FURNITURE (MAXIMUM PRICES) (Hansard, 8 March 1951)

§ Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)
I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 7th February 1951, entitled the Furniture (Maximum Prices) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 205), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be annulled. This Order raises two issues. One is the content of the Order. The other is a question similar to the one I raised last night on another matter—whether the Order has been properly made. [Interruption.]I understand that it is one of the rules of this House that hon. Members who are not in the Chamber are committing an offence if they interrupt proceedings—[Interruption.]—I beg leave, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to 878 the fact that a considerable number of hon. Members beyond the Bar are seeking to make it impossible for an orderly debate to take place. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Let me hear anyhow.

§ Sir H. Williams
I have had considerable experience of addressing meetings attended by Members belonging to the party opposite and I have always observed that when they are in a difficulty they are always the noisiest—[Interruption.]It is always the measure of then-own inferiority.
The point I wish to make about this Order is a simple one, but I think important. If hon. Members will read the Order and observe the footnote, which will enable them to come to the point more rapidly than the rather difficult words of the Order itself, they will find the following: This Order amends the Furniture (Maximum Prices) Order, 1949, as amended, by substituting Related Schedule UF6 for Related Schedule UF5. These related schedules are not in the Vote Office. They have never been laid in the Library. Therefore hon. Members are not in a position to discuss the Order, because the effective part of it has never been made available to them. That is a serious issue.
If hon. Members will take the trouble to look at another of the Orders we are discussing, No. 236, which is a Ministry of Food Order, they will see that whereas the whole of the new schedule is incorporated in that Order, and therefore anyone who goes to the Vote Office gets the whole story, no one can find out what this Order No. 205, which is a Board of Trade Order, means. That seems to me to make the Order one that has not been properly laid.
I was able to get copies of the two Related Schedules by telephoning to the Board of Trade, where an official was good enough to take their copies out of the library and send them to me at the House. These documents ought to be available to every hon. Member, otherwise it is a complete farce to attempt to debate them. In all probability the only two copies of these Schedules in the Palace of Westminster are the ones in my possession and those in—[Interruption.]It is no privilege in the least 879 I telephoned, I spoke to the private secretary of the President—[An HON. MEMBER: "Did you say 'thank you'?"] Certainly. I have manners, which is more than some hon. Members have. I asked him for the courtesy of these documents, and he was good enough to be courteous, and I obtained them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will you return them?"] Certainly. Not being a member of the Socialist Party I always return things I borrow.
The point at issue is one of some substance. I discussed it before the proceedings started with the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), and suggested there might be some merit in this Order being postponed, and it cannot be postponed without his permission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not see the point of that cheer. If hon. Members had taken the trouble to look at today's Order Paper, my remarks would have been obvious to them. I put this point to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch because I thought the matter could be considered on this Order and I did not want this procedure to be raised in respect of any other order by the Board of Trade. I think it might be a great advantage if we could postpone the consideration of this Order so that serious constitutional considerations involved might be considered under more favourable conditions than prevail tonight. I would gladly give way to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch, if he would care to express a view about whether this course is desirable in respect of this Order.

§ Mr. Bing (Hornchurch)
I shall take the opportunity possibly of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, at a later hour.

§ Sir H. Williams
In view of that, I shall ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order to discuss a document laid before this House which is incomplete and cannot be completed by any action a hon. Member can take in the ordinary way—that is, by obtaining the other parts of the document from the Vote Office or from the Library. When I raised the matter last night the original copy was in the Library, and no copy of that has been placed in the Library or in the Vote Office. I wonder whether this is 880 a matter on which you could give a Ruling before I proceed with my observations with regard to the merits of the Order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Give you a Ruling at this time of the morning? I understand that the hon. Member has made several observations, but at this time of the morning I do not know what they were about. I rule that this is in order: that is all I can say.

§ Sir H. Williams
I had some difficulty in catching your remarks, but I gather they were to the effect that it was in order to continue the discussion of the Prayer against Statutory Instrument No. 205, despite the considerations which I have submitted to you. I shall be grateful——

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member might have given me notice if he wanted a Ruling at this time of the morning. How could I have known in advance whether or not it was in order, or in the Vote Office, or laid in the Library or any other place?

§ Mr. Lennox Boyd (Mid Bedfordshire)
Further to that point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East, is it in order for a Statutory Instrument to be presented to Parliament in which two essential schedules are linked neither of which is available to hon. Gentlemen? I agree that it would have been better had you had warning of this point of order, but it is not our fault that this Prayer is being taken at this hour. [Interruption.] Not at all. We are perfectly prepared to postpone consideration of this Order to give you an opportunity to consider the point of order involved.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am dealing with a point of order about some schedules. These schedules, I gather, appear in the explanatory note, and are intended to indicate its general purport but are not part of the Order.

§ Sir H. Williams
It is true that I only read the explanatory note on the ground that it was easier to do that, but paragraph I of the Order contains reference to two related schedules not attached to the Order and not available to Members of Parliament. That is my point.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)
Further to that point of order, I should like to point out that one of my hon. Friends has just handed to me four copies of related schedule UF 5 which he has obtained from the Vote Office.

§ Sir H. Williams
I am interested to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that these documents are now available in the Vote Office. When I inquired at five o' clock they were not there. They had never heard of them. I expended considerable time in the Library with the assistance of one of the officials. He had never seen them and there was no record of their being there. The curious thing is that the documents sent from the Board of Trade were documents in use and they seem to have been sent some time later today as a result of my telephone inquiry to the Board of Trade. Apparently I am contradicted in that by the representative of the Board of Trade, but it will be easily ascertainable in the morning.

§ Mr. John E. Haire (High Wycombe)
The hon. Gentleman should know that these documents have been available for weeks. They have been known to the trade and I am surprised that he cannot get them.

§ Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)
The Home Secretary referred to related schedule UF 5 but the related schedule we are concerned about is UF 6. Has he got that?

§ Mr. Ede
No. I sent to the Vote Office and received the related schedule I mentioned.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think it makes any difference at all. So far as I am concerned the Orders are properly laid before the House. They are correct Orders and one cannot complain about them.

§ Sir H. Williams
The Home Secretary said he had four copies of a particular document, which is only one of the documents. I am told by a representative of the Board of Trade that the documents have always been there. An hon. Friend has just been to the Vote Office, and has been informed that they are not and they have never been there.

§ Mr. Speaker
That does not interest me in the least. So far as I am concerned 882 this is properly laid and, therefore, it must be debated as an Order which is properly laid.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Let us have no more of these points of order.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you appreciate what this Order does. It substitutes related schedule UF 6 for related schedule UF 5. What we should know is, what is in related schedule UF 6?

§ Mr. Speaker
Those who are interested knew perfectly well before this Order was laid before the House. I can quite understand. It is half past three in the morning and we are all merry and bright, but it really does not matter.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I did not hear what you said owing to the noise which was coming from the other side of the House. Might I ask— [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."] Might I have the opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Mr. Speaker, your reply to the point of order which I raised I did not hear owing to the noise of hon. Members opposite. Might I have it again?

§ Mr. Speaker
There was a point of order but I have forgotten what it was about now.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member was standing up when I was standing up. What does he mean by standing up? I am on my feet.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member must control himself. I really do not know at the moment what this point of order was. I have ruled that this is quite in order and it remains in order. If the hon. Member objects he can vote against it.

§ Sir J. Mellor
The reason why I remained on my feet when you addressed me, Mr. Speaker, was that I did not see that you had risen. When you said you had forgotten what the point of order was I was glancing at my papers in order to give it to you again. The point of order was this—this Order seeks to substitute related Schedule UF 6 for related Schedule UF 5. It is, therefore, of im- 883 portance to know what is in related Schedule UF 6.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member says it is of great importance. It may be; I do not know, but so far as I am concerned this Order is in order and it must be decided now.

§ Sir H. Williams
I should like to explain the extent of these related schedules which I obtained in the way I indicated. They contain, roughly speaking, the maximum prices of some 150 to 200 items, and the same schedules are in both Orders. Therefore, it would be quite in order for me to read out items from both, because I am entitled to quote from both Orders. However, I do not want to take up too much time. I propose to read sufficient to indicate how the debate on Order 205 is quite impossible unless there is available those parts of it which have not been laid. Therefore, this document is an incomplete Parliamentary document.

§ Mr. Logan (Liverpool, Scotland)
Will it be in order to quote extracts from the pamphlet the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has in his hand? I submit that if he reads it he must read the lot.

§ Sir H. Williams
It is well-known to those with any Parliamentary experience that, when taking part in a debate, it is competent to read a Clause of a Bill, a subsection, or any pertinent words, and there is no obligation to read the lot.
I will start with page five of UF 6. The number is the 21st Item, Board of Trade No. F171. The description is "dining chair, with arms, upholstered seat." The distributor's price is £4 1s. 9d. In the previous document the price for the same article was £4. I now take the next Item, and it is necessary for me to read this out because nobody else has a copy. The 22nd Item, Board of Trade Ref. No. F172, is a "dining chair without arms, upholstered seat," and the new price is £2 15s., whereas the old price was £2 13s. 6d.
I am seeking merely to show the increased which have been brought about by these Orders, which are quite unintelligible without these documents, which are still not available in the Vote Office. The next Item is No. 23, F173,"dining chair with arms, upholstered seat, up- 884 holstered or panelled back." which has been increased from £4 16s. 9d. to £5. The next Item, No. 24, Board of Trade Ref. No. F174, "dining chair without arms, upholstered seat, upholstered or panelled back," shows an increase from £3 3s. 6d. to £3 6s. 9d.
I should not have commenced to read these Items if for at least 30 seconds I had been allowed the courtesy of fair speech. I shall go on reading them until I do get it. I turn to Item No. 25——

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman says he will merely go on reading what is in the Schedule. That is pure obstruction. [Interruption.] I am talking. Why cannot hon. Members listen? I have something to say. There must be some argument in what the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is saying, and I want to know what is the point of his argument. Just to read out what has increased and what has not increased, is not an argument. I want to know what the argument is.

§ Sir H. Williams
I have been trying for 20 minutes to make some arguments clear to the House, but most hon. Members have not heard what I have said, and I am certain you have not heard, either, Mr. Speaker. You asked me what is the argument. It is this. These related schedules indicate the price increases that are proposed in the Order we are discussing, and it is in order to show which items are being increased. There is nothing by way of obstruction or tedious repetition in reading to the House, which is unfamiliar with the facts, what prices are being increased. I think that is a legitimate argument. The next Item is No. 26, Board of Trade No. F176,"dining chair without arms, spring upholstered seat and upholstered or panelled back"—and the price has been increased from £3 13s. 6d. to £3 17s. 6d. These increases are somewhat moderate.
I now take a set which appears on page 9 where the increases are more serious. I think there will be no difficulty on anyone's part in appreciating the reasons why I read these figures. We are dealing on page 9 with another set of chairs—No. 64, Board of Trade Item F641,"easy chair, frame made of wood particulars grade 3, minimum springing seat and back".

§ Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)
On a point of order. As this is obviously a scandalous abuse of the Rules of the House, is there any way of shutting up the hon. Member?

§ Sir H. Williams
I have succeeded in establishing with those who are familiar with the use of the House, that when we are discussing a document the only copy of which I have in my possession—apart from the Ministers' copies—and when hon. Members have to decide on the merits of this Order, then they must be acquainted with what is in the document. Previous prices have been raised by a moderate amount, but here the increase is from £13 10s. to £15 17s. 6d. I have here, by way of example, another Item, No. 69, Ref. 5672,"settee, three seats, wood grade one, minimum springing seat and back", and the price is now £39 10s. whereas it was £31 10s.
I now move to a different category— Item No. 71, Board of Trade Ref. No. F691,"bed settee, wood grade 2".

§ Mr. W. T. Williams (Hammersmith, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance? In view of this scandalous abuse of the privileges of the House, is it in order for the hon. Member to be heard? May I move that he be no longer heard?

§ Mr. Speaker
So long as the hon. Member is in order, I can do nothing; my opinion, whatever it may be, is another matter. I might do something later.

§ Mr. W. T. Williams
I move, "That the hon. Member be no longer heard."

Hon. Members
I second that.

§ Sir H. Williams
I only quoted all these items—and after all, I have not quoted many out of the 150—to show hon. Members something which they do not seem to know. As I have not indulged in tedious repetition——

§ Mr. Haire
On a point of order. As I understand it, the hon. Member says that other hon. Members are not familiar with the prices of the items he is reading out. I submit that all these figures have been available since 7th February and have been known to the whole of our furniture industry. The hon. Member is indulging in repetition about facts which are well known.

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot answer——

§ Mr. Speaker
How dare the hon. Lady stand up when I am on my feet? There was a point of order which I was answering, and she should not have risen. I was about to say that I cannot answer because I am not acquainted with the trade, but these figures have, I understand, been published. If the hon. Member chooses to repeat them it is his affair, although I must say it seems a little unnecessary at a quarter to four in the morning. The Speaker has to be on duty again at eleven o'clock, and there have been previous occasions. The business of the House comes first, but there are human considerations. Giving figures which have been known to the trade does seem to be unnecessary on the part of the hon. Member.

§ Sir H. Williams
I take punctilious care, Mr. Speaker, as you will agree, never to break the rules of order, and the mere fact that certain people outside this House have these documents while hon. Members say they have not access to them, makes it perfectly clear that I am doing something in quoting from the documents which is entirely desirable. If we are to know about the Orders, the Board of Trade should have performed its statutory duty by laying the Orders; it would not then have been necessary for me to read what I have read.
I was quoting the example of the settees which have been raised from £31 10s. 0d. to £39 10s. 0d., and I think every hon. Member will agree that that is a very large increase to have taken place in a period of rather less than a year. So far as there has been a waste of time up to now, that has been due largely to the fact that a considerable number of the hon. Members present are clearly desirous of making it impossible for hon. Members who desire to address the House to do it in a proper way. I would have finished my remarks long ago if the normal customary courtesy of one lot of Members to another had been exercised.
I am coming now to a completely different category of furniture, from which I will quote two examples which it is difficult to follow. In the case of an upholstered divan with wooden frame, the 887 price has gone from £8 to £9; but the next item, an upholstered divan with wooden frame, edges sprung or stuffed and stitched, they both remain at £15 16s. 9d. It is hard to understand why there should be this inconsistency, because in both cases the cost of production must have risen. Yet in one case the price is unchanged; in the other, it goes from £8 to £9, an increase of roughly 12½ per cent.
These are matters about which I think we ought to have an answer in due course from a Minister who presumably enjoys the confidence of those who do not desire to hear the arguments of other hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the argument?"] I can only suggest that hon. Members might have heard some argument if they took advantage of the gift which Almighty God gave them when He provided them with two ears and only one mouth. That is a suggestion which I make to them. I have no doubt that the considerations which induced the President of the Board of Trade to sign this Order are considerations similar to those advanced in connection with the Order which we discussed previously, namely, that there has been a substantial increase in the cost of raw materials, an increase in wages and in other matters, and that, as a result, the cost of producing furniture is oppressively higher.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not dealt with in the Order. The Order deals with an increase of price, not with policy.

§ Sir H. Williams
I am in a difficulty over that, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.do think that it is a little unfair that I cannot address you, Sir, on a point of order, about which you have just commented, because it is impossible for you to hear what I am saying. When I said I was in a difficulty, I was in a difficulty on this ground. When we were discussing the previous Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, who was in the Chair, permitted a discussion on the point which I was about to raise. Therefore, I tacitly assumed that as discussion on this point was permitted in the Debates on the previous Order—the considerations which brought about an increase of prices—I would not have been regarded as disorderly in raising the point on this Order.

§ Mr. Speaker
I should have thought that the point having been made once, that is enough. Therefore, we shall not have it this time. At any rate, I rule that out of order.

§ Sir H. Williams
While you were speaking, Mr. Speaker, I was unable to hear a word, because of ceaseless interruptions. I understand you rule it out of order to make any reference to the causes which have brought about this increase in price. When we were discussing the order with regard to sewing cotton, which also involves increases in price, Mr. Deputy-Speaker permitted from both sides of the House discussions with regard to the causes which had brought about these things. Naturally I bow to your Ruling. But I did want to indicate, with great respect, that I was not seeking to make the point in the same context.

§ Mr. Speaker
After all, the point has been made, and therefore to make it again would be repetition. Having been made once, it cannot be made again on this.

§ Sir H. Williams
Further to that point of order. I should have thought it could not be repetition, because the previous point was made on a different Order. [Interruption.]It is perfectly legitimate to enter into respectful representation to Mr. Speaker. With regard to the point of order, Mr. Speaker said he came in when the debate had already started. We are now dealing with order No. 205 and it is not a repetition of order No. 166.

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, I think so. Even if one says the point is Government policy and one has been allowed to discuss Government policy which increased prices, it may increase prices on one Order and it may increase prices on the lot. That point having been made, that should be ruled out for all the future Orders which may come before us during the early hours this morning. We have discussed it once. The Deputy-Speaker has allowed it. I cannot allow any discussion on that point again.

§ Sir H. Williams
In view of that Ruling, as I am debarred now from discussing the merits of the Order entirely, I can only beg to move the Motion.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I rise to second the Motion.

§ Mr. Speaker
If I accept the Closure, that is an undebatable Motion.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedfordshire)
On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would value very much your guidance on this matter. I understand that if the Closure is moved on a Prayer, then the Prayer can be put down for another day. May I ask you to advise us on that?

§ Mr. Speaker
I should like notice of that. I have no idea when these things are sprung on me.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
It was equally sprung on us that the Closure was to be moved. I must ask you, with great respect, if it is not a fact that a Prayer cannot be counted out without being raised again on another day, nor can the Closure be moved on a Prayer without it being raised again.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member is rather impertinent, if I may say so. If hon. Members can be angry, I can be angry too. I have listened for a long time to what I may describe as a great deal of nonsense. I was quite prepared to accept this Closure, having heard all that. I have been in this House for a long time. I can understand obstruction and all that sort of thing at 4 o'clock in the morning. I do not mind, but I am not going to stand any nonsense all the same. It is not very good for the House of Commons, all this nonsense in the small hours of the morning.

§ Mr. Speaker
If any objection is made to my accepting the Closure I do not mind in the least. I think it is well deserved.

§ Mr. Stuart
It is only reasonable to ask that a reply should be given. So long as hon. Members who have been speaking on this Prayer are not ruled out of order it seems to me unfair to suggest that there has been a lot of nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "We all know there has."] As long as hon. Members are not out of order they have a perfect right to put their case, and it is perfectly normal to expect a reply from the Government.

§ Mr. Speaker
Then the right hon. Member can put down a Motion of Censure on the Speaker if he so chooses. At four o'clock in the morning my temper may be a bit short, the same as that of other hon. Members.

§ Miss Ward
Further to that point of order, Sir. May I draw your attention to the fact that the housewives have never heard why the price of furniture is to be increased. We should like to know through the responsible Government spokesman why the price of furniture is to be increased. It is a matter of very great importance to us, and I am very disappointed that I am not able to learn the reason for that increase.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order.