That interruption does not take us anywhere. The matter we are considering is one in which the trade union view should be regarded as of the utmost importance. On the admission of the President of the Board of Trade, 50 per cent. of the mills have contracted in and 50 per cent. have contracted out. If 100 per cent. of the workers, as represented by the trade unions, have one particular view, and half of the employers have the same view, that is a situation in which the trade union point of view should have some influence.

I was very interested to hear the very doctrinaire speech of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher), and I do not say that unkindly at all. The hon. Gentleman preaches the doctrine of private enterprise quite effectively, but I thought the burden of his case was that it was this side of the House that closed the Liverpool Cotton Market. If my memory is correct, it was closed as a result of action by the Conservative Government in 1939 or 1940, or by the Coalition Government in 1940—I am not quite sure which.

There were one or two points in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on which I should like to comment. On the whole, I think his statement was not an unfair statement in all the circumstances, but I think the House should realise that the reason more people contracted out—as many as 57 or 58 per cent. by weight of cotton consumed—was only because, substantially, the Raw Cotton Commission were going to give them the excellent cover which they have had hitherto. Had it not been for that guarantee of the best cover scheme which the industry has ever had, there would have been less than 30 per cent., and not 57 or 58 per cent., contracting out.

Reference was also made by the right hon. Gentleman to the trade union members of the Hopkins Committee agreeing to the recommendations, which gave the indication that they believed in them and thought that that was the way to go. I think it is only fair to remind the House that the trade union and other representatives co-operated with the Government to attempt to find a compromise, and I presume these proposals represented the lowest common denominator.

Since the speech of the present Prime Minister in Liverpool two years ago, there has been a lot of smooth propaganda to try to create the impression that, if only we can go back to the conditions prevailing in the Liverpool Cotton Market in the 1930s and the 1920s everything will be well. I want to remind this House that that is a delusion. The industry was not satisfied with the operation of the Liverpool Market in the pre-war years, and I have quoted before in this House this passage from "The Economist" of 26th February, 1949: Before the war, cotton spinning employers were vociferous in their complaints about the Liverpool Cotton Market. I refer also to the statement made by that very powerful figure in the cotton spinning industry—Sir Charles Macara—who was strong in his condemnation of the Liverpool Cotton Market. I make this quotation from "Tattersall's Weekly Newsletter" as recently as the 10th of this month: The important aspect is the effect on the spinning trade as the main users of the raw material. It is fair to say that, in the years up to 1939, the mills were not always in the position of being able to have first say as to their requirements. Raw cotton merchants were often in a strong position and were inclined to act independently. It should be predominantly clear at the outset of the new régime that the user of cotton, as the first instrument in preparation for the final article, should not only be taken into consultation, but should be able to procure the cotton of his choice as and when he needs it. The clear implication of that statement by Tattersall's is that Liverpool will have to do better than it did before the war. Self-interest has been the driving force in this proposed legislation, and it is the self-interest of a relatively small trading community, as compared with the quarter million or more workers employed in the cotton spinning, doubling and weaving sections of the cotton textile industry. Little regard is being paid to the well-being of the industry as a whole.

My right hon. Friend referred to the number of spinners who have contracted out, and the point which he made, which I want to emphasise, should be borne in mind. The interlocking directorships which there are now between the Liverpool cotton merchanting firms and the larger spinning units in the cotton industry have been an important factor in this matter.

Reference was made earlier to the debate in this Chamber on 28th March, 1946, and I am glad, because I have had a look at it. I was not a Member of this House at that time, when the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies moved this Motion: That this House regrets the decision of His Majesty's Government not to reopen the Liverpool Cotton Market and considers that the system of bulk purchase under State control will hamper the manufacturer, increase the cost of cotton to the consumer and deprive this country of a valuable source of foreign exchange."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 28th March, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 591.] I want to deal with the three assertions made in that Motion, which happily was defeated. The first is the assertion that it would hamper the manufacturer, and I wish to quote some interesting observations from the "Rochdale Observer" of 7th November: Mr. G. E. Gardiner, the President of the Rochdale Cotton Employers' Association, said he deeply regretted the change. That is to say, the change envisaged in this Bill. He went on: I do not think spinners will get a service equal to that provided by the Raw Cotton Commission. I believe it will mean that the 'spot' market in future will not be adequate, in comparison with the Raw Cotton Commission, to meet the need, and, that being so, spinners will have principally to be their own merchants, which will require a great deal more capital to finance the cotton supply. We have never had cover equal to that given by the Commission, and in my view we have never had a service equal to it. While one generally appreciates private enterprise, it has never given us this service. Some people say that the taxpayer should not provide this, but in the aggregate I do not think he has lost any money yet. The whole thing is a political move. That is Mr. Gardiner, whom I know, and I have taken the opportunity of having a talk with him to see if this report accurately records what he said. He told me that it not only accurately reported what he said, but represents what he still thinks, and his political affiliations are on that side of the House, not on this. In fairness to Mr. Gardiner, I ought to add that, in saying that, he was not speaking as president of the Rochdale Cotton Employers' Association, but the fact that he is president of that association indicates that he is a man of some responsibility and that he is trusted by his colleagues.

The second point on the question of centralised cotton buying of the Raw Cotton Commission hampering manufacturers, leads me to quote again from "Tattersall's Weekly Trade Letter," of 10th November: Whatever the respective merits of State-controlled buying and distribution and the operation of a futures market, few people in the industry will deny that the Raw Cotton Commission, after its initial teething troubles, gave not only an adequate but an almost foolproof system of cover for spinners. That does not indicate that the Commission have been damaging and hampering the manufacturer.

Then we have from the Liverpool Cotton Association some notes on the formation of a Liverpool futures contract, dated July, 1953. Paragraph 25 (b) says: There may be a readiness on the part of spinners—particularly those who continue to support centralised trading—to be critical of the market after several years' experience of the artificial stability of the cover scheme. So the Raw Cotton Commission have given a cover so stable as to be considered abnormal and to be described as "artificial."

On the second point of the Motion proposed by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the Commission would increase the cost of cotton to the consumer, I want to quote—I hope I am not wearying the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—from paragraph 4 of the Cotton Import (Review) Committee, that is, the second Hopkins Report. It ought to go on the record. It says: Our attention has been drawn to various statements which have obtained a certain publicity, indicating the degree to which contracting-out spinners have been able to buy their cotton more cheaply than contractors-in. We have made no detailed inquiry into the figures on which these statements were based and it is, in any event, too soon to attempt precise judgments. But we have the impression that if a thorough general examination of results over a complete trading period, conducted in the light of all the circumstances, were practicable, it might well appear in the net result that differences were only marginal. Therefore, the Raw Cotton Commission have not resulted in an increase of cost of cotton to the consumer, on the evidence of the Hopkins Committee.

The third assertion of this Motion was that the setting up of the Commission would deprive this country of a valuable source of foreign exchange. According to the hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield)—whom I see sitting opposite—when he spoke in the debate in July on colonial questions, and I take his authority for it—only 8 per cent. of our raw cotton came from the Empire pre-war, and last year the quantity had risen to 26 per cent. More Empire cotton consumed by our industry means less American cotton. The Raw Cotton Commission have, without question, by their long-term guarantees and assurances, been able to ensure that the cotton grown in the Empire came in large quantities to Lancashire. By these means the Raw Cotton Commission have been a great dollar saver. Apprehension is felt in many quarters that the impending change-over will add substantially to our dollar expenditure on raw cotton and be responsible in some degree in bringing forward another dollar crisis.

Events have proved that the doctrinaire pessimism of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House was wrong, that is, the doctrinaire pessimism expressed in the Motion of 28th March, 1946. What guarantee is there that the doctrinaire and dangerous optimism represented by the Bill will not prove equally wrong? The Raw Cotton Commission have done an excellent job under the incredible difficulties of dollar shortage, to which reference has been made, and of actual physical shortage of certain growths of cotton in the world. A well-known spinner and cotton manufacturer said to me only on Monday of this week, "The Raw Cotton Commission have never stopped a Lancashire spindle." I wonder whether we shall be able to say that about the Liverpool private market set-up in two or three years from now. I have very great doubts, and large sectors of the cotton industry have great apprehensions on this point.

Are the Government afraid of competition between private trading and the Raw Cotton Commission? The trade union representatives apparently were not afraid of competition. They agreed to the recommendations of the Hopkins Committee which meant private trading alongside trade through the Raw Cotton Commission. They felt quite sure that if that were allowed to develop the Raw Cotton Commission would justify themselves in competition with private trading. I have it on quite good authority that the stocks of the Raw Cotton Commission will be dissipated by the summer of 1954, that is, next summer. That will throw the market entirely on to spot cotton and on to cotton brought hastily from the United States under the two-months trading idea. A futures market without adequate stocks of cotton in support of the contracts is a mere gamble.

I should like to quote further to the House, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will take note of the quotation. I hope he has already seen it. He certainly ought to see it. It is from an article by Mr. Sydney S. Gampell, Reuter's Financial Editor, and it was published in the "Textile Mercury and Argus" for 13th November, 1953. He says: One current Liverpool argument for an all-American contract, the alleged superior stability of Americn cotton prices, very much remains to be tested. In the recent past, some outside growths have been less stable than American, because those outside growths were the more 'political,' liable to sudden disturbance by arbitrary or empirical actions by the Governments concerned. Even now, prices of American cotton may look more stable than those of other growths, but it could prove to be a very brittle stability. It is hard to believe that any values in the free world are more 'political' than those of U.S. cotton and other U.S. surpluses. Accordingly one may doubt whether there are price risks anywhere in the free world comparable to the risk of unloading of U.S. cotton and other surpluses. He goes on: In their latest repetition of the Secretary of Agriculture's denial of an export subsidy on cotton 'this season' … spokesmen of the U.S. Department of Agriculture candidly said that Congress could force the Secretary to change his mind; they admitted that with the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the U.S. Senate facing election contests in November, 1954, just a few months after next year's cotton harvest was completed, U.S. cotton policy could be decided in Congress and not by the Agriculture Department. If that is the form of an export subsidy which the Secretary and the Department oppose, there clearly is a very real prospect of unloading by some such device as the two-price system, which the Secretary and the Department favour. That is Mr. Sydney S. Gampell, Reuter's Financial Editor. I think that if that happens it will smash any futures market that is set up.

There has been a lot of talk today by hon. Members opposite about free enterprise and the law of supply and demand. Their case has been built mainly on that thesis, and I submit that it is illusory and dangerous in the world as it is today. The United States is looked upon as the citadel of free enterprise, but I think that its farm support policy may well prove to be the first crack in the wall of that citadel. If the farm support policy is allowed to remain, it will be interesting to see the political reactions in the United States, and, if it goes, it will not only be interesting to watch the political reactions, but also the economic reactions, which will be alarming indeed.

I do not wish to spend much time on the question of colonial interests and the importance of colonial cotton growing, but the Raw Cotton Commission have, without doubt, by their long-term guarantees and assurances, built up confidence among the Empire cotton growers. Private traders acting separately or collectively cannot possibly give these assurances and guarantees.

I fear that during the next few years we shall not see a continued expansion of Empire cotton growing. Indeed, if this Bill becomes law, I think that we shall actually see a decline. I need hardly remind the House of the economic dislocation that that would cause in many of our colonial countries.

In addition, what about the political reactions which would inevitably follow? The more dollars we spend, the nearer we are brought to another dollar crisis, and, when it comes, I fear that the Empire cotton will not be available to us for the simple reason that it will not have been grown.

There is another aspect of this problem to which I want to direct the attention of the House, and that is the question of re-establishing the Liverpool Cotton Market on anything like its pre-war setup. If that happens, it will inevitably result in a substantial expansion of manpower in the carrying out of the non-productive jobs in Liverpool. Do not let it be thought that I am disparaging what I refer to as non-productive jobs. Some of them are necessary, some not quite so necessary, and others not necessary at all. It will result in more manpower being used in these particular services.

I am one of those in the cotton textile trade union movement who has played—and I say this not immodestly—something of a leading part in attempting to increase productivity in the industry. I have spent a considerable time and earned some disfame by the activities in which I have engaged in that direction, because I profoundly believe that the future of this country is dependent upon a rising level of productivity.

I am profoundly disturbed to think that while we are saving manpower in the productive sections, either by producing the same volume of output with less labour, or producing more with the same labour, we are going to have non-productive and unnecessary jobs filled in Liverpool and elsewhere. If hon. Members opposite think, and employers as a class believe, that increase in productivity, or redeployment, is something for manual workers only, they had better think again, because the administrative workers and every section of society must make their contribution.

If this Bill goes through, the best that the Government can expect is that if the private raw cotton interests serve the industry much better than they did before the war they will do nearly as well as the Raw Cotton Commission have done since the war. But that is not a good enough ground for making the radical change proposed. I submit that a more realistic expectation is that we shall see chaos, unemployment and perhaps disaster come to many of the single-unit spinning mills.

There is great apprehension today concerning these changes in various sections of the cotton industry. That apprehension runs right through the employees section of the industry, and from the evidence which has been adduced it is clear that at least half the employers are apprehensive about these changes. The only people who stand to benefit from them are the private raw cotton interests and the big and the very big cotton spinning combines.

I know, from communications that have been sent to the President of the Board of Trade, that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the trade unions are 100 per cent. opposed to the winding-up of the Raw Cotton Commission, and, seeing that the employers are divided fifty-fifty on the matter, I believe that, in this case above all others, the trade unions are right.