HC Deb 17 December 1919 vol 123 cc609-19

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. INSKIP

Before this Bill be read a second time I think the House ought to be informed of the action taken under the Profiteering Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I beg pardon, I thought there had been a formal Motion made.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

1.0 P.M.

I wish to state a few facts as to the working of the Profiteering Act. This Bill is merely intended to carry on the Profiteering Act for a further three months. Hon. Members will remember that under the Act it was only to last six months, and it expires on the 19th of February next year. We propose to carry it on for three months after that date. I will now give a few facts and figures as to the position at the present moment. Out of 2,356 local authorities, 1,900 have formed local committees, and eighty-six appeal tribunals have been set up. The Central Committee, presided over by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Food (Mr. McCurdy), set to work on the 30th of September and divided itself into three sections. One is a section for the investigation of prices, another for complaints regarding wholesale prices, and the third is the trusts section. These sections have divided themselves into a number of subcommittees dealing with the various branches of the sections. They have got to work in the investigation of particular eases or groups of articles. Before the local committees up to the end of November, 1,935 cases have been heard and determined. Of these 1,300 have been dismissed. In 398 cases a price has been declared or a refund ordered. In eighty-two cases prosecutions have been ordered. Of these, twenty-eight cases have come up for trial, and in twenty-four convictions have been obtained. Seventy-one cases have been referred to Appeal Tribunals, but most of these have not yet come up for consideration. With regard to the financial position the House will remember that £75,000 was sanctioned for the expenses of the Board of Trade under the Act. Up to 19th February it is estimated that some £25,000 to £30,000 will have been spent, and for the throe months after that probably something like £40,000, or rather less, will have been required. Therefore, the whole sum will not be reached even if we extend this Act for another three months.

I do not think it is necessary for me at this time of the night to go into a long description of the success of the. Act, but I think that the figures I have given will show that the machinery is only just getting into complete working order, and it would be most unfortunate if it was cut short before it had had time: to have its full effect, especially with regard to the more difficult investigations with reference to wholesale prices, trusts, combines, and so on, which everyone will recognise must take some time to follow up. I think I ought to say that the fact that this measure is only to prolong the life of the Act for three months does not mean that we are not carefully considering the possible necessity of an amending Act to amend the measure in one or two particulars. We have had a good many representations made to us from different quarters. A good many of them can be dealt with by an alteration of the Regulations, but some we think may require an Amendment in the Act, and the passing of this measure will in no way prevent such action being taken. There is one difficulty with regard to articles which in some particular stage are controlled. As the Act stands, if an article in any stage or process is controlled it may be held that the article cannot come under the review of the committees. We think it necessary to allow certain stages of the process to come under the committees, even if other stages are controlled. There are also some difficulties connected with the publication of reports which may possibly require amendment. At any rate we shall be in a better position at the beginning of next Session to amend the Act, and as the old Act will expire on 19th February, the House will recognise that it is very necessary to add these three months, because it will be impossible to introduce a Bill at the beginning of next Session before 19th February. I would remind hon. Members that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. W. K. Jones), who opposed the Act on Second Reading, used as one of his chief arguments the statement that the six months was not nearly enough. That, no doubt, enabled him to lead some of the eight hon. Members into the Lobby against the Bill. He was right, and in order to extend the time I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. LINDSAY

Do the figures given by the hon. Member refer to the whole of the United Kingdom?

INSKIP

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for the interesting facts he has given with regard to the working of the Profiteering Act. I regret he did not inform us as to what I hoped would have been the most interesting part of his statement. Most of us have been aware, although not to the extent we have now been informed, that a number of prosecutions have taken place under the Act and a number of threepenny-bits and sixpences have been ordered to be returned. What we were deeply interested in was as to the investigations which were being pursued by the various Committees and Sub-Committees, not in consequence of complaints, but in order to make those very investigations which the Select Committee appointed by this House was embarking upon when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade conceived the Profiteering Act. Section 5 or 6 of the Act, I forget which, expressly provides that those Reports shall be made public, and so far as I know not a single Report has been made public up to the present time. The Select Committee on high prices was precluded from embarking on the inquiry for which they were appointed in consequence of the intention to set up those Committees, which everybody supposed would cover the same ground as we were supposed to cover. We were later informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food that those Committees were in full operation and that a number of interesting—I think the hon. Member even suggested startling —disclosures were about to be made; that they would very shortly be made; and he suggested that the Select Committee might wait for those Reports with the assurance that it would be unnecessary to pursue their duties. Up to this time we have not had a single Report. Section 5 might not have been in the Act for all we know. We have no information from my hon. Friend as to whether those committees have made, any investigations; whether they found that any blame attached to trusts, rings, or companies, and we are just as much in the dark as to the real causes of high prices as we were in July, when the Select Committee was appointed.

I hope the President of the Board of. Trade will give us a categorical answer to the questions. How many of these Committees—not Committees that have considered cases in consequence of complaints—have made Reports? When will those Reports be published? and, if not already published, what are the reasons for withholding them from publication? If the House can be satisfied on these points I am sure they will be more ready to give an extension to the Profiteering Act.

Mr. G. THORNE

I do not for a moment desire to take the responsibility of opposing this Bill. I recognise that under the circumstances, as the Act will expire at the time named, there is nothing for us to do but to have an extension. But I observe that my hon. Friend (Mr. Bridge-man), in his remarks, said he did not propose to dwell upon the success which the Act had obtained. I thought that was rather discreet on his part, because so, far we have had no evidence that it has been a success at all. We should be very glad to know it is a successs. My hon. Friend who has just spoken (Mr. Inskip) and myself were members of the High Prices Committee. We were to take steps publicly and independently to investigate facts. This Bill came on the scene and torpedoed us, practically. But we took this course. We had the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary at one of our meetings, and he very courteously and fully gave us most interesting information, and, as my hon. Friend has suggested, the members of the Committee anticipated that before this time we should have had published certain Reports which would enable the public to understand better the working of the Committees and the results of that working. I, therefore, only wish to emphasise and support what my hon. Friend has just said that it will be a very great satisfaction to this House and, I believe, to the country to learn something in the direction of what we understood was promised at the meeting of the Committee would be given to the public.

I rather gather from my hon. Friend who spoke just now from the Front Bench that there are some difficulties in the way, under the provisions of the Act itself, and if there are difficulties in the way I presume they will be amended in a Bill proposed in the next Session. Perhaps they will indicate what these difficulties are, of which we do riot know anything. I do not know whether he knew of them himself when he appeared before the Committee. I am bound to say that when we considered this matter yesterday at the final meeting of the High Prices Committee, there was general dissatisfaction and disappointment—and I think my colleagues will agree with me in that—that we had not yet had these promised Reports. I hope my hon. Friend may now be able to give us some information in that direction which may help to satisfy the anxiety of the public.

Major BARNES

I am also upon this Prices and Profits Committee, and there are one or two things which have not been raised which I should like to refer to. I think the House will feel that in being asked for only three months' extension of this Bill they are getting some kind of insurance that by that time the Board of Trade expect to be nearing the end of their task. They had a very powerful engine placed in their hands when this Bill was passed, and to some of us it looks as though they were using a Nasmyth hammer to crack a nut, that is probably not the real state of the case. They are no doubt carrying on very important investigations, not in little matters of retail trade, but in the very much larger questions with regard to trusts and combines. The whole country is looking forward with tremendous interest to the result of these inquiries, and I think hon. Members who have spoken are only voicing the feeling of the Profits Committee in expressing some disappointment that up to the present we have not yet got the Reports of these inquiries. I understand that they are going on with such important matters as the soap combine, and cotton, and other things. If I may be allowed a criticism which is, perhaps, not a very usual criticism at this time, it is that I think they are erring a little on the, side of economy in their investigation. The Under-Secretary told us that out of their £75,000 they have spent only £25,000 up to the present.. I really do not think that is as matter for congratulation. I think the work would go forward better if a little more money were being spent and if my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Central Committee were provided with more staff and larger means of carrying on his work. In support of that I will give the House one instance, and with it I will finish. On the 29th October the Chairman of the Central Committee appeared before the Profits Committee to tell us something about the working of the Act, and he gave us a lot of interesting information. I took that opportunity to bring before his notice the question of prices and profits in the dye industries, a matter of very considerable importance, not only to that trade but on account of its effect on the textile trades. He agreed that the information I placed before him did give subject-matter for inquiry and he brought it before the Committee, and a Committee has been appointed, I learned from him, to deal with this matter; but the point I want to make is this—that although the matter was brought before him on 29th October, here we are on 18th December, seven weeks later, and the committee has not yet met. The reason, I understand, is that the staff which the Chairman of the Central Committee has is really not large enough for the task he has got in hand. There are twenty-five or thirty sub-committees and a comparatively small staff. I think that is false economy. What must be wanted by everybody—by the Board of Trade, by the Chairman of the Central Committee, and by the public —is that this work shall get on, that it shall get forward as rapidly as possible, and that, whatever economy may be effected in other directions, at least in the direction of an inquiry into this all-important matter, this matter which is probably engaging the anxieties of the country more than any other subject before it, there shall be no "scrimping," and that between now and the period when the new Bill is to end, my hon. Friend shall have at his disposal a fully adequate staff so that these Committees may be got together and may be able to proceed in the very quickest possible way.

Major GREAME

The House understood when it sanctioned this Act that these inquiries were going to be independent inquiries by practical people and not by an ad hoc staff. If they are to carry confidence in the minds of the general public it seems to me that it is absolutely essential that they should be inquiries directed by those with practical experience, who have a first-hand experience, and not—this the very thing which the hon. Member and his Friends have been objecting to throughout—a bureaucratic inquiry by what they are pleased to call bureaucrats. I should strongly oppose spending money in order to create a staff, very likely wholly unqualified, an ad hoc staff, to conduct these inquiries which ought to be conducted by practical people—manufacturers, distributors, labour, and so on—who are the very people we want to get into the thing. Otherwise, what is the use of the inquiry? The whole object of the inquiry is to consider whether the Board of Trade is exercising these functions properly What is the good of setting up a new Department of the Board of Trade, and paying Civil servants to conduct that in quiry? I think that is the most unfortunate contribution that could have been made to the Debate.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy)

At this time of the night I am sure no one would expect or desire that I should attempt to report with any fulness on the work which has been done by the Central Committee set up to carry out what I venture to claim are some of the most important functions of the Act. I can very briefly answer the last speaker, and give the House some information at the same time, by just stating briefly what are the Committees that have been set up to carry out the work of independently investigating prices and costs and the operations of trusts and combines, quite apart from any complaints of profiteering. First of all, I may say in a sentence, in answer to the last speaker, that, broadly speaking, the Committees which are set up are independent Committees, they are representative Committees, in the sense that, whatever trade or industry is affected, there are the manufacturers on the one side and the operatives on the other side. investigating prices or the operations of trusts, as the case may be. I think I may fairly say that they are democratically constituted. They are certainly not in any sense bureaucratic bodies. They are not appointed by the President of the Board of Trade, they are appointed by the Central Committee or the Sub-committees designated by it, and the Central Committee is a very democratically appointed Committee, containing no less than between thirty arid forty representatives of the great trade unions. First of all, we set up a Costings Advisory Committee, in which we have the assistance of the President of the Incorporated Society of Accountants and the late Director of Costings of the Army Contract Department, the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and one or two other well-known accountants, of course, acting voluntarily and unpaid. Their business is to direct the officials who are furnished by the Board of Trade to carry out the actual costings, and I may say that at the present moment I believe costs inquiries are being conducted by accountants appointed by that Committee, for that purpose, in no less than fifty-five businesses in Great Britain, apart altogether from the work of the Committee.

If I may, I should like to tell the House in a sentence or two what sort of Committee was set up. We have a Committee to inquire into prices in the cocoa and chocolate trade, which has now just reported. We have a Committee inquiring into the question of cotton, We have had an accountant examining the books of Messrs. Coats and Company, who have, I am happy to say, furnished every facility for the purposes of investigation. We have had a large Committee investigating the prices of a good many drugs, such as aspirin. Another Committee has been inquiring into the costs of electric lamps, another into the cost of candles, and another into the operations of fish rings, which are supposed to be responsible for the holding up of supplies of food. Another Committee has been making inquiries with regard to furniture. Other Committees have been investigating the questions of groceries, matches, petrol, fuel, and so on.

Mr. LINDSAY

What about whisky?

Mr. McCURDY

We have not, at present, touched whisky. I think I may say that all the great outstanding monopolies in this country, such as tobacco and soap, are now being investigated. Then we come to matters like the problems of clothing: woollens, yarns, and things of that kind. We are not, in those cases, setting up Committees in the strict sense of the word. We are really calling a series of conferences with regard to each of those articles, upon which the trade is fully represented, and the operatives are fully represented. The assistance of experts and accountants is also available. I am grateful to the hon. Member opposite for his sympathetic reference to the work of this Committee and his desire to assist it by having as full a staff as possible. May I say, as to that fact, that a larger staff might produce the desired effect a little more rapidly. But I think it is only fair to say that, if we have not the staff, it is certainly not due to any lack of readiness on the part of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to provide us with the assistance, nor is it due to any reluctance on the part of the Treasury to sanction the expenditure. It is due to the simple fact that, to be of any use to us, a staff must be possessed of some expert knowledge. They must have had some experience in costing work, and when we try to obtain assistants for that work, and can only offer them appointments terminable in February next, and are unable to hold out any promise of permanency, it is difficult to obtain competent men from other jobs to come and help us. With regard to the question of report, the Central Committee *as only formed on 30th September last, and since that time we have set up between twenty and thirty committees and conferences, some of which I have mentioned. It is only in the case of one or two of them that reports have been in the hands of the Board of Trade for more than a few days. But there has arisen a difficulty with regard to the publication of these reports which certainly did not occur to me when I gave evidence before the Select Committee on High Prices. The difficulty is that under the Profiteering Act it is specially provided that in respect of a trial or complaint, the information and evidence laid before a Committee is to be regarded as confidential, with this exception. Nothing in the Act is to prevent the publication of the findings and the decision of such a Committee. In the first place, reports are presented to the Board of Trade which contain, in some cases, transcript of evidence given, or in every case reference to the evidence, and it became a question of some doubt to the legal officers of the Board of Trade whether a report in that form would have the statutory protection which the Act gives to the publication of the findings and the decision. It may be necessary to remodel some of the first reports presented in order to bring them under the necessary words of the Act, but, subject to that, I have every hope that a substantial number of reports will be laid before the House.

Captain W. BENN

The Profiteering Act, a piece of stunt legislation, was rushed upon this House just before we adjourned in the ordinary manner, in order to satisfy public clamour, in spite of the fact that a Committee of Inquiry had been appointed. Two things might have been done. The inquiries might haste been set on foot, and the public informed of the result of those inquiries. That has not been done. I am very doubtful whether any Act of Parliament was required at all to enable the Food Controller and the President of the Board of Trade to do what obviously was within their powers, to make inquiries into prices. What the public will be interested in is the fact that 1,900 committees have been appointed, and 1,935 cases have been heard. That is one case per committee. Twenty-four convictions have been established, and £25,000 have been spent, That is an average of about £1,000 per conviction, and the price of living has gone up from 115 per cent. to 131 per cent. above the pre-war level.

Bill accordingly read a sceond time, and committed to a. Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Colonel Sanders.]