HC Deb 06 July 1967 vol 749 cc1966-9
7. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has now considered the decisions of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Allenv.Thorn Electrical Industries Limited and Griffithsv.Metropolitan Police District Receiver; and what action he proposes to take in the light of these decisions.

Mr. M. Stewart

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for a rather lengthy Answer.

The decisions of the Court of Appeal in these cases related to the interpretation of Sections 28 and 29 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966. The effect of the court's ruling is that an Order made under Section 28 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, cannot restrict the payment of an increase in pay contractually due before the coming into force of the Order and that an Order made under Section 29 cannot restrict the payment of an increase in pay contractually due before 20th July, 1966. As a result, the Orders which have been made relating to Thorn Electrical Industries Ltd., the Metropolitan Receiver, Birmingham Corporation and Harland and Wolff are ineffective in restricting the particular increases in pay against which they were originally directed, and I have decided that it would be right in all the circumstances to revoke them.

I must emphasise that the court's decisions relate solely to the interpretation of only a few of the Orders made under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act. They have no wider application, and the Government look to all concerned to continue to maintain the prices and incomes policy on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Does that Answer mean that, over the past year, on several occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has sought to interfere with bargains made before 20th July and has made Orders backed by criminal penalties to invalidate them without a scrap of legal authority? Does he recall that, during the passage of the Bill, we warned him that the methods adopted for its passage would produce a shambles? Has he not landed the Government and their economic policy in a humiliating mess?

Mr. Stewart

The last suggestion is quite untrue. The effect of the court's decision affects at most 1.000 workers out of the 36,000 who have been affected by Orders made under Part IV, itself a very small proportion of the total body of workers because the policy has been carried through in the main by voluntary means. Further, the decision was made on a narrow point of law on the particular Sections, and the Opposition did not raise that point during the debates on the Bill.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Question and answer must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

Does not my right hon. Friend consider it stupid that the courts may defeat the express will of Parliament because the will of Parliament has not been correctly phrased by the Parliamentary draftsmen, the courts having to apply a rule of interpretation which forbids them to look at what is the express will of Parliament instead of the words of a Statute?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Questions must be brief.

Mr. Lubbock

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to cast aspersions on the decision of a court of law?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was casting aspersions on the court. He was trying to make a political point.

Mr. Stewart

It does happen from time to time that decisions are given by the court as to what a Statute means which are totally unforeseen and are surprising to laymen, but it would not be proper to criticise the judgment of the court. It has applied the law in the ordinary way.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the point has been raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), may I say that it was never my intention to criticise the Court of Appeal. I was criticising the rule of construction.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already ruled on that matter.

Mr. Iain Macleod

Will the First Secretary of State take it from me—I have the quotation here—that on 25th October I raised this very point about the interpretation of Clause 29 which has now been unheld by the Court of Appeal? Second, will he realise that in all the four cases he has mentioned the Opposition moved to annul the Orders but they were resisted by the Government? Third, as a shambles has now resulted, will the right hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that no further Orders will be made under Part IV?

Mr. Stewart

I cannot accept the word "shambles". Orders affecting a very limited number of workers have been declared to be in part, though not in whole, invalid on a narrow point of law. This does not affect the main basis on which the policy has been and still is being carried through. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman made the point on 25th October. Unfortunately for him, the House passed the Bill by 12th August.

Mr. Higgins

The right hon. Gentleman says that only a few Orders were affected. Can he tell us what percentage they are of the total? Why are they now considered so unimportant, when the House was assured that they were essential when they were debated on Prayers?

Mr. Stewart

It would have been wrong, in view of what was then believed to be the legal position, for the Government to allow these increases to be made without making an Order. I could not give offhand the percentage of the number of Orders made. What is more to the point is the percentage of workers affected by this very limited decision, and I have given that to the House.

Mr. Molloy

Will my right hon. Friend take cognisance of the fact that many of the criticisms from this side of the House are very genuine, because we are concerned at the policy's effects on workers, whilst those from the other side are an exhibition of [Interruption.s]—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to put his supplementary question.

Mr. Molloy

—an exhibition of a newfound love for British trade unionism which will vanish immediately should the tragedy occur of hon. Members opposite returning to this side of the House?

Mr. Stewart

Yes, Sir. I think that we have all been aware for some time that that was the position.