§ Mr. Bryan
The House will realise from the right hon. Gentleman's reply on the last Question that someone else is always to be blamed. But will the First Secretary now tell us why both at Hull and in Camberwell he blamed industrialists for the rise in prices? Why did he not name the industrialists, and was not this a completely parallel allegation to the one for which the Prime Minister had to apologise to the chairman of Hardy Spicer?
§ Mr. Heath
The First Secretary in his speech made specific accusations against my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) which he has been afraid to make this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He has generalised. He knows perfectly well that he is only trying to find an alibi for his own failures by seeking to accuse this side of sabotaging his policy. Will he either withdraw those accusations or make them specific?
§ Mr. Brown
To make them perfectly specific, I think that what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said, addressed to the housewives, and I think that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, 235 addressed to the business men, were both incitements to sabotage policies that are in the interests of the country.
§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
On a point of order. Can you rule, Mr. Speaker, on whether it is in order for an hon. Member to say of another hon. Member in this House that action taken by the other hon. Member is designed to bring about sabotage? How can an hon. Member accused of sabotage be regarded as an hon. Member?
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House is a place for the cut and thrust of debate. The Chair will rule when the cut and thrust of debate has exceeded the bounds of order.