CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION (Hansard, 24 November 1948)

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)
I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 24th September, 1948, entitled the Census of Distribution (1950) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 2176), a copy of which was presented on 24th September in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled. I do not wish this evening—and, indeed, I feel that if I did I would he ruled out of Order—to attack the Act under which this specific order has been made. That is not the purpose of this Prayer this evening. The purpose of the Prayer is to put forward a very strong plea that 1950 is not the proper year in which to have a census of distribution. It seems that 1950 is going to be a pretty important year one way or another. The Government seem to have made a great 1374 many plans for 1950, and a great many other things also may happen, but even the Government's plans occasionally are unfulfilled and come to nothing.
When this order was in draft I believe it was considered by a committee of the Board of Trade, and I believe also that certain trade organisations, including the National Chamber of Trade, were invited to send representatives to discuss the order. At that time, it was strongly put forward that 1949, which, of course, is the year during which these statistics are being gathered, was not the most convenient year for a census to be of any value. Subsequently the Autumn Conference of the National Chamber of Trade passed a resolution which they sent to the Board of Trade, and I believe they got the usual sort of acknowledgment from the President.
The terms of the resolution of the National Chamber of Trade were: The 1950 census of distribution should be postponed on the grounds that traders have not sufficient staffs to cope with the returns, that stocks held by retailers are not representative, and that the information received by the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade would be misleading and of no real value. That comes from the trade body which represents the traders who are going to be asked to fill in the forms for this census and whom the census is designed to help. Throughout the country at the moment there is a widespread feeling that the individual unit traders will not derive the slightest practical benefit from the census in the day-to-day needs of their businesses. The question which has been asked remains quite unanswered; namely, what useful purpose is going to be served by the census in this particular year?
For a few moments I will deal with the reasons why we are asking for the postponement of this census. I have said that I am not attacking the idea of a census altogether. I merely wish to try to show that 1950 is not the appropriate year. In the first place, 1949—the year to which the figures will refer—promises to be no more a normal year than, for example, 1946, 1947 or 1948. Indeed, it is the view of traders in the country, and I believe that it is the view at the Board of Trade, that so far as consumer needs are concerned, particularly cotton textiles, there will be a greater shortage than ever in 1949. In 1375 fact, I believe that one of the arguments put forward by the Board of Trade for the continuation of clothes rationing is that there will be a great shortage in 1949.
Secondly, we submit that a census can be of no real value during a period of rationing which is imposed because of the insufficiency of consumer goods. There is an insufficiency of food and insufficiency of clothes, and we contend that until rationing has been abolished the census will be valueless, a waste of time and a waste of money.
Thirdly, the continued operation of Purchase Tax is, we believe, having a very restrictive effect upon, not people's purchasing power perhaps but their purchasing inclination. We believe that a great many people today are not buying goods simply because of the heavy Purchase Tax placed upon them. They are holding their hands at the moment, hoping that Purchase Tax will be removed, which in some cases will reduce the cost of these goods by something like half. If the experts are right—experts are not always right, but if they are on this occasion—it follows that in the coming year, 1949, the census figures, because of Purchase Tax, will be unreal and unreliable upon which to base any conclusions which may affect the process of distribution.
Fourthly, we must remember that there are large food subsidies and there are subsidies affecting the clothing industry which are bound to upset the normal laws of supply and demand. Again, there is the question of Marshall aid, which must give an unreal picture in the distributive field when so many——

§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham)
On a point of Order. The hon. Member tonight has moved the annulment of a Motion which has been made in pursuance of an Act passed in the life of this Parliament, after a very full Debate, which places an absolute obligation upon the Minister to make this order. He has no option whatever about this order, nor in my respectful submission has he much option about the date. It may very well be argued that he might make the date 1950 or 1951, in each case referring to the previous year, but under Section 2 of the Act: The Board of Trade shall, for the purpose of providing at intervals general surveys of the 1376 state of trade and business, take a census of production in the year nineteen hundred and forty-nine and in every subsequent year, and a census of distribution and other services in any year … beginning not less than 12 months after the date of the order. This is not less than 12 months after the date of the order. This obligation on the Minister was decided after full Debate by this Parliament and in my respectful submission the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) is seeking to use the time of the House to criticise the whole state of affairs today and presumably to suggest that we should wait until after a number of Budgets before the obligation placed on the Minister, without option, by this Act is put into operation. It may be that it is just possible for him to argue that it should be 1950 or 1951. Even that may be in doubt. It may be in doubt whether this year is satisfactory, but in my respectful submission he is not entitled to raise the whole range of circumstances on the question of the date.

§ Mr. Speaker
I listened to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) very carefully and I thought he was giving reasons why the year 1949 was not a good year in which to have a Census of Distribution. If I may say so, I think the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has not read the Act quite correctly because while it says that the Board of Trade shall, for the purpose of providing at intervals general surveys, take a Census of Production, and must do that every year, a Census of Distribution and other services may be prescribed in any year. The Minister need not prescribe an order for a Census of Distribution. There seems to be an option here, and I gather that the hon. Member for Eastbourne was giving reasons—I agree they were wide reasons; he was not developing them or I should have stopped that—general reasons why the Census of Distribution would have been inconvenient in 1949. I gather that this is an option which the Board of Trade can exercise.

§ Mr. Hale
Further to that point of Order, may I put it briefly that the Act imposes an obligation upon the Minister to make this order. It gives the Minister discretion to pick a date. It seems a matter of imperative obligation to exercise that discretion. The hon. Member is now moving a Prayer to annul 1377 this order. Annulment of the order would, of course, mean that the Minister could not exercise discretion at all. Therefore, in my respectful submission, is is not competent for the Prayer to be moved at all.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Prayer itself would not annul the general census. The Motion prays against the Census of Distribution and other services. That, I gather, is an optional census, so far as the Board of Trade is concerned. The other census—that is, the Census of Production—is obligatory. Every year it has to be made. There are two different kinds of census. That is my opinion.

§ Mr. Taylor
Thank you very much for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was trying 1378 to explain that the Marshall Aid that we are receiving is bound to emphasise unreal conditions in the field of distribution. I understand that the estimated cost of this census is to be about £1,000,000. I submit that at this time traders throughout the country are finding things extremely difficult, and that the money could be better spent at the present time, and that there could be a saving in manpower also. In conclusion, I should like to say that many traders are in favour of the census, but many are against it——