FOOD PEICBS. (Hansard, 23 August 1916)

§ Mr. JOWETT

I wish to draw the attention of the House again to the subject opened up by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) yesterday. I refer to the question of food prices, and the profiteering which is going on at the present moment. We are all indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, although he had many opportunities of which he did not take advantage so far as public knowledge is concerned, for evincing even now an interest in this question. It is a question, I believe, which every Member of the House will admit is causing very great concern among people of the working class. My 2698 right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) recently put an inquiry to the Board of Trade as to the extent to which the cost of living had been advanced during the War, and from the reply given to my right hon. Friend—to put it in another form than that in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade himself put it—it appears that a wage of 20s. per week in July before the War ought now to be from 29s. to 30s. a week in order to have the same purchasing value. To put it in still another form, the pre-war sovereign has sunk in purchasing power, for all ordinary articles that are within the working class means, from 20s. to 13s. 10d. and even 13s. 4d. That is the net result so far as figures can show the net result. But I would like to point out this additional consideration which ought to be borne in mind, namely, that it is not merely that things are dearer in cash of which we have to take cognisance at the present time. Much adulteration is going on. So many articles are sold inferior in quality to what they used to be that the money value does not actually represent the real fall in the purchasing power of the working man's sovereign. Alongside of that—and this adds to the aggravation so far as the working classes are concerned—are the enormous profits that are being made in every trade and in every industry.

Figures with regard to shipping we are all more or less familiar with. Questions have been put in this House time after time showing what enormous profits have been made. My hon. Friend (Mr. W. Thorne) put a question with reference to one firm, and the information contained in his question, which was not denied by the Minister who replied, was to the effect that the company to which he referred had made profits during the last year equal to 187 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) put another question respecting another shipping company—a company which, it appears, it is proposed to wind up, and, as showing the enormous prosperity that that company must have had during the War, the winding-up was to be on this basis: The fleet of ships were to be sold for £1,250,000. The other assets were expected to realise £750,000, making in all £2,000,000, and this would allow a compensation of £2,000 2699 to be given to each director, a compensation to the firm that had been acting as agents to the company of £250,000, and it would allow 30s. to be paid for every £1 preference share, and £50 for every £10 ordinary share, £7 paid up. Is it to be wondered at that when these facts are being continually stated in the public Press, and particularly when at the same time every housewife knows how increasingly difficult it is to make ends meets, there is a growing state of dissatisfaction?

1.0 P.M.

What is now being felt is that the Government, and especially the Board of Trade, are guilty of callous indifference to this very vital question affecting the welfare of the mass of the population of this country. When directly war broke out and the bankers were in a difficulty and were in the first few days of the War shown to be practically insolvent, the Government at once took steps to rescue them from the situation, giving them power to pay to the extent of 20 per cent, of the liabilities in paper with the British credit behind it. This shipping industry, which has since done so well out of the War, was afraid when the War broke out to send their ships across the ocean. The Government instituted a system of insurance, carrying 80 per cent. of the risk to enable them to carry on the business and to make their profits. The State for years and years has been keeping a Navy at an enormous expense, one of the chief reasons of which was to keep shipping secure, and enable this country to be fed. What has been the result? They have received an additional privilege and power to make profit, and incidentally to put profit into the pockets of the shareholders of the shipping companies because of the War. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) pointed out a way to deal with this matter. It was not a novel method; and it has been referred to by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and, others time after time in this House and out of it, namely, that the shipping should be controlled by the State in the same way as the railways, and if that had been done we should have taken away the power which has passed into the hands of shipowners to use their properly against the public interest, and enabled them to exploit the people of this country. This sort of thing ought 2700 to end. The people outside want to know what the Government is going to do. If it is said, as it is sometimes said, that there is no remedy, that is not true.

Since the beginning of the War, when these difficulties and problems have cropped up, the practice of the Government has been to institute some sort of Advisory Committee consisting of persons who themselves were interested, and who therefore have not made the best of the situation from the public point of view, but have been extremely anxious to preserve their own interests and their right to make profit.

Take, for instance, the conduct of the Board of Trade with respect to the captured vessels. Those vessels could have been used to help to break any organised effort on the part of shipowners to put up the freights. What did the President of the Board of Trade do? He appointed a committee of shipowners to determine what the freights should be. What is more natural than that the shipowners, in determining the rate of freights, should be guided by this consideration to some extent, that the freights should not be put at such a point as would interfere with their own business and with the freights that were being charged under ordinary circumstances? Just the same thing has happened with regard to all other ordinary requirements. The Board of Trade has appointed Committee after Committee, on which the consumers, the people who suffer from high prices, have not been properly represented. Take the case of wool. We heard of a number of names of persons who have been appointed to deal with the question of wool and wool prices, and they consisted mostly of farmers and wool merchants. Really, the consumer is deeply interested, and a far better plan would be to get a Committee of Members of this House representing all interests in the community in order that they should have regard to the general interests of the public rather than to the interests of certain industries. It is not for want of comment or for want of appeals to them that the Board of Trade and the Government generally have not dealt with this matter before. Take, for example, the industry with which I am most familiar. So far back as November, 1914, in this House, suggestions were made to deal with the 2701 wool trade and the textile industries, which, if they had been adopted, would have made an enormous difference.