CARPETS (MAXIMUM PRICES) (Hansard, 15 March 1951)

§ Mr. Derek Walker-Smith (Hertford)
I beg to move: That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 26th February, 1951, entitled the Carpets (Maximum Prices) (Amendment No. 4) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 312), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be annulled. It is very gratifying to see such a fine assembly of hon. Members on the benches opposite. Hitherto in the course of this evening and the last few nights when the House has debated business of such importance to the nation, hon. Members opposite have not been conspicuous by their devotion to duty. I have been reminded of nothing so much as that famous cricket match in "Pickwick Papers" between Dingley Dell and All Muggleton, when the score of the other side was "as blank as their faces." That seems to me perfectly to describe the attitude of hon. Members opposite to their Parliamentary duties at present. Their score is very low indeed.
I now come to the demerits and dubieties of the Order. This is the fourth amending Order to be made in respect of the price of carpets within the short space of nine months. Taking into account the original Order, which is varied by these amending orders, there have been no fewer than five orders in the course of 13 months. It started with the Carpets (Maximum Prices) Order, 1950, which fixed the prices at 1st February, 1950. That was followed very quickly by the first amending order fixing a new scale of prices at 14th June, 1950. Almost immediately afterwards came the No. 2 (Amendment) Order fixing further 1935 prices at 26th June. Then in October last there came the No. 3 (Amendment) Order fixing further prices at 30th October.
That brings us to the present Order, which is, therefore, the fifth order on this subject in only just over a year. For the benefit of the uninitiated, that is what is called a planned economy. It is a rapid advance on a broad front in the price of carpets. I want to confine my examples to one type, to rugs and mats, these being smaller than ordinary fitted carpets and therefore less outside the range of the average citizen's purse in the present inflationary era of the Socialist Government. For the benefit of the House and particularly for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman I have made a comparison of certain prices respectively at the date when prices were fixed by the original Order in February, 1950, at October last year when they were fixed by the last amending Order, and at the present time as fixed by the Order we are discussing. The prices are expressed per square foot and are exclusive of Purchase Tax. That is a significant point to which I shall return.
These figures are far from exhaustive, but they serve as illustrations of the staggering effects of rising prices as the result of these various amending orders. My comparisons relate to Axminster carpets, which are described by the working party of the industry as medium quality carpets. There are four grades of these carpets. Axminster No. 0 has gone from 5s. per square foot on 1st February, 1950, to 6s. 7d. on 30th October and up to 7s. 7d. by the Order which is before us. Axminster No. 1—I think I should repeat the first figure because some hon. Gentlemen have not heard it.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has accused me of tedius repetition. I would suggest a simple test. If he is able to rehearse to us the figures I have just given, I would be guilty of tedious repetition if I were to repeat them. I will give way instantly, if he will accept that challenge. I hope the hon. Member's constituents will have regard to the degree of diligence and attention he gives to this vital matter affecting the social comfort and amenity of his constituents. It is clear beyond peradventure that I am not only entitled but it is my duty to repeat 1936 the figures I have given to the House for the benefit of the hon. Member and his colleagues who have not fully comprehended them.
I took Axminster carpets of medium quality. The first variety has gone from 5s. in February, 1950, to 6s. 7d. in October, 1950, and now up to 7s. 7d. The next quality of Axminster carpet, the No. 1, has gone from 3s. 9d. in February, 1950, to 4s. 11d. in October, 1950, and on to 5s. 7d. in this Order. The next quality, the No. 2, has gone from 3s. 2d. per square foot on 1st February, 1950. to 4s. 2d. on 30th October, 1950, and to 4s. 7d. in this Order. Finally, the cheapest quality of Axminster carpet goes from 2s. 7d. on 1st February, 1950, to 3s. 4d. on 30th October, 1950, and now goes right up to 4s. 3d. in this Order. That, as hon. Members will observe, is an average rise of rather more than less than 50 per cent. in that short period.
The most peculiar thing, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain if he is not too busy——

§ Mr. Dryden Brook (Halifax)
Will the hon. Member tell the House how much the price of raw wool has risen?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
Of course.that is material, and I am coming to that if the hon. Member will contain himself. He has not been in the House so long this evening that he cannot sit patiently for a minute or two. Not only has there been this very substantial rise in the price, but the rise has been heaviest in the cheapest article. That is a very odd thing to get from a Socialist Minister, that the cheapest Axminster carpet seems to have increased more in price than the more expensive carpets. It has increased by no less than 11d. since the 30th October, whereas the No. 2 carpet has increased by the much smaller amount of 5d. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to address himself to why that should be so.
I always like to be fair on these occasions, and there is one apparent gleam of comfort to be found in the study of this Order. That is in regard to hair pile rugs and mats. There I find that the price is actually lower. I hasten to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this. Encouraged by that discovery I went on to look, hoping I would find the same thing in regard to hair cord 1937 rugs and mats, but for some inexplicable reason, the reverse applies and the Order raises the price of these rugs and mats. Then to try and reconcile these figures, and to see if I could find further enlightenment, I had a look at the effect of the Order upon hair pile seamless squares and broad loom. One would expect that if it were possible to reduce the price of hair pile rugs and mats, it would equally be possible to reduce the price of hair pile seamless squares and broad loom. But greatly to my astonishment and regret, that in fact is not the case and the price there is raised from 30s. 7d. on 30th October, 1950. to 32s. 3d. by the present Order.
The next aspect of this rather puzzling Order to which I want to refer hon. Members is the introduction of three new types by this Order. Those types, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, but as some of his colleagues who have not studied the Order may not know, are respectively W0A, W1A and C1A. The C1A means chenille Axminster No. 1A, and study of the Order shows that there are already five types of chenille Axminster listed in the Order. By an unhappy coincidence, the maximum retail prices of each and every one is raised. Why is there this new type? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the introduction of the new types is in reality intended to cloak the rise in prices? If not, what is the reason for bringing them in? Or is it that they have been introduced as a kind of consolation prize for having raised the prices of the five existing types?
The W0A is another new type introduced by the Order; and this I find with considerable regret, as coming from a Socialist Government, is the most expensive of all the types, being 12s. 2d. a square foot for rugs and mats. It seems to be the policy of the right hon. Gentleman that when prices are rising all round he adds a new category at the topmost price of all, which might be said to be a policy pour encourager les autres.[An HON. MEMBER: "Will the hon. Member translate?"] If the hon. Member asks for a translation, I would suggest that for hon. Members opposite the policy is one of"excelsior,"at any rate, where prices are concerned.
I now come to the point I touched upon a little earlier, and to which I said I would return, and that is the question 1938 of Purchase Tax, because this is really the most important part of this important Order. It will be quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman when he replies is going to say, in justification or extenuation, that all this is due to the rise in the prices of raw materials.

§ Mr. Speaker
Did I hear the hon. Member mention Purchase Tax? If he did, that has nothing to do with this Order. Purchase Tax is not mentioned in the Order.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
With respect, Mr. Speaker, it is in the Order, because one of the columns in this Order shows that the retailers' over-riding maximum price is calculated exclusive of Purchase Tax.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member cannot discuss Purchase Tax.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
With great respect, what we may discuss in a price control regulation is the price as it will affect the consumer. The price as it affects the consumer is based on two elements, the retail price and the Purchase Tax. It is, with respect, quite impossible to discuss an order such as this without referring to the Purchase Tax; because it is one of the great hardships of price raising in this way that not only does it add to the advertised price to the consumer in the Order but it increases the Purchase Tax by one-third of the increased price.

§ Mr. Speaker
No. I believe one must discuss the Order without reference to Purchase Tax. That is what the Order says, exclusive of Purchase Tax, and therefore a reference to Purchase Tax is out of order in discussing this Order.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
With great respect I submit that I should be in order, in reciting to the House what these figures are to be when they are translated into what the consumer has to pay—an hon. Member who has momentarily usurped your function, Mr. Speaker, shakes his head——

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that if the hon. Member says what the consumer has to pay, including Purchase Tax, that would be bringing in Purchase Tax and this Order excludes Purchase Tax. Therefor that is out of order.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I would put it this way, with great respect, because I know 1939 that you are anxious to give a Ruling which accords with the proper discussion of this Order by hon. Members of this House in the fulfilment of our responsibilities to our constituents. There is only one aspect of this Order which really affects the electors who send hon. Members to this House, and that is the amount which they have to pay in order to secure these articles.

§ Mr. Speaker
That may be a matter for the Finance Bill, but it is not relevant to this Order.

§ Squadron Leader Burden (Gillingham)
With respect, Mr. Speaker, this Order does determine what amount of Purchase Tax they have to pay.

§ Mr. Speaker
It says "exclusive of Purchase Tax."

§ Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)
This Order is called the Carpets (Maximum Prices) Order, and I think that you will find, Sir, that in other regulations the price to be charged by retailers must include Purchase Tax; and maximum Purchase Tax, taken in conjunction with column 4, admittedly does carry the words "exclusive of Purchase Tax." But, inherent in the context of that and this Order, is the idea that the maximum price of those figures in column 4 applies the Purchase Tax although, for convenience, it is put in terms to which Purchase Tax can be added.

§ Mr. Speaker
No, I am afraid I cannot accept that.

§ Mr. John Foster (Northwich)
"Exclusive of Purchase Tax" is an exception. Is it not in order, Mr. Speaker, to discuss an exception? The law may say such-and-such a thing may not apply, but surely it is in order to discuss something which is excepted. "Exclusive of Purchase Tax" is in the drafting of the Order, and it may be that the Section of a Statute states, for example, that all buildings shall have fire escapes, except that this shall not apply to buildings less than 55 feet high. Surely it is not right to say the legislation excludes houses of less than 55 feet in height from any discussion?

§ Mr. Speaker
The rule is that we can discuss what is in an Order, and anything outside the Order must not be discussed.

§ Mr. Foster
The Purchase Tax is part of the drafting.

§ Mr. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
Is it not the case that the Purchase Tax has the authority of the Finance Act? Consequently, this Order cannot affect Purchase Tax on the goods with which it is concerned.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is exactly the argument which I made at the beginning.

§ Mr. Drayson (Skipton)
Surely what we are discussing is what is the relative rate of Purchase Tax applying to these carpets at the present time. If any future Finance Bill alters that rate of tax, it is a different question. But, are we not concerned with the rate at the present time?

§ Mr. Speaker
I really do not think that these are points of order—they may be points of disorder.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
In order that the area of the scope of the debate may be clearly defined, might I ask, Mr. Speaker, if I shall be out of order if I make any representations as to a change in the Purchase Tax on any one item? That, I think, is clearly right, and I am not going to trespass on the time of the House or risk getting out of order. But, shall I be in order if I proceed to draw attention to the fact that the Order says the figures which I quote are exclusive of Purchase Tax; and if I go on to say, in order that the citizen may know what he pays, that he is charged 33⅓ per cent., and that that amount will be calculated on a much larger sum by reason of this Order? In other words, that the citizen will pay more by reason of this Order than under the Order which it is amending?

§ Mr. Poole (Birmingham, Perry Bar)
On a point of order. The hon. Member has just said he proposes to relate the figures in this Order to the Order which it amends. I understand that it is not in order to discuss the Order which this Order amends. It is clearly laid down in Erskine May.

§ Mr. Speaker
I want to be quite fair about this. The hon. Member suggests that these prices would be increased by 33⅓ per cent. in view of the Purchase Tax. That is all right, but we cannot go right down the Schedule and say that this will be increased by 6s. 6d. and that by 7s. 6d. That is really going outside 1941 the question. It may be generally stated that the Purchase Tax will increase the price by 33⅓ per cent., but that is as far as one ought to go.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I am much obliged. The position is quite clear. It is not mathematically very difficult because I can do it myself. Where the retail maximum controlled price, which is given in column 4, is increased it involves also an increase in the Purchase Tax, because the same percentage of 33⅓ per cent. is also levied on the larger amount. The consequence of that is that, whereas, no doubt, there will not be any higher profit to the wholesaler for the manufactured goods, because, as an hon. Member opposite was good enough to point out, that is accounted for by the rise in the price of the raw materials, there will, of course, be a higher profit to the Treasury because of the increased Purchase Tax.
Why, because there is an increase in the cost of raw materials, should there be an increase in profit to the Treasury? They have nothing to do except rake in the tax. They are not put to any further difficulty or trouble by reason of the increased price of the raw materials. Why then should the unfortunate citizen be penalised twice? That is really the root of this whole matter.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member is now discussing the effects of the Purchase Tax and that is out of order.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I am sorry if I transgressed. I was seeking to confine myself to the effects of the Order, and I shall certainly be careful not at this time and in this context to suggest any remedy in regard to that. The suggestion and the remedy I appreciate are out of order. Many of my hon. Friends have made a close study of this matter, and they will seek to spread enlightenment among hon. Members opposite, where it is much needed. Let me, therefore, summarise the effect of this as it will be both for the industry and for the citizen. For the industry it will undoubtedly mean more difficulties and loss. [Interruption.]I did not hear what was said from the other side of the House, but the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) generally is not loath to give his views to the House. If he wants to do so now I shall gladly give way to him.

§ Mr. Crossman (Coventry, East)
All I asked the hon. Gentleman was, why did the industry want this Order?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I do not think the hon. Member, even in one of his more imaginative flights, would suggest that the industry wanted an extra profit to be taken by the Government in respect of Purchase Tax.

§ Mr. Crossman
I asked, why did the industry want this Order?

§ Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North)
Do you know they did?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
The answer is, of course, that the industry is not averse to rises in the prices of finished articles. Industries very rarely are. What the hon. Member for Coventry, East, does not realise is that we on this side are interested in the rights of the consumer. The real trouble with the hon. Member and his hon. Friends is that they have been disseminating their very extravagant propaganda for so long that they are at last beginning to believe it themselves—so the position of the hon. Member when he has swallowed all his own propaganda will be unfortunate indeed.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
The hon. Member will be able to make his remarks in his own way in his own speech. I know that he is courteous enough to give way to me as often as I give way to him.

§ Mr. Crossman
Once!

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
Coming to his point with regard to industry, I have no special knowledge——

§ Mr. Mikardo (Reading, South)
Of anything in the whole, wide world.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
The hon. Member suggests that I do not know very much about carpets. I do not suppose that he knows very much about carpets.

§ Mr. Mikardo
That is why I am not making a speech about them.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
What he does know a great deal about is carpet-bagging, and in the last Parliament he had quite a lot of experience of being "on the carpet."

§ Mr. Mikardo
That is just a plain lie.

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. John Hay (Henley)
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. Member for Reading, South has accused my hon. Friend of a deliberate lie.

§ Mr. Speaker
If that was said, it must be withdrawn at once. To accuse an hon. Member of telling a lie is quite out of order.

§ Mr. Mikardo
I withdraw the suggestion that it was a lie: it was merely a reverse of the truth.

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that it ought to be withdrawn properly. One cannot say a lie was something else. At this time of the morning it only leads to heat and lengthens our debates.

§ Mr. Mikardo
I assure you, Sir, with the greatest respect, that I have no desire to engender heat, or to give the Chair or the House the least embarrassment. If I had any such desire I should have objected to the term "carpet-bagging" which the hon. Gentleman used. I have as great respect as anyone for the rules of order, but truth comes before even the rules of order, and when the hon. Gentleman makes a statement of which he can have no evidence, and which has no foundation in truth or fact at all, I cannot withdraw.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must withdraw. There is no question about it. It is quite impossible for him to stick to his statement. I know that it is a most difficult situation for everyone, but in honesty to himself just as much as in respect to the Chair and the House of Commons, he should give a straightforward withdrawal.

§ Mr. Mikardo
I cannot refuse the request of the Chair, and I beg leave to withdraw.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
We shall get on much faster if hon. Gentlemen will refrain from indulging in what I must call sedentary squawks. They need have no apprehensions that I shall be more backward in courtesy than the hon. Gentleman who has made a very frank withdrawal. I shall be equally frank with him, and if I am wrong I shall certainly express regret. I speak purely from recollection, but I had in mind that he was one of the 1944 17 hon. Gentlemen who got into some trouble in the course of the last Parliament with the leaders of their party in regard to the telegram sent to Signor Nenni.

§ Mr. Speaker
Has that anything to do with the Order we are discussing? Why not stick to the Order and not go into these personalities?

§ Mr. Mikardo
Since the hon. Gentleman has so gallantly offered to withdraw, let me say that I did not sign the telegram. I was not included in the 17 Members, and could not possibly have been involved.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I certainly express regret to the hon. Gentleman for making that mistake and confusing him with one or other of his 17 hon. Friends. [Interruption.]I have already expressed regret, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite want to enter into any exchange of words then they had better rise and do so. They will find that I shall not be backward in taking them on.

§ Mr. George Jeger (Goole)
We have had enough of you.

§ Mr. Speaker
Let us stick to the Prayer and drop anything else. I am a little tired of it.

§ Mr. Driberg (Maldon)
Learn the rules of order.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
The last professor from whom we would want to learn the rules of the House, or any other rules, would be the hon. Gentleman. Before the interventions of hon. Gentlemen opposite which unhappily prolonged my speech, I was in the process of summing up my final observations in regard to the consumer. He is, after all, all important, even more important than the industrialist. This final rapid rise in the price of these articles may mean for the citizen, simply going without. We have therefore reached this point—that in the sixth year of our Socialist Utopia we are in the position that these very ordinary articles are fast going beyond the purchasing power of the ordinary people of this country whom we are proud to represent.

§ Mr. Ross (Kilmarnock)
The hon. Gentleman promised us that he would tell 1945 us something about the rise in the price of wool. I am sure it is just an oversight.

§ Squadron Leader Burden (Gillingham)
I beg to second the Motion.
I was interested in the interjections of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) who was in rather a new guise in standing up as the protector of industrialists, when he stated that the industrialists needed this rise.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
I am sorry I cannot give way.

§ Mr. Crossman
Have you not got the time tonight?

§ Squadron Leader Burden
It does seem to be somewhat surprising from him and other hon. Members opposite.

§ Mr. Crossman
It is not true.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
It is a new guise for hon. Members, who seem to be much more concerned with filching firms from industrialists than supporting them. It is certain that in regard to this Order carpets serve only one purpose, and that is as floor covering. Hon. Members opposite, even the most loyal to their party, will agree that the people of this country are entitled to floor coverings, and at prices they can afford. The preference for carpets in competition with other forms of floor covering depends mainly on their ability to provide warmth, sound insulation, and decorative effect. Hon. Gentlemen cannot object to that. They must agree that it is a very worthy idea.
A working party was set up by the Government in 1946 to inquire into the carpet position, and at the request of that working party an inquiry into the present uses and future requirements of carpets was carried out by the social division of the Central Office of Information. The report of the working party was issued in May to June, 1946. This is relevant to this Order, because so much of the Order is based on it. Nine hundred and seventy-five informed housewives were interviewed by the C.O.I., and they were representatives of working-class homes. They were questioned about present uses and their requirements of room carpets and stair carpets. Measurements were taken of their rooms and their stairs in 1946 order that an assessment could be arrived at in working out the future prospects of the carpet industry.
About 42 per cent. of the housewives said they would be willing to pay between £4 and £7 for a room carpet; about 28 per cent. were willing to pay between £8 and £11; only 17 per cent. and 13 per cent. respectively were willing to pay more than £11 or less than £4. For stair carpets similar inquiries were made. Approximately 80 per cent. of the housewives interviewed wished to buy a room carpet in the next 12 months, if the carpet was available at a suitable price. Of stair carpets, 76 per cent. of the housewives stated they needed them if they were available at a price they could afford. The investigation ascertained, among other points, the percentage of working class housewives who said they would or would not buy room and stair carpets at certain prices.
I want to carry hon. Members opposite with me. This is a serious matter. If they really meant what they said in 1945 and 1950, that they were endeavouring to bring about a high and rising standard of living, they will agree that people are entitled to carpets at prices they can afford, and the matter should concern them. This Committee assessed what was a working class household as one in which the wage of the primary wage earner was not more than £5 10s. a week. Of those 975 homes in only 35 per cent. were the carpets not worn; in other words, 65 per cent. of the carpets in that representative section of homes were either worn in holes or so thin as to need replacement. They all said they would buy the carpets if they could afford the prices and if the carpets were available. I remember that hon. Members opposite lost no time in 1945 in pointing out that their one idea was to bring about a high and rising standard of living. They said, "These are our aims. The country wants, a high and rising standard of living."

§ Mr. Scholefield Allen (Crewe)
On a point of order. Is the hon. Member allowed to repeat one expression at least three times?

§ Squadron Leader Burden
It was not my expression. It was an expression that the party opposite wrote in "Let Us Face the Future."

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not know exactly what the reference to "the party opposite" has to do with this Order.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
They are bringing it in. I suggest that there has not been this high and rising standard of living. If we estimate that the average room requires a carpet 12 yards square, the price of the cheapest in January, 1950, was £14 15s. 4d., and I would remind hon. Members that only 17 per cent. of the housewives who said they would need to buy them were willing to pay more than £11. This price was outside the range of others. That is rationing by the purse, and that is what I and my hon. Friends are objecting to. With this constant rise in prices it is becoming possible for fewer and fewer people to buy the goods they desire. Under the Order we are discussing the price is still further increased, and instead of £14 15s. 4d. is now £18 18s.
It is true that hon. Members opposite may say that there have been wage increases to enable people to pay these higher prices, but I suggest——

§ Mr. Speaker
The question is not whether anybody can or cannot afford the prices. One cannot go into that. One must stick to the Order and not bring in other general considerations.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think it does matter whether people can afford to buy the carpets of which the Government seek to increase the prices, but I will pass from that point.
Before the war the industry produced a carpet measuring 3 yds. x 4 yds. to sell at about £5. Under this Order the price of the same carpet is £30. Certainly the wages of the man who, in the Report of the Carpet Working Party was described as the person to whom the Report was referring, who was earning £5 10s. a week have not risen commensurately. Carpets are not luxury goods, and we believe that they should be within the reach of the working class. It is true that manufacturers asked for some increases, but 80 per cent. of the cost of carpets now is in the cost of raw materials, whereas it was 60 per cent. before the war. But the final price of the carpet is not governed only by the cost to the manufacturer and the retailer; it includes 33⅓ per cent. added by the Government.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that these are maximum prices. They are not necessarily the prices which will be charged. The Order puts a limit on the top; that is all.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
Well, Sir, if I may refer to the cost of an Axminster carpet described as quality A1, in January, 1950, that carpet cost £136. As a result of this Order the same carpet will now cost £206.

An Hon. Member
That is the maximum price.

§ Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)
Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state the size of the carpet?

§ Squadron Leader Burden
I do not suppose it really matters what the size is. [Laughter.]It does not matter a bit, because it is really a matter of the increase of price and the ratio of the price increase. I would point out that in June, 1945, the same carpet cost £100; after six years of Socialism the price today is £206.
Hon. Gentlemen have asked about maximum prices. I would remind them that the industry is under strict control. I believe the accounts of the industry were examined and the mark-ups and prices the industry were allowed to charge were fixed after consultation with the Board of Trade. It is also a fact that retailer margins are very strictly controlled. It is a pity that price increases from another quarter which also have to be added are not equally strictly controlled. I believe that the Government are cashing in on the rise in the price of raw materials, but they are certainly not allowing manufacturers or retailers to do so. There is no doubt that the order is another indication of the mad inflationary policy that the Government have been pursuing——

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not in order. It has nothing to do with the Question before the House.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
The industry is extremely worried about these constant increases. They are more and more concerned, because every increase in prices takes the possibility of purchase out of the hands of more and more people. They are concerned because of the fear 1949 of unemployment in the industry due to the growing sales resistance as the result of constant price increases. The right hon. Gentleman who is to reply knows full well one way in which price increases can be kept within reasonable bounds. I know I shall be out of order if I mention it, but he knows to what I am referring, and I hope he will make representations to his right hon. Friend in due course.
I hope the Minister will realise that the people interviewed by the body set up by the Central Office of Information at the request of the working party already had carpets in their homes. How is it possible for newly-weds to purchase carpets at today's inflated prices? How is it possible for poor people with less than £10 a week to carpet their floors? These are matters for which the Government must take responsibility. Never before has this country been in such danger of being a carpetless country as it is today.

§ The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson)
I wonder what hon. Gentlemen opposite would say and what they would do if I were to announce to the House that their arguments and eloquence had convinced me and if I were to recommend the House to accept the Motion? I wonder if they have considered the effect of the Order being annulled?

§ Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)
Cheaper carpets! Go back to the previous Order.

§ Mr. Wilson
First of all, this Order would disappear. The prices in the schedule would no longer be the maximum prices that rule for the carpet industry. In the long negotiations which the Board of Trade have had with the carpet manufacturing industry, the carpet manufacturers have said that unless they get the maximum prices in this Order they could not maintain production.

§ Sir W. Darling
A point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has challenged the Opposition, of whom I am one, to give an answer. I am trying to make an answer.

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

§ Mr. Wilson
I have never challenged the Opposition. I merely said I wondered what they would do if I accepted their Motion. I have just informed the House that the manufacturers could not maintain production unless——

§ Sir W. Darling
What about the retailers?

§ Mr. Wilson
The retailers asked us for still higher prices than those in the Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take off the Purchase Tax."] The House knows perfectly well that if this Order were annulled the carpet industry would be thrown immediately into dislocation and chaos. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Is that what hon. Members opposite want?

§ Mr. Wilson
The hon. and gallant Member did not give way to interruptions from this side of the House——

§ Squadron Leader Burden
Yes, I did.

Hon. Members
Do not ask questions.

§ Mr. Wilson
All right, I will not ask any more questions, I will state a fact—that if this Order were annulled, hon. Members opposite would not be prepared to go to the carpet manufacturing centres and defend what they had done. There are wider implications than this if this order were annulled. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should realise that their systematic campaign against price control orders—because it is a systematic campaign—is not a campaign, as they may imagine, which is directed against this Government; it is not a campaign directed against the health of my hon. Friends; it is a campaign directed against the trade and industry of this country. Only this afternoon I received a telegram which I will not read to the House because I should be getting rather wide of the subject of carpets if I did—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why mention it then?"]—pressing for price revision because they could not maintain production unless there were increased prices.
I must stress to the House the urgency of these orders. There are at the present time some 50 or 60 trades or trade associations at the door of the Board of Trade clamouring for an increase——

§ Mr. Peter Thorneycroft (Monmouth)
I do not desire to interrupt this interesting argument, but I would ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. If the President of the Board of Trade is proposing to deal generally with the increase in prices policy of His Majesty's Government, about which I have no objection whatsoever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have no objection to his dealing with it—may I take it that in the subsequent debate a full opportunity will be given to my hon. Friends to reply?

§ Mr. Wilson
Both the hon. Members who have already spoken, have said a lot about the inflationary situation. I have no desire to go into the general question of costs and price increases in this country arising from the cost of imported raw materials, but what I do want to do is to inform the House of what would be the effect of annulling the Order at present before the House. I was hoping to prove to the satisfaction of hon. Members that if this Order was annulled, the whole basis of the negotiations with these 50 or 60 industries at present clamouring for price increases would be destroyed, and it would not be possible to maintain negotiations with them.
The basis of the negotiations in the case of carpets, for example—and they and other negotiations are very tough negotiations—is to protect the consumer as far as possible at a time when costs of production are rising. We try to proceed by agreement with the industries concerned, and that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite want. When on previous occasions I have reduced the margins of retailers and wholesalers and manufacturers without getting the agreement of the trades concerned, there was a howl of rage from the benches opposite. They complained that I should have proceeded by agreement. It is not always possible to get agreement. Sometimes we cannot agree with the demands for increases made by the trades concerned. We did not, for instance, agree with the suggestions of the carpet retailers. We considered that they must be satisfied with a lower percentage.
What I want to make clear to the House is that when we have these negotiations, it is important that the Board of Trade 1952 should be in a position to honour whatever bargain is reached. These negotiations took place on the basis that whatever bargain was reached would appear in this Order afterwards. These Orders are, of course, in every case subject to the right of the House to reject them if they are badly drafted, or are objectionable in any way; but this new campaign against price control—and it is a new campaign, for in the last week the Opposition have put down four times as many Prayers to price control orders as there were in the whole——

§ Mr. Foster
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to that?

§ Mr. Speaker
I should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Wilson
If these Orders were annulled, following the Prayers put down, the whole basis of negotiation with trade would come to an end.

§ Mr. Foster
If, Mr. Speaker, you invite the right hon. Gentleman to repeat what he said, is it right of the right hon. Gentleman not to repeat what he 0said?

§ Mr. Speaker
That may have been the background. I cannot know. If there have been four Prayers laid against maximum price Orders, that may be the background to this. It is not out of order.

§ Mr. Wilson
This Prayer tonight and this campaign are making this long established system of negotiation with industry impossible. It is a system in which trade and industry had great confidence for a period of years. The effect of a Prayer such as this is likely to throw doubt on the Government's ability to honour a bargain reached in negotiations. I have already asked how I can be expected to continue to negotiate with these industries, including the carpet industry, if on every occasion the bargain which is reached is upset through a Prayer of this kind.
Both the hon. Gentlemen dealt with the increase in the price of carpets. They appeared tonight in the unfamiliar guise of protectors of the consumer. It is only a week ago that I was getting questions on carpets, the implication of which was to suggest that the prices I had laid down 1953 were not high enough to meet the requirements of the manufacturers. Now, hon. Members opposite are pretending that they represent the consumer.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that I put down a question of that sort addressed to him?

§ Mr. Wilson
I should like to point out that there are other hon. Members capable of putting down questions. If the hon. Member wants to know, there was a question by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) last Thursday. [Interruption.]But the whole burden of the argument tonight is that we have been too lax in this price control Order, that we should have been tighter in our negotiations with the industry, and should not have allowed it to get away with these prices. It is no good hon. Members referring to Purchase Tax. That is outside the Order; the Order does not deal with it.
When hon. Members suggest that the prices are too high, that can only mean that they think we have been too gentle, and not tough enough, with the industry with which we have been negotiating, so that the costs of which we had to take account in this Order have risen for reasons within our control. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well, though I do not want to enter into a general debate on raw materials, of the increased prices of imported wool, and of the increased cost of imported jute.

§ Mr. Wilson
It is no good hon. Members posing as protectors of the consumer in this respect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the main reason for the increase in the cost of carpets, which we all deplore, is the increase in the cost of wool; and that is bought by private enterprise in accordance with well-worn rules of supply and demand. The only suggestion which the Opposition can make is that if we did not have price control then the manufacturers would be able to sell these carpets more cheaply. But the truth is that if it was not for our tough negotiations, the price of the carpets would be a good deal higher, despite all the speeches we have heard about "defending the consumer" and all the remarks which we are told are aimed at "protecting the consumer."
1954 This Prayer, like all others against price control orders, is really an attempt to destroy the whole system of price control. If that is the idea, then, instead of the Opposition going in for this selective sniping in the small hours——

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no wish to curtail the speech which the right hon. Gentleman is making, and he is entitled under the rules of order to make charges against us. But can I have the assurance that no Closure, or attempt to curtail the ability of hon. Members on this side to answer those charges, will be made?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member must wait and see.

§ Mr. Wilson
In order to minimise the time which the hon. Member opposite may have to wait, I shall not enter into all the arguments about the causes of what they call inflation. They have produced no reasons why the House should annul this Order. They have wavered between saying that the price of carpets is too high, and that the price is too low. The whole burden of the attack on this Order, during which great play has been made with Purchase Tax, although it has been ruled that discussion on the new prices, because of that, was out of order, was that——

§ Mr. Foster
On a point of order. Is it right for the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent, quite innocently I am sure, a Ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have given? You will remember that your Ruling was that the increase of the price on carpets resulting from the new maximum prices in this Order could be mentioned. It was the main argument, and is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to shelter behind a non-existent Ruling?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is 1.20 in the morning, and I heard nothing out of order said by the right hon. Gentleman. It is very difficult to follow these arguments, and I do not think there has been anything out of order.

§ Mr. Wilson
I invite the House to reject this Motion and I challenge the Opposition to have the courage of conviction and to press this matter to a Division. I challenge hon. Members 1955 opposite. I think I have successfully convinced even them that the effect of pressing this to a Division would be to destroy the whole system of confidence which has grown up in industry through past negotiations, and to drive British industry into unemployment. That would be the result.