UTILITY APPAREL (MAXIMUM PRICES) (Hansard, 3 May 1951)

§ Squadron Leader Burden (Gillingham)
I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 16th April, 1951, entitled the Utility Apparel (Maximum Prices and Charges) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 649), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th April, be annulled. This Order, No. 649, is in fact, a follow-up of Statutory Instrument No. 413, which Mr. Speaker ruled to have been improperly laid on 19th April last. This alone is a sufficient reason for the Opposition to keep a watchful eye on the Instrument against which we are now praying, and, indeed, it is made more apparent by the fact that this particular Instrument has necessitated the printing of a corrigendum, which states that the Order was made on the 16th April, was laid before Parliament on the 20th April, and was due to come into operation on the 23rd April. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will have some very pungent remarks to make about this.
In fact, the whole record of the Board of Trade with regard to the laying of these Statutory Instruments has been a record of muddle and chaos. Statutory Instrument No. 413, against which I put down 1482 the Motion which Mr. Speaker ruled was out of order, was, in fact, intended to replace Statutory Instrument 216, against which a Prayer was moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) on 3rd April.
The gravamen of the complaint of my hon. and gallant Friend was the delay in the publication of the Order, which created immense difficulties among the traders to whom it applied. I would remind the House that this was also referred to in the observations of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, who, in their third Report to the House, said: Your Committee are of the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to them"— that is, to four Orders, which included Statutory Instrument No. 216. The Report went on: on the grounds that there appears to have been an unjustifiable delay in their publication. The Select Committee took a serious view of the delay.
The Order was made on 9th February, and it was not published until 22nd February, a delay of 13 days. It was indeed strange that part of the complaint that I intended to raise against Order No. 413 was on the basis of the delay in publication, and the disclosures of the delay, as brought to the notice of the House in the Third Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, would have made it perfectly clear to the Board of Trade that they should have taken considerably more care in future. One would have thought that the President of the Board of Trade would have learned the lesson, and would have ensured, at least, that he was avoiding the same criticism against the next Order, particularly in view of the fact that it was merely a follow-up Order.
A copy of the second Order, No. 413, was placed in the Library on 13th March, it was printed on 27th March and came into operation, or was due to come into operation, on 29th March. Let us assume that the Order was posted on the day on which it was printed. It might then have arrived and been delivered in Birmingham on the 28th or 29th, but it is quite certain that it could never have reached the remote parts of the United 1483 Kingdom, where it had to apply just as much in London and other places which it could reach. It was, in fact, printed on the 27th, and it is absolutely certain that it could not have reached——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)
I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about an Order that is not before us.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
I am referring in passing to Order 413, and, in fact, to Order 216 which is the principal Order. Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am entitled to refer to it on that basis.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Well, only very shortly. The whole point is that we are only dealing with the one Order.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
What I really wanted to bring to the attention of the House was that, in regard to this next Order, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments raised the same complaint. They specifically asked that the delay should be brought to the notice of the House. The House is grateful to Mr. Speaker for raising another point, which was that the Order which, in fact, necessitated the laying of this present Order, had been incorrectly laid. I am making the point that I hope that due note will be taken of these delays which were brought to the notice of the House by the Select Committee.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. and gallant Member's speech is all about another Order which is not before us. I must ask him to keep to the Order before the House.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
I will now pass from that point and come to the present Order which brings in two new Schedules, Schedule No. 5H and the related Schedule No. 1L, and, in fact, includes Schedules No. 3J and No. 4L to which I intend to confine my remarks at this stage. The related Schedule No. 3J refers to Women's and maids' outerwear (other than knitted apparel and gloves), and No. 4L refers to Women's and maids' underwear and night-wear (other than knitted apparel). Both these Schedules cover a range of garments made from textiles described as wool, animal fibre, rayon cloths, cotton 1484 cloths, and linen cloths in various forms. Questions have been asked in this House over quite a considerable period of time regarding the use of the term "wool." The fact that the matter has been so constantly brought to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade shows that there are many hon. Members, and, indeed, many members of the public and also traders who are very dissatisfied with the manner in which it has been used by the Government in these Statutory Instruments. Reputable traders resent the loose description of "woollen," and I have no doubt that if the public, too, could be made aware of what the word "woollen" hides in these Instruments, they would be very shocked.
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is smiling. I hope it is a smile with me, because for quite a considerable time I have had the impression that he himself is far from satisfied. It may well be that now we have had a change at the Board of Trade we shall also have a change in these definitions, and that they will, in fact, be much more descriptive of the things to which they apply than they have been in the past.
A most extraordinary situation arose on 10th February, 1949. In answer to a Question in this House, the President of the Board of Trade said: Woven wool cloth is material containing more than 15 per cent. by weight of wool or animal fibre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 510.] With only 15 per cent. of wool in it, the cloth could be described as woollen. But on 24th March, 1949, the President of the Board of Trade said: In consequence of representations received from various quarters in the past few years that the term 'wool cloth' should not be used in Statutory Instruments to refer to any cloth containing more than 15 per cent. of wool, we undertook that, as and when these Statutory Instruments were reviewed, they should be amended to avoid defining the term in a way which might prejudice its interpretation as a trade description."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 46.] We have thus arrived at the position that, whereas on 10th February, 1949, woven wool cloth was described by the President of the Board of Trade as material containing more than 15 per cent. of wool or animal fibre, just over a month later, the same right hon. Gentleman defined it as a cloth containing not more than 15 per cent. of wool or animal fibre. Therefore, 1485 we arrived at a situation where, in fact, the President of the Board of Trade had described as wool, cloth that need contain no wool at all. Surely, that is completely ridiculous.
Of course, it may be argued by the Parliamentary Secretary that that was a mistake on the part of the President of the Board of Trade. But, surely, the President of the Board of Trade reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, and, even if he does not read it thoroughly, someone in his Department reads it. I think this House is getting rather tired of the fact that not one but many mistakes on the part of Ministers are never recognised until they are brought to their notice on the Floor of the House. It may be remembered that some time ago my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) made some very cogent remarks regarding the duty of Ministers in rectifying any inaccuracies of which they may have been guilty. I believe that not only is this House, but also the country becoming rather tired of the inaccuracies that come to light.
If the President of the Board of Trade was not making a mistake, and if his argument was correct, might we not also assume that a rayon cloth need contain no rayon at all, or a cotton cloth no cotton? Indeed, I think we could equally logically claim that, if a cloth could be described as a wool cloth when it need contain only 15 per cent. of wool and 85 per cent. of rayon and/or cotton, a rayon cloth might well contain only 15 per cent. of rayon and 85 per cent. of wool and still be described as a rayon cloth. But, of course, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the fact that a cloth might be described as woollen when it contains only a very small quantity of wool—and would, in fact, be attractive to the public and cause them to believe that they were getting something far better than they really were getting—there is no inducement to reverse that argument in the case of other cloths. The reason why it would not be used in the case of rayon or cotton is because the inclusion of wool would improve the quality.
In fact, if there was a large quantity of wool in a rayon or cotton material it would be made evident to the public on those grounds. The very reason why when rayon and cotton are used in large 1486 quantities in a cloth described as wool, the fact is hidden, is that they debase the quality and the public would resist buying such merchandise. If these qualities of cloth are to be debased by the infusion of large quantities of vegetable or animal fibre such as rayon or cotton, then at least the public should be made aware of that fact by the goods being labelled.
I submit that the President of the Board of Trade has not only condoned these actions in the past but has encouraged them. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think it right and proper to describe as wool cloth a cloth which in fact contains only 15 per cent. wool and might contain as much as 85 per cent. rayon or cotton?

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes)
No, we do not.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
If that is the case, why do you so describe such cloths? Why are they described as wool and animal fibre when the Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that animal fibre is neither cotton nor rayon; one is vegetable fibre and the other manufactured fibre? He knows that animal fibres are fibres from the camel, the llama and vicuna—from the back of the animal.

§ Mr. Rhodes
And the cow.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
I am very glad the hon. Gentleman admits that his Department have been wrong in this and I hope we can take encouragement from this admission and from the fact that there has recently been a change at the Board of Trade, so that we now have a legal mind there which may pay greater attention to the descriptive matter that comes out of the Department than was paid before. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), makes queer noises, but does he contend that the public have not been "led up the garden" and if not, does he wish them to continue to be so led?

§ Mr. Daines (East Ham, North)
I was waiting for the hon. and gallant Member to say something to the point and I am still waiting.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
If the hon. Gentleman says he is still waiting it is 1487 quite obvious he has not listened very much, because his hon. Friend on the Front Bench has admitted only a few seconds ago that there was a very strong argument. He agreed with the argument put forward and admitted that the Board of Trade were quite wrong, so I suggest the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) is blinding himself to the true facts of the case. I suggest he listens more carefully. I submit that the Board of Trade, in these descriptions, have been perpetrating a gigantic fraud on the public. I hope that at the end of this debate we shall have from the Parmentary Secretary an undertaking that this will not be done in future. Let us see what the retail trade regard as a description of wool. They say: …in general, the expressions 'woollen' and 'worsted' have a quality significance based on the desirable characteristics of wool from which both types of cloth were traditionally made. Therefore, in retailing, the two expressions indicate a minimum wool content of 90 per cent.

§ Mr. Daines
Could the hon. and gallant Member read the last passage again so that I can follow it clearly?

§ Squadron Leader Burden
Certainly. It says: To the public and to the retail trade in general the expressions 'woollen' and 'worsted' have a quality significance based on the desirable characteristics of wool, from which both types of cloth were traditionally made.…"— and in case the hon. Gentleman does not follow, "both types" refers to the fact that woollen and worsted were traditionally made— Therefore, in retailing, the two expressions…"— that is "worsted" and "wool"— indicate that the cloth contains a minimum wool content of 90 per cent.… I hope that is clear to the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Daines
I am very much obliged.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
Indeed, in a booklet on standards of retail practice produced by the Retail Standards Association—and the hon. Member for East Ham, North, might perhaps again be interested because here there is a little further definition—there is the following: The word 'wool' should not be used in descriptions without qualification unless the 1488 material so described contains a minimum of 90 per cent. of wool by weight, the remaining 10 per cent. being accounted for as follows:…"— and the hon. Member for East Ham, North, probably does not follow this because it is technical, but his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary certainly does— No more than 3 per cent. in respect of manufacturers' tolerance; 7 per cent. for material other than wool used for adornment and for no other purpose. These standards of retail practice are based throughout on the underlying principle that——

§ Mr. Rhodes
Would not the hon. and gallant Member agree that that standard trade practice could be upset in the event of a guarantee being given by a manufacturer that the content of the cloth was a certain percentage of wool?

§ Squadron Leader Burden
Certainly provided it is made known to the public that that is so. That is the whole point. The public are not told what is the percentage of wool and the Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that that is my whole quarrel with the Department. If there is a great infusion of fibre other than wool or animal fibre into a cloth described as wool it should be acknowledged so that the public know what they are buying. They are based on the underlying principle that, an announcement or practice is inaccurate or misleading if, intentionally or otherwise, it may lead members of the public reasonably to believe that merchandise in general, or any specific article, is more desirable than is actually the case, whether by reason of lower price, higher quality, greater suitability for a purpose, or in any other way. I have no hesitation whatever in asserting that the great majority of manufacturers and the reputable retailers use the term "wool cloth" to apply to a textile which contains 90 per cent. wool. The Parliamentary Secretary agrees, which makes it all the more important that these descriptions, as indicated in the related Schedule 3J, should be changed in future. In fact, I take considerable encouragement from the amount of agreement I am receiving on this point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite so often rise to the support of the consumers and tell us so often that the consumers are in the forefront of their thoughts that surely they can take no exception to the fact that we are 1489 asking for these changes to be made to protect the consumers. To the general public the term "wool" means what it says—cloth made from wool, apart from the small trimmings and decorations.
Is it not a fact that representations have been made to the Board of Trade on this matter by many interested bodies? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will answer that question when he replies to the debate. On 13th December last in this House my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) protested in these terms: …time after time, Board of Trade regulations and schedules have referred to 'wool' and 'wool cloths' in relation to materials which have contained an extraordinarily small percentage of wool."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1292.] In that way the Board of Trade is encouraging traders to deceive their customers on what the cloth really contains. We have the Board of Trade making threats about action to be taken against traders for any irregularities, but the people of the Board of Trade are themselves very much to blame.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is a very complicated matter. I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now discussing column (a) dealing with the type of cloth. That, of course, is not discussable under the Order.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
I am referring to the articles described in the related Schedule 3J which are described as "garments being made of wool and animal fibre." I am pointing out that the cloth from which many of these garments are made contains only 15 per cent. wool.

§ Mr. Speaker
That has all been passed by the House. The whole of column (a) has been passed by the House and is not discussable now.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
I must, of course, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. But I am surely entitled to discuss the fact that included in the Schedule 3J are some cloths which have not appeared in any previous schedule. This is the first time upon which they have appeared. Those new cloths are denoted by an asterisk and I think if you refer to the schedules you will find there are some new cloths.

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand that in column (b) those numbers which are marked "A" are new and therefore are discussable. But those which are not so marked are not discussable.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
My general argument applies to some of the new cloths as well because they suffer from the same frailties as those which have already been introduced, except that in many cases they are even worse than their predecessors because of the debasement made to hide the rise in prices.

§ Mr. Rhodes
On a point of order. May I clear this up? The description in the Order "wool and animal fibre" is merely a description which goes back into the Wool and Animal Fibre Cloth Order—and that is a totally different Order altogether. In my submission it does not matter whether new cloths are added to it or not.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
Further to that point of order. I suggest that if they have not previously appeared in an Order and if they made their first appearance here, then I am entitled to discuss them. If not, these new cloths and new Schedules can be introduced and discussion on them can be stifled. I submit that the general argument I am advancing applies to these cloths and that I am, therefore, entitled to continue on that line.

§ Mr. Speaker
I must confess that it is very difficult for me. I think we should have some new rules making it possible for ordinary persons to understand what some of these Orders mean. My notes to guide me say that in this Schedule the whole of column 1 (a) is a reproduction of the existing First Schedule and cannot therefore be discussed. Only the "A" numbers in column (b) and the corresponding prices in column 2 are new and therefore debatable on this Order.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
And the Second Schedule. If you refer to page 9, Mr. Speaker, you will find that there are a considerable number of new cloths, and surely the fact that they appear for the first time entitles me to pursue my general argument which, in fact, covers those new cloths referred to in columns (b) and in the prices. I am referring to cloth 219A/1, which is a new cloth and to which the arguments I am advancing apply; to 210G/1, which is a new cloth; and to 219B/2. All are included in 1491 column (b) on page 9. On that basis I trust I may be allowed to pursue my argument in relation to those cloths.
In reply to my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary said: But we undertake as far as possible to avoid using in future Schedule headings of the type to which objection has been taken tonight. I cannot say anything fairer than that. A lot of consideration is being given to this subject by the British Standards Institute and the trade as a whole, and I am hoping that it will be possible sometime in the future to define 'wool cloth' a little better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1297–8.] I submit that that reply suggested that the hon. Member was sympathetic. His general attitude tonight shows that if anything his sympathy has grown with the passage of time, and possibly with the change in his Department. It was founded on an apprehension of the fact that to describe as wool cloth textiles containing in some cases not more than 15 per cent. wool or animal fibre could not be defended on the ground that it was either in the public interest or that it was an ethical commercial practice.
The next day, on 14th December, I had fortuitiously put down a Question to the President of the Board of Trade in which I asked him if he would ensure that utility wool cloth made partly from fibre and any garment made therefrom are clearly marked with the composition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1326.] The President of the Board of Trade replied, "No, Sir." That was despite the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary on the previous day had shown that he felt these descriptions needed amendment.
Indeed, the President of the Board of Trade said that the description of the cloths had "proved satisfactory." I would ask, satisfactory to whom? Satisfactory to the consumers, to unscrupulous manufacturers, to the Board of Trade or to the Government generally? Or satisfactory so that they could hide the rise in the cost of living. To describe textiles in related Schedule 3J as "wool and animal fibre," when they comprise only 15 per cent. wool and 85 per cent. rayon or cotton is wrong. I take the view that this is absolutely indefensible.
Surely it is up to the Board of Trade itself, as a Department responsible for the Merchandise Marks Act, to show that it 1492 applies the same rules of conduct in describing merchandise as it expects from ordinary traders. Indeed, I would suggest that their responsibility is all the greater. Indeed, it is a fact that this question of the description of cloth goes very deep. I understand that the Governments of South Africa and Australia have made representations to the Board of Trade in regard to the use of the term "wool" and it is a fact that in Australia and South Africa in 1949—and I say that this applies to my argument because it shows how strongly——

§ Mr. Rhodes
On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has now returned to raw wool. The cloths about which he is speaking and upon which he makes his argument were not introduced by this Order at all. They were included in the Order for the first time, but it merely referred back to the Utility Woven Cloth Order. I must submit that discussions about it can only take place on the Cloth Order.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
That is an extraordinary statement. The Minister seeks to defend this by saying that these cloths have never appeared before but he then seeks to stop the discussion by saying that they can be referred to only under the Cloth Order. These cloths have now been introduced into these Schedules and put on the market by the Board of Trade, and I submit, therefore, that I am justified in raising the matter in the House. If, as suggested by the hon. Member in his opening remarks, we are now to go back to the Wool Cloth Order, that would indeed be attractive if it meant that we should go back to a cloth which was really wool. This matter has gone so deep that in 1949 the Governments of South Africa and Australia, following the refusal of the Board of Trade to accept their point of view, introduced legislation in their countries to protect their people against cloth from this country as described in these Schedules. They felt that under the Schedules the public would not know what they were buying.
I submit that this false description should be investigated. I hope the Minister responsible will ensure that in future correct descriptions are given. On 12th April, when this Schedule first came out describing the cloth as of "wool and animal fibre," I asked the hon. Gentleman 1493 if these cloths in fact contained "short-staple rayon and/or cotton." In his reply, despite the fact that they are described as being "of wool and animal fibre," he said "Yes, Sir." In reply to a further supplementary he said: I have already met the wishes of the hon. and gallant Member in the way that we are making our definitions in our orders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 1176.] That, I submit, shows perfectly clearly that the hon. Gentleman knows we are asking for something which is in the public interest and which is right and proper.
I hope that there will be no more seesawing and no more changing feet over this situation, but that the Minister will admit quite honestly and sincerely that something should be done about it and should make up his mind to do it. I have had in my hand some of these new cloths which are described in the Schedule as "wool" and which contain only 15 per cent. wool. I have had in my hand cloths described in the Schedule as "wool" but which contain as much as 65 to 75 per cent. of rayon, only the remainder being wool.
I say that this situation cannot be defended. I cannot understand how the Parliamentary Secretary can describe the cloth as being "of wool and animal fibre" when it contains 15 per cent. wool and 85 per cent. cotton, because cotton is not an animal fibre; cotton, as he well knows, is a vegetable fibre. I cannot understand how he can defend the position in which a cloth described as "wool" can contain only 15 per cent. wool and 85 per cent. rayon. I cannot understand how he can defend the description of such a cloth as "wool and animal fibre," because rayon is not an animal fibre—and he knows it. It is a manufactured fibre.
I say that this business of describing these textiles as of woollen fibre when they can and do contain far more of another material other than wool, this camouflage of debased quality, is designed to mislead the public, and I submit that the House is entitled to ask for an undertaking that this position will be rectified at the earliest moment. The Board of Trade should not set the pace in perpetrating a fraud upon the public.
I do not intend to ask that the Order be annulled in its entirety, but I do ask that it should be examined again by the 1494 Board of Trade. Indeed, my hon. Friends and I, and, I believe, the trade in general, are hopeful that now that a legal mind has gone to the Board of Trade, we shall not have all this confusion and chaos in the issuing of Orders, and I hope that the new President will ensure that when descriptions of cloth and merchandise are applied by the Board of Trade they do bear some resemblance to what they are describing.

§ Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)
I beg to second the Motion.
It has been ably and forcefully moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden). In seconding, I wish to put forward two reasons why it seems to me that this Order deserves the second thoughts of the Government. My first reason may be considered somewhat technical, but when you, Sir, and hon. Members have heard these reasons it may well be thought that this Order, which is intended to put right the difficulty caused by the previous Order No. 413, which was revoked in accordance with your Ruling, nevertheless has not yet put the matter right.
It is material to bear in mind that in the first instance this present Order No. 649 was made and laid before Parliament on 16th April, which was three days before you gave your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, in relation to Order No. 413. It was stated by the Secretary for Overseas Trade in answer to a Question by the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on 30th April: S.I. 1951 No. 649 was laid before this House on 20th April, 1951, because it was anticipated that Mr. Speaker would also rule that this Order, though submitted to the House on 16th April, 1951, was not laid in conformity with his Rules."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 117–8.] Mr. Speaker, it may well be thought that even now this Order is not laid in accordance with the Rules which you laid down.
If we examine this Order No. 649 we find that its terms are really rather remarkable. Paragraph I says: The Utility Apparel (Maximum Prices and Charges) Order, 1951(d),"— that is what we may refer to as the principal Order, and which was contained in Statutory Instrument No. 216— as amended"— 1495 and I particularly invite attention to the words "as amended"— shall have effect subject to the amendment that for the First and Third Schedules thereto"— it is difficult to know precisely whether the word "thereto" refers to the principal Order or to Order No. 413— there shall be substituted respectively the First and Second Schedules to this Order. Stopping there for one moment, we find that the principal Order as amended by No. 413—as we see from the note "(e)"—shall have effect; but we know that Order No. 413 was not only considered by you, Sir, to have been not properly laid, but it is revoked by paragraph 2 of this present Order. So we have the most extraordinary contradiction in terms. In paragraph 2 Order No. 413 is revoked. In paragraph 1 the principal Order is expressed to have been amended by Order No. 413. I submit that in these circumstances this Order No. 649 just does not make sense.
I go further than that. I would invite attention once more, even though it may seem that I am overstressing the matter—to the fact that No. 649 was made and laid originally before your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, was given, and I would submit that it was made without due recognition of the reasons which prompted your Ruling. I do not know, and it would not be right for me to inquire, whether it was known whether your Ruling was going to be given, and it is not material to consider that; but the point is that the Ruling which you gave in relation to Order No. 413 was based upon the fact that it added a new Third Schedule to No. 216 and revoked No. 296. You said, Sir: It adds a new Third Schedule to No. 216, and it revokes No. 296, which had already added two Schedules to No. 216. Therefore, it revokes two Schedule and adds one. The two Schedules have been law for some time. It is quite impossible to add one Schedule—a child to a parent whose children are already dead. Under my Rulings of about three weeks ago I must say that I think this Order should be laid in proper form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 2147–8.] It is very difficult—I must confess that I find it very difficult—to understand precisely the net effect of the revocation of No. 413 by this Order and the substitution of the First and Second Schedules of this 1496 Order in replacement of the First and Third Schedules of the original Order, more especially if we are told that the principal Order is to be considered amended by No. 413 which is revoked. I am a man with a simple mind. I do not claim any subtlety. To my simple mind this appears to be absolute and complete nonsense which ought not to be allowed to remain part of the law of the land.
I would also invite the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that, when considering the principal Order on 3rd April this year, he pointed out that a large number of prosecutions took place under the principal Order, and, therefore, presumably we have to——

§ Mr. Rhodes
Oh, no. Let me put the hon. Gentleman straight on that. I said under the related Schedule.

§ Mr. Renton
Well, related Schedules are of no legal force, of no validity, of no effect, and no prosecution can be made under them, except in so far as they derive power from the principal Order. Let me quote what the hon. Gentleman said to reinforce my argument. He said this: Anyone looking through the related Schedules would see how difficult it is carrying through each item and relating a specific price to a specific item in the Related Schedule. It is a big job and one that calls for a tremendous knowledge of calculation and slide rule. It is for enforcement purposes,"— which means prosecutions——

§ Mr. Rhodes
I know that.

§ Mr. Renton
Which means prosecutions— and the intention of the related Schedule"— Really, we all wish to despatch our business as evenly and quickly as possible. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will stop this running commentary of grunts. He said: It is for enforcement purposes, and the intention of the related Schedule is that the maximum prices or long stock prices can be defined, because hon. Gentlemen opposite know quite well that it is easy to evade the law in the case of a Schedule where there is only a margin. That is the sort of thing we sometimes tell the Government. It is easy for people who intend to do such a thing to do it. In the experience of the Board of Trade the largest number of prosecutions have been in relation to items in the 1497 Third Schedule and it is necessary to have a maximum price related to the margins as defined in the order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 152.] That Third Schedule to which the hon. Gentleman referred is now replaced, we presume, by the Second Schedule of this Order. That is why I say it is vitally important that we should get this matter right, so that justice may be done, and it is no answer for the hon. Gentleman, when presented with an argument based on the need for accuracy, to say that people are prosecuted under the related Schedule. I tell him, quite categorically, that nobody can be prosecuted under related Schedules alone.

§ Mr. Rhodes
If the hon. Member will look again he will see that what I was explaining was the need for related Schedules. That was all.

§ Mr. Renton
Well, I think we all understood the need for related Schedules.

§ Mr. Rhodes
The hon. Gentleman does not.

§ Mr. Renton
I have not yet dealt with related Schedules as fully as I hope to do. The point I have been trying to make is this, that related Schedules derive their legal validity from the Schedules in this Order; the Schedules in this Order derive their validity from the terms on the face of this Order; the terms on the face of this Order——

§ Mr. Rhodes
Which Order is the hon. Gentleman referring to now?

§ Mr. Renton
When I say "this Order" I think it may reasonably be assumed that I am referring to the Order against which we are praying.

§ Mr. Rhodes
It would be simple to identify the Schedule which related to the related Schedule.

§ Mr. Renton
If the hon. Gentleman thinks he can wriggle out of this argument that I am putting to him by trying to throw as much confusion into the debate as he possibly can, I can assure him that he is wrong; and if he wishes to have my assistance in trying to clear his own mind in the matter, perhaps he will be good enough to listen.
I was saying that the Schedules in this Order against which we are praying— 1498 S.I. No. 649, 1951—derive their validity from the body of the Order, which I say is a contradiction in terms, because of the presence of the words "as amended" in paragraph 1 regarded in the light of the word "revoked" in paragraph 2. But if the hon. Gentleman is seriously concerned to know how it is that his Department is entitled to punish people for non-observance of the provisions of the related Schedules, then, of course, he has to look back through the provisions mentioned in the preamble to this Order.
I have attempted to explain what, I agree, is a somewhat technical argument, which appears to me to make this Order invalid. I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gillingham, if I may say so incidentally, that we object only in part to this Order. We object to the related Schedules only in part; with that I can agree. But it appears to me that, from the point of view of legal validity, this Order ought to be completely re-laid, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will invite the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the new President of the Board of Trade to this particular matter, so that his brilliant legal mind can be brought to bear on it.
Let me discuss now, at no great length, the substance of related Schedule No. 3J. I presume that it would be in order to do that, because, although——

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand that related Schedule No. 3J is one which is not discussable.

§ Mr. Renton
With respect, may I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reason which I had in mind which appeared to me to make it discussable was just this—that, as I understand the matter, related Schedule No. 3J was not in the principal Order; it was in Order No. 413, but Order No. 413 was revoked without Prayer; it is now re-embodied in this Order—brought into force once more by this Order No. 649; and this is, therefore, the first occasion when this House has had an opportunity of discussing the contents of the related Schedule.

§ Mr. Speaker
We have already prayed against related Schedule No. 3J, and it has been carried by this House, and what has been passed by this House we cannot challenge in this way.

§ Sir John Mellor
Order No. 413 was revoked only three days after it was laid before this House. It was Order No. 413 which introduced related Schedule 3J. It was only three days after it was laid that it was revoked by the Order against which we are now praying. I submit that this House has had no opportunity to pray against related Schedule 3J.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that it was revoked. Surely, it is already law, and, therefore, it is not revoked.

§ Mr. Renton
My hon. Friend in his Question of 30th April, to only part of the answer to which I referred, asked the President of the Board of Trade: why on the 20th April he laid before this House, Statutory Instrument, 1951, No. 413, together with Statutory Instrument, 1951, No. 649, which revoked it as from the 23rd April; for what purpose No. 413 was revoked three days after it was laid; and why a slip was necessary to correct No. 649. The answer was: S.I. No. 413 was laid before this House on the 20th April, 1951, in pursuance of Mr. Speaker's Ruling given on the 19th April, 1951, that this Order, though submitted to the House on the 12th March, 1951, was not in conformity with the Rules that he had laid down and it should be laid in proper form. Therefore, we reach this position that No. 413——

§ Mr. Speaker
No. 413 has nothing to do with this. This is No. 216. That was the Order under which Schedule 1L comes in.

§ Sir J. Mellor
Related Schedule 3J was introduced for the first time by Order No. 413 which is the Order which is revoked by the Order against which we are praying.

§ Mr. Speaker
I disagree. The only new related Schedules are 1L, and 5H, and, although I suggested that Schedules 6C and 17A are also debatable, these are the only new ones. The others are already existing.

§ Sir J. Mellor
The Explanatory Note says, inaccurately, that Schedule No. 3J was in Order No. 216. No. 3J was introduced for the first time by Order No. 413 which was revoked only three days after it was laid.

§ Mr. Speaker
These things to me are most frightfully complicated. I do not 1500 understand a single thing about them. This is my information, and if the hon. Baronet says that I am wrong, I am quite prepared to accept it, because I cannot say "No."

§ Sir J. Mellor
May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Explanatory Note of Order No. 413. I think that it is accurate in this case. The Order brings into force related Schedule No. 3J.

§ Mr. Speaker
Carry on now.

§ Mr. Renton
I will endeavour, although this is a most important subject, as it affects so many people, to do my best to bring my remarks to an early conclusion, but I am afraid that I may take some minutes longer. In Related Schedule 3J, we find that various articles are to be made, with the consent of the Board of Trade, which are described as "wool and animal fibre cloths." My hon. Friend has, however, already pointed out that some of these cloths do not consist wholly or even mainly of wool and animal fibre. If I may give further examples, distinct and fresh from those already given, on page 4, of the related Schedule 3J, in column (b), item 209G, there is a cloth which is in fact 57 per cent. wool and 43 per cent. cotton and viscose rayon.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not sure that the whole of the mover's speech was not out of order. He dealt with the composition—whether it was wool or a percentage of wool over fibre. I do not think that comes into this Order. All that we are dealing with are the prices of the finished goods, whatever they are made of. We are dealing with the increased prices of finished goods, regardless of whether they are wool, fibre, cotton or anything else.

§ Mr. Renton
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this related Schedule, and the Order under whose authority it is made, deal not only with maximum prices. They deal also with the nature and specification of the goods which are to be supplied.

§ Mr. Rhodes
It deals with the specification number which goes back in the Cloth Order, but nothing more.

§ Mr. Renton
Moreover, I would submit that the price is meaningless, unless one knows what one is buying. Even if 1501 there were merely a Maximum Price Order, it would still be in order for us to consider whether the goods described in the Order were worth the prices which have been charged. I shall not give a great many details in order to substantiate my argument, but I shall give one or two, because I feel that it is right that one should not make allegations if one is not prepared to give particulars of them. On page 5, for example we find No. 219—Women's or Maids' Jackets tailored and fully lined.

§ Mr. Rhodes
What Order is this?

§ Mr. Renton
Page 5 of related Schedule 3J, Item 4, third part of column B, Item 219, and the maximum price is 52s. 3d. I should say that the wholesaler's overriding price for a garment is 52s. 3d. That particular item, I am informed, is only 46 per cent. wool and 54 per cent. cotton. Surely, it is important in a country whose fortunes are so largely founded upon wool, that we should understand what wool is. It would be really shattering to the constitutional beliefs of the British people to find, for example, that the Woolsack, upon which the Lord Chancellor sits when presiding over another place, was not made of 100 per cent. wool.
So I submit that it is equally shattering to the lady who buys a cloth which she thinks is wool and animal fibre to find that it has no animal fibre in it at all and is not made even mainly of wool but consists of only 40 per cent. wool. It seems that the public, the trade and the Board of Trade all have completely different ideas as to what wool is. The public, I would submit, would normally expect an article described as wool to be 99 per cent. wool. The trade, I understand, as represented by the Retail Trade Standards Association, say that it should be at least 90 per cent. wool, and under these Board of Trade Orders it appears that wool cloth may mean that it consists of as little as 40 per cent. wool, as per the example I have given.
If we go to Order No. 608 of 1950, to which by cross reference, I submit I am entitled to refer, because it gives a definition without which this Order and the principal Order could not have existed, we find that the Board of Trade appear to hold the view that 1502 'cloth of wool and animal fibre' means any cloth, whether or not subjected to any process of finishing, woven on looms, being cloth of which the textile content comprises more than 15 per cent. by weight of fibre (whether or not subjected to any process of manufacture or recovery) from the coat or fleece of alpaca, camel, goat, hare, lamb, llama, rabbit, sheep, vicuña or yak, or of horsehair; but does not include cloth of any width not exceeding 18 inches woven with two self edges; It is as well that we should really understand what is the effect of these related Schedules. Of course, the Board of Trade at one time had a better intention than is stated in the Order to which I have referred, for on 17th December 1949, in a circular to the trade, the Board of Trade said this: It will be readily understood that terms in common parlance, which are used in a special sense by a trade, may deceive, or at least confuse, the man in the street if he is brought into contact with them, as by their application to consumer goods. The Board of Trade, as the Department having special responsibilities under the Merchandise Marks Act, would be opposed to any publicity, which might cause further difficulties in this respect. The Board might, indeed, be obliged to consider prosecutions in any case where material deception can be proved. I entirely agree with those sentiments.
In passing, may I say that standards, which the Board of Trade are rightly trying to negotiate with the industry, so as to have clearly understood, well defined and universally applied standards within the United Kingdom, are important only so long as they are accurate in their description and consistent with the law, only so long as the law is consistent with them, and only so far as those standards are faithfully applied both in Statutory Instruments and on sales to the public.
I was tempted to say a great deal more to substantiate these arguments; but, as sometimes happens when arguments have been deployed, one hopes they may be sufficiently clear to need no further elaboration. May I conclude by saying this. The Ruling, which you, Mr. Speaker, gave on Statutory Instrument 413, was, I would submit, a vindication, if vindication were needed, of those of us who prayed against that Order, and, indeed, a vindication of our conduct on many of these occasions. But I would submit that this Order with its patent defects is a further vindication of our attitude towards this series of orders.
1503 I most earnestly ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to bear this in mind—that, when a great Government Department co-operates with a great industry and tries to make the action of the two dovetail for the benefit of the public, they will never satisfactorily achieve their purpose or achieve justice to the traders or to the consumers, unless they get their plans straight; and unless the laws, which they make, contain very much more sense than these laws which we are trying to discuss tonight. It is because I believe most sincerely that this series of Orders is complete nonsense that I beg to second the Motion.

§ Mr. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)
Before the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) spoke it was apparent that it was going to be difficult to remain in order in this discussion. Since he has spoken, I am not so sure that it is even possible, because, as I understand it, the burden of the first part of his remarks was to the effect that the order which we are now discussing does not exist. I am emboldened, however, by the fact that far greater authorities than I have some difficulty in deciding where the bounds of order in this matter lie, and my remarks will at least be extremely brief.
It used to be a complaint against governments that when in difficulties one of their devices was to debase the currency. Nowadays, I am afraid that there is a temptation in the face of rising prices to debase the specification in the utility schemes. No one knows better than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that wool has a deservedly high reputation. I wish to return to the point of substance in this discussion, which is the use of the word "wool" as a description of materials which are by no means pure wool.
As an instance of the dangers to which this may lead, I would draw the attention of the House to a matter about which the Parliamentary Secretary knows full well. Certain of us have had discussions with him on the possibility of bringing within the utility scheme certain high grade hand woven wool goods, and one of the great difficulties in so doing has been that the weavers are frightened that if they come 1504 within the utility scheme they will lose their very high reputation. If orders such as this are going to describe as wool utility goods which contain a very small proportion of wool, it is going to be impossible to preserve the high reputation of wool which those weavers desire to do, and they will never enter any scheme.

§ Mr. Rhodes
We have really gone wide of the mark. There has been a full discussion on this Order, but we cannot now start discussing something which is not in the utility scheme at all.

§ Mr. Grimond
I merely used that by way of illustration of the importance of this question of the description of wool, and, incidentally, on the price charged for it and the specification under which it is entered. I do not want to elaborate the point, but the Parliamentary Secretary must appreciate that if the high reputation of British wool is to be maintained we must attach considerable importance to the word. I would ask him to tell us whether this word is in future to be used as it has been in this Order, or whether it is to be reserved for goods which are, if not wholly wool, at least 90 per cent. or more than 90 per cent. pure wool.

§ Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)
I only want to raise one short point which I think a little important. I have great doubt whether four of these related Schedules which have been laid with Order 649 are, in fact, related to it at all, because if the Parliamentary Secretary would look at the heading to related Schedule 3J he will see that it is specifically for the purpose of Order 216, as amended by Order 413. There is no reference whatsoever to Order 649. Then if we look at 4L we find exactly the same thing. On the other hand, if we look at 16C we find that it is issued for the purpose of Order 216, as amended by Order 296. Exactly the same thing applies in related Schedule 17A. We know that Order 413 was revoked by this Order 649 and that Order 296 was revoked by Order 413.
It seems to me that there is no proper identification of the Schedules which have been laid before this House, of which copies are available in the Vote Office, with the Order on which they rely for their validity. If they have any validity at all, it is under Order No. 649 against 1505 which we are now praying, and therefore I would say that if they are not related to Order 649 these Related Schedules 3J, 4L, 16C and 17A have no validity whatsoever.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes)
This is a very complicated subject. I think that this Order ought to be called the "Festival Order" because we have certainly had a festival while we have been considering it.
May I deal with one or two of the points of substance which the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden), raised? I should have been much happier to reply in full on this subject of the description of wool if we had been discussing it in its proper context, which is on the Wool and Animal Fibres Order itself. I am not belittling the hon. and gallant Member's efforts to state his point of view. He has done it very well. He has brought it to the front on many occasions. If it were not for his aptitude for gross exaggeration, his points would carry more weight and would have more validity. For instance, he referred wholesale to unscrupulous manufacturers——

§ Squadron Leader Burden
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to be fair. I made the point that this constant debasing left a loophole for unscrupulous manufacturers. I am not referring to all manufacturers, but I am saying that there are some black sheep even among woollen manufacturers, as there are in every other walk of life.

§ Mr. Rhodes
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to make his point, but I would draw his attention to the fact that he has lumped together all cloths without having had a really good look at this Order, which I must not mention, and he has been carried away with the idea that the description he has been trying to apply to it, relates to the whole of the cloths in the Cloth Order. It does nothing of the sort. This description in these related Schedules of wool and so on is intended to give an identity in a previous Order. It is not a trade description. Indeed, the hon. and gallant Gentleman answered the point himself when he quoted from a document which gave the trade description—the document 1506 relating to the figure of 90 per cent. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree with that.
In the Cloth Order there is only a small group of cloths which can come under this heading at all. Anyone listening to the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have thought that there was a wholesale conspiracy going on to defraud the public. Cloth is specified in the Cloth Order as worsted, wool and the like. I am not going to spend any more time on that. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, I undertook in the House on 13th December, 1950, to avoid the use of the term "wool cloth" in all our orders as they came up for revision. This we have done, and in the case of the Order under discussion we have used the term "wool and animal fibre cloths" in order to facilitate the reference back to utility woven cloth.
In this small field, there may be a need for alteration. I have already set on foot inquiries into the possibility of identifying cloths in this particular field, and some time ago I asked the Clothing Development Council to undertake this work. The hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham can be quite certain that it will need quite a lot of consideration not only by the wholesalers and retailers but also by the manufacturers, because the alteration of trade descriptions can make a considerable difference when an industry is trying to sell its cloths on the export market.
I rather deprecate the suggestion that there is a lot of evasion, debasement and unscrupulous behaviour on the part of either the manufacturers or the garment makers. I promise the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when the investigations are complete I will give him an opportunity to raise the matter again so that we can announce what we propose to do. I hope that meets the hon and gallant Gentleman's point.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) raised, first of all, the question of validity. I am not going to enter into a discussion with him, as a lawyer, on the validity of this Order.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
Where is the Attorney-General?

§ Mr. Rhodes
If the Attorney-General were here, it would still be subject to discussion and deliberation by the Law Officers for they are still discussing it. If I may correct the chronology of the 1507 matter, I agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon that the Ruling of Mr. Speaker on 19th April upset the timing of Order 413. It also upset the timing of Order 649 to the extent that the Order was originally laid before the House on 16th April, to come into operation, if I remember rightly, on 23rd April. With Order 413 we were not able to catch up on the timing by laying it again, because if we relaid it, it would have been after the date of operation which, if I remember rightly, was 29th March. As the Ruling did not come until 19th April, it would have been after the event. I am not going to discuss, or be led into, that point in any shape or form, because the Law Officers are discussing the whole matter.
In the case of 649, it was quite easy to catch up on it, because although we ostensibly laid it on 16th April, which was before the date of the Speaker's Ruling, we relaid, and added to the Order a corrigendum showing the new date. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Huntingdon has the corrigendum. He will see that it was made on 16th April. The making of it has really no relation to the date of operation. It was laid before Parliament on the 20th, and it came into operation on 23rd April. There is no complaint about that at all. That puts that matter quite straight.

§ Mr. Renton
The hon. Gentleman says that there is no complaint at all about the fact that there was a lapse of only three days between the ultimate laying before Parliament on the 20th and the coming into operation on the 23rd. Can he explain how he justifies such a very short interval after the laying of an Order, which has to be published throughout the country and obeyed, and in respect of which people can be punished if they do not obey?

§ Mr. Rhodes
The hon. Gentleman would hardly do as the champion of the traders. He is asking that the Order shall be postponed another week or fortnight, so that even the Orkneys and the Shetlands will get it in their post, when it comes. I think he will agree that he cannot both criticise the Board of Trade for delay and in the same breath criticise it for being too speedy.

§ Mr. Renton
Surely one can criticise the Board of Trade for lack of planning with foresight.

§ Mr. Rhodes
Of course, but in this particular instance it simply would not be true. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Schedules, I hope that he will consider the point I am going to make, because it is really answering him. Number 413 substituted, in the Third Schedule, the principal Order. The Third Schedule originally in the principal Order therefore disappeared. The Third Schedule in the present Order is therefore substituted for the Third Schedule brought in by Statutory Instrument 413.

§ Mr. Renton
But there is no Third Schedule to the present Order. There are only two Schedules.

§ Mr. Rhodes
Yes, and that is why we brought in the Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that the question of validity does not arise. In any case, I am not prepared to be drawn into a long legal argument on the question of non-validity. That statement, I may as well warn the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) ——

§ Sir J. Mellor
I quite appreciate the hon. Gentleman's position. I do not expect him to give me an answer now, particularly as the Law Officers, as he has told us, are considering the whole question of the validity of these Orders. Would he be so good as to draw the attention of the Law Officers to the point which I have raised as to the identification of the related Schedules? It is one that ought to be very carefully considered.

§ Mr. Rhodes
I cannot guarantee to do that. I do not know whether it is in my function to draw the attention——

§ Mr. Rhodes
All right, wait a minute. I am sure that the solicitor to the Board of Trade, who is listening to this debate, is making a very careful note of the point and that if there is any substance in it he will be delighted to draw attention to it.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I would rather have the view of the Law Officer whether there is any substance in the point I have raised, and not merely a Departmental opinion.

§ Mr. Rhodes
For the purpose of this debate we cannot unfortunately summon the Law Officers to the Bar. We shall have to wait for them, I am afraid.
The other point which the hon. Member for Huntingdon raised was about animal fibres. I do not know whether he made a further survey of what animal fibres could be used, but his case was substantial enough. I answered that point in a way which I think was satisfactory to the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham. Now with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I am afraid I cannot give him much satisfaction, because he was discussing something which was really not in the utility scheme at all. With regard to the other matter raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield about the Schedules, I think I have satisfactorily answered that one. I have indicated to him that I cannot be drawn any further into a legal quibble.

§ Sir J. Mellor
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point, I would point out that he has not answered me at all. I quite appreciate that he cannot, and it would be unfair to expect him to do so without notice. I asked that he should draw the attention of the Law Officers to the point when they are considering the other points. If he will do that, I shall be content to await the opinion which they will ultimately give.

§ Mr. Rhodes
Certainly, that will be conveyed to the right quarter. I have replied fairly fully to the serious points in the discussion, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham will now withdraw the Prayer.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
I think the House will be very gratified to learn that the Law Officers are examining the whole question of the validity of these Orders. In fact, I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman——

§ Mr. Rhodes
They are not considering the whole question of the validity of the Orders, but only the point which was raised by Question and answer in the House in regard to Statutory Instrument 413.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
Again, the hon. Gentleman has changed his ground.

§ Mr. Rhodes
No.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
He has done nothing but change his ground the whole time. When he has got out of one corner, he has found the next corner into which he has got much darker than the other. I believe the entire House is of the view that the whole question of the laying of these Orders should be reviewed at the earliest possible moment——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)
Which Order——

§ Squadron Leader Burden
The principal one——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman must sit down when I stand. We are dealing only with Order No. 649.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
Order No. 649 should be looked at. The hon. Gentleman really cannot get away with some of the arguments which he has put forward. He has asked that the description of these cloths should be put in their proper context, and he stated that there had been gross exaggeration on my part because they were not trade descriptions. For whose purpose were these descriptions prepared? If they were not prepared for the trade and the trade paid no attention to them——

§ Mr. Rhodes
I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman straight away. It is an order for the distributors. Most of the discussion has been totally out of order for that reason. The purpose of this is identification of the cloth by retailers and wholesalers.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
When it suits the hon. Gentleman he refers to the master Order, which is not a distributors' order at all.

§ Mr. Rhodes
Of course.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
The hon. Gentleman now says, "Of course." Now he switches back to the distributors' order to defend a position which is completely untenable. If these descriptions are for the retail trade and not for the manufacturers, that makes it all the worse because it encourages the retailers to pass on to the public a description of merchandise which is entirely false. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman knows that his position is completely indefensible.
1511 He said that there had been very great exaggeration because in only a few cases were the cloths so described. If there are so few cases it would be all the simpler for the Board of Trade to introduce a system to give correct discriptions. I have a suggestion to make. It would be very easy for the Board of Trade to describe a cloth containing less than 50 per cent. wool and more than 50 per cent. rayon as a rayon animal cloth, a cloth containing more than 50 per cent. cotton as a cotton wool cloth, and a cloth containing 90 per cent. or more wool as a wool cloth. If the hon. Gentleman really applied himself to it he would realise that that is perfectly fair, that it would stop the public being misled, and that these descriptions could very easily be applied.
The hon. Gentleman's reply has been utterly inadequate. He has not faced up to the position at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] The position is now that the hon. Gentleman intends—as do hon. Gentlemen opposite who will vote against the Motion if we divide—that the public shall continue to be misled, and hon. Gentlemen opposite glory in it. I again ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the matter and see if something can be done in the interests of the public, and certainly in the interests of honest traders.
Worsted cloth was mentioned. The Board of Trade have issued a circular to traders which says: Although the term to the industry refers to a method of production of yarn, the Board of Trade are not aware that it has ever been applied by the industry to the production of materials other than wool by that method. To the public it has always meant a particular 1512 kind of all-wool material. It seems most probable, therefore, that if applied to a cloth"— [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] Wait for it— consisting only partly of wool, the term 'worsted' would be held by the courts to be a false trade description and a contravention of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. In fact, the Board of Trade are issuing a circular to traders in which they are threatening them with prosecution under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, if they describe worsted as cloth containing——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The circular which has been referred to is not before us, is it?

§ Squadron Leader Burden
I am quoting from it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It does not arise on this Motion.

§ Squadron Leader Burden
I am merely using it as an illustration because the hon. Gentleman used the term "worsted." The Board of Trade are threatening prosecution if worsted cloth is not entirely comprised of wool, and yet they themselves lay down a cloth described as worsted which is not entirely wool cloth. When I moved the Motion, I stated that I should be prepared to ask leave to withdraw it, but in view of the unsatisfactory answer by the hon. Gentleman I shall not do so.