know that that was the position for at least 18 months after the end of the war.

Mr. Edwards

As always, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce certain irrelevancies to cover up the weaknesses of his earlier argument. I was merely pointing out that he was quite wrong about what had happened immediately after the end of the war, and no amount of talk now about something entirely different alters that fact.

I think it was quite right for the Government to put these inquiries in hand, and I am sure we have moved forward a good deal as a result of them. We owe a lot to people like Sir George Schuster, Lord Evershed, and others like Mr. Moelwyn Hughes recently, because from their inquiries we have learned a lot. Nevertheless, I would not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford that the moral of it is: Let us have another full-dress inquiry. There are things that we want to know; there is no doubt about that; but we have got the Cotton Board, and I would hope that through the Cotton Board we can obtain the information required and make the inquiries that need to be made. I would not myself think that the time was ripe for anything like another thoroughgoing review of the industry, although we do need to know a certain number of things.

Let me now spend a moment or two on one other main point which is of particular concern to us: namely, the questions that have been raised about the operations of, in particular, the yarn spinners. In April last I went to Manchester and had some extremely useful discussions, which within a few days was followed by an agreement between my right hon. Friend and the various sections of the trade for a measure of decontrol, I think unparalleled in scope, when, as will be remembered, we at the Board of Trade were able to revoke a large number of orders—between 20 and 30—and to remove price control completely from everyone below the merchant converters on whom we left a ceiling price control—an overriding maximum control.

At the time, and still, I was anxious to make it plain that a simplified system of this kind would work only if all sections of the trade exercised moderation and restraint, and that if this did not happen the new system would be discredited. Personally, at any rate, I have been disappointed. I have not seen much evidence of the restraint which was the basis on which this big decontrol was carried out. It is obviously necessary in present circumstances, where changes in costs are taking place, for this matter to be reviewed again and for us to consider whether it is possible, where we have a perpetuation of a sellers' market, to go on leaving things alone, as we were most anxious to do from the point of view of flexibility and freedom to try out new methods which we thought would be desirable in Lancashire.

My hon. Friend referred to the operation of the Yarn Spinners' Association, and I cannot add to the answers which my right hon. Friend has given on this point, except perhaps this—and I think this is a point worth making—as far as I can see, most oft the business at the present time is being done at a higher price than the price in the yarn spinners' list. That does not mean that there may not be monopolistic elements here, but it means that at this moment the operation of the yarn spinners' list does not seem to be restrictive in the sense of putting prices up because most business is being done, if I am informed correctly above the list price.

Nevertheless, I would emphasise that if we are to have this kind of freedom from controls over a large part of the field, it can only be on the basis of restraint and on the basis of the whole industry being prepared to work together. It cannot work if each takes out absolutely everything which can be obtained, leaving the merchant converters in many cases in an impossible position.

Mr. Austin

Before my hon. Friend leaves that matter, may I point out that the question of the yarn spinners is very material? My hon. Friend has indicated that there is only one course of action and that is to refer the matter to the Monopolies Commission at some unspecified date. Is there no more effective and immediate action which the Board of Trade can take?

Mr. Edwards

I think my right hon. Friend made it plain yesterday that it is the Government's view that, in so far as we have to deal with monopolies, whether in the form of one big firm or of some price ring, the right way to deal with them is to refer them to the Monopolies Commission. In the field over which the Government have power to exercise price control—quite apart from any alleged monopoly, which need not come into the picture at all—it would be possible to use the authority we possess if that were thought desirable. As I say, I think there are good reasons why it is better not to do so, but I have been disappointed by the response which there has been to the freeing of such a large field of the cotton industry.

Mr. W. Shepherd

Is it the Government's view that the prices now being charged by the spinners are excessive, in view of the circumstances?

Mr. Edwards

I am not in a position to say either "yes" or "no" to that question. All I can say is that it does not look to me as if there had been that degree of restraint which I expected and on which I had an understanding when I was in Manchester and agreed to this big de-control.

My hon. Friend also talked about Government factories. Certainly, in respect of new factories and new tenants we are at present applying the test of dollar saving or dollar earning. It would be difficult to do anything about existing factories, but in respect of those which are still going up, and those which become empty and into which we put new tenants, we now apply the dollar earning or dollar saving test. I think that completes the number of items to which I can give any reasonable replies, but in respect of detailed points about textile machinery I shall be glad to convey the views of my hon. Friend to the Minister of Supply.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes to Four o'Clock.