§ 29. Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the President of the Board of Trade how many Statutory Instruments have been made by him, or on his behalf, during the last six months which have the effect of either increasing or permitting an increase in the price of goods or services.
§ The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson)Since 1st October, 1950, the Board of Trade have made altogether 80 Statutory Instruments increasing the maximum prices which manufacturers are permitted to charge for goods or services.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIn view of the very clear line of policy indicated by that very large number of permitted increases, is not the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman even to discuss further increases with the interests concerned, on the grounds of the risk of Parliamentary inconvenience in defending his decision, a completely unprecedented breach of Ministerial responsibility?
§ Mr. WilsonIn view of the clear opposition which has been shown by hon. Members opposite to every price control order, or almost every price control order, that has been debated in the last two or three weeks, I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman is now working up so much synthetic indignation over the matter.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisCan my right hon. Friend say in how many cases concerning these 80 orders the Opposition have moved Prayers for annulment, but have not had the courage to vote on them?
§ Mr. WilsonNo, not without notice, but the interesting thing is that, over the first few months of that period, there were virtually no Prayers. There were only two in 1950, whereas there have been 10 or 12 in the last fortnight.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydDoes not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only way in which comment can be made on one of these orders at all, whether of approval or disapproval, is by praying for its annulment? Can he point to a single instance, in the last few weeks, when these Prayers have been considered, which would justify his wholly irregular and quite possibly unconstitutional action?
§ Mr. WilsonWhat I cannot point to— and I have studied the debates—is a single point of substance raised on the orders, with the exception of the point raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), which turned out to be wrong.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerDoes the right hon. Gentleman, by his extraordinary statement, deny the right of the Opposition to raise these subjects in debate and put forward their point of view, at whatever the hour?
§ Mr. WilsonNo, Sir; not in the slightest. In a public statement which I made last Friday, as well as in the statement which I made in the House in the early hours of Friday morning, I said very clearly that we fully recognised the right of Prayer against any of these Statutory Orders, whether they are objectionable by reason of drafting, substance or in any other way.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerHow does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with his unconstitutional action in linking up his Departmental duty, or lack of duty, with the question of the rights of free speech in the House, to which the Opposition attach such great importance?
§ Mr. WilsonThere has never been any question of linking up my Departmental duties with the right of free speech, or the lack of free speech, in the House.
§ Mr. SnowIs not the whole of this country indulging in one great belly laugh at the results of the collective "old soldiering" of the Conservative Party?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydOn the right hon. Gentleman's statement that no points of substance were raised at all on the Prayers last week, is he aware that two Prayers took a long time to discuss, and that, concerning one of them, the Government have already given way and announced their intention to introduce an amending Order?
§ Mr. WilsonI am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to price control orders, but my reference, of course, was to price control orders, which form the basis of the Question before the House.