PROFITEERING (AMENDMENT) [EXPENSES]. (Hansard, 4 May 1920)

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Is it intended to take this Vote to-night? This Bill was taken for Second Reading late at night, which was most unfair. The Committee stage of this Financial Resolution was taken after 11 o'clock last night, and now it is proposed to take the Report stage after 11 o'clock. This is most unfair to the House and to the country. According to the explanation given last night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in the original Bill a sum of £75,000 was asked for, and only £16,000 has been spent. Under this amending Bill, which does not go much beyond the original Bill, a sum of £120,000 is asked for. In these days when millions are voted by the minute £120,000 may seem a small sum, but very much more is involved. Those who go before the tribunals have to incur considerable expense, and, as the hon. Member for West Ham (Sir E. Wild) told us on the Second Reading, lawyers have been kept extremely busy by this legislation. The President of the Board of Trade should be here. The hon. Member (Mr. Bridgeman) always explains things with great lucidity and courtesy, but it is no discourtesy to him to say that the President of the Board of Trade should be here to give his views. The President of the Board of Trade informed us of the extremely meagre results of the last Act; he went so far as to say that the Act, while a very excellent Act, had shown that there was no profiteering or next to no profiteering. He performed the wonderful feat of speaking to a brief for both sides; he defended the profiteer, stating that he was not a profiteer in the majority of cases, and praised the Government for its excellent Act. The tests of the last Act and presumably of the new Bill are: Has it stopped profiteering? Secondly, has it 2031 brought down prices? It has not brought down prices.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Neither of those matters arises on this Resolution; they relate to the Bill itself.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I at once withdraw my argument from the original Bill, but presume I would be in order in suggesting that in connection with this Bill, for the financing of which we are asked to vote £120,000, the money would not be spent to the weal of the people, and that it would be little more than a gesture with which to keep the people quiet, and to draw off the hue and cry which has arisen because poor people feel distress at the continual rise in prices. We all agree that the Bill is not introduced in any vindictive spirit. On the other side of the English Channel they started rather with the idea of "revanche au profiteer," and they talked of hanging profiteers. They actually broke up the stalls of suspected profiteers in the markets of the large towns.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That has nothing whatever to do with this Resolution. The hon. and gallant Member must start with the assumption that the House has passed the Second Reading and has approved the principle. The principle having been approved, the next question is, Is the House prepared to Vote this particular sum of money which is required to carry out the Bill? That is the only point arising.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I will address myself to that. An Act of this sort ought at least to pay its way. The fines in the few cases of real profiteering have been very light indeed, and in too many cases there have been no fines at all, orders having been made that the few pence of overcharge should be handed back to the complainant. I admit that in the North and Midlands, in one or two bad cases, there were pretty sharp fines, but, generally speaking, they were ludicrously small. The working of the original Act has been ludicrous, and presumably that will apply in the new Bill also. I submit if this Bill was worked as I am about to propose, we might be able to make a little money for the relief of the Treasury. The Committees that have been set up to work the Act are, in 2032 the main, packed with those directly interested in the class of trade under review—

Captain STANLEY WILSON
Is it in order to discuss the Bill in this way, after you, Sir, have twice ruled the hon. and gallant Member out of order?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. and gallant Member is in order so long as he confines himself to the financial aspect, but he was just beginning to get off the rails.

§ Captain ELLIOT
May I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to curtail his remarks, as a number of Members desire to discuss an important question on the Adjournment. If the hon. Member continues, there will be no time to do so.

§ Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING
Would it not be in order for the Government to withdraw the Resolution at this late hour and allow the discussion on the Adjournment to be taken?

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
May I ask the Government not to press this Report stage now? There are matters of importance to be discussed on the Adjournment. I had a subject myself. The Resolution could be discussed at another time.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman)
It is clear that it is the wish of the House to get on to the Motion for the Adjournment, and, therefore, I will only make a few remarks. The Money Resolution is required because the Profiteering Bill has already been sent to a Standing Committee, and the House, I am quite sure, wishes to have it passed. I gave an explanation of the Resolution last night, and there is a White Paper.

§ Mr. BILLING
Will the hon. Gentleman say, as he proposes to withdraw the Resolution, when he proposes to re-submit it?

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
I do not propose to withdraw it.

§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENN
I understood my hon. and gallant Friend gave way. I had some remarks to make, but I would rather my hon. and gallant Friend finished, if he was going to finish.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I thought he had finished. He sat down.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I very much regret there was a misunderstanding. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary was going to allow this Debate to be adjourned.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
What reason did I give you to think that?

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I daresay I was disarmed by his appearance of acquiescence, and I thought, by the manner of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, that he was going to suggest that the Debate should be adjourned. I have been accused by him of at one moment declaring that the charge was too light and the next that the charge was too heavy. I am sorry if I did not make my meaning clear, but I was endeavouring to point out that the amount of public money we are being asked for is much too large. £120,000 is to my mind a very preposterous sum for such a useless Bill. The sum, I think, is increased largely because the fines inflicted have been in the past too small.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. and gallant Member has already said that, and I must remind him that there is a Standing Order against irrelevance and repetition.

Captain S. WILSON
It will not get into the Hull Press either.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
The hon. and gallant Member for Holder-ness, I am sure, gets enough notice in the Press, and will not grudge anything I may get. I get rather too much, as a rule, of the wrong sort. I apologise for repeating myself. It is not a thing I often do. My brain is fairly fertile. It is simply owing to what I imagine was my lack of lucidity that caused me to go over the ground again. The way in which I suggest this money could be raised, and at the same time the Bill become more efficient, would be by an increase in the fines, and the way they would be increased would be by a different personnel on the committees.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
Perhaps I could save the hon. and gallant Gentleman trouble by saying that the fines go to the local authorities, and therefore it makes no difference.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
But the expenses of the committees, I believe, are paid for locally. This particular matter was well discussed in the small hours of that August morning when some of us devoted ourselves with a good deal of attention to the consideration of this Bill. What I am suggesting is that, with greater administrative efficiency at headquarters, the personnel of the committees could be altered and the fines increased. By a very small adjustment, in spite of the objection of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, this sum of money we are asked to vote must be very much reduced. I intend to move a reduction of the Vote by £50,000, which will bring the amount down to £70,000. I suggest this is a very reasonable reduction. It will prevent extravagance in working the Bill, and I hope it will have the effect of stimulating that efficiency in working the details of the Act already on the Statute Book, which I hope will lead to some cure of the undoubted evil of profiteering.

Captain COOTE
May I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to abstain from this frivolous obstruction of the Bill?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If the hon. and gallant gentleman wishes to raise a point of Order, he should address me.

Captain COOTE
May I appeal to you, Sir, to allow me to discuss a matter in which a great number here take more interest than the hon. and gallant Member, who obviously is not engaging the attention of the House?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to talk himself out, as he is doing, he is entitled to do it.

§ Lieut.-Commmander KENWORTHY
I hope I shall not have to talk myself out, and I hope you will pull me up before I reach that limit. I suggest that if £70,000 is expended, the Board of Trade should then come to this House for a supplementary amount. That will also have the very desirable effect of giving slightly greater control to this House over the expenditure of public moneys. I hope the Government will agree with this reduction, and, if not, that hon. Members present who approve of my reasons will give me their support in pressing a reduction on the Government.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I have proposed the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," and I cannot now, therefore, put an Amendment.

§ Captain W. BENN
I must remind hon. Members below the gangway it is not our fault that this matter has been brought forward to-night, and we are quite entitled to raise our voice. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary received the Committee stage last night without debate. We think it is highly improper that £120,000 should be passed without the presence of the Minister. We propose to point that out, whether the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway like it or not. There is the bearing of this Resolution on the Indemnity Bill and not the Profiteering Bill. The latter Bill provides that certain societies of traders may advise as to what are fair prices. That is why we are voting this money. Yet the Indemnity Bill seeks to prevent the importation of goods from abroad which would help to check high prices!

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is altogether remote from, and has nothing to do with the Resolution.

§ Captain BENN
Of course, I bow to your ruling. But the hon. Gentleman last night made a short statement in which he said that it was estimated that £75,000 would be required. Nothing like that sum was spent. I think only £16,000 was spent during the period. Is it a sound principle of finance to take out of the pockets of the taxpayer £75,000 when only £16,000 is required? What about the people who have been taxed to make up that difference? The hon. Member for Montrose must know that one of the causes of taxation is that you should not take out of the pockets of the people more money than you intend to spend. What is proposed?

§ Mr. STURROCK
Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman really desire that the Government should have spent more money?

§ Captain BENN
One of the causes of sound taxation is that you should not take from the taxpayer more money than you intend to spend. What did the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote say last night? That more was taken than was required for the service of the Vote. 2036 When we see, therefore, that he takes £75,000 and only spends £16,000 it makes us rightly critical and suspicious of the demand for £120,000 this year. How is that £120,000 to be spent? In his statement last night the hon. Gentleman said: The expense has somewhat increased, and on the basis of the March expenses it is calculated that the total amount would be only about £40,000. So that, although to propose a reduction would not be in Order, £80,000 would appear to be a reasonable sum. But it has to be remembered that there have been no legal expenses up to now, and if we were involved in any important legal action we should very likely have to spend a very much larger sum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1920, Col. 1856, Vol. 128.] This is not really the way in which to deal with the finances of the country, especially when we all desire to act with meticulous economy. The hon. Gentleman has not favoured us with any statement at all about these legal expenses. Some legal chance may arise in which the money may be required. The hon. Gentleman may ask us to say what he should do? Well, the proper course is laid down by constitutional practice in this House, and that is that the Government should come and ask for a Supplementary Vote. That is a constitutional proceeding, and, I submit, that it is improper to come here and ask for £120,000 when you admit that you are only going to spend £40,000. While we do not desire to divide against the whole Amendment, I contend that this is a matter which requires the attention of the House and one which requires the presence of the Minister himself, or, in his absence, a much more satisfactory explanation is needed from those in charge of this proposal.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
Several hon. Members have alluded to the absence of the President of the Board of Trade. May I explain that my right hon. Friend is attending a most important meeting of the London Chamber of Commerce. [An HON. MEMBER:"IS he there now?"] I do not know whether he is there now or not.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I at once accept that explanation.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
The hon. and gallant Gentleman was interrupted during his speech by a number of hon. Members, 2037 who appeared to be anxious to discuss another question, and I understood that it was the wish of the House that that subject should be taken and not a matter upon which everybody is agreed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] For that reason I did not reply, except to say that the Government did not intend to withdraw the Motion. The hon. and gallant Gentle-man who started this Debate first of all complained that the Act had been a failure because we had only spent £16,000 in the first 7½ months. The only inference from that is that we ought to have spent more, and then we should have been wrong. In reply to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) has said, I would remind him that these resolutions are always drawn with a certain amount of latitude to prevent the necessity for bringing forward Supplementary Estimates.

§ Captain BENN
What is the figure that is going to appear in the Estimates on which, of course, the taxation will be based?

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
I imagine that the figure will be £120,000, and if it is not all spent the balance will be shown when the accounts are made up. It has been said that you cannot trust the Department to run this as economically as it should be done, but that statement is not compatible with the fact that we might have spent £75,000 and we only spent £16,000. You cannot argue both ways. Seven and a half months ago it was hard to tell what the expenses would be, and it is equally hard now. Many hon. Members have pressed for prosecutions under the Act, but if we have no money in hand over and above the normal expenses based on the last month for which we have the accounts, how on earth are we going to be able to take legal proceedings? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain W. Benn) twice read out the few remarks that I made last night, and he attempted to show that I said that the expenditure was only going to be £40,000. I said that, based upon the figures for March, in which month there were no legal expenses, it would come to about £40,000 or £44,000, but that I required the latitude given by the larger sum in order to meet these legal expenses. That is the reason that we are asking for the larger sum. We do not want to spend it, and we shall not spend it if it be not called 2038 for. I say that our practice in the past seven and a half months, when, having been in the position of being able to spend £75,000, we have spent only £16,000, is sufficient guarantee of our desire for economy.

§ Mr. BILLING
I rise to speak from a totally different standpoint from that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who initiated the Debate (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I regret that he should have seen fit to suggest to the Ministry that they should pay their- expenses by a system of fines. I think that to appoint various committees and then to suggest to them that unless they can succeed in fining the people who appear before them a substantial amount they will be unable to pay their current expenses is an incentive to them to act as unjustly as, I submit, is frequently the case with benches of magistrates in connection with motor car fines. It is bad in principle and worse in practice. I am in favour of giving the Ministry all the money that they desire in this matter, because £50,000 will never enable them to set in motion the extraordinary legal machinery necessary to capture the profiteer whom I want to be caught. They may possibly with £50,000 capture a couple of grocers or tobacconists, but they will never get the man who corners petrol or building materials. There are many gentlemen— they may or may not be Members of this House—who can afford to buy them off for the sum for which they are now asking out of the profits of a single deal. I am willing to let them have all the money they want, but I am anxious that they should not fine these people, but put them into gaol. Therefore we must not ask for a reduction of this Vote; we must rather give them further powers. We must tell them that Members of this House are only too anxious to strengthen their hands, to give them all the money they require, so as to put into operation the most efficient legal machinery, which is also, I understand, the most expensive machinery in this country, so that we may eventually catch the man who is really penalising the consumer of this country. I want Ministers to realise, when they leave the House to-night, that, so far as hon. Members are concerned, they feel most keenly for the people whom they come here presumably to protect, and they are desirous, not only of giving 2039 the Government unlimited powers in this matter, but unlimited money also, so that they may carry on their crusade against the real profiteer—the man who makes millions by a stroke of the pen. These are the men who are the real danger to the community, and they are the men we want to bring to the bar of public opinion. I, however, do not think the amount the Government are asking for will enable them to achieve that object. There are many hon. Members in this House who would not wish to obstruct any genuine measure which the Government brought forward in order to capture the real profiteer; they would, on the contrary, give them every possible assistance. But it is in the minds of some hon. Members, at any rate, that this is not a Bill really having this end in view; it is only the perpetuation of an act of camouflage on the part of the Govern- 2040 ment—an effort to persuade the elector that his interests are being looked after, when all that is being captured is the fly on the angler's hook without any fish at all.