HC Deb 10 December 1946 vol 431 cc1106-25

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Spence (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Central)

I beg to move, That the General Apparel, Furnishings and Textiles (Wholesalers' and Retailers' Maximum Prices and Charges) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1747), dated 29th October, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 5th November, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House to take this Motion together with the second Motion on the Paper, namely: That the Women's and Maids' Outerwear (Price Control, Mark and Manufacturers' Maximum Prices) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1748), dated 29th October, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 5th November, be annulled. as they, more or less, relate to the same subject.

Mr. Spence

I would gladly agree to such a course provided I am able to reserve the right to divide the House on each Motion.

Mr. Speaker

Certainly, that is understood.

Mr. Spence

For various reasons my hon. Friends and I have brought forward this Motion to annul an Order. Some of them are concerned at the price-fixing in the Order and certain allowances within the Order. But the main question which I personally wish to put to the Parlia- mentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is in regard to the definition of "wool" and "wool cloth" contained in the Order. I have no connection with the textile trade, but while I am not personally concerned with the weaving of cloth, I am vitally concerned with the question of wool and the good name of wool. On that point, I now wish to enlarge. The definition in the Order to which exception is taken is in Part III, paragraph 8 (vii) where the definition is: 'wool cloth means fabric, the textile content of which comprises more than 15 per cent. by weight of wool. In Paragraph 8 (viii) the definition of wool is: fibre from the coat or fleece of alpaca, camel, goat, hare, lamb, llama, rabbit, sheep, vicuna or yak and horse hair. I have here a short report, made by one of the greatest analysts in Britain, on animal fibres. He has been described by Mr. Justice Lawrence as the greatest expert in animal fibre. He says that the term "wool" can only be correctly applied to the natural cover of the sheep, and he adds that, technically, there is a great difference between wool and all hair in that wool even of the coarsest has a wave of its own whereas all hairs even the finest are straight. I should like to explain to the House that this definition to which we are taking exception is no new thing. We have Orders published by the Board of Trade since 1941 when it was brought in as a war emergency Measure. When it was brought in great exception was taken to it by the wool trade of this country and by our three great Dominions, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa because they are vitally concerned in this matter. The fact that Britain takes such a high proportion of wool from them and puts it on the markets of the world is of importance to them. Today with an export drive on, it is vital that there should be a proper description of what goes into our textiles.

Australia produces a great proportion of the world's wool and our Empire produces 80 per cent. of all the wool we need. I feel that it would not be good policy today to persist in allowing a description which admittedly—as I shall show in a moment—was used for administrative convenience in wartime. We should not persist with that in peacetime, however necessary it might have been under the stress of war.

May I remind the House of the importance of wool to this country? We have in another place the Woolsack, which was placed there by Edward III to remind Members of the House of Lords of the importance of our staple trade. To show the significance which is attached to this by our Dominions when, in 1938, it was discovered that the Woolsack was filled with horsehair, the International Wool Secretariat provided wool from the three Dominions so that it might be filled with the right material. That is significant of the feeling of the Dominions and the Woolsack is symbolical of the immense importance of the textile trade to Britain. Under this Order all sorts of things can happen. We can get a cloth which, according to the Order, could be described as a wool cloth but, which actually contains 85 per cent. cotton and 15 per cent. horsehair. My subconscious mind suggests that this should be called not wool cloth but "crypto-cloth"—a term which suggests in rather a subtle way a hair shirt and an austere existence. It is definitely wrong from every point of view that this Order allows us to make a wool cloth with only 15 per cent. of wool in it, and also allows us to mark it "wool cloth" when such a thing is actually' illegal under the Merchandise Marks Act. This Act is referred to in a caveat at the end of the Order which says: The definition of wool which is included in this Order have been adopted for administrative convenience but does not, in the view of the Board of Trade, affect for the purposes of the Merchandise Marks Act, the meaning of the term when used as a trade description. This explanatory note was inserted in 1944 as the result of objections which were raised in the House, The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was then President of the Board of Trade and he gave an assurance to the House on that occasion that the term that was used in these Orders had no permanent significance. That suggests that it was not intended to be permanent, and it is a question whether the definition has a definite significance.

I think we should now face the fact that we have at some time—unless we are always to be a shoddy nation as regards our clothes—to get rid of this definition of wool cloth I ask, "Why not now?" I hope the Minister will give me a reassurance tonight on this question which will enable me to withdraw this Prayer. We know that the Order cannot be revoked and nothing left in its place, but we should like an assurance that the Minister will look into the matter, together with others which may be raised, with a view to putting things right. These Prayers are not put down lightly but because I feel most sincerely that there is something wrong which should be investigated, and I feel that if the Minister could give that assurance it would strengthen the public belief or otherwise in the whole system of government by statutory rule and order. If, however, the Motion simply results in a negation, it would be government not by Order but by rule of thumb. I ask the Minister to give me an assurance tonight that the whole matter will be gone into and that very soon the whole thing can be put on a proper footing with a proper description of the term "wool."

10.20 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

I beg to second the Motion.

The annulment of these Orders has been ably advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence). We on this side have noticed for some time now a certain embarrassment on the part of right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite. Many of us thought that might be because of the difficulties in India, the messing up in Egypt and perhaps home affairs such as housing, but, having listened to the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen, it seems clear that the discomfort and embarrassment of right hon. Members opposite are due to the fact that their underwear, instead of being made of wool, is in fact made of horsehair. In those circumstances, and in order that that embarrassment may no longer be caused to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accede to the request of my hon. Friend and reconsider these Orders.

I approach this matter from a different angle. In my constituency there is a particular trade, that of the wholesale model gowns industry, which is very gravely affected by these Orders. It might be convenient if I very briefly described this trade. It makes up model garments and gowns; the models are sent throughout the world and throughout the United Kingdom, and from these models, stock orders are placed throughout the country. A very valuable export trade is being built up in this way. It is a new export trade for this country, and one of great potentialities and possibilities. Competition from America and Paris is keen, and at the present time further competition is coming from Zurich. It is therefore important that all possible help should be given if this new export trade is to be developed. Again and again, we have heard from the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers of the importance of developing new types of export trade. Here is a new type of export trade, but the Order which deals with this matter will, I submit, seriously affect, if not altogether stop, this promising new development The reason is that in the Order certain limitations are placed on prices which greatly restrict the home trade. As everybody knows, when one is building up an export trade, one has to have designers, skilled workers and so forth and a sound volume of home business is necessary so that there may be a basis for a flourishing export trade. One might rightly ask the Parliamentary Secretary why it is necessary to impose ceiling price restrictions on one kind and another on this wholesale model gown trade under this Order. Every trade has its black sheep, and in this trade there are, no doubt, some who might be guilty of certain malpractices. I am advised that this new Order will not stop those malpractices but will very greatly harm honest, genuine firms who are doing straightforward, proper and advantageous business.

This Order annuls previous Orders. In the previous Orders the ceiling prices which were imposed were not sufficient to enable the wholesale model houses to use cloth of good quality, or the production processes necessary to give their cloth the treatment to which it is entitled. That is quite apart from the special orders now dealt with in this new Order.

Mr. Rhodes (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Is the hon. Member referring now to allocations received under the utility specifications, or is he talking about the 12½ per cent. generally?

Sir W. Wakefield

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, he will see exactly what I am talking about. I have been talking of the wholesale model gown trade which makes these special models, and I was trying to explain that this trade can use various kinds of cloth, but, because of the ceiling of prices imposed upon it, there is a difficulty. Either the design of the garment is good and the quality of the cloth is not as good, or else the quality cloth goes to places which have not the skilled designers to make proper use of it. In fact, the ceiling prices are such that you cannot get a combination of quality and design in particular in the special orders to which shall refer shortly, of which a substantial part of the trade of these model houses is made up.

In order to prove what I am saying I have here details of a rather interesting questionnaire that has just been sent round by a paper called "Fashions and Fabrics" to some 300 retailers bearing upon this Order. This questionnaire, which was only handed to me an hour or two ago, has already been replied to by approximately half of those to whom it was sent out. Certain questions were asked, one of which was: Do you find that with garments supplied to you at the wholesale ceiling price of nine guineas, you are unable to satisfy your customers' requirements both as to quality of materials and quality of workmanship in the garments?

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

That was rather a leading question, was it not?

Sir W. Wakefield

They could answer "Yes" or "No" to that question, and 107 people answered "Yes" while 36 answered "No." That is to say, the great majority of the people found that, with the garments supplied to them at that ceiling price, they were unable to satisfy their customers' requirements both as to quality of materials and quality of workmanship. The second question was: Is it a fact in your experience that there is a disproportionate quantity of garments of' ceiling price which are below the standard of value for the price charged? Again 114 replied "Yes," and some 19 replied "No." Those questions have been answered by a large number of retail houses and I think it is true to say that there is the evidence which proves the point I have been making, that the ceiling prices for this wholesale model garment trade are not high enough.

Now I want to deal with the actual effects of the new Order, in so far as special made-to-measure orders are concerned. When a special made-to-measure garment has to be manufactured, there is allowed an extra five per cent. on the price. This is quite inadequate to meet the payment to the skilled workers required for making these special garments. I understand there is a 15 per cent. allowance on utility specially made-to-measure garments, and I would like to know why there is this difference, which does not seem to be fair. Hon. Members may ask what is the proportion of trade for these made-to-measure orders. Are they few and far between, or are they a substantial part of the trade? Do many women want these specially made-to-measure orders, or can most of them be fitted from stock garments? For the answer I again quote from the questionnaire. Two questions are asked. The first is: Is there among your customers a really appreciable number who cannot be fitted from stock? In the replies 124 answered "Yes" and 27 answered "No" showing that a substantial number of customers have to be fitted specially, because of outsizes and awkward shapes, and, maybe, because of awkward shapes in the stock sizes. The second question was: Are you in a position to execute special order in your own workroom? To this 40 answered "Yes" and 137 said "No." That means that these special orders have to be executed by people like the wholesale model gown trade. This new Order and its limitation in price means that all these women who need these special orders, and must have them, simply cannot get them. I am confirmed in this view by a statement which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made a few weeks ago. I think the House will be interested to hear what he said when he was speaking to the British Mantle Manufacturers' Association. He said: One feature which gives us concern is the relative shortage of larger sizes of women's outer garments. In spite of the jokes on the music-hall stage, the subject is really not so funny. Something like one-third of the female population comes within the outsize range, and it can be a very great hardship to these women if, because of their size, which is largely due to the service they have rendered to the country producing children, they should suffer more than is necessary. So we have confirmation in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary of the point I am making—that a grave hardship is caused by the fact that these women will not be able to have these special orders. Before I move from that I want to give one or two examples to amplify what I have already said. A special order was placed by an overseas shipping house which is very well known —an Australian shipping house in Sydney. It was not possible to execute this order because the Australian who placed the order happened to be resident in this country at the time of placing the order.

Mr. Follick (Loughborough)

Whose shipping house was it?

Sir W. Wakefield

There was the loss to this country of a valuable order. I have here a list from a well known London retail house of individual orders which cannot be executed because they are special sizes, and under this Order it would be impossible for the wholesale houses to make them except at a severe loss. The result is that if the home trade cannot be satisfied, except at a loss in a substantial part of it, very high prices will have to be charged in the export trade We might say that that is a good thing. We might ask, Why should not these commodities be sold abroad at the highest prices we can get? I agree that that is a good thing now, but competition is getting keener. As I have said, Switzerland is now coming into the market, as well as Paris and America. It is all very fine while it is a seller's market, but with competition growing ever keener it will not be possible in the future to do this export trade and use the profits from the export trade to subsidise the losses on the home trade.

I want to deal shortly with the trade in wedding frocks, which under this Order is very badly hit. It will be impossible, under this Order, to make a special wedding frock. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to consider placing these gowns in some form of special category I speak from experience in this matter, as recently I have had two daughters married. We were able to manage fairly well because for one of them, at the last moment, we found the wedding gown of her great-grandmother made in 1861. With alterations, that got us out of our difficulty. But no one wants to be married in a wedding gown which is only knee-length—[An HON. MEMBER: "An 1861 gown knee-length?"] Under this Order, that is the length to which it will have to be made. I have here a rather interesting cutting from a paper, in which is depicted a delightful wedding gown. The letterpress says: Here is a photograph of a wedding gown in rich satin with an embroidered lace collar and full length train, as shown at the Regent Street show of spring fashions. A delightful wedding gown it is—an imported wedding gown from the United States of America. Yet such a wedding gown cannot, under this Order, be made by our own wholesale manufacturers in this country, which seems quite crazy. Our own manufacturers are prohibited from making this sort of thing; yet we have to spend our hard-earned dollars to import such things into this country. While this was happening, the President of the Board of Trade made an important statement. On the one hand we are told we have to increase our export trade— which, it this wholesale model gown trade were given a fair chance, it would be able to do. On the other hand, we heard the President of the Board of Trade say that we are rapidly spending our dollars from the loan and that when these are spent, there will be no more available, except those which we earn. Why should we then, in this Order, prohibit people making these gowns, and yet allow such gowns to be imported from America, using dollars which are so urgently needed for other purposes? The restrictions under this Order are placed only on the wholesale model houses. The retail couture houses are not covered by any restrictions of this nature. This means that the wholesale model houses, which are, by far, the largest imployers of skilled labour, and by far the largest users of quality cloth, and the largest exporters of fashions, are badly hit.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to re-examine this Order, and see if it is not possible to do something to ameliorate these conditions. I would like to make a practical suggestion. Could he not set up some committee of experienced officials in his Deparment, who, together with members of this trade, could work out some scheme to control malpractices, and at the same time enable this trade to provide for the needs of the people of this country, those women who must have specially made gowns, as well as help our export trade? Could some form of licence be given to approved businesses in this trade? Would not that be one way of doing it? Could there not be some arrangement whereby, say, a 25 per cent. of export trade done would give a similar amount of advantage in the home trade, without controlled prices, if necessary? Could there not be some form of cost-plus basis, which is fair to this trade? I throw out these suggestions. They may be impracticable but the hon. Gentleman cannot tell me that men of good will from his Department and from the trade cannot work out some workmanlike practical scheme to meet the case of women who for no reason they can help, have awkward figures or are outsize and require dresses specially built for them. In this way the Department can help this promising export trade. If that is not done, one can only say the words of Ministers are the exact opposite of their actions.

10.40 p.m.

Captain John Crowder (Finchley)

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain Order No. 1748. The First Schedule refers to a dress "made wholly or mainly of wool cloth" but on the other side, on page 4, we see that wool cloth can be made of horsehair. When one goes to buy a dress of this sort—or, as regards the other Order, night wear—there should be some assurance we are being given wool, and not some manufactured material, in accordance with the definition given in the Order which nobody can understand.

10.41 p.m.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

I have a curiosity about these two Statutory Rules and Orders 1747 and 1748, and I welcome the opportunity of getting the Parliamentary Secretary to give me and the House, and the public at large, some information about these matters, which relate to the very important question of women's clothing. Although these Orders deal with outer wear, it will be understood that underwear is dealt with by other Orders and, in between the categories of outer wear and underwear, there is the intervening garment, such as the afternoon dress, the evening dress and the wedding dress. The first point on which I should like the help of the Parliamentary Secretary is in Order No. 1747. In page 5, paragraph 2, hon. Members will find what I think is one of the most remarkable things which has ever appeared in a complicated Parliamentary document. Paragraph 7 refers to alterations to made-to-measure garments which require adjustment. Perhaps somebody has rounded shoulders, or somebody needs a waist pinched, or there is a sleeve to be altered, a skirt to be raised or any other alterations to be made. This brings me to Part II of the Order in which on page 5 we find: The maximum charge to be made in the course of the business of a retailer who performs the service of carrying out or contracting to carry out alterations to goods within 3 months of the date of the sale thereof shall be the actual cost to the retailer of such alterations; so, however, that such alterations shall be separately charged, This paragraph is surely the most remarkable we have had since the days when the Postmaster-General established the penny post. This is what you may charge for the alterations: with respect to the alterations to a made-to-measure garment the total charge shall be 1d. I do not know, Sir, whether you have ever gone through the pantomime which is carried out at a ladies' retail dress shop—the reception by the shop-walkers, the conducting to the sales department, the visit to the fitting room, the assertion "It fits me not very well there" or "I want it taken in a bit there" or "I would like a little bit adjusted here" and so on. The saleswoman is generally accompanied by another assistant, who kneels properly, takes the measure, pins here and pins there. I see from this Order that this pantomime is under the direction of "R. Stafford Cripps, President of the Board of Trade." This elaborate business, of which you may have some conception, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, carried on behind the panel of plate glass, with all the shopwalkers, upholstery, and the like, is to be carried out under the orders of "R. Stafford Cripps, President of the Board of Trade"—for one penny. The Parliamentary Secretary is a mere child and innocent in this matter of women's clothes, but I beg him to offer us his halting and blushing assistance when he comes to deal with this matter.

In reference to page 6 of the Order No. 1747, I would like to follow my hon. friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) in his plea that the honesty and rectitude of British commercial practice should be restored by a Government which may not be honest in everything else, but might as well be honest in this matter. When you, Sir, buy something which is described as wool, you will not be deceived. If you are dealing with a co-operative society, who are faithful followers of His Majesty's Government, in buying wool, or a fabric which is supposed to be wool, you will know that the so-called woollen fabric is really the "fibre from the coat or fleece of alpaca, camel, goat, hare, lamb or llama." The lamb is the festive little animal seen in the springtime, on the Cumberland or Cheviot hills, but the llama is a different creature. That, however, is not the limit of the range of choice of this adulterated fabric which the President of the Board of Trade imposes upon you. It does not stop at lamb or llama; it goes on to "rabbit, sheep and vicuna" —but that is an error, because there is no animal called the vicuna. There is a wool called vicuna but I think I am right in saying there is no four-legged creature of that name. It is the product of the four-legged creature but not the nomenclature of the four-legged creature itself. However, Sir, if you do not buy vicuna, you may buy "yak and horsehair." Who am I to discourage choice in that selective range?

On the same page there are other descriptions with which I shall not weary the House. I would proceed to observe that at the bottom of that page there is a feature which, I think the House will agree, is regrettable. There are no fewer than seven cross-references to other Statutory Rules and Orders. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to understand that these documents are read with a seriousness, which this House perhaps does not appreciate, by dull-witted tradesmen. Their effort to understand these Orders will be impeded by these seven references on page 5 to previous Statutory Rules and Orders. I think that is a matter to be regretted. I will next glance, if I may, at page 9, where hon. Members will see a pictorial device which I think does credit to the Department which is so much interested in industrial design. This extraordinary and cryptic device is called "the price control mark." It is only comparable in simplicity with the mark which is applied to convicts at Dartmoor and elsewhere. It does not add to the attractions of any product to have two parallel lines, running from right to left, or from left to right—dependent on one's political point of view—which in turn are supported by two black pillars on the left and two on the right with a round solid black mark in the centre indicating, I suppose, some abysmal depth to which we must inevitably sink in accepting price control.

I pass to Order 1748, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). He referred to it with a feeling, an understanding and a knowledge which I felt the House appreciated. I want to point out to the House that when the United States' Constitution was set up, it was dedicated to the proposition that all men are equal. That proposition may be accepted by His Majesty's Government, but they certainly do not apply it to women's clothing, as they' say the maximum charge for women who happen to be a little more handsome than their sisters, a little more majestic, a little more commanding, a little more natural in their gestures is to be 15 per cent. more. This is a Socialist Government which has been expounding Socialist philosophy. Surely it wants larger and better people. Is it right to treat this question of lack of equality between the sexes, which I understand the Government contemplate very seriously, in this way? Is it right to approach the matter by making a charge of this kind? [Interruption.] I suggest it is not only ungallant, but unbusinesslike and undemocratic to charge women who are a little more handsome than their less elegant sisters 15 per cent. more for their garments. That is not in accordance with the democratic doctrine of the equality of men and women, and my argument, I hope, will be reinforced by the hon. ladies in this House, who may not speak for themselves in this matter, but may speak for their more handsome sisters.

This proposal of its 15 per cent. extra is not approved by the trade. They were most willing to agree to the principle adopted by the General Post Office, which charges the same postage on a parcel whether it is going from London to Croydon, or from London to Edinburgh. We in the manufacturing trade had hitherto accepted that over-all principle. It is probable that the little woman gains a little more than she should, because she needs less material although she requires more fitting. The large woman requires more material but is somewhat more easily fitted. The trade do not charge extra for additional size. There are in business a number of establishments known as "outsize houses", but they do not charge any more for outsizes than is charged for the ordinary sizes in the ordinary shops. Yet "R. Stafford Cripps, President of the Board of Trade", is so ungallant as to deny the equality of women, and to say that they must pay 15 per cent. more if they are anything like as handsome as my wife, for example, happens to be.

I am anxious to treat this subject exhaustively, if not exhaustingly. I do not conceal from the House that all these Orders are obnoxious and objectionable. Any attempt to fetter the free development of a great art is an unnecessary and unwarrantable interference with the liberty of the subject. Dressmaking is an art, and any attempt to limit it by an inch or by half an inch, or by a charge, on alterations, of a penny or two is an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of the subject. Dressmakers are artists in the same sense as those who paint great pictures or design great sculptures. No one would attempt, in spite of what we heard earlier in the day, to limit the size of the canvas or the colour of the paints which an artist could use in the presentation of his subject. But these Orders in effect do this in the case of dressmaking. They are aimed at taking the colour, the loveliness, the elegance, the grace and the beauty from life. If that is the intention of His Majesty's Government, they may achieve it, but I shall support this Motion, and, if necessary, vote against the Order.

10.55 p.m.

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

The hour is late and I believe that the weather outside is very unpleasant. Therefore, I do not propose to keep the House any longer than is necessary to make a brief reply to the various points raised by hon. Members opposite who have prayed against this Order. I do not propose, for instance, to follow the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) through all his excursions and incursions, nor to argue with him whether or not it is right and proper to charge extra in some cases. I understood from previous speakers that the complaint against the Board of Trade was not that we were charging too much, but that we were allowing people not to charge enough. If his complaint is, in fact, that too much is being charged, I suggest that he should consult his hon. Friends whose names are coupled with his in support of this Motion to find out where he stands.

The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence), who opened the Debate, confined himself to a criticism of the definition of wool and wool cloth. I readily agree that, on the face of it, it seems unusual, to say the least, to include some of the items which he mentioned in a definition of wool or woollen cloth. But, in so far as it may have been inferred by any hon. Member that, in some way, the customer who wanted to buy wool cloth, or something made of wool cloth, was being cheated, I have to point out that we are here dealing with Orders which are used for the specific purpose of price control and that, so far as the customer is concerned, the customer still enjoys the protection of the Merchandise Marks Act. I agree that the Act does not afford the complete protection that one might like to see it afford. There is no compulsory definition of a particular item covered by that Act, and the only redress, of course, lies through the courts. I think I can say that we are aware of the deficiences of the Merchandise Marks Act and that, at some time in the future, something will be done to remedy them. But hon. Members on all sides know the nature of the legislative programme, and it would be wrong for me, when there are so many important matters to be discussed by the House, to hold out any hope of an early amendment of the Merchandise Marks Act. If and when the time comes for that to be done, I think it is pretty certain that this kind of commodity will be one of those which will be looked at very carefully.

As we heard, the definition of "wool'' includes many things—llama, rabbit, hair, yak and horse fibres. But these fibres are used by the wool industry, often in conjunction with other fibres. It we did not include them in the Order for the purpose of control under the definition of wool, they would either be free from control, which would open the way to abuse, or else we should have to list them separately, or evolve some other more cumbersome general description which would hamper the clarity and the effectiveness of the Order, and would give very great offence to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh, who dislikes all Orders as a matter of principle. We have had some complaints about the definition of wool applying to clothes which include only 15 per cent. of wool. But the fact is that the wool industry uses large quantities of other fibres, and the simplest practicable line of division between the products of the wool industry and, say, that of the cotton industry, is the line of demarcation of raw materials. The normal line of division, I am told by the experts, occurs at about 15 per cent. wool. Above that, it is wool, and below that it is cotton, rayon, or whatever else it may be. If we do not define wool or woollen cloth in this manner, I think we should have excluded from the control, important sections of the wool industry. Or, we should have fallen back on phrases and definitions such as "products of the wool industry." A firm in the wool industry would have been defined as one making a product of more than 15 per cent. wool.

I have been asked if I would give consideration to this question. I assure the House that the utmost consideration is given to any proposition put before me, and without committing myself to any specific line, I am quite prepared to say that I will go back to the Board of Trade and consult with those who know far more than I do on this subject, and if there is anything which can be done to assist the trade and the public, I shall be happy to do it. I will look into the whole question to see if we can assist.

Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)

What objection could there be to a description of a wool mixture?

Mr. Belcher

If anything were described as a wool mixture there would be no definition of how much wool was in that wool mixture, and if one is to have a control, one must define what one is controlling. To describe it as a wool mixture is no different from describing it as a wool cloth. Worsted is a fibre and a mixture, and to call it a wool mixture, would not make the slightest difference.

The hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) spoke about the wholesale model houses. As he knows, I have had many representations on this subject, and I have been in contact with the proprietors of the reputable model houses. I have expressed my willingness to meet their views, but I have to confess that, after talking with them in an effort to find a solution, I have so far been unable to find one. But, if a way can be found, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be glad to give the fullest possible consideration to it.

I would like to tell the House why this Order has had to be made. Maximum prices were fixed at the beginning of this year for women's non-utility outerwear in an effort to arrest the upward trend of prices. Only ready-made garments were controlled, and bespoke articles could be sold above the ceiling prices. But, within the next six months, there was evidence that some manufacturers were using this loophole to evade the control of prices. In reply to a question on 24th June, I told the House that I would ask the Central Price Regulation Committee to look into this matter, which was considered serious. As a result, we were told that some manufacturers were offering the bulk of their products as made-to-measure goods above the ceiling price for ready-made clothing, and that retailers were placing orders for these garments' under fictitious customers' names in order to qualify. The practice became so widespread, that retailers who refused to place these so-called special orders found themselves, to some extent, boycotted by the manufacturers and unable to obtain their needed supplies of ready made garments. Complaints had been received by local price regulation committees, and it was clear beyond a shadow of doubt that some manufacturers were supplying goods made in stock sizes as special orders. We were told by the retailers that the situation was serious and that there was a real danger of the whole price control mechanism breaking down if this practice continued. It was decided that it was necessary to make it not worth while for these manufacturers to continue with this evasive practice, and we have done that by providing that the ceiling price for ready made non-utility garments shall apply with an uplift of 5 per cent. to special orders.

We were approached by the "top end" of the wholesale trade—the wholesale model houses referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I myself spoke to them. I listened to their story and felt that, to some extent, a case had been made out. But when we got down to devising machinery which would deal adequately with the problem, we found that, so far as we could see, and acting with their assistance and on their advice, no satisfactory scheme could be devised. An hon. Member tonight has asked me to consider setting up a committee to define a genuine wholesale model house. That suggestion was made previously by the proprietor of one of the largest wholesale model houses in the hon. Member's constituency, but we could not see how it would be possible to differentiate between the sheep and the goats, or, if one prefers it, the yaks and the llamas.

The hon. Gentleman who asked why an extra 15 per cent. should be paid for something made from utility cloth and not from non-utility cloth, was in error in supposing that is the case. The extra 15 per cent. is paid in respect of outsize garments. We have recognised that somebody who is outside the normal range of ready made clothing is, obviously, a special order customer, and that some arrangement should be made and some inducement offered to the retailer and manufacturer to encourage the production of these outsize garments for women who must have them. So that in the case of the most genuine special order of all— the one that matters most because the woman cannot get anything else to wear —there is an uplift not of 5 per cent. but of 20 per cent., and I consider that is sufficiently generous to enable the manufacturer to produce his garments and, at the same time, to earn his living.

There is a further point. We are talking all the time of an uplift of 5 per cent. on the ceiling price. Many of the proprietors of wholesale model houses have told me that they can produce a number of their garments at below the ceiling price. If they can produce at below the ceiling price and sell at 5 per cent. above the ceiling price, the uplift they are getting in respect of the genuine order is something more than 5 per cent. according to the amount below the ceiling price at which they are producing the article.

I would not like it to be thought that it is merely the so-called austere people in the Board of Trade who came to the conclusion that this action was necessary. It is not just the result of the imagination of somebody in the building who felt that the manufacturers were getting away with something to which they had no right. In fact, the trade Press said that it was entirely due to the failure of the trade to control the black sheep within their ranks that this Order has had to be made. I suggest that when support for an Order of this kind is received from the trade Press, it indicates that there is a very real need for the Order to be made. I assure hon. Members who have asked for assurances, that I will consider the points which they have made, and, if it is humanly possible to improve upon what we have now arrived at in consultation with those who know most about this trade, I shall be only too pleased to do so. I cannot go further than that. It would obviously be impossible for me to say tonight that any particular course of action is to be undertaken. But I am willing to give consideration to this matter. I hope that that assurance will be accepted in the spirit in which it is given, and that the hon. Member will not press his Motion.

Mr. Spence

Has the hon. Gentleman given the fullest consideration to the claims of the Dominions in this matter? In making the declaration that these Orders must stay while price control remains, has he taken the Dominions fully into account?

Sir W. Wakefield

What is the extent of the representations the hon. Gentleman has had from the Dominions on this matter?

Mr. Belcher

The answer to the second question is that I have received no representations at all. Whether representations have been received in the Department I do not know, but they have not come to me. On the first question, I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the wool content of the cloth, when he speaks of the interests of the Dominions. It must be assumed that manufacturers of woollen cloth use the materials that will produce the best results. I do not believe that people are walking about today wearing horsehair or yak fibres, but I am prepared to believe that manufacturers of woollen cloth will, for the purpose of improving their cloth, put into it fibres that will strengthen or improve the wool.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford)

We have reason to know that three of the Dominions are vitally interested in this matter. One Dominion is known to feel very seriously about the definition paragraph in the Order. Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, when he looks into this matter, he will consult Dominions representatives and try to arrive at a fairer definition?

Mr. Belcher

Certainly.

Sir W. Darling

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House and to the public, as there is a great deal of mystification, what the Order means by prescribing a total charge of one penny for alterations to made-to-measure garments? I do not know, and the trade do not know.

Mr. Belcher

I should have thought the answer would have been obvious to the hon. Gentleman. One easy way to circumvent the Order would be to pretend that alterations were necessary, and then to charge considerably more on the cost price. We do not intend that to happen.

Mr. Spence

In view of the hon. Gentleman's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.