GOODS AND SERVICES (PRICE CONTROL) (Hansard, 12 February 1946)

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)
I beg to move, That the Order, dated 6th December, 1945, entitled the Women's and Maids' Outerwear (Manufacturers' Maximum Prices) Order, 1945 (S.R.& O., 1945, No. 1530), a copy of which was presented on 18th December, be annulled. The reason that: my hon. Friends and 1 are drawing the attention of the House to this Order is because the Select Committee appointed by the House to consider Statutory Rules and Orders made the comment on 5th February, 1946, that they are of the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on the ground that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the laying of them before Parliament. I would like to ask for guidance on this if 1 am wrong, but I believe that a Statutory Rule and Order has the force of an Act of Parliament immediately after that Order has been signed by the Minister or his representative. There may be a period of time between the signing of an Order by the Minister or his representative and the time when it is laid on the Table of this House. During that time the Order 308 has the force of an Act of Parliament. It means that proceedings under the Order can be taken against persons contravening it, although the persons who are contravening the Order know nothing about the existence of any such Order.
Obviously, it is desirable that the time between the signing of an Order by the Minister or his representative and the time of publication should be reduced to a minimum. I would refer hon. Members to the second Special Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, which is a White Paper and can be obtained from the Vote Office. It is dated nth December, 1945. In that White Paper the Committee make the following observations: They have been impressed by the diversity of the periods elapsing between the making of rules and orders and their publication and presentation to Parliament. Having sought information as to the time actually taken in publishing—i.e. the time from the receipt of the document by the King's Printer (His Majesty's Stationery Office) to the moment of publication—they are given to understand that:— (a) a four-page document normally takes three days and a twenty-four-page document seven days; The Order we are discussing took 12 days from the time it was signed to the time it was laid before Parliament. This particular Order runs into five pages, and the suggestion of the Select Commitee is that an Order having four pages should take three days between the time of its signing by the Minister and its presentation to Parliament. Curiously enough, I have here another Order, No. 149 of 1946. It is one of 46 pages, a very long Order; it is almost a book. This Order—I imagine the Ministry of Supply is efficient in these matters—was signed on 28th January and laid in the House on 1st February, a period of some three or four days. That is not, however, the Order that we are discussing at the moment.

§ Major Guy Lloyd (Renfrew, Eastern)
For the guidance of those who, obviously have not got the Orders, may I suggest that my hon. Friend would be helpful if he read both Orders in full?

§ Mr. Taylor
I would almost like to do that, but I will not do it because I do not want to delay the House for too long. This is an extremely important matter, because hon. Members must realise that these Orders have the force of law, and 309 there may be a time when an Order is signed by a Minister and it is not published for the world or even published for the benefit of this honourable House of Commons. Proceedings may be taken against an individual who knows nothing about the Order, even though the House of Commons knows nothing about it either. [Interruption.] I heard an hon. Member say that the same applied to any Act but the ordinary law—the ordinary Act of Parliament—as the hon. Member will soon know, has to go through various stages of Debate in this House before it becomes an Act of Parliament. These Orders have the force of an Act of Parliament without any Debate in this House, unless some hon. Member like myself, who has taken the trouble to look at these Orders, has the courage to raise a Prayer and ask why such an Order is being made and the reasons for it.
In their recommendations the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders say: A four-page document normally takes three days "— This is what they understand from evidence given by the Departments— and a 24-page document takes seven days. That is, between the signing of the Order and its presentation to Parliament. They go on: … this period of seven days is reduced to five days if the document is set up in type in advance of signature. I will come back to that in a few moments. The next thing they understand from the evidence of the Departments is: Departments often indicate to His Majesty's Stationery Office the date on which they desire the documents to be available (this being sometimes a date subsequent to the operation of the document). The fourth thing they understand from the evidence of the Departments is that: H.M. Stationery Office endeavour to comply with the wishes of departments in this respect and, in any case of urgency, make special efforts to expedite publication. The Select Committee of this House recommend that these periods between signing and publication should be shortened. I will now turn to the explanation of the Board of Trade why there was delay in this particular Order. They say this: 310 It has been the practice in the case of such Orders that the President should sign the Order in typescript and that it should subsequently be sent to the Stationery Office and go through all the various stages of printing and publishing. In those circumstances the period between signature and publication would, without delay at any stage, be between 10 and 12 days. This, in spite of the fact that here I have a 46-page Order that took three days. It would be between 10 and 12 days, depending upon the number of pages in the Order.
Since the making of these Orders, the Select Committee, in its Second Report, recommended that the period should be shortened and that the practice of having Rules and Orders set up in type in advance should be extended. Arrangements have now been made for these Orders to be set up in type in advance and so the period generally should be reduced to seven days. But why seven days? It is a long time. During the period between signature and publication, there may be all sorts of steps taken against people who have broken the law and yet have never seen the Order. I would like to suggest two ways in which the time could be cut down.
I suggest that Ministries must have some idea that, at some future date, an Order will be necessary dealing with a particular matter, and there is no reason why they should not get it out in draft, and no reason why they should not get the Minister's approval to that draft Order. Having got that, they could then go ahead with the printing of the final Order and the Minister could sign it on the day when it was laid before Parliament. The second way in which time could be saved would be if the Department concerned would look ahead and find out if an Order was necessary and then save time by cutting down delay and getting the Order set up in type before signature, so that, directly the Minister concerned signed it, copies could be run off and it could be published to the House and the country.
I am afraid that this is a technical matter, but I urge hon. Members to realise that these Statutory Rules and Orders have the force of an Act of Parliament, and that there may be a time when, between the signature of the Minister being appended to an Order and the time when that Order is published to 311 the country, action may be taken against people who contravene the Order. It is very important from the public point of view. In view of the thousands of Orders being turned out by Government Departments in these days, I feel that is is up to all of us to see that the country has a fair and square deal in this matter and that unjustifiable delay should be eliminated.

§ Lord William Scott (Roxburgh and Selkirk)
I beg to second the Motion.
Since we put down Prayers against certain of these Rules and Orders, a White Paper has been produced which has given the reason why certain Departments and Ministries were rather slow in producing these Orders on the Table of the House, and it gives reasonably satisfactory reasons for the delay. At the same time, we think that the reasons which may have been good enough during December and January would be insufficient to justify any delays in the future. We are raising this question in order to get the Ministers concerned to give their reasons, which, no doubt, will be very similar to those in the White Paper which was placed in the Vote Office this morning.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
I understand that all these objections are on the same ground, and, if it is the wish of the House, the discussions can proceed on them all after the first has been moved, the rest being merely put formally.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We would be quite agreeable not to move separately on the Board of Trade Orders if the first explanation is satisfactory, but we feel that there are differences between the reasons given in the White Paper, that is, between the Board of Trade and the other Ministries. If it would be for the convenience of the House, we would be willing to have an explanation from the representative of the Board of Trade here tonight, but we shall certainly require explanations from the representatives of the other Ministries, and we intend, in spite of the explanations, to move the last Motion on the Paper— Emergency Powers (Defence) Factories.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I wish to make the matter clear. I intended to say that the 312 Board of Trade Orders could be taken together for discussion after the first Motion had been formally moved.

§ Mr. Taylor
I wish to make it perfectly clear that we on this side of the House-agree if the first explanation is satisfactory.

§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
I wished to make one observation with regard to the first Order which is under discussion at present. I am bound to say-that, as a member of the Scrutiny Committee, it would not be for me to condone-any delay, bu0t I think it ought to be pointed out to the House in the case of this particular Order that there could be no possibility of anyone being prejudiced, because the Order which was in fact made on 6th December, and laid before the House on 18th December, provides, in terms, that it "shall not come into operation until 1st January, 1946."

§ Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)
On a point of Order. I would like to say that I wish to move the Motion relating to the third Order standing in my name separately, although it covers the same point, because I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen (Major Spence) has a point of substance on the merits of the Order which he wishes to raise on the third Motion. I respectfully ask for permission to move separately on this isuse.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
As I have already indicated we can discuss these Orders. together.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)
On the particular point that was raised by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), I would ask him to remember that it is the duty of this House, as I see it, apart from any merits or demerits within any Order, to see to it that the private citizen in this country is protected against some form of law being introduced about which he is unaware. It has been suggested by the hon. Member that, after all, there was a considerable-margin of time, and that the Order provided that its effect should not be brought in until 1st January. Let him tell the House again—if I may invite him to do so, in case I have got the date wrong— exactly what the dates were which applied 313 to this Order. Did they, or did they not, cover a most difficult period of trading in this country round about Christmas and the New Year, a time when people were fully engaged in trade, and when they could have very little time to devote themselves to the examination of the details of these Orders, when, in fact, it would be the best possible time to slip something of this sort through without anyone noticing it at all? I do not care on which side of the House we sit, it really is our duty to see to it that the people of this country do not suffer from our own carelessness, or from the carelessness, maybe—and I am not going to throw any pieces of mud, or boots, or bricks or anything else at the Front Bench opposite—of Ministers or their Departments. We must protect the people, and unless they know we are protecting them, we are not doing our job, and the whole prestige of Parliament falls.
I was very sorry indeed to hear the argument used by the hon. Member opposite. It was not a question of attempting to put up an excuse. It did seem to me to be exactly that sort of inhuman departmental argument which can be put forward on departmental broadsheet lines and which in fact, has no value whatever for the poor overburdened man trying to carry on business, who may suffer by something being pushed through while he is in complete ignorance owing to the burdens of his trade. We have to take these matters seriously. It may be that in this new House of Commons Members on both sides have got out of the practice of examining these things meticulously. These things are not done to make difficulties in the machinery of Parliament: they are done very definitely for one purpose, and one purpose alone, in order to maintain— [HON.MEMBERS: "To waste time."]—Let us pick up some more of these remarks from the opposite side of the House. They are scandalous. They are actually undermining the whole value of the Parliamentary system. If we are to consider these matters in that sort of spirit, hon. Members opposite will get a very rude lesson when the time comes. They will be taught in harsh terms what the people of this country think of them, because they do not protect the interests of the private citizen of this country. If we are to consider these things, we must, as far as possible, try to get out of our 314 minds the question of which side of the House we sit on. We have to consider this matter as a Parliament. There is no contentious political or Party matter in this Order.
What we here are striving after is that Parliament can do its duty, and whether, in fact, we can do our duty if we do not draw to the attention of the House to cases of this sort. I feel this matter very acutely indeed. I have seen small, innocent men suffer from the effects of this sort of thing, and it is our duty to draw their attention to the law. Some rule or regulation should be published in order that there should be sufficient time for the information to be known.

§ Mr. Challen (Hampstead)
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, my name is down to move the next Motion, which is also concerned with the Board of Trade, but I do not know if your Ruling is that all these matters should be dealt with as one Motion.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am in the hands of the House, but I understood that objection was taken to the suggestion I made.

§ Mr. Gaitskell (Leeds, South)
However admirable the sentiments of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) may be, his case would have been strengthened if he had had the Order in front of him. The Order in question imposes ceiling prices for women's and men's outerwear, and the announcement was made about the end of November, if not earlier.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
What the Minister intends to do in this House is of no value whatever in law. Everybody on the Government Front Bench will agree.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
I thought I heard a reference to "slipping this one across." One can hardly describe as "slipping across" something of which details have already been given. In point of fact, the prices of women's outerwear were discussed months before, and the majority of the trade knew of these even before they were published in November. In this case 13 days elapsed between the laying of the Order on the Table and the sale of goods to a wholesaler or retailer. If the hon. Member will look up the dates of the laying of an Order, and the coming into force of the Order, he will find that, in the 315 Coalition Government, it was about ten days, and, furthermore, it was very frequently the case that the time for laying an Order could not be allowed because it was necessary to make the changes quickly.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
May I interrupt the hon. Member? Whether an Order was wrongly laid or unnecessarily laid in the time of the Coalition Government, does not matter in the least today. My hon. Friends and I would have objected, and so would all on the opposite side of the House. It is entirely a non-party matter.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
I only wanted to make one further point. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) who moved this Prayer in the first instance was, I think, particularly concerned with the point, as was the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) that an Order should not come into force before it had actually been published. Therefore it is perfectly relevant to point out that this Order did not come into force until 10 or 12 days—I think 13 to be precise—afterwards and that was the normal period to which nobody has hitherto objected at all.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
In dealing with this Order, assuming that the Minister's reply was going to be the same for the first five or six Orders, I have brought in some of the arguments relevant to the other Orders. There is no question about it——there was a time between the signing of some of these Orders and the time they were laid on the Table, when they had the force of law, and nobody knew anything about it.

§ Mr. Challen (Hampstead)
I have my name down to the next Motion on the Paper which concerns the Board of Trade, and I wondered whether we should make our points now on this particular Motion and let the Minister answer the criticisms that we have to make. There is only one remark that I wish to make on this subject—although I could make some more on one or two of these Orders which appear to be rather superabundant. After a long period in the last Parliament we eventually established a committee, which is now an all-Party committee with a preponderant representation of Members of the Party opposite upon it, to supervise these Orders and report to this House.
316 That Committee has reported that none of these Orders—and that is what we are praying against—has been put on the Table of this House as should have been done. We all know that a defence may be put up on the ground of printing difficulties, on the ground of lack of staff and so on. But in dealing with this matter we should have absolute priority in printing, so that Members of Parliament, the House of Commons and the public may know precisely where they stand. Instead of that, we find that this Committee, consisting of Members of this House, with a preponderant majority of Members of the Party opposite, reports to this House that these Orders were unduly delayed. That is the reason the Motions are put down now. They are unduly delayed and therefore some explanation is required from the Minister. I do not want to add to what has already been said on the Prayers and that is why I have taken the opportunity of making my remarks now.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher)
I think perhaps I ought to preface my remarks by drawing attention to the fact that this is the occasion of my first essay from this Box, and perhaps to apologise for my Department having made it necessary for me to occupy what I have hitherto regarded as a somewhat exclusive position—that of a person called upon to answer Prayers. I hope that I shall not be found wanting. Let me say at once, I entirely endorse everything that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) said about the necessity for these Orders being made public as quickly as possible after they are made. It is perfectly true that they have the force of an Act of Parliament, and the House and the general public are entitled to know as quickly as possible what the Orders are about, and what are the statutory obligations laid upon the people. The existing procedure, as I understand it, is that Orders shall be laid before the House— in that very unsatisfactory Parliamentary phrase—" as soon as may be "after they are made, and that when they are laid before the House, simultaneously there should be sent to the Scrutinising Committee fifteen printed copies of each Order. That means, of course, that the Order cannot be laid until it is printed-

§ Captain Crowder (Finchley)
As a Member of that Committee, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that they could be typewritten or roneoed? I know it is easier to have them printed so that they can be circulated, but that really is not a valid excuse. They could roneo fifteen copies.

§ Mr. Belcher
I was not offering it as an excuse, but setting out, for the convenience of the House, the procedure as 1 understand it to exist at the present time. The Scrutinising Committee has recently recommended that the period between the making of the Order, and the laying of that Order in the House, should not exceed seven days. May I at once point out that that recommendation of the Scrutinising Committee was made after the making of these particular Board of Trade Orders—although, again, I do not offer that as an excuse for any undue delay. It is the case that in five of these six particular Board of Trade Orders the delay was occasioned entirely in the process of printing. We have been given by the hon. Member for Eastbourne figures of the number of days calculated to be taken in the printing of Orders of various sizes, going from three days for an Order of four pages to seven days for an Order of 40 pages, or something like that. I am afraid it is not possible to say. with any certainty, that an Order of four pages will in any one particular case take three days, while an Order of twice as many pages will take one more, and so on. A lot will depend upon the time of the year, and on the amount of the work the Stationery Office is being called upon to deal with. In this case, of course, these Orders were being made round about Christmas time, when I understand there was undue pressure on the Stationery Office, and when because of the holidays there was an accumulation of work.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
With a little foresight on the part of the Department concerned they could have foreseen that some of these Orders might have been necessary. They could have said, "Look here, we are bound to have an Order on underwear over the Christmas period. We foresee this, and we will get it out so that it will be ready."

§ Mr. Belcher
It is possible there might have been" more foresight. I am merely 318 trying to explain why in these particular cases there was this delay of some seven or eight days. The hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder) has made a suggestion as to what should be clone. He suggests that we should cut out the work by having the Orders signed in typescript, that we should have them set up in print and, presumably, signed in proof. We have gone further than that in the Board of Trade. It has been decided that future Board of Trade Orders will be signed in print, so that it will be possible to lay them before the House within the shortest possible tune—certainly well within the seven days asked for by the Scrutinising Committee.
It may afford hon. Members some satisfaction if I tell them that I have gone further than that, and have instituted my own scrutinising committee in the Board of Trade to keep an eye on our own orders so as to avoid anything going wrong in the future. I can say to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), who I think suggested that we might be trying to "slip one over," that there is certainly no desire on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend, or myself, or any officer in the Department, to do that. It may happen from time to time that there are errors of judgment, involving delays, for which we will be called to account by the scrutinising committee, but in most organisations there will, occasionally, be errors of judgment.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
If the hon. Member says I was suggesting that the Board of Trade was, so to speak, dishonestly trying to slip something across I did not mean that. What I meant was that something slipped in which inadvertently led to trouble.

§ Mr. Belcher
I accept the hon. Member's explanation. I have tried to make it plain that there is no desire for any undue delay. We appreciate the gravity of these orders, and the fact that they should be laid before the House, for the benefit of Members and the public, as quickly as possible. We have taken steps which will lead to a speed up of the process, and I can only ask, in view of the assurance and explanation I have given, that Members opposite will not press their Prayer for the annulment of the orders, but will allow them to go through.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford)
I am sure that the House as a whole, irrespective of party, would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his maiden effort at the Box. We are glad to welcome him, and were interested to hear about the scrutinising committee which he has set up in the Board of Trade. We take note of the fact that it has, possibly, come into operation after these Prayers were put on the Order Paper, but, nevertheless, we welcome it, and wish it every success. The hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Gaitskell) said there had been Ministerial statements on the substance of this Order and suggested that this was adequate preparation of the public for the Order. But the hon. Member knows that a great many things are said by Ministers and others on the Government side in advance of intentions, with which the country as a whole cannot be satisfied. I remember at the last Election—and I hope I am in Order—hearing a great deal about the intentions of the Socialist Government to break the film ring. The hon. Member for South Leeds knows, no doubt to his own satisfaction, that very little has been done about that—

§ Mr. Gaitskell
I must protest. I must ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Member has made serious allegations against me which I must ask to be withdrawn.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I do not think the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) were relevant.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
If you think, Sir, that my remarks were un-Parliamentary I will withdraw them, but the hon. Member opposite is entitled to feel that the particular set up in the film industry might be most conducive to the prosperity of that industry. If that set up is maintained that is, no doubt, a matter for his own satisfaction. I see nothing improper in having said that, but if the hon. Member is in any personal doubt that I have said something to cause him offence I will, of course, withdraw—

§ Mr. Gaitskell
I would like to correct what is evidently a misapprehension, namely, that I am in favour of a monopoly in the film industry, or that I have any connection with any monopoly.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I know nothing about that. The hon. Member will, no doubt, have many opportunities of making his own position in that great capitalist industry perfectly clear. All I was concerned about was to make clear that Ministerial pronouncements and Private Members' pronouncements have no validity in advance of some Order, and that the, House and the consuming public, for whose welfare we were first called into existence, need to wait for the Orders themselves. This slight contretemps will not mitigate against the genuine compliment which I paid to the hon. Gentleman, and we hope that the scrutnising committee in his own Department will follow up the recommendations of the all-party scrutinising committee, and that the limit of seven days will be followed in future. We shall then find that, in the spate of legislation which has been threatened, or promised, according to one's political predilections, thus safeguard will be introduced, to the general satisfaction of all sides of the House. In the light of the explanation made by the hon. Gentleman, although I gather that one of my hon. Friends has a point of substance to raise on the merits of the Order, which are frequently lost sight of in the consideration of the constitutional aspects of the problem, we do not intend to press either the first or second Prayer, although, as the hon. Gentleman has already been warned, there is a point of substance on the third Prayer.

§ Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) for bringing up this very important matter. I welcome the opportunity to pray that this Order be annulled on its merits, or demerits. Any stranger to the Debates would not recognise that the subject of the discussion had any reference to women's and maids' outerwear. That is the subject of the Order which we are now praying shall be annulled. The Minister's reply did not touch on those aspects in which the general public are concerned. I hope the Order will be annulled, because it is an objectionable Order, an Order to which large numbers of women throughout the country take exception. On general principles, I am against this control and other controls, and I hope the Order will be annulled for that reason, but I am 321 reinforced in my views by something which has appeared in the public Press during the last few days. The Amalgamated Engineering Union is an important body whose opinions certainly on engineering and trade matters are treated with respect; their opinions on other matters, as published in their journal, are also treated with respect. There appeared in their journal the statement that they are not at one with the policy of His Majesty's Government and particularly the policy—

§ Mr. Speaker
I very much doubt whether they expressed an opinion on the subject of women's outerwear, which is the subject of this Order. The hon. Member must keep to the Order.

§ Sir W. Darling
With respect to you, Mr. Speaker, they did express an opinion on women's outerwear and other austerity proposals of His Majesty's Government. I thought it odd, as you do, that these pronouncements, more fitting to the "Drapers' Record," appeared in this somewhat hardfaced journal, but it is the case that they deplored the policy of austerity, which this Order seeks to confirm. The policy of austerity limits the price

§ Mr. Speaker
The question of austerity is rather wide of this Order. The hon. Member must stick to the Order.

§ Sir W. Darling
I than you for your guidance. The Order refers to the restrictions placed upon manufacturers of women's outerwear not to sell at any price higher than£12 is. 6d or£17 11s. od. a costume made wholly or mainly of wool cloth consisting of skirt and jacket (not being both tailored and fully lined jacket) or cardigan. This particular Union deplored Orders of this character, in that they imposed what they thought were unnecessary standards of austerity upon the public. That view is shared by others. The trade itself believes that this restriction on the price prevents the expansion and development of our trade.
These fashioned garments of women's outerwear cannot be developed as a home trade or a suitable export trade. They 322 are restrained by the impositions of this Order and, to that extent, I pray the Order will be annulled. The hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Gaitskell) said in defence of this Order that the President of the Board of Trade had had many consultations with the trade on this matter. The argument to be adduced was that if the trade agreed, the women and "the maids who wanted outerwear were not concerned. That is a very improper and undemocratic proposal. We have heard in this House such arguments frequently used by His Majesty's Government. We heard in connection with the Mining Bill that the Mining Association agreed, there fore the public should agree—

§ Mr. Cobb (Elland)
What has the miners' business to do with this Order?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member rose just before me. I was going to ask the same question.

§ Sir W. Darling
Perhaps it is out of Order for me to say so, but this reference of matters to trade associations, as a buttress for the policy of His Majesty's Government, does not seem very respectful to Parliament. Ought we to accept the Coal Bill because the miners agree to it, the Bank of England Bill because—

§ Mr. Speaker
This is far outside the scope of the Order.

§ Sir W. Darling
The observations of the hon. Member for South Leeds, which were apparently relevant, provoked me to make these observations in support of what I had to say. I would go further and refer to the first Schedule to the Order. Item No. 7 causes me some concern. Several hon. Members who, like me, are not connected with the textile trade are interested in this matter. The item is: Jacket, blazer, cardigan, waistcoat, bolero or like garment, including any coat, cape or cloak, not more than 28 inches in length:
(a) made wholly or mainly of wool cloth…

(b) not made wholly or mainly of wool cloth…
These garments may not be sold for more than£8 8s. od. in the case of (b) and£11 11s. od. in the case of (a). I am against this Order because I am against any restriction in the embellishment of the women of this country. I hope I have the women with me, in praying that this 323 Order be annulled, in order that grace and loveliness and beauty shall flourish.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I want to raise a point on the second Motion which I understand we are discussing at the same time as the first Motion. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will explain one point which arises in the Memoranda from Departments which was ordered to be printed on 5th February. If I might refer him to page 5—

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the second Motion to be discussed with the first one?

§ Mr. Speaker
I understood that as the Orders were more or less the same, we would take the first two together. I do not want time to be wasted unnecessarily.

§ Mr. Taylor
The first two, Sir, but on the third, I understand, there is a point of substance.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
If I might attempt to clarify the position, the first six Orders all relate to the Board of Trade. We have only one point of substance to be raised by an hon. Member behind me on the third Order. Apart from that, I believe my hon. Friends and I have no wish to discuss these Prayers separately. We are prepared to agree that all six Orders, apart from the third Order, should be taken together.

§ Sir J. Mellor
As I was saying, I refer to page 5 of the Memorandum, in the second paragraph of which is a reference to the directions given in Statutory Rule and Order No. 1506 of 1945, in the course of which it is stated: The directions were made a day after the requirements of laying these instruments came into operation, and it is probable that the officers concerned were not fully familiar with the necessary procedure. Probably, for the same reason, it has not been possible to ascertain the exact point or points at which delay occurred. That seems to me rather an astonishing statement to make—that these directions could be prepared without leaving any trace or record of their passing behind them, and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could explain how that is possible.

§ Mr. Belcher
I agree that, as stated in the Memorandum, it does seem rather 324 extraordinary that we are unable to say why the delay occurred in this case and have failed to find out where it occurred. That, however, happens to be the case at the moment. This happened, of course, before I went to the Board of Trade, and, though I cannot speak personally about it, I accept responsibility. We are doing all we can to find out what happened, and, when we do know, we shall take effective steps to prevent it happening again.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

§ Mr. Taylor
I only want, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I beg to move, That the Order, dated 6th December, 1945, entitled the General Apparel and Textiles (Wholesalers and Retailers' Maximum Prices and Charges) (No. 3) Order, 1945 (S.R.& O., 1945, No. I529), a copy of which was presented on 18th December, be annulled. For the reasons which I explained previously I propose to move this Motion formally, in order to enable one or two of my hon. Friends, who wish to raise points of substance on the merits of the Order, to make their speeches.

§ Major Guy Lloyd
I beg to second the Motion.

§ Major Spence (Aberdeen, Central)
I support the Motion for the annulment of this Order, on a matter of substance. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would acquaint the House with the fact that I am a textile manufacturer and therefore speak with expert knowledge of this subject. I would direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to paragraph 1 (2, a), of the Order which excludes knitted garments other than garments made up from knitted cloth from the operation of this Order. The purpose of this is to fix the price of such articles, and the reason for excluding knitted garments is, of course, that 95 per cent. of all knitted garments have to be supplied to the public under the utility and price regulations already laid down by the Board of Trade. I wish to draw 325 the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Schedule on page 2, line 7, in which permission is given for a blouse or a jumper to be sold at a retail price, including Purchase Tax, of£6. I now pass to the explanatory note on page 3 which says that the ceiling prices do not apply to knitted garments, but they do apply to garments made from knitted cloth. This is the substance of my first ground of complaint against the Order. As an experienced technical man in this trade, 1 think, it is not possible to lay down an Order which distinguishes between a garment made from knitted cloth and a knitted garment. There are shades and variations so fine to distinguish that the one weaves into the other, and I feel that it is wrong to discriminate against a knitted garment, and to allow a garment made from knitted cloth to have a ceiling price of£6. The Order as it stands also gives opportunities for evasion, because it would be perfectly easy to buy an ordinary utilty garment, alter it in the workshop, and then sell it again for a much higher price.
I would also like to draw attention to page 2 of the Order where provision is made for the raising of prices for supplying larger sizes. There what is described as an outsize garment is one 41 inches round the bust, and 44 inches round the hips. Anything over and including that is an outsize garment. Now I know from experience over very many years that that docs not meet the case at any rate for a great many people. There are people who go far beyond these measurements, and the result of the Order is that if some good lady does not conform to the Board of Trade's required dimensions, she is compelled to go to a tailor and have a garment or costume made at a very much higher price than the ceiling fixed here. I do feel that for the larger sizes over and above the outsize permitted in the Order, there should be a sliding scale. There is an allowance in the Order for 15 per cent., and that should be extended. The Parliamentary Secretary would be astounded if I told him some of the massive constructions I have had to produce to meet the demands of the British public, and 1 suggest that, on those grounds, the Order should be annulled. One other argument I would like to adduce, is in the 326 reference to the WX size, as it is called. Here there is no permission to share in the rise of price at all. As the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, the ordinary women's size is 36 inches, and the WX is 40 inches on the bust measurements. Everyone experienced in the trade will know that on the; average the WX size needs a longer fitting, and therefore a lot more cloth is needed. I suggest that in this Order there should be provision, for the large sizes below outsize with a percentage rise to allow for the WX fittings.

§ Mr. Belcher
I was not expecting, in replying on to this Motion, that 1 would have to go into these involved details about sizes

§ Squadron Leader Sir Gilford Fox (Henley)
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary should understand and know the Orders and what is contained in the Orders.

§ Mr. Belcher
If the hon. and gallant Member would allow me to go on, he would learn that I am not apologising on the ground that I do not know what is in the Order. I was merely explaining that T had not expected to have to go into these details about bust measurements, waists, hips and so on, but I will do my best to deal with them. As I understand it, there arc two grounds of complaint and the first is that we discriminate, or rather distinguish, between knitted garments and garments made from knitted cloth.
The hon. and gallant Member complains that, it is very difficult to make 1hat distinction, and that it is possible, with a certain amount of skill, to effect an alteration in one garment which will make it resemble more closely other garments on which there is no ceiling price. I can only say that I suppose that would apply in a very large number of instances, quite apart from knitted garments and garments of knitted cloth. I suppose that, with sufficient skill, it would be possible to effect alterations in all sorts of articles and commodities which are subject to a ceiling price. which would enable them to be sold above the ceiling price. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen 327 (Major Spence) speaks with technical knowledge which I do not possess but I must assure the House that, in all these matters, we were in constant consultation with representative trade bodies, and were advised by them; and before this Order was introduced we were in consultation with the appropriate trade body. Their views must have been that this particular regulation could be put into operation and be made effective.
On the question of outsizes, I am not sure that I understood the hon. and gallant Member correctly. We have fixed certain measurements, as we must, qualifying for this description, and are prepared to increase the ceiling price by fifteen per cent., in the case of garments of these measurements or more. Do I understand the hon. and gallant Member to say we should go further, and have an extra outsize for which we could make an allowance of, say, twenty or twenty-five per cent., if you like?

§ Major Spence
Yes. My hon. Friend has correctly stated the position with regard to outsize garments. The position is that if you have a garment with a forty-one-inch bust you get fifteen per cent. extra for it. But the lady of considerably bigger dimensions finds herself up against the fact that the manufacturer is not prepared to use cloth for which he does not get paid, and says she must have the garment made outside the regulations altogether—let me remind the House that we are dealing with a ready-made garment—and he forces on her thereby a made to measure garment. My other point was not that you should be able to sell the garment without a ceiling price. The point was that under the regulation you can buy a utility article for probably 16s., do a bit of messing about with it, and sell it again for£.

§ Mr. Belcher
Referring to the point about the outsizes, I sec the strength of the complaint. But I think there would be a small number of excessively outsize women—if I may use the term—for whom if would be difficult to supply these articles. I suggest that so far as the retailer is concerned, or the manufacturer, there is a likelihood that things will equal out. He is making a profit, of course, on the exceptionally small woman, and I would say, from personal observation— 328 though I do not claim to be very observant in this matter—that there are quite as many excessively small, as excessively large, women. Then there is the question of introducing the WX woman—I hope Members are following these OS's and WX's. I am doing my best to follow the hon. and gallant Member, without alteration to the phrases he used. Again, I think this is a question of practicability. We are constantly harried about imposition of controls and limitations in all directions. Here is a case where we are trying to make the thing as simple as we can, and we are being urged to introduce into the Order and the Schedule, ranges of price differentiation to meet all kinds of different sizes and shapes in the fair sex. I suggest that what we have here is a reasonable and sensible attempt to deal with this problem, recognising that there are exceptions at one end of the scale for which provision has to be made. I would assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in conclusion, that I have taken note of the points he has made. These matters will come up again, and I will remember what he has said tonight. If we find that his suggestions are practicable, and they do agree with the opinions of our trade advisers, I shall not be lacking in willingness to see that these matters be put in order.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.