HC Deb 25 October 1939 vol 352 cc1484-500

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Higgs

I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, at the end, to insert: Provided that so far as reasonably practicable, the price-regulation committees appointed by the Board of Trade in pursuance of this Section shall include—

  1. (a) persons who appear to the Board to be experienced in matters of finance or accountancy;
  2. (b) persons who appear to the Board to have technical knowledge of matters relating to trading in different descriptions of price-regulated goods; and
  3. (c) persons who appear to the Board to be qualified to represent the interests of buyers of such goods."
The reason for the Amendment being on the Order Paper is that there is no indication in the Bill of the intended personnel of these committees. It is desirable that the representation should be given to suitable people, and it would regularise the composition of the committees in various districts if accountants were represented when it might not be possible to get specialists on subjects on which discussions took place. The representation of trade organisations is most important. We may be accused of advocating the representation of vested interests, but it is desirable on these committees to have somebody who knows something about the commodity in respect of which the price is fixed. There ought to be people with technical knowledge. It is necessary to have specialists and men who really know the particular method of arriving at the price of commodities. The buyers point of view should also be represented. On the Second Reading of the Bill the President of the Board of Trade said that as far as possible the representation of both produce]- and consumer should be included on these committees, but, in my opinion, that does not go far enough. It is desirable to include those persons mentioned in the Amendment.

6.18 p.m.

Major Lloyd George

I fully appreciate that the desire of the hon. Member in putting down this Amendment was to ensure that we should have qualified people serving on these committees. I would point out to him that to start by specifying the people you are to put on these committees would narrow the range of the representation. While it is obvious that we should have people of this character on these committees, I am anxious that we should not specify who should be put on, otherwise we would have no end to the number of people who would demand representation. We have consulted all the bodies concerned with the working of this Bill, and we shall continue to consult them, particularly when it comes to making up the committees. There is another Amendment later in the name of an hon. Gentleman and I hope I can satisfy him, too. I can give the Committee this assurance that, throughout the whole of the discussions we have taken the closest consultation with all the organisations concerned, and we shall continue to do so, particularly in setting up the committees. Therefore I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

6.20 p.m.

Sir H. Williams

As my name is attached to the Amendment, I should like to say that the object in putting down the Amendment was not with the expectation that it would be accepted, but in order to get a declaration of the intention of the Board of Trade as to the policy to be pursued. There is great force in the argument that if you attempt to prescribe in precise words in a Statute something of this sort you may unduly hamper yourself in your selection. After the Minister's assurance that the considerations covered in the Amendment are to be borne in mind, and having regard to the fact that you cannot have committees which are unwieldy in number, it might be a good idea if my hon. Friend asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Spens

I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, after "Act," to insert: to investigate alleged contraventions of the provisions of Section one of this Act when so referred to them by the Board of Trade. This is the first of three Amendments which depend on each other and which aim at trying to deal with one point of procedure which appears to us to require consideration, and, if possible, dealing with in the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade told us on the Second Reading that there would be something like 14. local committees established throughout the country. There are a number of firms who will have branches in more than one area of a local committee. There will be some very large concerns that will have branches in every area of every local committee, and it may be that firms or companies which control a number of subsidiaries throughout the different areas. As the Clause is drafted it appears to us that it might be possible, indeed probable, that in more than one area, or in several areas, you might have complaints made about some article sold by a firm, or an allied firm, and if you have a lot of local committees having to investigate each case, because the obligation is cast upon them that if a complaint is made they must give an opportunity to the plaintiff to be heard, and they must deal with the matter, there will be waste of time. It seems to us that there will be the most frightful waste of effort under the machinery as it stands at the present time. We suggest that there should be some method in cases of this description by which the local committees might be relieved of each of them having to deal with the same matter arising in different places, and that there should be some method by which the proceedings in the different places could be stopped and that there should be proceedings only in one centre. I notice my right hon. Friend desires to intervene. Perhaps I have misconceived the machinery.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I must apologise to the Committee, as I have to be at another engagement. I should like to say a few words in response to my hon. and learned Friend. No doubt my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the Amendments, but I would ask my hon. and learned Friend and the Committee to count up the number of days which would be taken by his Amendment, and he will realise that that procedure would not be to the advantage of any of these multiple shops or of any single trader against whom a complaint is made. I can well understand the necessity for uniformity of treatment of these branches scattered over the place, but that can be secured by administration. It is only a central price committee that can authorise or advise a prosecution. We have, therefore, the power of getting uniformity among the local committees, because they know that when the Central Committee has sent in a decision it is no use taking up a case which goes against that decision, with a view to prosecution. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for the Central Committee to ensure uniformity of treatment of these different branches of a business. In order to make the position more plain, I am prepared to consider the advisability of putting in my hon. and learned Friend's first Amendment, or something on those lines, so that the Central Committee may have the power to carry out these investigations. They might do it through the area committee. I am perfectly prepared to consider that, but I could not consider the sort of procedure set out in the second part of the Amendments.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Spens

I fully appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend has made about time, and I do not for one moment put the Amendments forward as if they represented the best procedure, but because I am very doubtful whether without some amendment of administration the powers of the board are sufficient to meet the point we are raising. I am not clear whether, unless the Central Committee is given some further powers such as we Suggest, any administrative machinery would be able to remove from the local committee and put into the hands of the central committee something which was not a local matter but was a national matter. If my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider the point, which is one which will appear very often, having regard to the numbers of firms with branches all over the country, and he is prepared to consider the wording, I shall be very grateful to him.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Holmes

My hon. and learned Friend has referred to this matter as if it concerned only multiple shops, but actually it will refer to any article which has 100 per cent. distribution throughout the United Kingdom. Take the imaginary case of X.Y.Z. blacking, which was being sold at 1s. per tin prewar and was subsequently sold at 1s. 6d. There could be a complaint of profiteering in every district in the country, and if there were 12 or 14 local committees set up every one of these committees would be dealing separately with the question whether the increase in price from 1s. to 1s. 6d. was justifiable. Therefore, the manufacturer and the retailer would have to appear before these committees and there would be a tremendous waste of public time. We have suggested one course. I make another suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade, as he has been good enough to say he will consider the matter, and that is that when a complaint is made to more than one local committee concerning an article it shall be the duty of the central committee to order the committee that first had the complaint to investigate the matter and to call off any inquiry by any of the other committees. After the matter has been settled the central authority should notify the local committees of the decision, and that should be the decision for the whole. In that way a good deal of duplication of work and waste of time would be avoided.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

As I said, I find that the method set down in the Amendments is unacceptable. The more I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) the more I realised that there might be a good deal of duplication of inquiry and the more convinced I was that this is an administrative matter and not a legislative matter. It does not need Amendments of the Bill but the devising of proper administrative co-ordination between the local committees and the central committee. I can appreciate the desirability of avoiding 14 separate committees inquiring at the same time into the price of the same article. It does not seem to me to be beyond the wit of man to devise administrative machinery which would prevent that being done, and enable the question to be considered by the central committee and for their view to be communicated to the local committees. I will certainly promise to look into this matter and bear closely in mind the point which has been raised.

Mr. Spens

On that undertaking I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 7, and to insert "institute proceedings accordingly."

The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that inquiry and action shall be accelerated. There is the danger that the processes may be slowed down unless the requisite machinery is provided in the Bill. The local price regulation committee is to communicate with the central price regulation committee in the first place, and if the latter body are of the same opinion as the local committee they are to request the Board of Trade to institute proceedings. There appears to my hon. Friends to be some substance in the request that the local price regulation committee should have the power to institute proceedings if circumstances justify that course. It may be unwise, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, to duplicate the machinery and give local committees similar powers to those possessed by the central committee to make representations to the Board of Trade so that proceedings may be instituted. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that this is not an Amendment suitable for the purpose I have in view, I am willing to withdraw it if I have an assurance that the machinery will be of such a character as to make certain that there is no unnecessary delay in taking the kind of action which is expected of the Board of Trade in the event of a case being presented which justifies action being taken. If I can get that assurance I shall not press the Amendment.

6.34 p.m.

Major Lloyd George

I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member to accelerate the working of the Bill, and I can assure him that I am entirely with him. But there is a difficulty, and that is that it is essential to get uniformity throughout the country. It would be a serious thing if in one place the local committee regarded as an offence something which in another part of the country another local committee did not regard as an offence. It is vital that we should have absolute uniformity in carrying out the Bill. That is the only reason why we cannot accept the Amendment, but I can assure the hon. Member that the machinery we have devised will make proceedings as quick as possible. I go further and say that if we find on experience that there is delay we will look into the matter. Delay is not one of the things which we are anxious to get in connection with this Bill.

Mr. Shinwell

In view of that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.36 p.m.

Sir H. Williams

I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, at the end, to insert: (5) The public shall not be admitted to any meeting of a price-regulation committee at which a person alleging a contravention of this Act is heard by such committee and the proceedings of such committee shall be private. The purpose of the Amendment is to stop publicity being given to preliminary proceedings which may not lead to a prosecution. I think the Bill is well designed to prevent the kind of malicious prosecutions which took place under the Profiteering Act in the last war. If a complaint is made by a citizen alleging profiteering it is the duty of the local committee to investigate. They will have to communicate with the person against whom the offence is alleged, and later on there may be some kind of preliminary hearing at which the complainant and the person against whom the complaint is made are present. At that stage nothing is proved and the whole thing may ultimately be dropped. It would be unfair to traders to be exposed to such charges, because even if they are found not guilty a certain amount of stigma always attaches to them. There is a strong case that the proceedings before the local committee should be private.

6.38 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

My hon. Friend has made out a strong case in support of his contention, but the case is already covered by Clause 18, Sub-section (4) of the Bill, where it is provided that the Board of Trade shall make regulations prescribing the procedure to be followed. It is obvious that proceedings of a preliminary character before a local price-regulation committee are not the kind of proceedings which with any sense of fairness should be held in public. I have not the slightest doubt that regulations will be made to prescribe that this preliminary hearing, the first hearing of what may be a perfectly malicious and groundless complaint, shall not be heard in the blaze of the searchlight of publicity, which may do irreparable damage to someone who is totally innocent. It is totally different when a prima facie case is made out; proper publicity should then be given to it.

Sir H. Williams

In view of the most satisfactory explanation I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. It is better to do this by regulation than by Statute. The supreme merit of dealing with it by regulation is that if the regulation is not satisfactory it can be altered, whereas an Act of Parliament cannot be altered without passing an Amending Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 26, after "notice," insert: being accounts, books or other documents, the examination of which may be reasonably required for the purposes of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Mander

I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, at the end, to insert: (6) It shall be the duty of a local price-regulation committee to investigate complaints concerning the unreasonable raising in price of non-price-regulated goods and the committee shall in appropriate cases make a report with regard to such cases to the central price-regulation committee with a view to an order being made by the Board of Trade under Section five of this Act. The Board of Trade shall in appropriate cases publish this report with the names of the articles and firms concerned. This Amendment raises a very important matter. I am afraid that, in the course of a few weeks or months, when a certain number of articles have been standardised and their prices regulated, all the traders outside that range of articles will think that things have settled down and that they need not worry, and that they will then proceed to go further and further in the direction of excessive profits, feeling that they are outside the scope of anything that will be done under the Bill. Therefore, it is important to make those people realise that some committee or person will be constantly on the watch, hearing and investigating charges of this kind, so that none of these people will know when the prices of the goods which they themselves manufacture may be regulated. Such a power would be a very powerful deterrent, and it is a deterrent that is wanted. I am sure that the Debates in the House and propaganda in the Press during the last few weeks have had an enormous effect in checking prices and preventing profiteering. It is only a deterrent of the kind I have mentioned, constantly before the persons concerned, that will prevent a tendency in the direction of profiteering.

The last sentence in the Amendment touches a rather different point. It is there suggested that the Board of Trade shall in appropriate cases publish the report referred to in the Amendment, together with the names of the articles and firms concerned. That, I believe, would be a tremendous weapon against profiteering. There is nothing of which people are more afraid than the possibility that they may be pilloried, and their names given to the world, as the makers of excessive profits or as attempting to ask too high prices. If there were such a power in the background, to be used only as a last resort in very bad cases, I think it would be a very useful thing.

It may be said that we shall get this as the result of a prosecution, and I may be asked whether it would not be better to rely on a public trial in the courts, where there is every opportunity for an investigation and where both sides can be heard. It should be remembered, however, that what I am suggesting would be done only after the local committee have thoroughly investigated the case, heard both sides, got all the facts together, and passed the case on to the central committee, which in turn, after going into the whole case and satisfying itself, had passed it on to the Board of Trade, which had come to the conclusion that the particular case was so overwhelming that it was desirable to give publicity to it. There would be every opportunity of giving the man who was charged a chance of making out his case. What I am suggesting is not the making of a public charge against a man, but merely the publication of the report, which would be a statement of certain facts, which the public might like to know, and which the Board of Trade felt it was desirable that the public should know, as to the real profit that was being made.

My main object in moving the Amendment is to strengthen the power of the Board of Trade to deal with certain persons who will after a time, I am afraid, be inclined to go ahead with profiteering. The more reserve of power you can have, the more you can bring home to these people that they will not get away with it, the less chance will there be of their attempting to do so. If the Government are not able to accept the whole of the Amendment, or to accept it in the particular form in which it is moved, I hope that at any rate they will sympathise with the idea behind it, and perhaps accept some Amendment on those lines.

6.45 p.m.

Sir H. Williams

I hope the Amendment will not be accepted. I think the idea behind the Amendment is a deplorable one. The Committee might come to a conclusion, which might be detrimental to some person, and without the case having been tried before any proper tribunal, a great penalty might be inflicted on that person, perhaps quite unjustly. If it were a question of the Board of Trade having no option but to publish the report, it would be better than giving the Board of Trade the option proposed in the Amendment. If I occupied the exalted position of President of the Board of Trade, and it was alleged that the price of paint was such that it amounted to profiteering, and a report to that effect came before me, I should have to make up my mind whether to publish it or not. I might be moved by all sorts of improper considerations. I might feel that this was a long-awaited opportunity of doing a certain person in the eye. I should have that terrible power, and the hon. Member and all his Friends would bring every kind of pressure on me to publish the document. I think that would put the Minister in an intolerable position.

Mr. Mander

The hon. Gentleman is making a very unnecessary personal attack.

Sir H. Williams

I am not making any attack. I am trying to illustrate the matter in a way in which people can understand it, including the hon. Member. I am trying to visualise what his position would be. That very often makes things understandable. After all, it is only the toad who knows what the harrow is like. It is amazing how much clearer things become when they are taken from the general and brought to the specific. It would be deplorable to place any Minister in the incredibly difficult position that he had to decide whether he would publish a report which might blast the reputation and destroy the business of a respectable citizen.

6.47 p.m.

Major Lloyd George

With regard to the first part of the Amendment, we are not opposed to what it sets out to do, because we feel it would be a very great advantage if goods the prices of which are not regulated were kept under review by local committees. That might be a very useful check on such prices, and I am hoping between now and the Report stage to get a form of words that will meet the case put by the hon. Member. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, however, I am afraid that I part company with the hon. Member. The last sentence of the Amendment contains a very serious suggestion. The hon. Member said that if there is an overwhelming case of profiteering, then the report should be published as a last resort. I think that would be a most unfair thing to do. No charge would have been made against the man concerned, and the report would simply be waved before him and he would be told that the Board of Trade were going to publish it. According to the Bill, the man would not actually have committed an offence, because he is permitted to charge a price above the permitted price, but he does it at his own risk, because he is liable to prosecution. In the last part of the Amendment, we are asked to publish a report that such a man is a terrible profiteer before really he has been charged with that offence, and before he has been found either guilty or not guilty. Moreover, a person could not be charged with an offence outside the scope of the Bill, that is to say, the price regulation. Quite apart from this, I do not think it would be fair to publish the name of a man who might conceivably be not guilty. Surely, if a deterrent is wanted the best deterrent of all is the fact that if a case is proved, a prosecution follows immediately and the punishment is heavy, but what is even a heavier factor is the fact that full publicity will be given to the conduct of the case. Therefore, while we are certainly prepared to consider getting some words to meet the first part of the Amendment, we cannot consider anything on the lines of the last sentence.

Mr. Mander

I do not think there would be any real danger of injustice when it is considered that the case would have to go before three different authorities and would be thoroughly investigated. If I thought that any injustice was involved, I should not put forward the proposal. However, my hon. and gallant Friend has been good enough to indicate that he accepts the principle of the first part of the Amendment, and I feel that that gives me all I want, or the main part of it, and that there will be some check on the price of non-price-regulated goods. In view of my hon. and gallant Friend's promise to bring forward certain words on those lines on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Ammon

I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, after "shall," to insert: include among its members representatives of working-class organisations (one of whom shall be a woman) but otherwise shall. One general criticism of this Bill will probably be that it is largely concerned with the relations between wholesalers and retailers. Therefore, where any con- sideration is given to the consumer, we want to make the position of the consumer as secure as possible, and this Amendment is moved with that intention. In the discussion on Clause 2, suggestions were made as to certain additional matters which might be included within the ambit of the Bill, but I think as it stands the Measure is concerned mainly with articles of common consumption such as clothes and boots. This Amendment seeks to have regard to those persons who will be mainly affected, namely, the small purchasers who form the mass of the population. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite referred to the purchase of an overcoat and the desire of the purchaser that the price should not be put up too high. The suggestion that there should be representatives of working-class organisations on these committees has this value, that it would bring on to the committees the people who are directly affected by the prices. There is a danger that the committees may be composed of people who have no knowledge of the cost of goods in those neighbourhoods which are chiefly inhabited by working-class people. Nobody is better acquainted with these matters than the working-class woman who does most of the shopping for her household.

It is well-known that prices may vary considerably within very narrow limits of distance. In a shopping centre where better-off people do their purchasing, the price of goods may be a little higher than it is in another district only a short distance away where the residents are, what is generally known as working-class people. The only effective way of putting a check on prices is, I suggest, to have on these committees members who are in touch with the actual condition of affairs and who are able to give advice based on specific knowledge. I gathered from what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said on an earlier Amendment that he had already rejected this Amendment in advance, but I suggest that the arguments used in that case, by no means fit this Amendment. The earlier proposal was that certain specified people with special qualifications should be put on these committees. This Amendment is concerned with the general buying public the consumers themselves and if these words are not inserted then as far as one can see, there is no assurance that such people will be considered in the formation of the committee.

6.55 p.m.

Mrs. Hardie

I support the Amendment for two reasons. First, I desire particularly to press the claim of working-class women to membership of these committees. I am sure that they would be found to be exceedingly valuable members. They represent a section of the community who have limited incomes and who must, therefore, see that they get value for their money. The committees would benefit greatly from the shrewdness and knowledge which exist among large numbers of working-class women with regard both to the price and the quality of goods and apart from the question of looking after the interests of the consumers, it would be a great advantage to the committees to have them as members. There is another point which is worthy of consideration. If there are working-class representatives on the committees it will give the public confidence in them. Ordinary members of the community will feel that they can safely trust committees on which the buying public is represented. For those reasons I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

It is well known that the prices of goods will vary not only from district to district but from shop to shop and that many tricks will be employed to evade this Measure. I give one illustration which has been brought to my knowledge. The manufacturers of certain goods are altering the design of the articles in various minor respects and making little changes so that when 4s. 11d. is charged instead of 3s. 11d. the customer cannot detect the exact amount of the increase in price. Variations are introduced in such a way that it is very difficult to trace the actual increase in the price of the article. All kinds of devices like that will be used and there is no one better qualified to deal with these cases than the person who is accustomed to do shopping on a limited income.

6.58 p.m.

Major Lloyd George

The hon. Member who moved this Amendment suggested that I had rejected it in advance. I hope he will not misunderstand me. What I tried to point out on the previous Amendment was that I did not wish to specify any particular section of the community or any particular profession in connection with the composition of the committee. I fully appreciate what has been said by the hon. Members opposite with regard to the importance of having representatives of the working class on the committees and particularly on the local committees. This Bill is in the main designed to help those people because they are consumers of the kind of goods which we shall put into these Orders. I do not wish to accept this Amendment, but I readily give the hon. Member the assurance that when it comes to the composition of the committees, what he wants to do by this Amendment will be done. That is definitely our object, but we do not want to specify particular organisations because so many organisations might come forward seeking representation that the result would be completely unwieldy committees.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

The hon. and gallant Gentleman's assurance is all right as far as it goes, but this is a matter of great importance and we would like him to be a little more specific. There are a great many organisations which cater for the needs of working-class women—trade union organisations, political organisations, and organisations, for want of a better term, that are nondescript in character—but some of them are very much dominated by ladies of title, who come from the more wealthy sections of the community, and we want to make certain that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is selecting a woman to serve on a committee, he will not consult persons who are unrepresentative of working-class people, but persons who are fully representative of them. That is the essential point. I have not the least doubt about the beneficial intentions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I think that also applies to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I think they want to see working-class women represented on these committees, but it may be that, in their search for such representation, they may approach the wrong type of organisation and, in consequence, appoint the kind of person who is not, in the opinion of this party at least, representative of working-class women throughout the country. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will meet the point that I am now putting to him and be a little more specific in his assurances to the Committee, I think it might be possible to withdraw the Amendment.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Tinker

We have all been touched by the profiteering that goes on, and the cry has come from working-class people. Wherever I have gone during week-ends in my constituency I have been told about the evils of profiteering, and the only way to satisfy our people will be to have some practical representative of them on these committees. I would like to make a suggestion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might, if he agrees with us on these lines, ask for a representative from, say, the local trades and labour council. We desire that a woman should be one of the number, because the housewife is the person who, after all, has to deal with the money, and it is she who complains most bitterly about prices. If you got one of those on the committee, with the knowledge that they have of prices, it would be a great help to the working-class community. I believe the hon. and gallant Member is inclined that way, but I would like him to be a little more definite and to give us the assurance that he wants to follow our desire in this matter.

7.4 p.m.

Major Lloyd George

The whole object of this Bill is to prevent profiteering, and we are most anxious to see that the people who serve on these committees should be people who have knowledge of the matters that are affected. I do not know what other assurance I can give, except to say that I will consult with any hon. Member opposite who thinks that he could help us to get the thing which we all want. I will, therefore, give the assurance— and I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree—to consult with anybody suggested by the party opposite.

7.5 p.m.

Sir H. Williams

The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) suggested that if you wanted to get a woman representing a working-class organisation, the trades and labour council was the only organisation to consult. That is a suggestion that you should have on this committee a woman who belongs to the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Well, you know what local trades and labour council are. My suggestion is that if you include a trades and labour council as one of the bodies to be consulted, it happens that in my constituency the largest organisation of wives of working men is the local habitation of the Primrose League.

Mr. Shinwell

That is the Tory party.

Sir H. Williams

Well, if you are going to have one party organisation of working-class women, you must have the other also. This idea of being high minded and broad minded when you frame an Amendment the sole object of which is to get more members of the Labour party on the committee does not appeal to me. If you frame a thing which brings in politicians, you should give all the political parties a fair run, but hon. Members opposite sometimes pretend to be very high minded when they are merely being political.

Mr. Tinker

Surely the hon. Member does not claim that he represents working-class opinion?

Sir H. Williams

I happen to represent more manual workers than do 90 per cent. of the Members opposite. As long as I have more working-class supporters voting for me than the hon. Member for Leigh has, and as I know them very intimately and have lived all that kind of life myself, I shall always object when hon. Members opposite arrogate to themselves the representation of the working classes of this country. If they had, they would be on this side of the House.

Mr. Ammon

In view of the assurance given by the hon. and gallant Member on behalf of the Government, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.