HC Deb 25 March 1948 vol 448 cc357-9W
Mrs. Corbet

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the decision in the action brought by the Board of Trade against the Incorporated National Federation of B.T.A., Ltd., and others, it is his intention that his local price regulation committees shall pursue further the investigation of complaints of overcharging against 134 shoe-repairers under the Boot and Shoe Repairs Maximum Charges Order, 1948, No. 5.

Mr. H. Wilson

The decision in the prosecution instituted by the Board of Trade against the Incorporated National Federation of Boot Trades Associations Ltd. does not affect the statutory duty of local committees to investigate complaints of overcharging and to give alleged offenders opportunities of making representations to them.

Mrs. Nichol

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the recent prosecution by his Department of the National Federation of Boot Trades.

Mr. H. Wilson

The Federation of Boot Trades Associations were found guilty of inciting their members to contravene the Maximum Price Order controlling their charges for footwear repairs. I do not propose to comment on the statement at the end of the Chief Magistrate's judgment in this case. Notwithstanding that statement, I shall not hesitate to bring before the courts cases such as this one, where a trade association incites its members to contravene the provisions of a Control Order, and I feel sure that Parliament would support me in such action.

It has been suggested in this House in connection with this case that the Secretary of the Central Price Regulation Committee, at a meeting with representatives of the Federation, asked them, under threat of prosecution if they refused, to sign a statement to the effect that the Order was fair and reasonable. I am satisfied that there was a misunderstanding as to the facts and I think it my duty to give them now to the House.

They are that, at the meeting in question, there was talk of two Press notices, one which the Federation were asked to issue withdrawing their advice to their Members to break the law and in respect of which they were told by the Secretary that, if they did not withdraw their advice, the Board of Trade would have to consider prosecution for incitement; the other, a Press notice which the Board, on the advice of the Central Committee, were proposing to issue that evening and which included the statement that the charges allowed were fair and were agreed by the Federation to be fair in respect of an increase in leather prices of 50 per cent. (The House will know that the average increase in leather prices turned out in fact to be higher than 50 per cent.) This second notice was shown to the representatives of the Federation in draft as a matter of courtesy at the meeting in question and because they said they did not agree with the statement, all reference to them was omitted from the Press notice when it was issued. There was never any connection between these two Press notices nor any suggestion that would follow a refusal on the part of the Federation to associate itself with the Committee's view that the charges were fair, and I am satisfied that the Federation's representatives should have been in no doubt on the point.