I would like to make one or two comments before this Motion is put to the House. I want to draw the attention of the Lord President of the Council to the wording of the Motion which states—

"provided that if it is represented to Mr. Speaker by His Majesty's Government that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, and Mr. Speaker is satisfied "—

then the Speaker can call the House together. What I would like the Lord President of the Council to bear in mind for the next occasion is the question of giving Members of the House of Commons the same opportunity as the Government are being given now. If something arises in the country which attracts attention, and 40 or 50 Members send in their names to the Speaker to say that they think Parliament ought to be called together, I think the Speaker ought to be empowered to take cognisance of that application. I do not think it is altogether fair that the Government of the day should have the absolute power of calling Parliament together. Ordinary Members have some rights in this matter. Although I am not going to oppose this Motion to-day, I would ask the Lord President to put my view before the Prime Minister, and that it may be conveyed to him that Members of the House of Commons ought to have some voice in the work of the country during the Recess.

This is a point which has been raised before, but, after all, it is a responsibility of the Government's, and a responsibility which they cannot delegate. The Government would be more anxious than anyone to call the House together if there were a national need for it. While it sounds a very simple thing to do as the hon. Member suggests, I am convinced that in practice it would be very difficult. This matter has, of course, been considered over and over again by Governments. If there were a very powerful Opposition it would be quite easy for them to get the House called together merely to prevent the Members of the Government or the Members of the House having any holiday, and thus causing trouble for the Government; and, in any case, if it were open to any section of the House to approach Mr. Speaker with a view to calling the House together that, it seems to me—and I say this entirely on my own responsibility—would put the Speaker in a most invidious position. The responsibility for calling the House together ought not to be the Speaker's. He has sufficient responsibility in guiding our debates when we meet, and in practice, and for every reason I have been able to see, the Government of the day must accept the full responsibility for the time at which they should call the House together.

Is there not also one other very great danger, which might create great difficulties for private Members? If, say, 50 Members could be approached by some outside body—I will not mention any names—it would mean that pressure could be brought to bear on groups of private Members to send in a resolution of this kind, and it would be quite easy for influential outside bodies continually to exercise that kind of pressure on private Members which we sometimes have in postcard campaigns. From that point of view it would be very inadvisable that the responsibility which belongs to the Government should be taken from them and put on someone else's shoulders. I think that is a point which is worth considering, because some of us as private Members do know that very considerable pressure is put upon us, and to accept the hon. Member's suggestion would open the way to further abuses of that kind. Such pressure does not as a rule come directly from our own constituents, who, after all, are the authority who ought to deal with our views.

Just before that interruption I was remarking that the House of Commons is rightly regarded as a very human institution. I do not think that its humanity could be better illustrated than by the state of affairs in the House to-day, and by comparison with what transpired a day or two ago. The House of Commons was worked up into a fury the other day owing to the arrest of a young man of 19 years of age, and the Home Secretary was really put into a difficult position in the answers which he gave to the House of Commons. To-day we are dealing with something which is very much more important than the arrest of a young man, or, in fact, the death in prison of another, as I shall show, but the House of Commons takes very little interest in these things. When a colliery explosion or a railway accident occurs and so many are killed outright the country as a whole is moved, but the figures which I am going to quote of fatalities and accidents in industry do not produce any consternation, but they appeal me personally none the less. For illustration, there were 37 fatalities and 10,242 nonfatal accidents in the textile industry in 1932. I imagine that those figures must cover the Lancashire textile industry. Since the period covered by this report there has been introduced into the textile industry of Lancashire what is called the six-loom-per-weaver system, meaning, of course, that the person who usually looked after four looms is now called upon to work six. It is a process of speeding up and using up the human being to a greater extent than hitherto.

I must pay tribute to the medical side of the work of the Home Office in connection with factory administration and industrial diseases. All I want really is to see that the Home Office shall pay much more attention to the medical side of the work of the factory department. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to ask the Medical Research Department of the Home Office to cause inquiries to be made as soon as may be convenient as to the effect upon the health of the operatives consequent upon the introduction of the six-loom per weaver system? It seems to me that the system is bound to have a bad effect. I cannot ask the right hon. Gentleman, because it does not belong to his Department, whether six looms should have been introduced instead of four, but he is concerned, at any rate, as to the effect upon the welfare and the health of the operatives of the introduction of any new system of working.

When I come to non-textile factories the situation is worse. There were 373 fatal and 86,648 non-fatal accidents in the non-textile factories. Of these, 47 fatal and 10,057 non-fatal accidents occurred in conversion mills, including rolling mills and tube making. I see the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) in the House this morning, and it will be very interesting to learn from him, because he is very well acquainted with the employers' side in this case, and from the Home Secretary why this particular section of industry is so dangerous to life and limb. There is another factor in connection with these figures which I should like to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman. It is not sufficient for students of these statistics to know the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents, they ought to know the number of work-people covered by these accidents or the number of workpeople employed in this particular section of industry so that they may find out the actual proportion of the accident rate in one section of industry as against any other. The figures of 30 fatal accidents and 3,163 non-fatal accidents in the chemicals, paints, colours and varnish, and glue-making section of industry are really ominous.

I come now to what is more important than anything I have already said with regard to accident rates. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well the difficulties in connection with the administration of laws governing safety and welfare in docks and the erection of buildings. I am very distressed at the figures which I see in the report relating to docks and building operations. There were 68 persons killed and 4,940 injured in our docks during 1933, and 113 killed and 3,086 injured in building operations. Building operations have changed their character during the last few years. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has sufficient power to provide adequate safety regulations when these huge cranes are in operation in connection with building. Buildings, I suppose, are taller than ever they were in this country, and I should have imagined that the regulations covering them would have been brought up-to-date. I also call attention to an item in this report where it says that there was an increase of 14 cases of lead poisoning over the previous year. The increase of lead poisoning in this case arises from ship breaking. That rather surprises me. I should have thought that the Home Office factory department ought to have known beforehand that ship breaking was to be done in this country on a large scale. Incidentally it is characteristic that there is more ship breaking than ship building going on just now under the administration of this Government. But in any case there was an increase of 14 cases of lead poisoning over the previous year, and as stated I should have thought that some means could have been found to prevent those cases arising in ship breaking.

I am very proud of one thing to-day because I had a little to do with the next set of figures I am about to give. Hon. Members who were in the last Parliament and in the previous one will remember that we had a good deal of discussion in this Hounse when we tried to regulate by law the use of white lead in paint on buildings. Some of us used the argument that if white lead was prohibited in painting palaces and Government buildings, and the Houses of Parliament, white lead should not be used in painting other buildings either. We passed a piece of legislation as a result, and it is indeed very gratifying to know that there is a decrease in the number of cases of lead poisoning in painting from 64 cases in 1931 to 43 cases in 1932. That is an excellent compliment, and when hon. Members, as I have heard them in one Parliament after another, say that the law is of no avail, this is a case, at any rate, where the passing of the Lead Paint Act some years ago has saved not only human life but, I am sure, an enormous amount of personal suffering as well. The Chief Inspector makes an excellent comment in this connection, and I will read it. He says:

"New problems are successively disclosed, and as one industrial disease is conquered, or at least disarmed, another arises to he fought. The old prevelant scourges of lead poisoning, phosperous necrosis, and anthrax have been largely overcome, only to be replaced by other diseases, such as occupational epithelioma and silicosis, the existence of which was only dimly appreciated until recent times."

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is not commonly known among the people of this country that the Home Office runs a disinfecting station in Liverpool with a view to preventing the spread of anthrax. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether that station is kept right up-to-date, or has the economy campaign of the Government to try and save on every bit of administration had any adverse effect upon the operation of this station Having asked that question I will turn to what I regard as being the most pathetic ease of all among the working people of this country—industrial cancer. The House will probably be interested in these figures because they are very distressing. There were 131 cases with 44 deaths reported during the year from ulceration of the skin within the ambit of industrial cancer; 33 cases with one death from pitch; 37 cases with 18 deaths from tar; one from paraffin; and 60 cases with 35 deaths from oil. Of these 60 cases from oil, 57 occurred among cotton mule spinners. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if any progress at all is being made in connection with the prevention of industrial cancer. As we all know, it is not the contraction of the disease, it is not death, in fact, that matters so much in these cases; it is the terrible and intense human suffering that goes with this form of cancer. There was a case in Swansea, I understand, of industrial cancer, that is to say cancer of the in- terior of the nose, and I was rather astonished to learn that there have been 10 fatal cases in one nickel works in Swansea from this form of the disease. As 1 said, I always pay a great tribute to those members of the medical profession who are taking interest in industrial disease, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything more as to any progress that may have been made to find out why this cancer afflicts so many workpeople in the nickel industry Then, I understand, there is a great deal of suffering going on from cancer among workers in the dye industry of Huddersfield.

I must here mention silicosis and asbestosis. Full particulars, we are told, are available of 42 deaths from asbestosis or asbestosis with tuberculosis, and 281 deaths from silicosis or silicosis with tuberculosis. That gives, in one year, 323 deaths from this group of diseases alone. Putting it in that way, really I think the House will be impressed with what is happening in connection with silicosis. I do not want to proceed very much further except to say that with the introduction of new scientific processes in industry, the speeding-up of workpeople to meet foreign competition, and the rapidity with which rationalisation is now brought about on all hands, it behoves the Home Office to be more alert than ever. I am convinced that, unless our factory inspectors are alert and greater care is taken by the medical profession employed by the Home Office, this terrible speeding-up process is bound in the end to affect adversely the health of our people. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that some diseases which are contracted from noise and vibration have, so I am told, been 'scheduled in Germany under, I believe, the Hitler regime, as diseases for the purposes of workmen's compensation, and I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the effects that must come from the use of hand-drills with their terrible vibration upon the human body? As I have said, there is a great deal more to be said in connection with this Report, but I see nothing in the Report that will enlighten us about miners' nystagmus. I think we ought to be told something on that score, because, as far as I remember, there are more cases of workmen's compensation in connection with miners' nystagmus than from any other single disease.

I must say a word on a new problem which is confronting the factory inspectors. Premium bonus systems of paying wages have recently been installed on what is called the Bedeaux system. The right hon. Gentleman in his Department has, of course, nothing to do with the introduction of any such system. But this system of paying wages is devised deliberately in order to speed-up the workman, and get as much out of him as possible.

Payment by results.

Yes, the premium bonus system of paying wages by results. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to find out for our next Report, or the Report following, from the medical board of his Department what are the effects upon the physique of the workpeople through the introduction of this speeding-up system?

I cannot sit down without saying a word or two about the two-shift system. I notice that there was an increase in the number of orders granted from 227 in 1931 to 293 in 1932. I have always held that it is an anomalous situation that with all the ecomonic depression there is supposed to be upon us, the Home Office grants orders to exploit women and young persons on night work. I should imagine that it would be better for the community as a whole if they were all employed during the day. I want, therefore, to make a protest against the increase in the number of these two-shift orders. All is not well in spite of what I have said about the employment of persons in factories and workshops. I will read one paragraph in the Report. The Chief Inspector says:

"Cases are quoted in which young girls and boys as well as women have been employed for periods of 13 hours and more. In one case, a boy of 17 was employed from 4 a.m. to 11 p.m., and later in the same week from 2 a.m. till 8 p.m. A boy of 16 was employed in a bakehouse from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. the following day. A boy of 14 was employed in a cabinet works from 8 a.m. to 2 a.m. the following day."

We are told in the Factory Inspector's Report that those are cases which have come to light. If those few cases have come to light, I am sure that there must be a very much larger number which have been kept in the dark. My complaint on that score is this: I know that the inspectors do their work when they find these cases, but I want to make a protest against the attitude of the magisterial bench in connection with cases of this kind. The fines that are imposed are too paltry for words. If the law against property were violated as the law against human beings is in this connection, the magisterial bench would be very much more severe in their fines and imprisonments, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to request the magistrates to take a very much more serious view of the infringement of our factory legislation than is being done at present.

With regard to workmen's compensation, I have always held that there is something wrong in the way the finance of workmen's compensation is handled in this country. In 1930, the last year for which figures are available, the total premium income of the insurance companies was £5,500,000. The whole of that money, minus administration expenses, was surely intended to go back to the pockets of the workmen, but, out of the £5,500,000, only £3,250,000 came back to their pockets. The £3,250,000, by the way, covers the cost of legal and medical expenses as well. I guarantee that for every pound paid by employers to cover workmen's compensation, less than 10s. comes back to the pocket of the injured workman. If I have my way when we are in government, one of the first things that I shall want to see done is to take the exploitation of injured workpeople out of the hands of insurance companies. It ought to have been done long ago.

There are some paragraphs in the Report which tells us about the foreigner coming here to establish factories. One would conclude from some of these paragraphs that the economic depression has now completely passed away because the foreigner is coming here to employ our people and to show us how to manufacture clocks, ribbons, toys and the rest of it. If I have any objection to this Report it is that I do not want the factory inspectorate to pay tribute to the Government in power for the time being in connection with its policy. The right hon. Gentleman had better look at some of these figures. We are told that about 9,000 workpeople are employed by foreigners who have come here to open new factories. According to one of the replies I received from the Board of Trade recently one would have imagined that the number was 90,000.

Perhaps they mean 9,000 factories.

I quote from memory but the figures given are 217 factories and about 9,000 workpeople. According to the propaganda from the Government Front Bench opposite the figures would appear to be about 10 times that number. Can the right hon. Gentleman say if we are going to have a new Factory Bill? If nothing that I can say can appeal to him on that score I will quote from a very much higher authority. I think he reads the "Times" occasionally. The "Times" is typically Conservative, and I will quote it by way of an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to bring in a Bill as soon as possible to consolidate all our factory legislation and bring it up to date. This is what the "Times" said in a leading article on the 20th July:

"Thirty-two years have elapsed since the last consolidation Act was passed. Since then supplementary Acts and a multitude of Orders and statutory regulations have, not altogether satisfactorily, brought requirements up to date. The passing of such an Act would be a heavy Parliamentary task, and the longer it is delayed the more toilsome it must be. Little public honour will accrue to the Minister or the Government undertaking it, but it will be a work of solid merit and enduring benefit."

In conclusion, I say "Amen" to the "Times."

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) is to be congratulated on calling the attention of the House once more to the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories. He did it last year in a, very interesting speech and he has done it today in a speech which covers a very wide field. He put one or two distinct questions to me, with which I will deal. I should like to join with him in congratulating the inspectorate of the Home Office on the excellent work they are doing. The Report that we have had the pleasure of reading during the last few days is a further tribute to that excellent work. The Report is particularly interesting in view of the fact that we have reached the centenary of factory inspection and I only wish that hon. Members in all parts of the House would give close attention to this very important Report.

The hon. Member asked me a question with regard to what appears to be the heavy death-rate from accidents in the iron and steel trade. However much we may deplore the fact that there were 47 fatal accidents in the iron and steel trade last year, it is satisfactory to find how few of those accidents were due to deficient machinery. If hon. Members will turn to the first column on page 120 of the Report they will find that out of the 47 fatal accidents only one was due to prime movers in the iron and steel trade. We deplore very much that a large percentage of these fatal accidents is due to physical defects or physical causes rather than machinery causes. There is nothing which is causing so much concern to employers generally in the country as the absolute bravado of workpeople in industry. One might call it false courage, this fearlessness which workpeople always seem to show under dangerous and hazardous conditions of work. In my own experience I have suggested that the workpeople should co-operate with us in reducing the accident percentage, which we all deplore, and I have put it frankly to them that while their attitude savours of carelessness it is really due to false courage. I suggest that the trade union leaders might co-operate with the employers in trying to instil into work-people how important it is that they should take greater care 'and less risk in the works.

When I visited American iron and steel works I found that the American employers were adopting remarkable methods of impressing this necessity on the workpeople. At one very large steel works I saw a huge poster on the wall, depicting a cripple on crutches, with the words: "The cripple has a hell of a time of it." That was the method adopted by one American works. I appeal to the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who has taken such a great interest in this question of accident prevention, that he and his colleagues should try to impress upon the workpeople generally the absolute need for greater co-operation with the employers with a view to reducing the accident rate. Employers are inspired by a human desire to reduce the accident rate. Merely from the selfish economic point of view we are all desirous of reducing the accident rate. In the last few years I have noticed that by the institution of "Safety First" committees and the development of welfare work generally in industry it has been possible to reduce the premiums on accident insurance by very considerable sums. I know of instances where the rate has been reduced from 30s. to 12s. as the result of successful efforts to reduce the accident rate. Apart from the human desire there is the economic, the selfish, desire on the part of employers to reduce the accident rate in industry generally.

The hon. Member also referred to the safety and welfare work, and I am glad to know that the chief inspector in his report specially refers to the growth of the number of safety organisations throughout the country. In 1931, out of 1,073 establishment in the heavy industries, there were only 132 without any kind of safety organisation, while in 1932, when the number of establishments had increased to 1,124, there were only 134 without some form of safety organisation. That, obviously, is an improvement, but I put it to the Home Secretary that if there are still 134 establishments without any kind of safety organisation further pressure ought to be exercised by the Home Office and its inspectorate to see that the number is considerably reduced. There is no excuse why any factory, small or large, should not develop within its walls some form of organisation to ensure greater safety amongst the. workpeople.

I must pay this tribute to employers and workmen throughout the country, that there are large numbers of organisations representing employers and, employed who are not satisfied with the minimum standards of the Home Office. There is a growing number of employers who, through their individual efforts or organisations, are trying to provide amenities for their workpeople in excess of the statutory requirements. Hon. Members will know of that remarkable organisation, the Industrial Welfare Society, an association of employers and trade unions which meets regularly in London, which has a membership of nearly 1,000 large firms and is doing magnificent work in the development of safety first and welfare work in industry. All this is done on a voluntary basis. Last year the hon. Member for Westhoughton was anxious that there should be a compulsory organisation for safety and welfare work in factories, but I am glad that the Home Office has taken the view of the Balfour Committee that this type of work can best be done on the lines of a voluntary organisation. We toke the view that there is something more in safety and welfare work than the provision of canteens and playing fields. However important these may be we believe that good relationship between employers and employed depends on the willingness on the part of both to take a wider view of their mutual obligations. I should like to pay my tribute also to the factory department of the Home Office for the excellent work it has accomplished, for the great interest it takes in the voluntary movements for welfare and safety in industry generally and for the advice which it is ready and anxious to give to those engaged in industry.

I want to say to the Home Secretary that I sympathise with him in having to come here this afternoon on the last day of the Session to listen to what we have to say on these subjects. He has had a very strenuous week and to be the only Minister called to attend here to-day is rather hard, but I think he will agree that the subjects we are bringing forward are well worthy of consideration and the fact that so many of us are stopping here on the last. day in order to put. our point of view shows that there is some feeling in the country on these matters. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Mr. Lewis Jones) expressed his sympathy with the employers and his gratitude for what they have done—.

I was referring to the sympathy of the intelligent section of the employers in the iron and steel trade.

I thought he was speaking in a more general way, because I shall have some hard words to say about some employers before I conclude. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has made a somewhat lengthy speech but I will excuse him on this occasion as I think he is entitled to be congratulated on the way he has put his case. The Home Office controls the appointment of the medical referees and, therefore, are responsible for what they do. Under the Workmens' Compensation Act power is given to the Home Secretary to appoint the medical referee and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. Recently an alteration was made, but even now some of the points are not fully met. I will hand him a document to show what I mean, but I am mentioning this matter now in order that the right hon. Gentlemen may realise the point to which I am calling attention. At the present moment only one medical referee is appointed, and this gives rise to great concern amongst the workpeople because in many cases in which he gives a decision, it may be upon a point of law, it works hard on the workmen. I ask the Home Secretary, therefore, to consider the appointment of three medical referees instead of one. In some cases it is a case of life and death to the workman when the decision is against him, and I can bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman flagrant cases of a miscarriage of justice, done unwittingly by the medical referee, which prevented men getting compensation, because unless a change in the condition of the workman can be proved it is impossible to get the medical decision upset. If we say that the decision of the medical referee is not fair we have to satisfy the judge that there has been a, change in the condition of the man, and, therefore, if the medical referee has made a mistake the man cannot get any redress. The referee's decision is final; and as this means so much to workmen I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether in certain cases he will appoint more than one medical referee to pass judgment.

Another point is in regard to the scheduling of industrial diseases. The Home Secretary has power to add to the schedule any disease which he is satisfied is prevalent, and from time to time he has exercised that power. The disease of nystagmus has received his attention, but in the case of silicosis, you have to prove that the man has been in contact with the rock and I hope he will realise that he had not gone far enough in this matter yet. It has been proved recently that owing to our mines getting deeper and deeper, and consequently hotter, many of the men are subject to boils and other outbreaks on the body. I have petitioned the Home Secretary on this matter and he has promised to see if there is anything in it. In my view this is a serious matter, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to press on with his investigations because I am sure he will come to the conclusion to schedule it as an industrial disease and do something for the men who are suffering from it. I have here a reply to a question that was put in the House by the,ion. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower), who is always trying to get better conditions provided for pit ponies. This is the reply of the Secretary for Mines to a question asking that better ventilation be provided for the ponies.

"The law does not prescribe any particular method, but requires that the stables shall be continuously and thoroughly ventilated with intake air. From the many inspections made I am satisfied that this requirement is sufficient and that it is complied with."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 7th July, 1933; col. 642, Vol. 280.]

We want the ponies to have fresh air, but the man who works in the mine cannot always get fresh air. He has to work hi the return airways and in vitiated atmosphere, and in consequence of that and the heat he suffers from the many impurities of the bad air. The question of boils in such cases ought to be considered.

A second point to which I would refer relates to the payment of workmen's compensation. For two years I have been hammering at Home Secretaries—the previous one and the present one—and I know that I have had the sympathy of both of them. I want to refer to the case of firms that have gone into liquidation and have not been able to meet their liabilities. Here are one or two concrete cases to bear on the point. Worsley Mesnes Collieries closed down in 1928. The concern went into the hands of the liquidator. At the moment they had assets equal to £10,000. The workmen's claims were £7,000. Owing to the length of time spent by the Official Receiver and the liquidators so much of the assets were eaten up that when the first payment was made to the workmen it was equal to only 5s. in the R. That was after four or five years. The workmen will be lucky if in the end they get more than 6s. in the £. I have a worse case than that. Ashtons Green Colliery closed down in October, 1931, with total liabilities and preferential claims of £45,697. The workmen's compensation claims were equal to £38,760. Had the colliery assets been realised immediately I calculate that between 6s. and 7s. in the £ would have gone to the workmen, but now that a settlement has been reached they will receive only 2s. 6d. to 3s. in the £. It is unfair that such things should be allowed.

Last Friday the Leader of the Opposition, in speaking on the subject of the debt to America, said it would be far better if the House of Commons would pay more attention to the care of the workmen of this country. Here is a matter to which the Home Office should direct attention. I want the Home Secretary to take such steps as it is in his power to take and see that this kind of thing is altered. He has told us that he is doing all that he can in the matter, but progress is not being made as it ought to be made. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that many of the colliery companies are meeting his point of view, but in Lancashire, where trouble has arisen, progress is not being made as it should be made. I have here a report from the "Manchester Guardian" of a meeting of the Manchester Collieries, Ltd., on June 24th. The chairman of that company said this:

"The main reserve for workmen's compensation liability is at the same figure as in previous years, and is the reserve created at the time of the amalgamation. As I said last year, cases have arisen when unfortunately colliery companies have gone into liquidation and there have not been sufficient assets to pay the workmen's compensation cases in full, although they are preferential creditors. Schemes for insurance against this happening have been proposed, but so far in Lancashire nothing has been suggested to which I should recommend our company to agree. If we do nothing collectively no doubt the Government will step in and tell us what we have to do. I agree, and I hope you would, that it is not right that men who are entitled to compensation should lose it through liquidation, and that provision against such a thing happening should be made."

It will be seen from that report that the company is putting money aside to meet the liability, though they cannot agree to any scheme, and the chairman says that he thinks the Home Secretary or the Government will do something. I believe that if the Home Secretary will show determination and will point out to these people that it is no idle threat he is making, and that he is determined to see that workmen get a fair measure of justice, the Lancashire employers will make some progress on these lines. But, it seems too much to ask the present Government to do. With their views on private enterprise they would be taking a rather long view if they did what I would have them do. But I think the Home Secretary is sympathetic. He ought to say "I have done all that I can, but if the employers will not establish some fund to protect the workmen I have the right to ask the House of Commons for a system of compulsory insurance." If that were done there is not a Member of the House who would not say that it is Parliament's duty to see that workmen are not thrown on the. scrapheap owing to the laxity of employers.

The hon. Member who spoke last spoke of the sympathy of employers with workmen. That statement does not square with what I have read. Both the companies that I have mentioned, and other companies, have done extremely well in the past. They have grabbed all they could, and never stopped to think that the accumulation to their wealth has been due to the workmen and to those who have suffered injury.

I have every sympathy with the hon. Member on that point, but is it not the case that the blunder that has been made in connection with many of these cases is the fact that the companies have had some form of mutual insurance, and that one of the rules says that immediately one member goes into liquidation it loses any claim on the fund of that mutual insurance? It is not the fact that they have not insured in many of these cases.

In these cases they have never insured for non-fatal accidents. They have said "Our own assets will meet the liability." £20,000 or £30,000 should have been set aside as a, reserve fund, so that whatever happened the workmen would be protected.

It should be compulsory.

These are glaring cases and there is not a Member of the House who will not agree that something should be done in the matter. I make a final appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to impress upon these employers who are not fulfilling their obligations in this matter that, unless by the time this House assembles again they have devised a scheme with which the Home Secretary can agree, he will introduce compulsory legislation to deal with the situation. I believe that if the right lion. Gentleman does that we shall get what we desire.

The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) will forgive me if I do not follow him in a discussion of the hardships caused to large numbers of miners owing to employing concerns going into liquidation and failing to meet their liabilities to the men. In hundreds of cases in South Wales where the so-called economic blizzard has struck us with peculiar severity, miners have been rendered destitute as a result of companies going into liquidation and failing to meet their obligations to injured workers. I wish to emphasise the urgency of the need for making insurance with outside companies compulsory and securing these men against destitution which always follows in those cases when employing firms fail to discharge their obligations. These obligations in my opinion ought to be contractual and binding under the law.

What I wish particularly to bring to the notice of the Home Secretary to-day however is the anomalous situation which exists with regard to silicosis. Not for the first time I make an appeal for the revision of the Order dealing with this matter. That has been done on many occasions already by the miners' representatives in the House, but I find rather to my consternation that while there is a reference in this report of the chief inspector to silicosis in the pottery trade, the sandstone trade, the metal-grinding trade, sand-blasting, the manufacture of scouring powders, and so forth, there is no reference to the group of diseases including silicosis and anthracosis which affect miners. Possibly the Home Secretary's answer will be that that is a matter to be dealt with by the Ministry of Mines. The anomalous position is this. In discussing the Vote for the Department of Mines we are not allowed to refer to silicosis on the ground that Orders dealing with silicosis are under the jurisdiction of the Home Office. But when we seek to raise the matter on the Home Office Vote we are told that miners' silicosis and anthracosis do not come within the jurisdiction of the inspectorial staff of the Home Office. I am not this afternoon going to argue the case for a new Order to deal with silicosis. I would prefer to put forward the plea that those diseases from which colliery workers suffer and of which fibrosis of the lung is a symptom, might be dealt with as a special category and a separate Order issued to cover them.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of those who suffer from silicosis and anthracosis, in one stage or another, do not get any compensation to-day. The number who get compensation is indeed a very small fraction of the total who suffer from those diseases. I know nothing more tragic than the appearance of those men who suffer from silicosis. They present a heart-rending spectacle. Therefore I would make an appeal that silicosis or anthracosis or any diseases affecting the lungs as those diseases do ought to be separated from other industrial diseases. In the report these diseases as affecting miners are not dealt with at all by the chief inspector, and if we accept that situation, is it not possible to have the group of bronchial diseases which particularly affect miners placed in a separate category and dealt with by the Mines Department under a new Order. Perhaps in that way we shall receive the measure of justice for which we have been clamouring for a long time on behalf of the miners and especially the anthracite miners who are such tragic victims of neglect and callousness at present.

I do not propose to delay for many minutes the departure of the Home Secretary for the Scottish moors where I hope he will have success. I am not sure indeed that the matter which I desire to raise is one which, strictly speaking, comes within the scope of his Department. I refer to the effect of petrol fumes from motor cars. It is a question which has concerned me for some time past on account of what I have read in the Press about it and also what has been told to me by people who are more familiar than I am with the mechanical side of motoring. I noticed in the Press recently references to cases in which dogs and cats had been found dead as a result of petrol fumes from motor cars, and some time ago I put a question regarding the effect of these fumes on pedestrians.

I am informed by people closely associated with the driving of motor vans that the escape of petrol fumes in a closed van is very injurious to the health of the occupants of the van. Where boys are compelled to be in these closed vans for long periods the effect on their health must be very bad. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if the research section of his Department has made any inquiry into this question of the effect of escaping petrol fumes on those engaged in the driving of motor vehicles'? We would like to know whether the medical section, to which I also would like to pay a tribute to-day, have turned their attention to this matter which I believe to be of great importance. As I said at the beginning, I do not know whether the question of the general effects of these fumes on pedestrians is a matter for the Home Office, but, at any rate, in connection with the issue of motor licences, the question of the construction of these vehicles and the possibility of escaping petrol fumes should be one for consideration by the Department. In view of Press reports of the effect on dogs and other animals I cannot help feeling that the effect on human beings must be very deleterious. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make some inquiry, and if possible to issue a report which would give the public some information on this very important matter, and also indicate what steps, if any, are being taken to deal with it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has already drawn attention to a subject which I also intended to mention, namely, the increase in the number of accidents in the building industry. Having been associated with that industry I have been much impressed by the figures in that respect. I attribute the increase entirely to the new methods which are being employed in the industry. Great cranes are being used in the construction of huge buildings and there is a marked increase in the employment of mechanical appliances of all kinds. I think there is a need for stricter supervision and inspection in that industry. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman particularly to make some inquiries as to the effect of petrol fumes on human beings.

So much has been said by previous speakers on the subjects on which I intended to speak that I shall not detain the House very long, but I want to emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans), particularly with regard to silicosis and anthracosis. There has been so much overlapping between the Mines Department and the Home Office in this regard that one wonders whether one is in order in addressing questions to the Home Office upon this subject, but the Home Office issues the Orders pertaining to silicosis. cannot conceive of anything more preposterous than the fact that geology of itself decides whether or not a man is entitled to compensation. A medical board certificate is signed that a man is suffering from silicosis, one of the most terrible industrial diseases from which a man can suffer, and yet, because it cannot be proved, by obtaining a piece of rock containing a certain amount of silica, that he has been working there, and for a given period, he is not entitled to compensation. Scores of men have died from the disease in South Wales, and their dependents have not had a farthing of compensation, and there are scores of men in South Wales to-day who are veritably dying upon their feet, but not receiving compensation, after having worked years and years in hard ground. The Minister will know what I mean by that—men who have worked boring machines driving through hard ground, making what is called main level headings and drifts, but because that rock does not contain a certain amount of silica, though medical boards have decided that they are suffering from this disease, they receive nothing for it. Really, the Order ought to be amended, as it is very inadequate in this regard.

We have another industrial disease concerning the men who are living mainly round about the constituency of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, namely, anthracosis, a disease that pertains almost entirely to the anthracite coalfield. I believe it is not yet even scheduled. They are working in hard coal, as hard as rock, and inhaling that coal, and it is almost impossible for such a man after a number of years to breathe at all. It hardens in the lungs and produces anthracosis, and yet he cannot obtain any compensation. Certain negotiations have taken place between the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor and the Miners' Federation in this regard, and I sincerely trust that something will arise from those negotiations.

There is another anomaly. We have men working in the mining industry who contract the disease known as miners' nystagmus, but before those men can be certified by a medical man, they have to pay 5s. for their certificate. I think it is preposterous that a man who is suffering from this disease has to pay, out of his own pocket, 5s. plus the expenses that have to be incurred in going to see a medical man, who may be some miles away from the village or town, before he can obtain his certificate. That may seem a small matter, but it is certainly felt as a, grievance on the part of the men, and it ought to be remedied. Then we have the problem of review, that concerns young men of 21 years of age. In accordance with the present Act, unless a person applies for a review before he is 21 years and six months old, he finds that his right to that review is for ever lost. Under the 1926 Act there was a Section enabling a person to apply for a review, after he had sustained an accident under 21 years of age, within a period of 12 months, but to-day it is practically impossible to secure a finding from a county court judge owing to the fact that such a young man, who may have been obtaining nearly the earnings of an adult collier, cannot apply for a review in sufficient time. That is an anomaly which could, I think, be put right without any new Act of Parliament at all.

Further, there is the problem of deciding the principle on which average earnings have to be based. To-day the amount of time that is lost in collieries or in industry generally is looked upon as being an incident of employment, and the calculation of the amount of compensation to which a man is entitled is not based upon actual time worked, because part-time is looked upon as an incident of employment. We have many scores of men in South Wales, and in the mining industry generally there must be many thousands who are not getting more than from 15s. to £1 a week because of that principle of calculating his average earnings. I think that could be rectified without an Act of Parliament, and I am raising it now, because I believe it to be a matter of administration. There are other features that would call for legislation, and I am not entitled to speak of them at this juncture. There is the problem of the onus of proof, which at all times falls on the workman instead of on the employer. That is really unjust. If a workman to-day cannot prove that he is unable to work, he is not paid any compensation, but is treated as an odd lot on the market, and it is contended that if he had not been so injured, he would be in the same category as an able-bodied man. Employers should be obliged to prove that such a workman is able to work; the onus of proof ought to be on the employer instead of on the workman.

Finally, I want to stress other points that have been mentioned. During the last five or six years some hundreds of cases have passed through my hands of workmen who have sustained grievous wrong because of colliery companies going into liquidation. I could refer to the company that goes under the name of the Lord President of the Council—Baldwin's—although I do not think he has any financial connection with it now. That has been under my purview for 12 or 14 years, and a large number of individual undertakings have closed since 1926. Hundreds of men were involved in compensation matters, and some were not paid more than from 3s. to 5s. in the £. There is a case for compulsory insurance. I do not know what is actually being done in South Wales in that regard, though I believe it is slightly better there than the Lancashire position. If the right hon. Gentleman will inform me what is going on, I shall be very grateful, but there is unquestionably a case for compulsory insurance. During the Debate on Mines Vote I stressed a case that personally concerned me where, instead of a person who has been incapacitated for several years receiving a lump sum on account of commuted weekly payments, he received not quite 25 per cent. These men will not be able to return to industry, for employers at this juncture, with so many able-bodied men available, will not be prepared to take persons who have been incapacitated while in the employ- ment of other people. This is a very grievous problem, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do what he can to rectify it, for it can be done by administrative action. If, however, he finds that it cannot be done by administrative action, I hope that he will realise the injustice and unfairness to the workmen, and will bring in some measure as soon as possible to rectify these wrongs.

I am sure that the House will agree that the discussion which we have had this morning is one of very material interest both to the Members of the House and to the country. I am glad indeed to be responsible for presenting to Parliament the 100th report of the Factories Department. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who is familiar with the work which is done in the Home Office, knows the circumstances in which this work is carried on, and he truly said that, apart from such legislative requirements as this House passes, the personal factor bulks very largely in the matter. I am sure that both employers of labour and trade unions benefit greatly from the help which the officials of the Department give, and that there is an increasing evidence of cooperation and co-ordination in the work which they are doing. The report shows clearly that the work is being maintained at a high standard and I am sure that the present inspectorate does not fall short of that which has gone before.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the problem of the accident cases which appear in the Report. The fluctuations in the figures are, of course, due to a great variety of causes besides increase or decrease in safety precautions, and the inferences to be drawn from a mere comparison for successive years are largely a matter of speculation. Moreover, I think it would be difficult to obtain satisfactory data to form the basis for very reliable conclusions as to whether particular industries are becoming less dangerous. I can assure the hon. Member that we are considering this problem, and if by making certain alterations we can give further information, we shall be glad to do so. I was asked about the question of the staff. The filling of vacancies is at present under consideration, and I understand that a new competition for this purpose will probably be held very shortly. The hon. Member also asked me about the post of the senior engineering inspector. That is temporarily unfilled, but it is a matter which we have dealt with by other means. We are very closely watching it, and the efficiency of the method of dealing with it will be the guiding factor.

With regard to the points raised about accident rates, the circumstances making a reduction in the infantile mortality rate possible are obviously different from those affecting industrial accident rates. In any case, the Report does not indicate that such rates are only decreasing in the proportion to the decline in industry. On the contrary, I think it will be found, as stated on page 93 of the Report that the growth of the Safety First movement is having its effect in reducing accidents. The more we can encourage all those concerned to take advantage of that movement, the more likely we are to get an effective dealing with this problem. There is a reference to the slight increase in accidents due to transmission machinery, but I think that slight fluctuations in these matters do not mean that there is a very serious change. In fact, in the past they have been considerably higher. The accident figures in the metal conversion and chemical industry and in the docks and the building industry have been referred to. I understand that the Home Office have ample powers to make safety regulations. New building regulations were made less than two years ago, and a new code for docks has been issued in draft, so that I can assure the House that we are not losing sight of that problem.

Reference was made to the question of the change over to the six-loom per weaver system. All I can say of that is that it is being very carefully watched. The most careful records are kept of all accidents in cotton-weaving, and there is a joint committee of employers, operatives and the factory department. Any increase in accidents in these circumstances ought to come to light at an early stage.

Will the commitee also take into mind any ill effects on the operatives apart from accident rates?

Yes, I should imagine that if anything of that kind is noticed it will be reported. A reference was made to the problem of lead poisoning, particularly in regard to ship-breaking. If the hon. Gentleman will look at page 103 of this Report he will see that the prevention of lead poisoning in this industry presents very great difficulties, particularly as removal of the fumes by exhaust ventilation has not been found a practical possibility. One of the problems, as I understand it, is to devise a respirator which will really obviate that danger, but I can assure the hon. Member that research is going on intensively into this problem in connection with ship-breaking and other industrial processes. There is undoubtedly an improvement in the paint industry which will be greatly welcomed.

I turn to the problem of anthrax. I was asked whether the economy measures had necessarily entailed a reduction in the useful work being done by the anthrax disinfectant station. I can assure the House that that station has been kept in operation, and in fact that there is a scheme for extending the materials to be disinfected, and we hope also to lighten the cost to industry. That scheme has just been submitted to the employers. Some reference was made to the problem of skin diseases and skin cancer. The causes of and methods of preventing cancer present most difficult problems into which a vast amount of research has been made and is being made; but pending further discoveries one of the most important methods of preventing skin cancer is early detection and treatment of the growth. I hope that what has been said here may draw attention of both employers and operatives to that fact. Too often some of these evils are treated lightly in their early stages by the individuals affected, but I hope they will realise the necessity of reporting symptoms earlier. The Factory Department has done a good deal to promote education on this subject, but I particularly mention this point in the hope that note may be taken of it.

As regards cancer of the nose, reported as having occurred during the past eleven years at nickel refinery works, the steps taken to discover whether the disease was caused by this occupation are indicated on page 103 of the Report. I think it can be said that the examination of workers is being continued, but that no further cases have been reported. As regards cancer of the bladder among dye workers, while inquiries are being continued by the Factory Department and others the connection between the disease and the occupation has not actually been established. This is one of the most difficult sections of the research work. Mention was made of silicosis among sandblast workers. On page 106 of the Report it will be seen that an increasing number of firms have adopted a non-siliceous abrasive, and the Factory Department are urging on employers the desirability of this or other precautions.

Then there is the problem of noises and vibration, of which all of us know something in one form or another—even as regards the speeches to which we are forced to listen. On that I would say only that investigations are being made by the Industrial Health Research Board, and of course it is the duty of factory inspectors to draw attention to cases when they go round. But while some machines are noisy I think it, is hardly true to say that all modern machines are noisy; indeed, in many cases they are increasingly silent. Of course, investigations into the effect of speeding up work and things of that nature are really matters for the Health Research Board rather than for the Factory Department. Mention was made also of nystagmus. I am afraid I can only answer that that is a problem for the Mines Department, and its prevention and the question of compensation for it are outside the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories. If anything can be done by co-operation and co-ordination between the Home Office and the other Departments, naturally we will willingly play our part in that.

May I suggest that the diseases which are outside the scope of the Home Office inspectorate should be investigated by the Industrial Health Research Board? The difficulty with regard to silicosis and anthracosis is that they cannot be diagnosed except post mortem. The victim must be dead before we know from what he died. There has been a good deal of research into this matter and methods of detecting fibrosis in its early stages tried out. What is required now is to collect and collate the evidence. The Welsh National Memorial has undertaken a considerable amount of research into these and other industrial diseases which are at present on the dividing line between the two Ministries. Silicosis and nystagmus ought to be referred to the Industrial Health Research Board.

I will take that point into consideration with the other Departments, and if anything can be done it shall be done. A question was raised about the long hours of employment. All I would say about that is that some cases are mentioned in this report, but in every one of them legal proceedings followed, and while it may be the opinion of certain Members that the penalties imposed may not appear, on the face of things, to have been of great severity I think it is true, in fact and in practice, that to bring these cases into court has a very material effect and will draw attention to the law.

Something was said about foreign factories started in this country. I am clearly of opinion that it is quite desirable to see the introduction of any new enterprise which could only be started in this country by foreign industrialists if it would eventually employ our own people, and I do not think it could have been in the minds of those who wrote this report that they were buttressing up any political views which I might have as Home Secretary. It is our duty to put before the House and the country what actually is taking place. I was asked about the possibility of future legislation. Anybody who has read, as I read with intense interest, the report covering 100 years of work, could not fail to be conscious of the fact that during that time great changes have taken place. On the other hand I think it is equally clear, as the hon. Gentleman himself said in his opening speech that in many of these problems the real practical solution depends less upon legislation than upon the human factor.

Many of things we have been discussing this morning with interest and with advantage must depend upon scientific research. Scientific research is being pursued actively to-day and will be continued actively in future. It may be the time will arrive when future legislation may be required and ought to be embarked upon. What I am saying to the House at the moment is that while I am not in a position to forecast what may happen in the future, I do not see it in the immediate future owing to the other work which has to be done in this House. I assure the House, however, that I should not be deterred if I thought it was proper to bring in such legislation. So far as I am concerned, I cannot hold out any hope of immediate legislation. I will take note of the great variety of points raised by hon. Members. Having been in this office for a comparatively short time, as the House will realise, I wish to make myself conversant with the problems, and I shall do so and will confer with the hon. Members concerned.

I want as briefly as possible to call the attention of the House to a matter of great importance to the Lancashire cotton industry, and that is the broad issue involved in the question of Japanese competition. This question is now very acute in the Lancashire cotton industry and in certain parts of our Empire, but it will extend rapidly to other industries, and will ultimately become an urgent matter for all countries with a reasonable standard of living. I want, if I might, for a moment or two, to deal with some of the broad economic principles which, I conceive, are in issue, in dealing with this question.

One school of thought, the old one, used to consider that all that mattered was to increase production with as low wages and as cheap a cost as possible, and to leave the necessary adjustments to take place automatically, and all would he well. That principle may have prevailed for a certain distance in our industrial development, but the fallacies of that school of thought, under present conditions, have been fully exposed. If wages are low and production high, it is obvious that goods can only be consumed at a very low price. Where the production increases rapidly, the price-falls are bound to be very steep, and the necessary adjustments become much too difficult. The result is that if there are severe losses, unemployment, and great hardships in the various industries, restriction schemes of production have to be adopted, and the net result is that a great deal of the benefits that should have accrued to humanity from the in- creased capacity of the world to produce are a total loss. That is one school of thought.

The other school of thought, mainly, I think, the socialistic school, concentrates upon purchasing-power, as represented by wages, to the exclusion of all other considerations. That may be arguable in a, socialistic world, but it would be fatal if carried to an extreme in a capitalistic system, because unless an industry can work with a fair margin of profit, it must rapidly cease, and the system will break down. I submit that the ideal economic system is, as is often the case, a combination of the two extremes. The highest possible wages should be paid consistent with a reasonable margin of profit. If that is done, the increased production can be absorbed with the least disturbance to price-levels, and a healthy and normal prosperity in industry is possible. President Roosevelt in America appears to be recognising these basic facts, although it may be that he is trying to work for too-quick results, by excessive governmental activity.

I have ventured to state these broad principles, which I think will command general agreement, in order to lead up to a consideration of the attitude of the Japanese on these important economic questions. I do not think that their attitude is based upon theoretical grounds but upon a determination, at all costs, to capture the maximum proportion of world trade. In their efforts to achieve this end, they are undoubtedly adopting the methods of the old school of thought, which I have just propounded. They have the advantage of the latest machines and all that is known of scientific management, and they are carrying on industry with those advantages at the lowest wage and cost levels that are possible. This is a quite intolerable position, and will ultimately break down the systems of all other countries and, in the long run, the Japanese system as well. The Japanese are not only pursuing this wrong economic principle, but they are deliberately adopting the weapon of currency depreciation to aid them in their efforts to capture world trade. That is clearly shown by the way in which heavy purchases of raw materials were made by the Japanese manufacturers while the yen was at its old parity with sterling and, in the latter part of last year, when the yen started to depreciate heavily, owing to the de- liberate policy of the Government, by the way in which purchases of raw material diminished very rapidly and the exports of finished manufactured goods increased at a tremendous rate, through the stimulus given by that currency depreciation.

In dealing with this question, it is necessary for this and other countries to say quite clearly to Japan that this is an intolerable position, and that, if these methods are persisted in, they will result not only in great difficulties, but in the possible breakdown of the industrial systems in other countries. Either Japan must conform to Western standards of living or her goods must be prohibited from entering those countries. I know that negotiations are proceeding with the Japanese Government at present, with a view to arriving at some possible basis of apportionment of markets by quotas. I can conceive that that is probably the most practical thing that can be attempted at the moment, and I hope that those efforts will be successful, but I urge upon the Government that, in order to enable them to have the best possible bargaining power during these negotiations, they should free their hands entirely of existing treaties. I have not time to go into the various treaties involved. There are the West African and the East African Treaties and, in particular, our own Anglo-Japanese Convention. India has denounced her treaty with Japan, and we have denounced that portion of the Japanese Treaty that deals with West Africa. The remainder of those treaties are still in being.

We are also handicapped by the most-favoured-nation clause, to which we are bound in our dealings with Japan. As far as I know, every responsible interest in this country has come to the conclusion, and has urged upon the Government, that we should denounce these treaties and abandon the most-favoured-nation clause. Even the Liberal party, in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), have advocated the abandonment of the most-favoured-nation clause—a very surprising thing, having regard to the right bon. Gentleman's strong views on Free Trade, and showing that he realises that under the existing conditions we must have our hands entirely free. I urge upon the Government that they should take these necessary steps to enable them in their negotiations to have a much better bargaining power than they have at present.

I want to conclude with few words on the question of Ceylon, which is of great importance to Lancashire trade. We know that Ceylon has refused to give the preference, which was undertaken on her behalf by the Colonial Secretary at Ottawa, on Lancashire cotton goods. I believe that the actual amount of preference which she was asked to give on cotton goods was only 10 per cent., that is to say, an additional duty of 10 per cent. on Japanese imports into Ceylon. This she has not given.

I read the Debate which took place in the State Council, and apparently the reason given in Ceylon for not putting this increased duty on Japanese goods entering Ceylon is that they did not think it would help the Lancashire cotton trade very much, and it would be adding to the cost of these goods and putting an additional burden on the poor of Ceylon. That argument, really, is nothing less than humbug, because, in the very Budget in which they refused to give this additional 10 per cent. on Japanese cotton goods, they increased the duties on sugar—which, surely, affects the poor as much as manufactured cotton textiles do—by as much as, I think, 55 per cent., and they put heavily increased duties on rice, which is one of the staple foods of the poor in Ceylon. Furthermore, I understand, and I would ask the Government whether this is so, that India has intimated to the Ceylon Government that, unless the preferences on Indian cotton goods are granted by Ceylon, India will withdraw the preferences which Ceylon's exports enjoy in her market. I would like to know whether that is so; I am informed that that has been done by the Indian Government. But I am still more concerned about the question whether we have in any way intimated to the Ceylon Government that unless this preference, which was undertaken on behalf of Ceylon at Ottawa, is implemented, we will withdraw the preferences which Ceylon enjoys in our market?

We are told by members of the State Council, with extraordinary ignorance, that the main export of Ceylon is tea, and that, as the tea estates are largely owned by British capital, they do not care a rap what happens to the preference on tea. Anyone who goes into the question knows, however, that the Ceylon Government cannot be indifferent to the preference on tea, and I only need state one or two facts to show the overwhelming importance of this preference to Ceylon. Ceylon's revenue is not only derived from import duties, but also from export duties, and 98.76 per cent. of the total revenue desired from these export duties in Ceylon is derived from exports on tea. Furthermore, 55 per cent, of Ceylon's total exports come to the United Kingdom, whereas, in 1931, less than one per cent. went to Japan; so that they are apparently refraining from putting a small extra duty on Japanese goods when their market in Japan is less than one per cent., thinking that they can with impunity disregard the effects on their enormous market in this country, amounting to 55 per cent. of their total exports. Moreover, the tea industry is esential for the maintenance in a solvent condition of the railways of Ceylon, which are State-owned.

I submit, therefore, that we have very strong weapons in our hands, and that, on the facts I have indicated which obviously are of paramount importance to Ceylon, this preference should be given to our textile goods. I use the words "of paramount importance," because, under the Constitution of Ceylon, the Governor-General can, if he considers it to be of paramount importance to Ceylon's interests, pass any legislation by his own fiat. In addition to that, we can withdraw the preferences which Ceylon enjoys. I now ask His Majesty's Government whether it is not time that some definite results were obtained from the representations which, as I understand, have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Ceylon Government, and that this preference, which was agreed to at Ottawa, should be brought into being at the earliest possible moment.

In Lancashire we feel so strongly about this question of cotton because we know that, unless the Government follow a far more active policy in the matter than they are following, the great staple trade of our country is never going to see any recovery at all, far less a return to the conditions which it once knew. Of course, tile cotton in- dustry affects the prosperity of far more people than those who are directly concerned in it. Doctors, lawyers, tradesmen, almost all who are earning their living in Lancashire are affected by it in some degree. I do not want to waste time in preliminaries but I do feel that it is necessary to mention that elementary fact, because it seems to be so little realised in this House, and so little interest seems to be taken in it or in the welfare of that part of the country, the population of which amounts to one-sixth of the whole.

The cotton industry, since 1913, has seen a progressive decline. In that year we exported 7,000,000,000 square yards of cotton goods. Last year the quantity was 2,000,000,000 square yards, and in 1925 it was between 3,000,000,000 and 4,000,000,000. The decline has been progressive. There may be slight fluctuations one way or the other, but that decline is going on unless something is done, because the causes of it are deep-rooted, and are not within the power of the cotton industry itself to remove. Those causes are two-fold. In the first place, there is the fact that the different countries to which we were the sole suppliers of cotton textile goods are making for themselves what we used to make for them, and are putting up tariff walls against us. The second great cause is that the residual market, the export trade which is still left open, is being taken. from us by the ruthless competition to which my hon. Friend has referred. I will not call it unfair; it is perfectly fair according to the standards of the East; but it is ruinous to us. We see the Government standing by, having done nothing for a couple of years, and we resent it.

We need the assistance of the Government in this matter. I am reminded that there is not one Labour Member in the House at the moment, but I do not expect anything from them; I know that they do not care about the cotton trade. But it is just because we do see a little hope in the Government that we take the trouble to come here and make an appeal to them. What could they do? In the first place, there is the question of the Crown Colonies, and, when it is remembered that the Crown Colonies are dependent entirely upon England for their good government and for their standard of life, surely we are entitled to ask that they shall give substantial preferences to the Lancashire cotton industry. Those preferences are 'not substantial in many cases, and nothing is being done to atop Japanese goods coming in. It is not only the fault of the Crown Colonies. I do not think they are to blame. I think it is the apathy here. Jamaica has requested that something should be done. That request has fallen upon deaf ears. One would not care so much if one did not realise the amount of human suffering that lies behind that lack of response by the Government, and it is time that someone spoke plainly to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) the other day said things with which no one could agree, but he said one thing that was right. There is a lot too much self complacency on the front bench as concerns the welfare of the people in our part of the country, and other parts, too. They did very well in putting tariffs on for the first few months, but they cannot leave it there.

In regard to the cotton industry, what we ask is simply that the Government shall give the necessary notice, which ought to have been given two years ago, to denounce those treaties which stand in the way of our making arrangements with our Crown Colonies to keep Japanese goods out. Those treaties have not been denounced yet except in one case, that of the Anglo-French Convention. It is argued that we cannot denounce them because we get advantages from the other countries apart from Japan under the most-favoured-nation clause. The answer to that is that there is no reason why we should not renew those treaties bilaterally with the other countries concerned but alter them in relation to Japan. The Secretary of State for the Dominions has been repeatedly pressed to tell us what the Government are doing in the matter, and he has repeatedly replied that he is giving the matter his sympathetic consideration. He has done that for two years. It is possibly because he is so buss' considering the matter that he has not found it possible to be here to-day. For two years the matter has been considered. It rather reminds me of the late Lord Acton, a very distinguished historical scholar who was determined to write a history of modern Europe, but he was very anxious that nothing inaccurate should appear in it. Everything must be considered before anything was done. Unfortunately he did not live very far beyond 75 years of age and he died still considering that history.

The hon. Member said the Secretary of State for the Dominions?

I meant the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I beg the pardon of the Secretary of State for the Dominions.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies spoke only a few days ago on the subject.

I did not deny that fact., I merely referred to the fact that he is not here to-day. Are we going to get any action? The Government have been in office for two years. When are they going to do something definite, for instance, to deal with the request of Jamaica? Those treaties ought to have been denounced a year ago and negotiations entered into with the Crown Colonies and with Japan and bi-lateral agreements made with other countries. They will have to do it sooner or later. Meantime, we are suffering because they cannot make up their minds to do anything. Twelve months of close contact with Parliamentary Government has convinced me that we must devise some method of accelerating the pace of right hon. Gentlemen in these matters.

The second point that I should like to deal with is the question of Ottawa. The Canadian Government seem to have been suffering iron' similar failings to our own. The Secretary of State for the Dominions yesterday said it was not the fault of the Canadian Government that they had taken 12 months to appoint a tribunal. It was necessary to appoint persons who were impartial. I would only characterise that by the word that the right hon. Gentleman would have used if he had been sitting there—"humbug." It does not take 12 months to appoint three impartial people. It is ridiculous. It is because the Canadian Government have no intention whatever of putting into force, if they can help it, that part of the Ottawa Agreements which is unfavourable to themselves that this delay is taking place. The Agreement only has a currency of three years. It has taken 12 months to appoint the tribunal, and I suppose it will take another 12 months to consider its procedure. I ask that the Government, at any rate, in regard to the cotton trade, which has had precious little benefit from Ottawa, will make more strenuous representations than they seem to have been able to do in order to secure that Canada shall give us something more than expressions of filial piety and shall give us something tangible.

I come to another question. The cotton industry is bound up very largely with our trade in India. It was 3,226,000,000 square yards and it has shrunk to 600,000,000 square yards to-day. That is bad enough, but it may he worse. There is no doubt that, unless we can obtain a trade agreement with the Indian cotton industry, and a very long-term agreement of more than three years—I call that a short-term agreement—further misfortune awaits the people of Lancashire. I have discussed the matter with one or two persons from India privately, and they share that view. We export £3,000,000 to Ceylon and she exports £12,000,000 to us, and the balance of trade with India is in our favour. We have the weapon in our hands if we knew how to use it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the Government? "] I do not know where it is at the moment, but we have a very distinguished representative of it here. The Indian trade will have the backing of Congress behind it when it comes to negotiate with Lancashire trade. In any 'conference that takes place with India—and I hope there will be one; in my view it is the only way—we must hold out the hand of friendship to them, and they to us. If there is to be a trade conference with India, which I hope will give us a quota, we shall have no chance whatever if we go into it without knowing whether our Government will support us and the Government not knowing what its policy is, because they will have the whole of their political forces behind them, and, when our cotton delegation goes to India, a united delegation, as I hope it may, I trust that by that time the Government will say, quite apart from constitutional questions," If you expect to trade with us you must let us trade with you." There must be an agreement of give and take on both sides, and we cannot get it unless we are supported by our political powers in the same way as they will be supported by theirs.

There is a big residue of foreign trade outside the Empire at all. In regard to that, we are being hopelessly handicapped by the same Japanese competition. What are our Government going to do? In Morocco, where we are at present doing 50,000,000 square yards—last year it was 60,000,000—we are being undercut and undersold by that same ruthless exploitation. France and ourselves have particular reason to be friendly in Morocco. There is no doubt that we shall find the French Government quite sympathetic if we approach them in the matter. I simply give Morocco as an illustration. All the world over, what are our Government doing for the cotton industry in the trade agreements that they are making? Nothing but eyewash. We may get 100,000 square yards here and 100,000 square yards there.

What single trade agreement up to now have the Government made which has involved a major market for the cotton industry? The only single one is the Argentine and the question is being considered.

It is just because the question is being considered that I am saying what I am saying before it is too late.

Then it is not right to say that nothing has been done?

I am judging by similar agreements which have been made, and if the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) knew the feelings of his constituents in the cotton industry as well as I know them, he would not have made the remark which he has just made.

The total cotton imports into Denmark, Norway and Sweden, in respect of which agreements up to now have been made, are so small that it is hardly justifiable to take them as a major consideration in agreements which clearly affect the coal industry. The agreement with the Argentine is a, different matter, and the cotton industry is being fully considered.

I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for his understanding, but I prefer, for accuracy, to accept the comments of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who knew about the cotton trade before the hon. Member was born. However, in regard to that matter I agree that the major opportunities still remain. The minor opportunities have been missed, and it is because I believe that the major opportunities will go the way of the minor opportunities, unless we take a very strong line in putting pressure upon the Government, that I am saying what I am saying to-day.

The hon. Member has made a definite statement about opportunities being missed. Can he quote the figures of the importation of cotton goods into Denmark recently?

I was discussing the question of Lancashire.

I will give the figures later.

I shall be very much obliged as I am always anxious for information. Members of the cotton trade, who know their business better than most other people, are profoundly dissatisfied with the Danish agreement. What about Canada? What is the total cotton trade with Canada? What is the total production in Canada, and what are we getting of that trade? I was delighted to hear that I was wrong in saying that the Government were not taking the interest in the matter they should take, and I shall have no cause for complaint when the major agreement comes. I am delighted to think that the attitude of the Government is not what I thought. I shall be only too pleased if the Agreement is a good one. I do not want the Government to make mistakes. Heaven knows they have made enough. I want to prevent them from making them. Provided the agreements are what we hope they may be, I shall be only too delighted to congratulate them. But I say that in regard to Ottawa the trade know—whatever is said here the trade cannot be blinded—that they have got no benefit, or very little, from Ottawa. It is because they know that fact that it is time someone said a few direct, plain words on their behalf.

There is another point which I should like to make. You cannot help the cotton industry by tariffs in the same way that you can help the iron and steel industry, because the cotton industry is a large exporting industry, and depends mainly upon foreign markets. It is as I have said the staple trade of Lancashire. I will suggest one practical way in which you can help it. The trade of the cotton industry was £60,000,000 in 1932, and it was £56,000,000 in 1931. There was slight fluctuation and improvement. The cotton industry could sell its products 10 per cent. cheaper abroad, which would make a vast difference, if the Government would give it financial help by a 10 per cent. export rebate. I suggest that that is a policy they should consider. I know that I shall be told that subsidies are alien to the principles of the party to which my hon. and gallant Friend and I belong, but they have not been alien to the principles of our party when a sufficient number of Members have pressed for subsidies. The sum of £24,000,000 has been spent on sugar beet since 1924. If you gave the subsidy for which I am asking to the cotton industry you could not compare, except it be because of vested interests, the importance of sugar beet with that of cotton. say, that for too long have not only this Government, but all Governments, whose basis has mainly rested upon agricultural support, neglected the claims and rights to some share of assistance of this great industry.

I am afraid that during the course of my few observations I have spoken, perhaps, with slight heat, and perhaps with a little more frankness than a private Member should speak about a Government of which he is a loyal supporter. The Government sit there. They may only hear the remarks of those who find it profitable to be pleasant to them. Members of the Government cannot have gone about Lancashire as I have done for the last year without realising what a tremendous human problem lies behind the neglect of our great industry. I am prepared to say here and now that if from whatever party, whether, Labour, Liberal, or Conservative, to which I belong, a proper policy in regard to the cotton industry comes, I shall support that policy whatever may be said by Lancashire Members who ought to he here to-day and are not, and who share the blame for the apathy of their Government.

How many times have you been here?

If the hon. Member will get the statistics which are available, he will be able to tell me.

We have got them.

That is a personal question, and I did not want to introduce personal questions into this matter. How many times have I been here? I have been here sufficiently long to know what a lot of time is wasted. I admit my record, since it is a matter worthy of attack by a Minister, though I am surprised that he should descend to such petty personalities.

You attacked Lancashire Members.

I was not attacking them on personal grounds.

You were attacking them for not being here.

As far as the question of cotton was concerned, and I apologise for having said it. It is only the strength of my feelings upon the subject which made me say it, and I express my apologies unreservedly to hon. Members who, no doubt, I have grievously wronged. I cannot do more than that. My feelings are strong, because I feel that unless the Government take opportunity by the forelock, and if this House is to spend three times the amount of time on the question of Adelphi Terrace that it spends upon cotton in the Session, the opportunity here will be 'missed. Whatever happens to me and others, I, for one, propose frankly to put to the Government what is their duty, and what a large proportion of those who have been, and still may be their supporters, feel upon this vital matter.

The hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) has just delivered a violent attack, worthy of the traditions of Junius, upon the Government. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Trade has listened with grace to similar debates on this subject, and, perhaps, by now he may feel about us Lancashire Members what Dr. Johnson said about the fellows of Pembroke College, Oxford, "We are a nest of singing birds."

We make no excuse for bringing up this subject once again to-day, because, as both the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) and the hon. Member for Gorton, have so amply stated, it is a question of paramount and vital importance to this country. Both hon. Members dwelt with considerable clarity and interest upon the question of Japanese competition, but the problem is not a new one. One of the most remarkable achievements of history has been the rise of Japan during the last three-quarters of a century since Commodore Perry, as the first Emissary as Western civilisation, entered Tokio harbour. He found a country of armed knights and mediaeval institutions. To-day Japan possesses an army twice victorious on the battlefield of Manchuria, a navy third in the world, and a group of industrialists whose skill and ingenuity have enabled them to push their wares into every market of the globe. But what makes Japanese competition so outstandingly serious a factor in the world to-day is this: That in a period of unparalleled world depression, falling prices, and reduced purchasing power, Japan has been able, by severe rationalisation, by longer working hours, and by lower working conditions, to snatch from Lancashire the small pittance of a market that remains to it and in doing so, they have brought Lancashire to the verge of bankruptcy. In 1928 Japan exported 1,408,000,000 square yards of cotton goods. In 1932, after four years of unparalleled depression, she exported 2,031,000,000 square yards: a huge advance.

What are the causes, apart from an industrious population, which have prompted this huge advance? When we look at the population of Japan, including the mainland, Korea, Formosa, the Shantung Leased Territory and South Manchurian Railway Zone, we see that she has a total population of 91,000,000. Experts estimate that this population is rising by no less than 1,000,000 every year. Thus for Japan it becomes a vital necessity to find food for those hungry mouths. What are the alternatives? She can either embark on schemes of emigration or industrialise her population. It is notorious that Japanese do not readily emigrate. Extremes of heat and cold are unsuitable to their physique. Therefore industrialisation is the one avenue that remains open. Japan, for her industry, needs coal and iron ore and oil. She can only obtain those necessary raw materials by her exports. Yet even in 1932, when Japan exported far more than ever before at the expense of her neighbours, she had an adverse balance of 67,000,000 yen against her. Thus it is a vital and necessary thing for Japan to be able to export. For that reason Japanese competition is so serious, and to that end all the ingenuity of which the Japanese nature is capable is directed. Let me give one instance of this ingenuity. Visitors to Japan before the Russo-Japanese War noticed the Government were offering a bonus on rats' skins. The war broke out, the troops who besieged Port Arthur during the long winter of 1905 were clothed from head to foot in rats' skins. That is an example of the ingenuity of the Japanese, which we have learned to fear so much since in competition.

We can now either follow one of two courses. We can exploit and develop free new markets, or we can protect ourselves in existing markets. Fortunately a new and favourable factor has entered the situation. The silver-producing countries of the world, under the chairmanship of Senator Pittman, have agreed upon a formula for limiting the output of silver. If this device succeeds in raising the price of silver, it is deserving of our warm support. If Senator Pittman's scheme gives a fairer remuneration to the toiling peasants in the Yangtse Valley or Bengal for their rice crops, if it increases the values of the silver hordes which every household in the East gathers up against the rainy day, it cannot fail to benefit Lancashire. Did not Lord Snowden, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, say that, if one farthing could be added to the purchasing power of every Indian peasant, Lancashire would more than double her sales. A rise in the price of silver is the Aladdin's lamp which makes all things possible.

The Government should therefore be ready to spring upon every opportunity that a rise in the price of silver may entail. I was interested to see the other day that the China Committee of the League of Nations had been sitting in Paris, and that Sir Arthur Salter is now proceeding to China on a mission of advice and economic reconstruction. One of the most pertinent statements of the Lytton Report laid down that international co- operation in the reconstruction of China was one of the most vital necessities for peace in the Far East. Mr. T. V. Soong, the gifted Chinese Finance Minister, has recently been in this country in connection with the World Conference. He has made it plain that the policy of the Nanking Government will devote itself to the pacification of the Yangtse Valley. Now the Yangtse Valley has an area of same 750,000 square miles or four times the size of Germany and its population is 180,000,000, equal to the total estimated population of Africa. If order can be restored to this great area, and if a rise in the price of silver brings back purchasing power to its people, what an opportunity for this country ! China is naturally hostile to Japan at this moment. Mr. Soong said that she welcomes Western aid in capital, in machinery, and in reconstruction. We have a marvellous opportunity here to expand and develop a market most valuable for Lancashire piece goods. Sir Richard Jackson recently submitted to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce his Report on the increased use of Indian cotton, and he made it clear that Lancashire could find more uses than before for Indian cotton. She can use the coarser and medium counts, and he also made it clear that India can develop more of the finer counts. Mr. Mody, the President of the Bombay Millowners Association, has likewise been in Lancashire. I understand that interviews of the most amicable nature took place. These opportunities should be exploited to the full and co-operation encouraged in the face of Japanese competition.

My time is short, and I shall come to my last point. My hon. Friend in his last statement in this House when we discussed Japanese competition, talked about the allocation of markets. Without tying his hands in any way, or trying to pry into the secrets of Ministerial Despatch Boxes, can he give us some indication as to what lines these conversations would follow? Will they deal with markets on the trade figures of the present slump, or will they go on the basis of some date, like 1925, when Lancashire had a far greater share of the markets? Will there be any discussion on Japanese working conditions Some experts think that, if Japan would work one shift instead of two shifts, it might take away a, good deal of the present difficulties. Mr. Matsuyama, who recently published a pamphlet on Japanese competition, said he welcomed stability of the Yen. If that is true, it. would greatly help conversations at Simla. Lastly, I see by this morning's papers that the Empire has published a declaration on currency, and on the maintenance of a sterling group. This is another instance of Empire solidarity. Would it be too much to ask that, in this economic crisis, the Empire should maintain a united front? Mr. Rudyard Kipling, a poet now somewhat nut of fashion, in an interesting story called: "The Ship that Found Herself" described the voyage of the S.S. "Dimbula" from Liverpool to New York. Under the stress of the Atlantic rollers the capstan spluttered, and the high cylinder engines shouted abuse at one another, the deck beams complained. But when she reached New York a week or so later ail her parts had learnt to pull together and she had "found herself." I trust that these bad times will once again prove the value of solidarity, and that, in the discussions at Simla about Japanese competition, the British Empire will "find itself."

One of the reasons why I rise to speak is because I have some experience of the foreign country which is very much concerned in this discussion. At the same time I must emphasise the fact that I have a peculiar interest also in the Lancashire cotton industry, because I began my career among the cotton spinners. I have a tremendous interest in them and affection for them, and I long to see Lancashire become prosperous again. When I paid my last visit to Lancashire and saw old friends, most of whom had worked in the mill, I found them suffering very severely and wondered what could be done to bring them back to something like the prosperous position in which I first knew them. It is not really fair to Lancashire to encourage Lancashire people to shut their eyes to facts.

One thing that I do not hear much of to-day in regard to the present depression of the cotton industry is the over capitalisation of the industry, which made my blood boil some 12 or 15 years ago. At that time I had some personal acquaintance with the movement which led to over-capitalisation. I knew of one family who had a mill, the share capital of which was valued at about £80,000, and they sold it and got something like £500,000 for it. Afterwards the mill had to be put on to the market, and on my last visit to Lancashire a year ago I found that that mill was having a terrible struggle to carry on because of the heavy burden of false capital which it had to bear. But the people have to be told something to explain the present depression, and they are told that the wicked Japanese are responsible for the trouble. So long as the Lancashire people think that, no good can come. There is nothing wicked about the Japanese competition. It is, on the whole, fair competition, and it is for Lancashire to face that fact. Lancashire will not recover by refusing to face that fact.

About a month ago I read in the "Manchester Guardian" a memorandum from a committee of the cotton trade, which referred to the extent to which Japan has ousted other cotton manufacturing countries from the world's markets, of the close co-operation between Japanese industrialists and the Government, the manner in which the Japanese cotton industry is assisted by the Government, the low labour conditions, the low wages the long working hours and the lower standards of factory legislation. That is said to be the cause of the depression in the cotton trade. Only last night the city editor of the "Evening News" spoke of Japanese goods as the product of cheap labour, long working hours, and the low standard of living of the Japanese working-classes. When I hear people speaking of Japan as if it were a sort of slave country or a country where people live wretched, miserable lives, almost on the level of animals, I feel that they ought to be told that they are hundreds, nay, thousands of miles from the truth.

When I was in Japan I realised that things were different from here, that the workers received lower wages than they receive hero and that the standard of living is not so high, but I also realised that the standard of living is continually rising and that the wages are rising. We are told about State subsidies of the cotton industry in Japan. The cotton industry is the most independent of the Japanese industries, and the most efficient. If it has ever received any help from the State it is not receiving any help now. Another factor which we must recognise is the depreciated yen, which cannot be attributed to the workings of the wicked Japanese. It is no advantage to a country to lower its currency in view of the fact that it has to import as well as export.

From what I hear from Japanese friends and from English friends in Japan the Japanese Government are very anxious to see the yen restored to something like its former value. The depreciated yen has certainly played au enormous part in the recent rapid increase of Japanese exports to India, but that is only a temporary factor and will be dealt with before long. Japan is not always going to have a yen worth only Is. 3d. in our money instead of 2s. Therefore, that matter is irrelevant to the main factor of the situation. The enormous increase in Japanese exports recently has been due almost entirely to the depreciation of the yen, and when the yen has appreciated that factor of competition will be removed. We are also told that in Japan there is sweated labour.

No.

Yes. Every newspaper that I take up refers to sweated labour in Japan and also to slave labour. That is a false idea. I admit that the wages in Japan are lower than they are here, but they are not so low as the Lancashire people are told they are.

What are they? They are less by one third.

In the cotton industry—not taking the yen at its present value in our money, which would not be fair, because its purchasing power in Japan to-day is the same as it was 12 months ago—the lowest wages paid are from 10s. to 12s. a week and the wages rise to about 42s. That is the actual value of the wages. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I went to see Mr. Matsuyama myself, because I wanted to verify the figures given in his book with regard to money wages, and he said that the lowest wages actually paid are from 10s. to 12s. a week. The highest rate of wage is somewhere about 42s. per week, or even more.

Does the hon. Member realise that the yen has depreciated. It is not what has happened in the past but what is happening now: To-day the Japanese worker is paid about 6s. per week for a 10 hours day and 6½ days in the week. If that is not sweated labour perhaps the hon. Member will tell us what is.

I have said that I regard the conditions in Japan as different from what they are here. The yen has not depreciated as far as the purchasing power of the workers in Japan is concerned. It has about the same purchasing power as it had 12 months ago, and it is no use insisting on the depreciated value of the yen in the matter of its purchasing power in Japan.

Will the hon. Member, in that case, tell us for what reason the Japanese wish to raise the value of the yen?

The purchasing power of the yen is about the same, but already there is a demand for an increase in wages and there is a tendency for the yen to purchase less.

Then the Japanese lose when their wages are increased?

The longest working hours are nine hours a day. I am not trying to justify all that is done in Japan. I ask the House to face facts and to realise that the conditions are not such that you can dismiss Japanese competition as being a competition which no decent industry ought to be called upon to meet. That is the point. The great thing about Japanese labour is that it is very skilled. A Bombay manufacturer, speaking on this matter, recognised the skill of Japanese educated workers. Japanese education is the most democratic in the world, all classes go to the same school, and girls, when they leave at the age of 14, are so capable that they impressed this Bombay manufacturer, who said that they could work eight looms profitably, while the Indian worker could only work two looms.

Do I understand the hon. Member to say that a Japanese girl of 14 years of age can work eight looms?

That is the statement of this Bombay manufacturer, show- ing the superior skill of the Japanese over the Indian worker.

Does the hon. Member know that girls in some cases work 40 looms a day?

Yes, automatic looms. I should like the House to realise that we have to deal with a class of worker who is well educated and who is becoming more and more conscious of his rights, whose wages are getting higher, and who is advancing towards a higher standard of living. Forty years ago rice was not even the diet of the workers, they had to live on something coarser still. Now they are getting beyond the rice stage, and they realise that if they wish to be strong and efficient they must get something better. They are now taking to beef and bread. The story is told that when The Duke of Wellington, during the Peninsula war, saw the British troops wavering as their Spanish allies fled, he harangued them thus: "You, who have been brought up on British beef and beer, are you going to run away like a lot of Spaniards who live on oranges?" In the same way, dietitic principles are influencing the Japanese. They are beginning to realise that if they are to do capable work they cannot live on rice but must have something better. The real factors we have to face in Japan are superior machinery and general efficiency. At the moment 75 per cent. of the looms are automatic looms, which makes an enormous difference to production costs. We must not shut our eyes to these facts.

I want to see Lancashire prosper and, therefore I ask Lancashire manufacturers to realise the competition which they are up against. They are not fighting a people of slaves, who are compelled to work in a way in which no human beings should work. They are competing with a people who in a short time will attain a standard at least as high as in this country. Let me quote from an article which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" on 27th of this month. Speaking of Japanese competition the writer said:

"There must now he fewer in the cotton industry who believe that Japan's great advance in the world's textile export trade is solely the outcome of a planned attack on the markets of other countries by means of Government subsidies, servile conditions and wage rates in the industry, and deliberate depreciation of the yen as a means of fostering these exports, and apart from her general economic position. Still less acceptable is the theory that in cunning buying of raw materials on a huge scale when prices are low, mammoth production of main lines, and merchanting credit and banking systems which put all Occidental efforts in the shade lie the only reasons for her success. The evidence grows that while all these things have had a great part in the result, it has been achieved largely by sheer efficiency within the industry itself. Japan is not winning her way with inferior or second-hand machinery operated by workers of serf status. Her mill equipment is most modern; her labour is docile; and the statement of dividend payments which follows, taken from the Osaka Mainichi,' discounts the notion that her textile manufacturers are foregoing present profits for the huge gains receivable when Japan dominates the textile world. According to this newspaper, companies which have declared or are about to declare higher dividends this year than last include the Kinha Spinning Company, 9 per cent. against 8 per cent.; Kureha Spinning Company, 12 per cent. against 10 per cent.; Temma Weaving, 8 per cent. against 6 per cent.; Manchuria Spinning, 6 per cent. against 4 per cent.; and Toyama Spinning, 12 per cent. against 8 per cent."

Japanese companies are prospering, and it is due to their great efficiency. Because of the serious competition of Japan, India has increased her tariffs, leaving Lancashire with a 23 per cent. tariff as against a 75 per cent. tariff against Japan. This, of course, is a serious blow to Japan and she threatens that if this sort of thing persists she will boycott the import of Indian raw cotton into Japan. People Flint their eyes to this and say that it is all bluff. Is it bluff? I read this from Bombay, dated 7th July:

"The Board of the East India Cotton Association has passed a resolution pointing out that the boycott by the Japanese Cotton Spinners' Association has resulted in a depreciation in the value of Indian cotton of about 15 rupees per candy, and calling on the Government to take steps to safeguard the Indian grower against the effect of the boycott."

I have been reading the news from Japan, and I learn that the Japanese are quite serious about this boycotting of Indian cotton if the huge tariff against Japanese goods is continued. They talk of the same warfare against Australia. So it will go on. Even if Lancashire were to drive Japan out of the market of India by means of this 75 per cent. tariff, what would happen? Already the Indian people are talking about the Lancashire menace. They will do their best to fight Lancashire when Japanese competition has been removed and by that time, I suppose, Chinese competition will be a great menace. What 1 suggest is that we must face the facts, and instead of carrying on a ridiculous warfare try to come to some agreement with Japan. International understandings, despite the failure of the World Economic Conference, are a vital part of the new arrangements that must be made to employ the world's marvellous productive power to the utmost advantage. Only by such means can wages and labour conditions be improved. I feel that I shall have done a little to improve the position if I have persuaded my country that not only is Japan to be reckoned with, but honourably to be dealt with and bargained with.

I have inquired into this matter because I am greatly interested in it. My affection for Lancashire is very great. I want to see Lancashire prospering again. I am convinced that the Japanese are anxious and ready to come to terms with us. The Japanese manufacturers have been warned by their own countrymen for a long time that if they persisted in present methods they would have all the world against them. They do not want that. They must come into some agreement, and I think agreement is possible. The yen will not continue in its present depreciated state for long. The trade unions are getting stronger in Japan, and there are demands, for higher wages. Eventually Japan will find it necessary to agree. The Japanese are a people who can be dealt with. I have heard people speak with contempt of the Japanese sense of honour, and recent events in the Far East may have given us rather a bad impression of the way Japan keeps her word. But we must remember that militarism has very peculiar ideas of honour, and Japan is under militarism now. My own experience during four years' residence in Japan has convinced me that, although the methods of doing business there are different from ours, yet the essential honesty is there. We, the greatest civilised Power in the West, ought not to be backward in coming to an agreement with the greatest civilised Power in the East, and so make a beginning in setting the whole world on the high road to economic sanity.

At this hour and on the day when the House adjourns I shall not speak for more than about 10 minutes. I do not cast the slightest reflection on any of my fellow Members from Lancashire for not being present to-day, for those of us who have been in the House for years know that on the day of the Adjournment every one is so bent on getting away that it is difficult to keep a full House. But I do complain in all seriousness that the Government might have done more for the great distress in which the Lancashire cotton industry finds itself to-day. The question of the cotton industry has never been thrashed out in this House. From the hon. Member who has just spoken we have had a very interesting history about Japan. I have been a manufacturer and merchant for 30 years, and I have had to face Japanese competition not only in this country but all over the world. Let me state one or two facts upon which the hon. Member has been misinformed. Our machinery in this country is as efficient as any machinery that the Japanese possess, and our operatives are as skilled as, if not more skilled than, any Japanese operatives. I do not say that Japan is using sweated labour, or that she is using the wrong quality. Japan is looking after her own industries, and if she is beating us by her competition throughout the world it is not her fault, but our fault for not looking after our own end of the stick. Japanese labour is not sweated labour from the Eastern point of view, for the standard of living is lower there, and 10s. a week is affluence.

We have to consider not only Japanese wages, but the low taxation in Japan. The Japanese are sending goods into this and other countries at a price 150 per cent. below our cost of production. If any business man can tell me how the Lancashire cotton trade can compete on any terms with such a state of things, he is cleverer than I am. This drastic Japanese competition started about 1925. Do not let us shut our eyes to the fact that for years and years we have been warned about the yellow peril. The warning was first with regard to war. The yellow peril is with us now, and in a far more insidious and dangerous way than in regard to war. If you are facing any one in the battlefield, you know what you are up against, but in the ease of this Japanese competition we find goods sold at any price in order to undercut British goods and drive them out of our own markets, our own Crown colonies. Unless the Government can take some action—it is not for me to suggest what —unless the Government strike at once, within five years you will not see a spinning mill or a calico printing works standing in Lancashire.

Let me refer to the Dutch East Indies. Up to 1925 Lancashire had practically the whole of the cotton trade with Java, Sumatra, Batavia and the rest of the islands. I personally did a big trade with Java and the other Dutch colonies. To-day I am not selling a single yard there. Only last week a Dutchman from Holland was in my office. He said "It is no good your sending a yard of cotton to any of the East Indies, because although they are supposed to be Dutch colonies, to-day they are Japanese colonies." I said, "Why don't you put up a prohibitive tariff to protect your own industry?" for the Japanese competition hits Holland too. He replied, "if we did that, within a short time we should have a Japanese fleet there." Practically, the Japanese would make war.

I come now to our own Colonies in regard to which the Colonial Secretary or the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department may be able to help us. Before the Japanese incursion, we did a large trade with Kenya and Uganda. I am not going to trouble the House with many statistics—I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade knows the figures—but I wish to quote one specific instance of the present position of affairs. Japan last year exported to Kenya and Uganda 1,035,983 yards of artificial silk and the export of Lancashire artificial silk to Kenya and Uganda was only 5,224 yards. That indicates the extent to which Japan is exporting to our Colonies. That is progressive. Every day Japan is, in increasing degree, exporting more than Lacashire to these markets. There is only one policy that is going to do us the slightest good in this situation. It is no good putting up tariffs. No tariffs will keep out Japanese goods in the circumstances which I have described. The only policy is total prohibition. We want total prohibition for our home market and, where we can get it, in the Colonies. Surely we are en- titled to demand it even from Ceylon. Surely we are entitled to say to our Colonies, "We defend you from invasion by other countries who would have invaded you long before now had it not been for the British Fleet. Are we not entitled to do some business with you in return for the vast amounts of money that we are spending on your defence?"

Take the case of France. I never like to compare a foreign country with our own in these matters but what has France done? We cannot put one yard of cotton goods into Algeria, Tunis, Madagascar, or any of the other French Colonial possessions. France has barred us out absolutely by an enormous tariff. She has kept all her Colonies for her own productions. Surely it is possible for the Government to do something in this way and at any rate to give some hope to the Lancashire cotton trade. Mention has been made in this discussion of Denmark, but as a market for goods of this class Denmark is like a drop in the ocean. Denmark is not a market that is going to be of any substantial advantage to us. It is the great oversea market, particularly the market in the Colonies, that we want. With regard to Ceylon we have been told that certain safeguards have been put into the India White Paper. Surely safeguards were put into the Ceylon Constitution to deal with this matter. Are we not going to take advantage of those safeguards? If it appears that we cannot do so, then what can we hope for from any safeguards put into the India Constitution?

There is one other point that I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary. I have already been in communication with him on the question of sending a trade mission to Central and South America. The Central and Southern American States, Venezuela and others are very well disposed to this country and would I think be willing to do business with us, but the United States are already trying to get hold of those markets. A trade mission to those countries would cost comparatively little money, and if such a mission were to go there for three months and visit these people and make them realise that we are anxious to do business with them, I am sure it would do untold good to the Lancashire cotton trade. I believe that the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department has this matter already under consideration, and I hope that he will not lose sight of it.

I should not like this Debate to close without saying something especially after the remarks of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey), who complained that so few Members, especially Lancashire Members, were in their places. I do not claim to be a Lancashire Member. I am just a Member of the House of Commons.

The hon. Member, as a matter of fact, pointed out that there was not a single Member of the Labour party then present.

On the afternoon of an Adjournment it is not usual to have full benches, and I think the Members of this party attend as regularly as the Members of any party in the House. Whether we represent Lancashire divisions or not, this is a question in which we are all interested because if Lancashire is not prosperous other parts of the country are not prosperous. Lancashire does not live within herself any more than Poplar. We are inter-dependent one upon the other and we are all interested in the prosperity of Lancashire. This question which has been discussed a good many times during the Session is really in my judgment insoluble within the present arrangements whereby we carry on international trade. Japan owes considerable sums outside her own borders and these can only be paid if she sells goods either in the creditor country or in some other country which in turn helps to settle the payments which she has to make to her creditors. I listened to hon. Members saying that India must be told this and must be told that, but India must send more goods here than she takes in exchange, or else send silver or gold, because she has to make payments in this country for which she cannot get any return in goods. She has to pay for the British Army in India; she has to pay allowances to civil servants who travel backwards and forwards between here and India; she has to pay them pensions when they retire. Hon. Members seem to forget that factor in international trade relationships.

These invisible exports as they are termed, especially debt payment, seem to confuse hon. Members. Hon. Members talk about Japan as if Japan suddenly, like a mischievous imp, had rushed herself into the commerce and industry of the world to the bedevilment of everybody else. Japan learned her commerce from us. The Lord President of the Council in one of those remarkable speeches which he occasionally makes, dealt some years ago with the post-war world economic situation and pointed out that the one industry in Lancashire that was then doing well was the engineering industry which was manufacturing cotton machinery to go to Japan, India and the East generally. Lancashire to a small extent has gained on the swings what she has lost on the roundabouts. She must have made some money and given some employment in the manufacture of machinery, but the point that I want to make is that in all probability loans were raised for that, and if you stop Japan trading somewhere in the world, the people who hold those loans will not be able to get their payments. We have to face up to that question, and that is the problem of the Ottawa Agreements.

The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) yesterday complained about butter dumped here from New Zealand or Australia. Those people do not love us and want to give us their butter for nothing. They have to pay their debts, and they can only do that by the transference of goods. Those goods must be transferred in some way or other. Hon. and right hon. Members who want to face up, as the hon. Member opposite said, to Japanese competition will have to face up not only to that, but to Eastern competition generally. It is not only Japan; you will have China commercialised directly. Japan is not in Manchuria for fun; she is there to develop China, to take up that market. She is there for the same purpose that our pioneers 150 years ago went out into the world. It is said that the Japanese are wonderful copyists. Well, they have copied us very thoroughly and learned every art, and they have added to what they have learned. They must have had something to give to the world, and they have added to what they have learned from us.

There is only one way out of this, and that is by international co-operation. That is why I have risen to-day, and I shall continue to say that until the nations of the world learn to co-operate, there is no way out of this business. The amazing thing to me is that, with all this production of the Japanese and with all our own power of production, we could not have over-production if all those who need the goods could get them. That is the problem before all the chiefs of industry in every country in the world, and what puzzles a man like me, almost at the end of life, is to see that the men at the head of affairs do not get at this fundamental truth, that the capitalist system, which has done marvellous things in the past—it has done this tremendous thing of conquering the power of production—has not conquered the problem of distribution; and, in my judgment, that cannot be done on competitive lines.

We keep on saying to one another that we must tighten up our machinery and become more efficient. I agree with the hon. Member who spoke just now in believing that we are one of the most efficient nations in the world, if not the most efficient. I have a profound admiration for those who organise industry in this country and those who carry it on, but you are up against an insoluble problem when you come to deal with it from the competitive standpoint. Japanese production and our own power of production are not too great when you think of the myriads of people in China and in India, many of whom are half starved and have not got the clothes that they need. They do not need many, God knows, on account of their climate, but they have not got even those, and as far as their homes are concerned, everyone knows how terrible they are. Yet we have had this Conference here in London, and no one there seemed to get down to this vital business of how to distribute the goods.

My view—and I hold it very strongly indeed—is that the competitive system, the fighting system, of obtaining markets is at an end, and just as I hold that within the nation we must have planned industry, so it must be planned internationally. I give the Government whatever credit is their due for trying to organise agriculture. They have made an effort, though not on the lines that I should have liked, to plan the production of petrol. But just as you have got to have planned industry in this country, you have got to have planned inter- national industry, and if you do not do it internationally, I am certain that this civilisation must crash, because you are not going to hold in the Japanese and the Chinese people and keep them within the circle. Just as we have taught them this business and competition in production, so the white races ought to show them how they can unite in a co-operative sense to bring about the distribution of their goods. Primarily, let us not forget that the fundamental cause of the terrible competition is often that a nation wants to balance its budget and wants to pay its debts, and sees no other way but to do as many a man in business does, namely, just tumble the goods out at any price in order that it may keep its head above water.

I rise at this late hour to call the attention of the Government to the plight of Lancashire. This great county, which holds one-sixth of the population of England, has been for some time passing through great tribulations, and there is a feeling in Lancashire, whether right or wrong I cannot say, that the county somehow has not had the attention from the Government that it rightly deserves. I am not unmindful of the great help which indirectly has been given by the National Government. We are profoundly grateful for the policy in India which has resulted in the suppression of lawlessness and which indirectly has helped Lancashire in her cotton trade. We are also glad that employment in Lancashire has increased this year by some 20,000, but we cannot forget that there are still 152,000 unemployed there. They are the most skilful tradesmen with inherited skill in their fingers, who are desirous of work and who have cheerfully borne the sacrifices demanded of them. They are looking to us to put forward from time to time some concrete scheme which will benefit that great county. I remember as a boy going down the streets of the great Lancashire towns in the early dawn, when one could hear the music of the clogs. At the end of the day one heard the returning operatives going home laughing and joyful; and in the evening it seemed as if some fairy godmother had transformed the Cinderellas of the mills into the princesses of the towns.

But there is to-day a note of hopelessness among the operatives and a feeling of helplessness in the minds of the manufacturers. Therefore, if we speak feelingly, it is because we feel that no Government, this one particularly, can permit a great county, a great people who have contributed intelligence, invention and wealth in the past to the national pool, to drift and to perish through any inaction. We know that there is Japanese dumping that we cannot meet. We refuse to permit the cotton operatives to be starved into prosperity. We know that we cannot compete with Japan at the present moment and with girls who work 40 automatic looms and are paid 6s. 10d. a week. We know that we cannot compete if we are to preserve the standard of life which we believe is the right of the Lancashire operatives. We know that the Government cannot do that by a Free Trade policy—that weak miserable policy put forward this afternoon of allowing things to drift. If we carried out a Free Trade theory it would mean that we should allow one of our greatest industries to be destroyed simply because of the temporary depression and the depreciation of the yen, and I for one will not permit myself to be 'associated with a policy which says that because Japan is better equipped and able for a time to beat us therefore we should hand over the cotton industry to her.

May I ask if the hon. and gallant Member is attributing that view to me?

I do not attribute that view to you. All I attribute to you is that you exhibited a friendship for Japan that was really astounding.

I should like to correct the hon. and gallant Member on that point. My friendship is for Lancashire in this matter, and I wanted to put what I thought was the truth of the situation in order that Lancashire might benefit.

If the hon. Member is a friend of Lancashire then I say, in the words of the prophet, "Save us from our friends." Look at the inroads made in markets that at one time were particularly our own. Take the case of our oldest colony, Jamaica. Last year Japan increased her exports of cotton goods to Jamaica from 69,000 yards to 646,862 yards. This year in the March quarter she exported to Jamaica 1,540,000 yards, compared with 6,200 yards in the same quarter last year. In Ceylon in the four months ending April, 1933, of 10,618 bales and cases of cotton goods 7,653 came from Japan; and the story is the same right throughout the British Empire. I ask the Government why it was that at Ottawa we did not make some agreement whereby this competition, which we regard as unfair, should be prohibited altogether wherever the British flag flies. We cannot reduce the standard of life of our own operatives. The Government cannot permit our operatives to have a rice standard of life. We cannot compete with Japan if we have to pay trade union wages and observe trade union conditions. We are therefore entitled to ask the Government to give us protection at least in our own Colonies where we have not surrendered our power altogether—to give us that market and to preserve it for this industry before our people become unemployed altogether.

China is coming on. Take the ease of yarns. In 1913, the United Kingdom exported 86 per cent. of the yarns used in India or, 37,988,000 lbs. Japan only had two per cent. of the trade or 833,000 lbs., and China nil. To-day, the United Kingdom has only 38 per cent. of that trade while Japan has 20 per cent. and China 42 per cent. Some time ago I asked a question of the Secretary of State for India why it was that piece goods were not included in the Ottawa Agreements, and I was told that piece goods were under reference to the Tariff Board of India, but why were yarns left out? They do not come under the tariff schedules included in Part VII. Never at any time were they under the consideration of the Tariff Board. I therefore ask the Government immediately to do certain definite things. I am not like Mr. Dailey, who said "Not being an author, I am a great critic". In all modesty, as a back bencher, I want to put several things before the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government this afternoon.

I want to ask him if he will do his best. to follow a programme that will directly benefit Lancashire. First, will lie endeavour to revise the Congo-Basin Treaties and the others of which we have heard from time to time? We have to start sometime; why not start by giving notice now? The second matter is the arrangement which is about to be carried out whereby British business men and Japanese business men are to have a friendly conference. I ask the Government. What does that really mean? Are the Government simply going to act like a referee at a prize fight, and to say: "Get into the ring together, and, if you fight each other, we shall simply see that you get fair play". Are they going to allow the business to conduct the whole of the negotiations? Are the Government going to give some guidance and take a hand in this discussion? I say to the Government: "The means are in your hands, and you are masters of the situation. You have the weapons. Make proper use of the colonies for Empire trade".

The Government should remember that Lancashire has empty factories. The cotton machinery is lying there, and a factory, if it is not going to pay rates, has to do one of two things—either to lift the roof off the factory, or take the machinery out of the building and sell it. Are the Government going to allow those machines to be sold and merely the empty shells of the factories to remain? Cannot the Government, by passing legislation, help local authorities to remit rates, on the mills where the idle machinery now lies? Can the Government not do something to prevent the drift of industry from the North to the South? Hundreds of empty factories are in Lancashire; they can be got for almost nothing. The workers are there, anchored to their homes. Labour is the most perishable of commodities because, when a moment of it is lost, it is gone for ever. It is also the most difficult to transport. Is there any body, like the London Chamber of Commerce, that directs foreign firms to go into the Slough district, or into the neighbourhood of garden cities, where in some cases there is not a road or a house, when up in the North you have these places empty, and operatives ready to work in them. Surely the Government can do something to direct foreign factories and new industries to the places where they are most required.

Will not the Government, also, give some directions to the banks, who at the present moment have a stranglehold upon our cotton mills. Our mills cannot get enough money to finance transactions, or even to buy raw cotton from week to week. I know of one that could work up to 100 per cent. capacity if it could have the money to buy raw cotton to weave into fabrics, but it cannot get it because of the stranglehold of the banks. Cannot the Government, also, assist in making legal what is now a "gentleman's agreement", namely, what is known as the more-looms-per-weaver scheme. The Government know what is happening; if they do not, let me tell them. That agreement is being violated by some unscrupulous manufacturers, who say to their operatives," You will work four looms, and will work them at the same rate of pay as those who are working six." The four-loom worker is paid 9s. 6d. per day, and the six-loom worker is paid 7s. per day, and some manufacturers are saying to their operatives, "We will carry on, but you must work four looms at 7s. per day." That gives such manufacturers a great advantage, because, in order to adopt the six-loom policy, it is necessary to have bigger shuttles and slow down the looms by at least 10 per cent. The result is that they are getting an unfair advantage over those who have tried to carry out the new policy. Lastly, will not the Government take a hand in reorganising the whole cotton industry of Lancashire—film MEMBERS: "No !"] I do not mean that they should lay the paralysing hand of the politician upon it, but I would ask them if they will call conferences and give direction and guidance, so that we can, by means of a development loan. start again, at least in the manufacture of cotton goods in those factories which at present are derelict, and so help our people to get an honest day's work at an honest day's pay.

It seems to be my privilege to wind up before an Adjournment on the subject of the cotton industry. Before the Whitsuntide Recess I was called upon to do the same thing, and, therefore, I take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the assiduity of the Lancashire Members in keeping this very important industry to the front. I think I shall be able to show them that the Government are no less concerned with the welfare of this industry A number of statements have been made in the course of the very interesting debate to-day, but I feel that some of them were based on incorrect knowledge of the situation. It is true that we have a very serious situation to face at the present time, mainly arising from Japanese competition, but I think it would be doing an ill service to the industry of the country to give abroad an impression, which might arise from certain observations that have been made to-day, that Lancashire as a producing county and Lancashire industry were in any way decadent.

Let me give some figures regarding unemployment in the cotton industry. In May, 1932, the percentage of unemployment in the cotton industry was 33.4 per cent. In May, 1933, it had dropped to 26.4 per cent. and in June to 24.3 per cent. I agree that when you have a high rate of unemployment of 24.3 in any industry, it is a subject for grave consideration to see what can be done, but I trust we shall not hear observations of the type that I have heard sometimes suggesting that the Government have done nothing at all to assist the industry having regard to these figures, which I think speak for themselves. The export of cotton piece goods in the past 12 months has improved considerably. It is true that in the last month or two that improvement has not altogether been maintained and I want to analyse some of the causes of that. It is partly due to the general conditions. No one who has been following international conditions can fail to see the difficulty of extending the export trade in any direction.

Hon. Members have put their finger on a point of great importance when they refer to Japanese competition, which undoubtedly is a major factor in affecting the exports of the cotton trade in many parts of the world. It is just because it affects them in almost every part of the world that it is such a difficult and complex problem. It has been suggested, both in the House and outside, that it might be dealt with by making a ring round certain countries. The problem is much too big for that. If you made a ring round certain countries, you would only drive the surplus product into others and you might lose more on the swings than you gained on the roundabouts. I hope hon. Members will give the Government credit, with the knowledge that they have, for taking all these facts into account in making the decisions that they are making.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade gave a very important answer last Tuesday. He was asked if he could make a statement regarding the possible convening of a conference between British and Japanese industries with regard to trade competition. My hon. Friend replied that the President of the Board of Trade had sent a reply on 20th July to the note from the Japanese-Government on this subject. That note indicated that the Japanese interests concerned agreed, subject to certain limitations which they suggested and which have since been the subject of informal discussions. We naturally could not agree to certain limitations that were suggested and wished to discuss them so that our point of view would be fully safeguarded in the Conference.

The proposal now under discussion is that there should be a tri-partite discussion in India between representatives of the industries concerned in Lancashire, India and Japan, covering the whole field of all classes of textiles in which these countries are interested. I want to stress that point. The discussions will relate to the Indian market and to the colonial markets in which India is interested. Several hon. Members have referred to Ceylon. That is a very important point indeed which was referred to by the Secretary of State for the Colonies the other day. Hon. Members may rest assured that, in the discussions that take place in India, the question of Ceylon will be Fully considered, because that is one of the markets in which India is also interested and in the tri-partite discussions it will no doubt be very much to the fore. The proposal that a Lancashire team should go out to India almost immediately is made on the understanding that the discussions in India will be followed immediately by discussions in this country in regard to other textile markets between industrial representatives of this country and of Japan. His Majesty's Government sincerely hope that the Japanese Government will accept this proposal, and that by means of those discussions it will be possible for the interests concerned to arrive at a satisfactory agreement.

We may be asked, why take India first? It is because India is to some extent the key of the position. India is immensely important to Lancashire, and I do not need to stress it to a gathering of Lancashire Members. It is important that the beginning of this method of dealing with the Japanese problem should be in India, and Should take the form which we suggest of tri-partite discussion between the interests concerned. My hon. Friend was asked in a Supplementary Question whether the Government would also take part in the discussion round the table, and my hon. Friend who has just spoken raised the same question. It is not proposed that His Majesty's Government should intervene in the contemplated discussions between the industrialists of Lancashire, India and Japan in India at this stage, but they will be prepared to afford the representatives from this country such assistance as they usefully can, and to place at their disposal the services of His Majesty's Senior Trade Commissioner in India. His Majesty's Government feel—and they have given a good deal of thought to this question—that the best solution of the problem which these industries are to tackle in India would be one arrived at as a result of amicable arrangement in those industries. Therefore, they doubt whether they could usefully intervene, at any rate, before the outline of such an arrangement had been made.

I stress the fact that it is not the desire on the part of the Government to become merely a referee, as an hon. Friend suggested, and stand back and allow people to come together. It is because they feel that it is necessary to see what will emerge from the talks between the three interests, but His Majesty's Government will be closely advised of every step in the discussion, and, as I have said, the services of His Majesty's India Trade Commissioner, an officer of wide experience, and one who commands the confidence of the industry, will be placed at their disposal in India. I stress the point of India because I think that it is in the forefront of the cotton question. One hon. Member said' that one ought to be able to bring pressure upon India to buy more cotton goods from us because of the favourable balance which, he said, she had in her trade with us. That, I am afraid, is based upon a misconception. In point of fact, the balance of our trade with India is almost equal. I have the figures for a number of years, and our balance in that country might well serve as a model to some others with which we are trying to negotiate agreements. Let us remember that trade rests upon good will. I believe that with good will we can secure a larger share of trade in India if the method which is proposed at the present time is successful. The Government will watch every step of the movement in its initial development.

I would like to say that it would probably help to secure a larger sale of our goods in India if we could reciprocate by buying a larger quantity of Indian cotton. I know that there are technical difficulties. I do not pretend to be a technician in the cotton industry, but I am informed that there are technical difficulties which are being examined. I refer to an answer given a few days ago on the subject of the Indian Cotton Inquiry Committee. The present position is that the Indian Cotton Inquiry Committee are in communication with Indian cotton growing interests with view to the elucidation of technical and other questions affecting the use of Indian cotton in Lancashire and the Government are following with close interest the work of the Committee. If it will be possible to increase our purchases of Indian cotton, I hope it will result in benefit to us on the other side of the scale. The Government will certainly watch it with that intention and 'afford such assistance as is possible.

Let me say a word about the Colonies. I agree with hon. Members as to the position there. In some Colonies the competition is very severe, and in some of them we are at present bound by treaties which prevent us applying special methods to deal with Japanese imports. In one case we have given notice to end a West African agreement which, when it terminates, will leave us free to deal, if necessary, with special measures, with imports from Japan. But I would refer to what was said by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, after all, must deal with this question as a matter of policy in consultation with the Board of Trade of this country. He pointed out that he intended to get the industries round the table and discuss what could be done by friendly arrangement. He added:

"I sincerely hope that they will be successful. if they are not successful, the Colonial Empire will be prepared to take whatever steps are necessary in order to protect British interests. At the present time, except as regards West Africa, at the request of the President of the Board of Trade I have denounced the Angle-Japanese Convention in order to take Japan out of the ambit of the Anglo-French Convention which the trading interests are very desirous of maintaining vis-à-vis other countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1933; col. 2140, Vol. 280.]

I quote that passage to show that it is the policy of the Government to allow the interests to get together, but not to act as referee. They are ready to support them at a later stage if necessary. An agreement which is reached by agreement is very much more valuable than one arrived at by force. I believe we can by agreement usefully expand our trade. I could name some of the Colonies in detail, but on the general question the answer I have given would show that the Government are not unprepared to take what action is necessary, but it must depend upon the Colony. In the case of Jamaica, it has been pointed out that it might be possible to deal with Jamaica separately. It is not impossible to determine whatever treaty exists and deal with it as a separate issue, but, taken alone, it is a drop in the bucket, and it might have repercussions and effects which would damage the agreement which might be obtained over a larger area. We consider we are wise to adhere to the policy laid down in the speech of the Secretary of State, but we are watching developments, and we are conscious of what we can do to assist.

As to foreign markets, it was suggested by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) that the Government had been unmindful of the cotton trade in any agreements they had negotiated. I should like to give some figures to show that, so far as the Government policy of negotiations with foreign countries has proceeded, we have not been unmindful. In almost every case where the Government have engaged in negotiations, marked improvement has taken place in the sale of cotton goods. Take the case of Denmark. In 1931 the total sales of cotton goods from this country amounted to 2,250,000 square yards. In 1932, without any agreement, but when we were working towards an agreement and the pressure to secure an agreement was there, the sales went up to 2,800,000 square yards. In 1933, with the agreement now in operation, we find a figure of 4,300,000 square yards.

The hon. and gallant Member said it was a small increase.

Relatively, compared with India it is small, but it is important, and I hope that when my hon. Friends go to Lancashire during the Recess they will let it be known that within the scope of these Agreements that we have negotiated we are doing our best to o assist and to improve cotton exports. Two other countries with which we have negotiated Agreements, or in regard to which we hope soon to reach agreement, are Argentina and Norway. With regard to Argentina, the Agreement is well on towards its last stages, and I hope that it will be satisfactorily reached very soon. In Argentina already, as a consequence of the influence of the coming Agreement, we are seeing an improvement. In 1931, in the first six months, we sent to Argentina 8,000,000 square yards of cotton piece goods, in the corresponding period of 1932 the amount was 12,000,000 square yards; and in 1933 it had risen to 13,000,000 square yards. Therefore, the policy of the Government in working towards an Agreement is already bearing fruit.

In regard to Norway, which is a smaller market, we also see an improvement. In the six-monthly period of 1931 we sent in 716,000 square yards, in the corresponding period of 1932, 1,000,000 square yards, and in 1933, 1,200,000 square yards. Therefore, hon. Members will see that when the Government have set themselves to work towards a Trade Agreement, the influence,of that Trade Agreement is shown to be helpful to the cotton industry. I must apologise to the House. I have been quoting the wrong figures. The figures which I have been quoting as six-monthly figures are the figures for the month of June only in each year. I will quote them again for the month of June only in each of the three years. In regard to Denmark, in the month of June, 1931, we sent 2,250,000 square yards of cotton goods, in 1932, 2,800,000 square yards, and in 1933, 4,300,000 square yards. To Norway, in June, 1931, we sent 716,000 square yards, in June, 1932, 1,000,000 square yards, and in June, 1933, 1,200,000 square yards. To Argentina, in June, 1931, we sent 8,000,000 square yards, in June, 1932, 12,000,000 square yards, and in June, 1933, 13,000,000 square yards.

Let me now give the six-monthly figures. To Denmark in the first six months of 1931 we sent 13,500,000 square yards; in 1932, 19,500,000 square yards; and in 1933, 25,500,000 square yards. Therefore, the increase is very considerable, from 13,500,000 square yards, to 25,500,000 square yards. To Argentina for the corresponding period of six months we sent in 1931, 42,500,000 square yards: in 1932, 50,000,000 square yards: and in 1933, 66,500,000 square yards. I think hon. Members will agree that these figures show considerable improvement.

Let me now turn to the Ottawa Agreements. One hon. Member suggested that no benefit had arisen from the Ottawa Agreements. I should like to point out what has happened in the case of South Africa.

Will the hon. and gallant Member also give the figures for Canada?

Yes. The figures with respect to British South Africa are that in June, 1931, we sent in 4,500,000 square yards of cotton piece goods; in June, 1932, 3,500,000 square yards; and in June, 1933, 7,500,000 square yards. To Canada, in June, 1931, we sent 2,500,000 square yards; in June, 1932, it dropped to 1,500,000 square yards; but in June, 1933, it rose to 3,000,000 square yards. Therefore, I think lion. Members may rest assured that all that can be done under the Ottawa Agreements by the Government is being done. I should like it to be known that there has been this improvement. In New Zealand and Australia there has been a slight decrease recently, but they are now above the 1931 figures. We hope to secure the benefit of these markets as well.

I have only been able to touch on one or two things which the Government are doing. It has been suggested that the question of Japanese competition must be dealt with by international agreement. It may be interesting to hon. Members to know that the Government are aware of the discussions which are proceeding between Lancashire and the cotton industrialists of Holland, with whom they have a kindred interest in many respects. The Government are watching these negotiations with sym- pathetic interest and have asked to be kept informed of their progress. As in the case of India, the Government think it preferable that they should not participate at this stage in these negotiations but we are watching them with sympathy and with close interest. It will be admitted, I think, by everyone that in a time of exceptional difficulty in world trade Great Britain is holding her own with amazing tenacity in almost all branches of trade. The cotton trade has had an uphill task. It has a particularly difficult problem t meet at the present time in Japanese competition because, although the hon. Member for Leicester West (Mr. Pickering) suggested that there was not any great disparity between Japanese rates and our own, while making all allowance for the efficiency of production in Japan, which we all admit and understand, there are, nevertheless, two other factors which must be taken into consideration, low wages costs and the heavy depreciation of the yen at the present time. The Government are fully aware of the problem and in the months in front of us, although the House will not be sitting, they will give what assistance they can to this industry. The House and Lancashire Members, who have again demonstrated their interest in an industry which is not a local one but of national importance, in the truest sense, can rest assured that the Government during the ensuing months will do all they can to assist this great industry.

I must apologise for detaining the House for a few more minutes, but I do so because of the statement. made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in the case of Thomas Parker, that he could not see that any further action was either necessary or desirable in that case. The case of Thomas Parker is a chapter of tragedies. I must remind the House of this man's record. This ex-miner and ex-soldier was arrested in Warwickshire for sleeping out on the highway and sentenced at a special court held in camera to 14 days' hard labour. He conducted himself quite peaceably for the first day in gaol, but said to his warders that he had done no wrong. He was warned to remain quiet, and did so until the next day. Then, as far as the evidence goes, Parker became difficult and was sentenced by the deputy-governor to three days' close confinement on bread and water. At his stage I should like to ask the Under-Secretary to consider having an inquiry into (1) the trial by the magistrates and the sentence, and (2) the circumstances of the conduct, punishment and death of Thomas Parker in prison. If there is anything to complain about I feel sure that the Minister will welcome a full inquiry into the circumstances. If, on the other hand, it is found that all is straight and aboveboard I shall immediately accept the position.

The case has aroused wide interest, particularly in the Midlands, among ex-Service men, and I feel that I must pursue the matter and demand this inquiry. I have received hundreds and hundreds of letters and messages from all over the country, from magistrates and other people, expressing their great concern about this case. I would ask the Minister, what was said by the police to the magistrates on the morning of the trial? Is there on record a similar sentence upon a man with Parker's record? Had Parker been in gaol before? Had he been fined before? If he had, can I have the amount and the date? I would like also to stress the point—I know it may be difficult for the Minister to answer me—that there is a feeling that a man's war record is not taken into account when he is dealt with in a court of law. Why did the escort of prison officers leave as quickly as possible the cell in which Parker was dying? When Parker was sentenced to close confinement was he told that he would not be allowed exercise?

It is very difficult in such a short time to go into any details. The hon. and gallant Member quoted a sentence from my last speech, in which I said that no further action was necessary or desirable. Since that time my hon. and gallant Friend has brought a good deal of information to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who regrets that he is not here to answer. To-day I am asked specific questions I have not time to answer them all, even if I could remember them. The first question was: What did the police say in court before Parker was sentenced? So far as we are aware all that they did was to give a record of his previous appearances in the court, namely, once for drunkenness, when he was fined 10s.; once for gaming, when he was fined 5s.; and there were three other appearances, one for drunkenness and twice for sleeping out, in respect of which he was discharged. He had not been in prison before. His service record was not known to the police and was therefore not given in court. I understand that Parker himself did not mention his service record to the court. Another question was: Is a man's war record a relevant factor? There appears to have been some misunderstanding of what I said in the Debate on the Prison Vote on this particular aspect of the case. The position is this: The Chairman having ruled that it was not in order to reflect on the conduct of the magistrates, it was clear that Parker's record did not become an issue in the Debate on that occasion. The extent to which a defendant's antecedents are relevant to the disposal of a case is a matter for the court to decide, and the Secretary of State would be the last person in the world to suggest that a record of war service should not be taken into account.