§ (1) The Board of Trade may, as and when it appears to them necessary or expedient, establish, or require any local authority or authorities to, establish, local or other committees, to whom the Board may delegate any or all of their powers under this Act in respect of any articles or classes of articles, or sales, and the effect of any order by a committee under such delegated powers shall be the same as that of an order of the Board, and this Act shall have effect accordingly.
§ (2) Subject as aforesaid, the Board may make regulations and give directions as to the constitu-
1504§ Question put, "That the Clause, as. amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 2.
1503| Division No. 102.] | AYES. | [2.25 a.m. |
| Adair, Rear-Admiral | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke) | Perring, William George |
| Agg-Gargner, Sir James Tynte | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge) | Pratt, John William |
| Ainsworth, Captain C. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Pulley, Charles Thornton |
| Atkey, A. R. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Purchase, H. G. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Glyn, Major R. | Raeburn, Sir William |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Greame, Major P. Lloyd | Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Green, J. F. (Leicester) | Remer, J. B. |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Griffiths, T. (Pontypool) | Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Grundy, T. W. | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.) | Rogers, Sir Hallewell |
| Bell, James (Ormskirk) | Hailwood, A. | Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. |
| Bell, Lieut. Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Blades, Sir George R, | Hamilton, Major C, G. C. (Altrincham) | Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney) |
| Blair, Major Reginald | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Seddon, J. A. |
| Briant, F. | Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F. | Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hirst, G. H. | Sexton, James |
| Briggs, Harold | Holmes, J. S. | Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock) |
| Britton, G. B. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Short, A. (Wednesbury) |
| Bromfield, W. | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.) |
| Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham) | Jameson, Major J. G. | Simm, Col. M. T. |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, N.) | Jodrell, N. P. | Smith, W. (Wellingborough) |
| Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H. | Johnstone, J. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Buckley, Lt.-Col. A. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Campion, Colonel W. R. | Joynson-Hicks, Sir William | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Cape, Tom | Kellaway, Frederick George | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Carr, W. T. | Kerr-Smiley, Major P. | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Carter, W. (Mansfield) | Kidd, James | Sugden, W. H. |
| Casey, T. W. | King, Commander Douglas | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill | Knights, Captain H. | Taloot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow) | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Clough, R. | Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General R. B. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don) | Townley, Maximilan G. |
| Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H. | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.) | Lort-Williams, J. | Vickers, D. |
| Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H. | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Wallace, J. |
| Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe) | Lunn, William | Ward- Jackson, Major C. L. |
| Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe) | M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Weston, Colonel John W. |
| Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H. |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Mitchell, William Lane | Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury) |
| Du Pre, Colonel W. B. | Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Edge, Captain William | Nall, Major Joseph | Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon) |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Neal, Arthur | Woolcock, W. J. U. |
| Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon) |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Parker, James | Younger, Sir George |
| Fitzroy, Capt. Hon. Edward A. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | |
| Flannery, Sir J- Fortescue | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Col. |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. | Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge) | Sanders and Mr. Dudley Ward. |
| NOES. | ||
| Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.) | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Commander Kenworthy and Mr. Kennedy Jones |
§ tion, powers, and procedure of committees established under this Section, and the districts for which they shall act, which regulations and directions shall have effect as though enacted in this Act:
§ Provided that such regulations shall provide for a right of appeal by the seller from any order or decision of local committees to appeal tribunals appointed by the Board for the purpose, and for the constitution, powers, and procedure of such appeal tribunals, and shall make such provision as appears to the Board necessary for the prevention of frivolous complaints.
1505§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "establish, or."
The object of this Amendment is that the Board of Trade shall not have power of themselves to establish local committees, but to require the local authorities to establish the committees, the object being to make these committees more democratic and not simply the nominees of the Board of Trade.
§ Sir A. GEDDESThis Amendment, if it were carried, would have the effect of making it impossible to establish machinery to investigate the action of any large trade combinations, trusts, or companies producing for wholesale sale or otherwise. There would be merely local investigations. I am sure the hon. Member cannot realise that that would be the effect of the Amendment.
§ Mr. RAFFANI do not desire that this should follow, and for that reason I could not support the Amendment, but may we take it that, in every case where it is proposed to set up a local committee, the local authority shall, in the first instance, be given the opportunity? If that were so, personally I should be quite satisfied—that is to say, that where you propose to set up a local committee you would not, in the first instance, ignore the local authority, but, following the precedent which the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind, it would be asked in the first instance.
§ Sir A. GEDDESCertainly. There is also the central machinery for investigations to be set up under the same Clause. There might be a recalcitrant local authority.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYBut surely the Board of Trade themselves will carry out the large inquiries into the ramifications of trusts. What I hope is, that the Board of Trade is not going to pack its local committees with its own nominees.
§ Amendment negatived.
Mr. G.THORNEI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "require," and to insert instead thereof the word "authorise."
The expression used is "require any local authority to establish a local committee or local committees." It is one thing to authorise the local authorities, it 1506 is quite another thing to direct them to do it. In every case where the local authorities are prepared to co-operate in this, then require is not needed, but I can conceive of a case in which local authorities may say that the proposal itself is so different that they find it impossible to comply satisfactorily. It seems to me, therefore, very unfair and very unjust that they should be required to do such a thing and therefore I desire to substitute the word "authorise."
§ Sir A. GEDDESI have no objection to accepting this Amendment; it makes no difference.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. T. WILSONI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "committees" ["local or other committees"] to insert the words "composed as to two-thirds of the membership or representatives of labour, co-operative societies, and consumers."
The Amendment leaves a third which could be appointed or selected from other bodies, and I have the precedent of the local committees in connection with food control in asking the Government to accept this Amendment. We believe that a Committee composed as suggested will command the confidence of the public in any place where a committee is set up, and I hope that, with the object of the smooth working of the Act, the Government will accept the Amendment, which I now move.
§ Sir A. GEDDESThis Amendment as it stands is—as I am sure my hon. Friend realises—quite impossible to accept. It suggests that even for most highly-technical examinations, which might require to be carried out by skilled chartered accountants or some other skilled persons, these should be excluded. That is to cover the central tribunal as well as the local. In so far as the local tribunal is concerned, that will be dealt with in the Regulations, and while I cannot undertake to recognise Labour, all classes of consumers will, naturally, be represented on such bodies.
Mr. WILSONWill the right hon. Gentleman say the proportion of those representatives he will recommend to put on the committee?
§ Sir A. GEDDESI cannot say offhand, but there will be adequate representation for all classes.
Mr. MACLEANI should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is not prepared to allow some representative from organised Labour as he did on the tribunals set up under the Military Service Act? You established the precedent then, and I think it could very well be done in this particular measure, for while you are having consumers represented, it is quite obvious, from statements made earlier in the evening by an hon. Member, that they have not his confidence in the way they are set up or the manner they conduct their business. If we can have an assurance that the proportion of Labour representatives which can represent directly, not in the ordinary consuming sense, where you select individuals here and there, but where you can have individuals nominated by trade unions and co-operative scoieties, then they would have confidence in that tribunal. Many of the tribunals set up under the Military Service Act had not the confidence of the people, because the direct representation on these from Labour and other parties the Government considered to be adequately represented by people outside.
§ Sir A. GEDDESI shall say this, that we will arrange in the Regulations for fair representations of all classes and divisions. I am not prepared to recognise trade unions as a separate sort of digestion and with a separate body to be clothed from other human beings. If we adequately represent the general consumer, it is fair to assume that they will be represented, but it is not reasonable to expect that because a person is a member of a trade union, or co-operative society, or of a church, or anything else, that he is something different from other sections of the community.
§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHSYou are quite aware that in many districts you have no Labour representation on county councils, town councils, and other bodies. In these districts you have trades councils and the Labour party, and the people would have more confidence if these local tribunals were appointed from them than if they were appointed from someone outside.
§ Sir A. GEDDESI think I have met this case quite fairly. These are not political bodies. They arc not designed to favour any political theory. They approximate more to a jury, and it would be an extraordinary suggestion if it were put forward that a jury was to consist if so many 1508 members of trade unions, of co-operative societies and something else. It is in their capacity as citizens, and when I have said that the Regulations will provide for representation of all sections of the community, I mean there will be representation from outside the local authority if it does not cover all classes.
Mr. WILSONThe right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that some of these local authorities who are empowered or authorised to set up local committees will see to it that those who are most directly affected by profiteering are not adequately represented, but the people who are the profiteers will be represented on the tribunals. That is not the way the Government took when they wanted the assistance of the members of the trade unions. They were pleased to give Labour more adequate representation on committees, for the reason that these men on these committees served the purpose of the Government better than putting on shopkeepers or anybody else. It he will give us a promise that Labour will have a certain proportion—if he thinks two-thirds is too much—on these local committees to deal with prices we shall be satisfied. I rose to point out that on the local Food Control Committees Labour has a statutory representation. I do say we are not asking too much in asking the right hon. Gentleman to give us what we have already.
§ Sir A. GEDDESThe local authorities who will be authorised to set up these bodies, are democratically elected bodies. They are the selected representatives of the community, and if they have put up profiteers so much the worse for the taste of the community. I have said that the Regulations will provide for fair representation of all sections of the community. That means that there must be in the Regulations provisions which will make that sure, and if the local authority, through the slackness or remissness of the local population, is not really representative, there will have to be a reinforcement, from outside, of people to represent all sections and interests.
§ Mr. NEWBOULDThe right hon. Gentleman has given expression to a very unfortunate sentiment, namely, that if the local authority happens to be composed mainly of profiteers, then in that particu- 1509 lar district profiteers will get off scot-free, because the tribunal will ipso facto be composed of them.
§ Sir A. GEDDESReally, I must protest against any suggestion of that kind.
Mr. SIMMSI want to appeal to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin to withdraw his Amendment. There are many districts in which there are no trades councils, but where there are, perhaps, two or three co-operative societies. Who is going to make the selection. I am in
§ a district that will have a tribunal, It is almost purely a suburban area, occupied by the suburban aristocracy, and yet the council only selected three or four Labour men to represent Labour on the military tribunal in that area. What happens in a military sense will also happen here, and it will result in injustice for Labour.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 136.
1509| Division No. 103.] | AYES. | [2.54 a.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Bell, James (Ormskirk) | Hirst, G. H. | Sexton, James |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Holmes, J. S. | Short, A. (Wednesbury) |
| Briant, F. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander | Smith, W. (Wellingborough) |
| Bromfield, W. | Lunn, William | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Cape, Tom | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Carter, W. (Mansfield) | Newbould, A. E. | |
| Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Rattan, Peter Wilson | Mr. Tyson Wilson end Mr. T. Griffiths. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| NOES. | ||
| Adair, Rear-Admiral | Foxcroft, Captain C. | Parker, James |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Ainsworth, Captain C. | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke) | Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge) | Perring, William George |
| Atkey, A. R. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Pratt, John William |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John | Pulley, Charles Thornton |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Glyn, Major R. | Purchase, H. G. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Greame, Major P. Lloyd | Raeburn, Sir William |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Green J. F. (Leicester) | Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E, (B. St. E.) | Remer, J. B. |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Hailwood, A | Robinson S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. c. H. (Devizes) | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham) | Rogers, Sir Hallewell |
| Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth) | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. |
| Blades, Sir George R. | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney) |
| Blair, Major Reginald | Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F. | Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur |
| Brackenbury, Captain H. L. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Seddon, J. A. |
| Briggs, Harold | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John |
| Britton, G. B. | Inskip, T. W. H. | Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock) |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Jameson, Major J. G. | Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) |
| Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham) | Jodrell, N. P. | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.) |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, N.) | Johnstone, J. | Simm, Col. M. T. |
| Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Buckley, Lt.-Col. A. | Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey) | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Campion, Colonel W. R. | Joynson-Hicks, Sir William | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Carr, W. T. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Casey, T. W. | Kerr-Smiley, Major P. | Stevens, Marshall |
| Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill | Kidd, James | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Clay, Captain H. H Spender | Kiley, James Daniel | Sugden, W. H. |
| Clough, R. | King, Commander Douglas | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K. | Knights, Captain H. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General R. B. | Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow) | Townley, Maximilan G. |
| Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan) | Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.) | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H. | Lindsay, William Arthur | Vickers, D. |
| Craig, Col Sir James (Down, Mid.) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don) | Weston, Colonel John W. |
| Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H. |
| Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H. | Lort-Williams, J. | Williams. Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Winterton, Major Earl |
| Du Pre, Colonel W. B. | M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Woolcock, W. J. U. |
| Edwards. Major J. (Aberavon) | Mitchell, William Lane | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark) | Morden, Col. H. Grant | Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander | Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.) | Younger, Sir George |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Neal, Arthur | |
| Fitzroy, Capt. Hon. Edward A. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Talbot and Captain F. Guest |
| Forestier-Walker, L. |
§ 3.0 A.M.
§ Mr. RAFFANI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "committees" ["to establish, local or other committees"], to insert the words "on which there shall be representatives of women. "I am sure I may expect the ready acceptance of this Amendment. If the question of profiteering is a grievance anywhere, it is so in the home and to the mother. Women are the victims of the profiteer to a much greater extent than men are. There are plenty of precedents in favour of this proposal. Women have been admitted on the education authorities and are represented on many other local bodies which have control. [Hon. Members: "Agreed !"] I have no desire to talk if the Amendment is going to be accepted.
§ Sir A. GEDDESThis is not the place in which the provision should appear, if it is to be inserted. There is another Amendment which I will accept.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir A. S. BENNI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "powers." ["powers under this Act"], to insert the words" save and except the power to take proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction."
§ Sir A. GEDDESThis proposal would limit the powers of local committees to the limited service set out in Sub-section (1,b). The proposal is that they shall not have power to take proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The Board of Trade is taking power to issue Regulations and Orders to these committees which would limit their initiative. They will give some explanation of the powers which it is desirable to give. The right of prosecuting and taking prosecutions before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in proper cases is one of those powers, and I can see no objection to that, so long as the Board of Trade is taking the responsibility and is guarding against prosecutions that would be frivolous.
§ Sir A. S. BENNDo I understand that the authority of the Board of Trade will be necessary?
§ Sir A. GEDDESYes, and I understand it will be dealt with in the Regulations
§ Amendment negatived.
Mr. DOYLEI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "sales"
1512 ["classes of articles, or sales"], to insert the words "except the powers granted to the Board in Section one, Sub-section (5)."
§ Sir A. GEDDESI do not think this Amendment is necessary. I have no objection to the principle, but I cannot conceive that any human being could believe that the Board of Trade would find itself unable to delegate these powers. There is an Amendment which might be inserted here, "except the power of the Board to fix prices." This is limited to certain prices. If the hon. Member will propose it in that form, I will accept it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "sales" ["classes o articles, or sales"], insert the words "except the power of the Board to fix prices."—[Sir A. Geddes.]
Mr. KENNEDY JONESI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "sales" ["classes of articles, or sales"], to insert the words
such members of committees to be selected from a panel, and to have in no case any personal trade interest, direct or indirect, with the article under consideration, nor to number when in session more than five.Looking at the Amendment as put down in the light of day yesterday, and looking at it now in the light of early morning, I am not quite sure that the wording is the best that could be chosen. The object is to ensure that interested persons will not be sitting in judgment upon their trade rivals. One would not like to see a butcher sitting on a tribunal and deciding the case of another butcher in the same town. It might happen under the panel system that five drapers would sit to decide the case of a butcher, and that butchers similarly would sit to decide the case of a linendraper. Even cases of that kind would be less objectionable than to take a local butcher as a judge over a rival in the same trade. The limitation of members to five is intended to stop unnecessary expense, as the expenses have to be paid of the members from the panel, and in order that no injury may be done to any member of the tribunal who may be concerned with the cases
§ Sir G. HEWARTMy hon. Friend has really anticipated in this Amendment what is contained in the last part of Clause 2. It is provided by Clause 2 that the Board shall have power in the Regulations to provide for the constitution,. 1513 powers and procedure of such tribunals. It is quite obvious that under Clause 2, Sub-clause 1, the Board is to delegate its powers to these local committees and constitute them. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It contemplates that there shall be a panel, and it contemplates the number five. It might be difficult to make a panel, and might be unnecessary to have five; very often three might be enough. I suggest that this is a matter which might well be left to the discretion of the Board of Trade and the Regulations.
§ Mr. ACLANDThe Attorney-General did not give any assurance that the point, the other point in the Amendment to which he did not refer, would really be met.
§ Sir G. HEWARTYou mean as to interests?
§ Mr. ACLANDYes.
§ Sir G. HEWARTI thought that was too obvious. Of course, it will be provided that persons shall not sit who have any personal trade interest, direct or indirect. Words to that effect will be added.
§ Earl WINTERTONI do not think the answer of the Attorney-General is altogether satisfactory. As I understand it, the point is that it is necessary to specify in the Act of Parliament that one trade rival shall not sit in judgment upon another. That is the whole point of the Amendment, which is a very simple and a. very important one. I do not think it Is altogether to the point that the Attorney-General should say that, of course, when the Board coma to make Regulations they will allow for such cases, and will prevent the possibility, which my hon. Friend has suggested would arise in the Bill as it stands, of one trade rival sitting in judgment upon another. If the Committee bear in mind what happened tinder a very similar form of institution, the tribunals under the National Service Act, they will know—there was no concealment—that in some cases trade rivalry did influence the decisions of the tribunals. There is no question about that. It is an unpleasant accusation to have to make, but there is probably not an hon. Member of the Committee who could not give personal instances from his own constituency of cases of that kind. I could give cases where grossest injustice was done to in- 1514 dividuals by members of the tribunals who were interested, directly or indirectly, in the form of business in which the man appearing before the tribunal v. as also interested. Under this Bill, there are going to be tribunals which are going to have powers over a man's business greater than any powers which the Government exercised under the Defence of the Realm Act. And to say that you are not going to safeguard a man in any particular trade, it may be the grocery trade or the butchery trade, against the possible oppression of a rival in the same trade—that you are not going to do it by Act of Parliament but by Regulation, is, in my opinion, an abuse of the functions of this Committee. It is very typical and very symptomatic of what the Government do. The Government have not a consistent policy on many things, but in one thing they are consistent and that is in their liking for proceedings by Orders in Council and Regulations rather than by legislation. The reasons are obvious. It is much easier to proceed by Regulation or by Order in Council than it is to devise a Bill or to allow for difficulties which may arise by legislation. I think that is a thoroughly bad and thoroughly vicious principle, and I very much hope that my hon. Friends will go to a Division upon it, and I hope the traders of the country will also notice the result of the Division and those who vote against this Amendment. In my opinion those who vote against, this Amendment are voting against a proposal to save some of the smallest traders in the country from the most grevious form of tyranny and injustice that may be done to them under the Bill as it stands by their trade rivals. The words of the Amendment are perfectly simple, and I see no reason why the Government should not accept them. I very much hope the Government will alter their decision and accept the Amendment, or at any rate, words to carry it out.
§ Sir A. GEDDESThis is an Amendment which looks very much better on paper than it can possibly be in practice. It is a very easy Amendment to make a speech about, to suggest that it is very unfair and to say that no one in the same committee should be a member of the same trade or occupation as a man who comes before them. But you have to remember that this limit, which it is now sought to set upon the power of the Government, 1515 applies not only to the local but to the central branches of the investigation, and I can picture nothing more impossible than to hope to get an investigation of a satisfactory kind without the assistance of experts in the actual business under investigation. It is a perfectly hopeless proposition to suggest that men who know nothing whatever of the processes are to be the sole members of an investigating committee. It sounds very nice to talk about trade rivals unfairly using their position. It is said that that has happened under National Service. Tribunals were not a part of National Service, but that is by the way. It happened so rarely throughout the whole of the working of the tribunals, in any way that could be proved, that one can only say that it is really a most unfair accusation to bring against these bodies. It really would be quite impossible to carry out the sort of investigation that the House has authorised with the Second Reading of the Bill without the assistance of experts in the trade to be investigated; but by regulation, so far as local bodies are concerned, we will be able to prevent any unfair trading.
Lieut-Colonel GUINNESSThe learned Attorney-General said that as a matter of course this supervision would find its place among the Regulations to be laid down by the Board of Trade, and it was rather a surprise to hear the President of the Board of Trade say that owing to the possibility that this Clause might apply to the central tribunal he could not accept it. Could he accept the provision eliminating those with a direct trade interest, limiting it only to the case of local tribunals. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey attaches much importance to the panel system or to the number of the panel, but we do attach very much importance to the eliminations of men with a direct trade interest not only because of the possibility of more or less grave personal considerations coming in, but also because we feel it is very unfair to the trader to have to show his books and disclose prices to members of the same trade as himself in competition with his own business. Quite apart from that, if it is the case that the Board of Trade is going to adopt this principle in spite of this House they ought to accept it and put it into the Bill. It is a matter which arouses great feeling in this House, that we ought to control these tribunals, and if the Gov- 1516 ermnent have made up their mind that they are going to do this why do not they avoid friction and put it into the Bill. If oil this point on which there is no difference of opinion they would accept an Amendment of this kind they would do a great deal for the rapid progress of the Kill.
§ Sir A. GEDDESIf before the Amendment providing for the representation of women on the tribunals hon. Members specially interested will submit an Amendment that on the local committee traders will not sit who have a direct interest in the case we will do our best to meet them..
§ Sir A. S. BENNI have an Amendment down dealing with that and limiting it only to local committees. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept that.
§ Mr. KILEYI hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. They will make the proceedings of the tribunals a farce. If there was an inquiry into meat prices they would have to deal with a butcher, and if there was a butcher on the tribunal he would have to retire. If the next case is a draper, and there is a draper on the tribunal, he would have to retire. So you go through the proceedings, and you have a kind of pantomime. If you have responsible local men you have to assume that each will do his duty, and if he does not do his duty, surely the other members of the tribunal will act as correctives! As regards the limitation of the numbers, the President of the Board of Trade will have to be careful to see that when the tribunal meets there will be a quorum. Many of us know that in local districts you cannot get more than half, and with the limit at five you are likely to have some delay. For this reason, I do hope he will not accept the Amendment.
§ Sir E. WILDI am not in general sympathy with this Amendment, and I am glad to hear the conciliatory note from the President of the Board of Trade. Speaking for myself—if I may make a suggestion to my hon. Friend—we have shown our principles, and I do think we should not at this late hour go through an unnecessary Division on this matter therefore, I do not intend to take part in the operations of a Division. Inadvertently I was led into a Division half an hour ago which I thought would be a serious Division.
§ Mr. A. SHAWI am somewhat amazed by my hon, and learned Friend's extraordinary assumption that the lateness of the hour makes some difference to the principle. If I believe that there are important matters involved in this Bill, I shall take every occasion to divide where principle is concerned, regardless of the lateness of the hour and the convenience of Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I do not think the President of the Board of Trade realises the importance of an aspect of the question we are discussing now. It is not merely a question of setting one Member to judge another. It is rather from the point of view of a person in the same trade who it may be is interested in setting up an exorbitant standard of profit by which he can gain as well as the person whose freedom he secures. From that point of view I support the Amendment. I am glad my right hon. Friend accepts it in principle, but his acceptance of it in principle is mitigated by his somewhat hostile tone. It practically contradicted the speech of the right hon. Member on his left (the Attorney-General). I ask him to believe that the public are rather suspicious of Board of Trade Committees, and I do not desire to give a carte blanche, without any security, to people who will have all too grave powers over the lives and destinies of hundreds of thousands of the humblest people in this country.
§ Mr. SEDDONI was rather surprised at the tone of the two speeches delivered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General took exception because he said, perhaps, not five would be wanted, and it would add to expense. I am quite sure my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment would be prepared to accept no more than five. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade goes further, and says that if it was to leave the locality and become a larger issue of national importance, then you would want experts to decide in any particular trade. Surely there never was a more fallacious argument advanced in this House than the danger of having rivals on local committees. There is a graver danger in having men deal with larger issues from a national point of view. I am simply mystified that the two right hon. Gentlemen, the one advancing one case and the other another case, refuse to accept this very reasonable Amendment, which, in. my opinion, would give 1518 much more satisfaction and will remove a sense of grievance. As an hon. Member on the other side said, there would be a kind of pantomime, a baker withdrawing when the case was that of a bilker, a butcher withdrawing in the case of a butcher, and so on. Of course, in Licensing Sessions it is expected that a magistrate who has any interest in a matter shall withdraw.
§ Mr. SEDDONI say that any people who are interested in the sale of liquor, or have any interest in its manufacture, are expected to withdraw from the Licensing Bench when licences are being dealt with, and what applies to licences should apply, in the interests of the poor, so far as local trades are here concerned. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will stand by his Amendment, and press it to a Division, unless the Government assumes a more reasonable frame of mind.
§ Sir G. HEWARTIt has been suggested by more than one speaker that there is some opposition between what has been said by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and by myself with reference to this Amendment. I personally am not conscious of any such opposition or contradiction. The words of this Amendment arc, "No personal or trade interest, direct or indirect, in the article under consideration." The article under consideration, I should have thought, refers to the particular transaction. Is it seriously suggested by my hon. Friend that in a matter, for example, relating to the baking industry, no baker should be represented on the local committee, and that in a matter connected with the business of a butcher no butcher should be represented on the committee, and so on?
§ Sir G. HEWARTIs it really suggested that you cannot get a local committee of persons carrying on business, who can fairly adjudicate upon the reasonableness of the profit made in a particular business, if one of their number has some personal experience of that line of business himself? Surely the distinction is not between one business and another, but between one transaction and another. I thought my hon. Friend's object was that no person should adjudicate who was directly or indirectly concerned in the 1519 transaction; but it is a very serious matter to say that in determining what is a reasonable or an unreasonable profit you are to exclude from the Committee any person who has actual experience of or interest in the business in which the article is produced.
§ Sir G. HEWARTI mean experience or interest in the sense that he is carrying on that kind of business. When I said it was obvious that that was a matter to be dealt with by regulation, I meant that the regulation would prevent any person from adjudicating or assisting in adjudicating on a transaction in which he had a personal interest, not that we should exclude any person who had knowledge or experience in the conduct of that trade. To follow out my hon. Friend's argument, we should have booksellers adjudicating on the profits of a butcher, linen drapers upon the profits of a baker, and so on. That would be the knowledge and experience that would be brought to bear. I am sure the Committee observes that what is being dealt with here is not the persons who are determining guilt or innocence in a case of prosecution, but persons who are conducting an investigation as to what is a reasonable price under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 2. I should have thought that the exclusion of an interest in the particular transaction was a. matter that might well be left to Regulations; but if it is indeed the sense of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and of those who agree with him, that we are to exclude from taking any part in adjudications upon the price of any commodity any person actually engaged in dealing in that kind of commodity, that is a totally different matter, and one that requires very careful consideration.
§ Mr. NEALThere is an Amendment on the Paper asking that there may be at least one representative of the trade upon each tribunal. That Amendment was put down at the express request of the Grocers' Federation of Great Britain, which realises how hopeless the tribunals would be if there were no practical men on them.
§ Mr. HAILWOODI hope the Government will stand firm on this matter, and will not be led away by the bandying about of the words "butcher" and "baker." As a matter of fact, butchers 1520 and bakers will not be affected at all, because their trades are controlled, and this Bill does not apply to them. But I think it shows a very poor opinion of those trades if it is thought that they are incapable of giving a fair judgment on a matter of public importance such as this. I happen to be a baker, and I have been elected to this House, and am also a magistrate. Is it to be assumed, supposing my services were called in, that, while I am considered fit to be a magistrate and a Member of Parliament, my mind is going to be suddenly warped and I am going to try and do some ill deed against my fellow trader or an injustice to the public? I can conceive nothing more cruel than to ask a tribunal to adjudicate on a case when its members know nothing about the trade in question. If we are to have any justice at all, all sides should be represented. Earlier in the Debate there was a demand from the other side of the House that members of trade unions and co-operative societies should form a majority of these tribunals. Surely the members of co-operative societies would be interested parties, and if we have this from the Labour Benches they must have confidence in these people. I think that the fewer the restrictions put on the local authorities in the choice of their delegates or representatives the better. The local authorities are the elected representatives of the people, and I contend that they are quite qualified to choose the right men for this purpose.
Mr. JONESI do not quite understand where we are on the matter of this Amendment which I have moved. First of all, I understood that the Attorney-General gave an assurance that the spirit of the Amendment would be embodied in the Regulations.
§ Sir G. HEWARTRelating to the article under consideration.
Mr. JONESThen the President of the Board of Trade threw the whole thing over and said he would not have it, and later he said he would take it in some other form if we could bring it in in a later Amendment—some form of words which confined it to the local committee. Despite all that we have heard from the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. Hailwood) and from the opposite benches, I suggest that it is a bad principle to ask a trader to sit in judgment on his rival. It involves a conflict between his interest and his duty, and I suggest that it should be avoided at 1521 all costs. Unless I have an assurance that the principle of this Amendment will be accepted so far as the local committees are concerned, I shall proceed to a Division. Perhaps some apology is due from me for speaking again on my Amendment.
§ Earl WINTERTONThose who have a great knowledgs of the Rules of the House will tell the hon. Member who has just spoken that he was quite right. I do not think the hon. Member appreciated the danger that lies in the Bill as it stands. Take a small town in which there were two bakers; one might be a fierce rival of the other, not only in business, but they might also be political and religious rivals. Some of the difficulties in regard to those local committees were brought before the Committee in charge of profiteering. [An Hon. Member: "Why bakers?"] Well, make it grocers, if you like. Would anyone say that a particular grocer in a small town is a fit and proper person to decide whether a grocer in the same town has or has not been guilty of profiteering? I certainly say it would not be right. The Government suggests that if you exclude the people who are interested in the trade you will not get the benefit of expert knowledge. Have they never heard of the retired tradesman, who has just as much knowledge of the trade, whether direct or indirect, as anyone else, but has now no financial interest in it, and therefore has no trade rivalry? One Gentleman said that a trade federation bad asked for the support of the Government to its request that representatives of that trade should be on the committees. That seems to me an additional argument against the Bill. What would one of these people be likely to be? Would they be too kind or unkind? You want people who would be impartial, and I say it is possible to obtain these people, and that they need not necessarily be people who are engaged in a particular trade. The Attorney-General and the President of the Board of Trade must both know that the tribunals which were set up under the Military Service Act did not always act impartially. I recollect many cases where local tribunals were actuated by trade sympathies or trade jealousies under the Military Service Act. There is no Member of the House who could not give many such cases in his own constituency. I think the Government have made a valuable concession in saying that they will try to apply the principle to the local committees although 1522 they have not accepted this Amendment as it stands. But I am deeply suspicious of any promises made by the Government to put things into Bills at later stages. We have many examples of such promises having been made and the Amendment when it appeared has not carried out the promise made by the Government. I again insist that the Government should proceed by legislation. After all we are here to legislate and not to refer things to the Board of Trade to make Orders on them. I think that this is a serious instrument of tyranny. Leaving out these things and leaving it to boards to make Orders of all kinds is wrong.
§ Sir A. GEDDESIn a few moments I will propose to include words at the proper place. I have the words drafted, which I think will meet the case. They are, '' Shall provide that a member of a committee established by a local authority shall be disqualified from acting in any case where he is a trade competitor of the person against whom the complaint under investigation has been lodged, and."
§ The CHAIRMANWe had better deal with those points when the Amendment comes on.
§ Mr. NEALI beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "committee" ["any Order by a committee"],to insert the words" made in pursuance of Section 1, Sub-section (b) of this Act,"
§ Sir G. HEWARTI should have thought this was covered by the words in the Bill, "the effect of any Order by a committee under such delegated powers shall be the same as an Order of the board."
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Act" ["enacted in this Act"], to insert the words
Provided that every regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented by either House within twenty-one days from the date on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under.
§ Sir A. GEDDESI accept.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1523§ Sir A. GEDDESI beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "regulations" ["such regulations shall provide"], to insert the words
shall provide that a member of a committee established by a local authority shall be disqualified from acting in any case where he is a trade competitor of the person against whom the complaint under investigation has been lodged, and
§ Mr. KILEYI wish to know whether the Government has got any definition of a "trade competitor"? What is the distance required within which a man becomes a trade competitor? Is there any limitation?
§ Sir A. GEDDESThat is a point we were discussing here just now. It is perhaps the best way of doing it—by including that in the regulation.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY JONESI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "purpose" ["for the purpose"], to insert the words" such tribunals to include a majority of members trained in assessing the value of evidence."
This deals with the composition of the Appeal Tribunals which are to be set up. It seems to me, whatever size you make them, it is desirable that there should be a majority on them of members trained in assessing the value of evidence. Otherwise you may find some very extraordinary evidence being given before your county tribunals.
§ Mr. HOLMESWe have had a great discussion on this Bill as to the definition of profiteering, in which the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has taken a great part. Will he now explain to the House the definition of "people trained in assessing the value of evidence"?
§ Sir G. HEWARTI find great difficulty in understanding the phrase. I have never seen the phrase "trained in assessing the value of evidence." I do not know who are the persons nor what is the training suggested. Who would come within the ambit of this definition? Who would be excluded? I should have thought myself it would have been sufficient to leave 1524 it to the Board of Trade to appoint persons on the tribunals. But we have got as far as this—that in the opinion of the hon. Member a Member of Parliament is a person trained in the assessing of evidence. [An HON. MEMBER: "Unless he is a Minister !"] A Member of Parliament with the exception of a Minister. If that is so, is there not room for everybody?
§ Amendment negatived.
Major GREAMEI beg to move at the end, to add the words "provided also that such Regulations shall provide representation of women on all local committees." I think that is a proposition which the Committee—
§ Sir A. GEDDESI accept.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER SHAWIn a sense we are all representative of the people, and the inclusion of, say, a Member of Parliament or any member of a properly elected body whose constituency included women, would be covered by this. What we want is not to have representatives of the women, but the women themselves.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "representation." find to insert instead thereof the word "inclusion."
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI have on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of the Clause, to add the words
Provided also that any such Regulation shall not be deemed to be a statutory Rule within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.Really I put this down as a consequential Amendment in the event of the Minister insisting on it, but I do not want to move it unless he really does want it.
§ Sir A. GEDDESI will not insist on this, but I believe, merely from the point of view of procedure, that it is right it should be inserted, to save trouble.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
1525§ Mr. ACLANDI would like to ask the Government, it being now four o'clock, whether they are still of the same opinion that they were one and a-half hours ago, and intend to finish this Bill, afterwards taking the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill?
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.