CLAUSE 3.—(Basic price.) (Hansard, 25 October 1939)

§ Sir H. Williams
I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "first," and to insert "twenty-first."
I do not suggest that the 21st of the month is the ideal date from which to reckon basic prices, but I do suggest that the 1st of the month is not suitable. I have had representations from large concerns in my constituency to the effect that it is a very bad date for this purpose. On that date the summer sales are usually 1462 in progress. In other words, it is the time when traders are unloading on to the public those seasonable goods which they have not yet disposed of and which they hope to dispose of by means of a substantial cut in prices. It would not, therefore, be fair that the basic price should be taken as the price which prevailed during the period of a sale. It is true that there are words in the Clause which may be said to meet my point. Nevertheless, it is a point of substance which has given anxiety to a great many people in the drapery and other seasonal trades. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not able to accept this Amendment, will give an undertaking that the words in the Clause will be interpreted so as to relieve the legitimate anxieties of traders, who are not seeking to profiteer, but who might be involved in an unjust charge because of a comparison being made with what I may call the depressed prices prevalent at the sales.

§ Sir Stafford Cripps
Surely the hon. Member has failed to read the Clause. Sub-section (4) expressly deals with points of the sort which he has made. It provides that if on the proposed date there are any exceptional circumstances affecting the price, some other date can be fixed. Sales might be taking place on 21st August as well as on 1st August, and if we are to have a uniform date we want it to be clear of any period when the prospect of war was beginning to affect prices. The latest date which can be taken for that purpose seems to be 1st August and I should have thought the exception in Sub-section (4) amply covered the hon. Member's case.

§ Sir H. Williams
If the hon. and learned Gentleman had troubled to listen to me he would know that I had anticipated his speech. I said that the wording of the Clause might be said to meet my point, but my main purpose was to ascertain the right hon. Gentleman's intentions.

§ Mr. Higgs
If a date is to be inserted it ought to be the most suitable date that we can fix, and I would point out that 1st August is very close to the August bank holiday period which would affect 1463 prices. This basic price is of great importance. People seem to think that when these prices are fixed in the Bill they will be fixed for ever, but that is not so. They will be altered constantly. Normally the law of supply and demand fixes prices, but in this case it is the basic price on which the ultimate price is to be fixed, and it is highly desirable that we should find the best possible date for this purpose. I consider that 21st August would be a more suitable date than 1st August.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George)
It is obviously desirable, in fixing the date on which the basic price is to be ascertained, to fix a date as near as possible to the time when normal pre-war conditions prevailed. We came to the conclusion, after a good many representations had been made to us, that 1st August was most suitable, and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has pointed out, provision is made for altering this date if necessary. The Mover of the Amendment pointed out that certain trades, through having summer sales, found that date not to be fair, and while there is this provision enabling us to deal with special circumstances, we feel it desirable that there should be a date in the Bill convenient for the great majority of people. If, on inquiry, we find that this is not the most convenient date, we are prepared to consider it again between now and the Report stage.

§ Sir H. Williams
In view of the explanation given by the hon. and gallant Gentlemen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from "ascertained," to the end of the Sub-section.
This Sub-section deals with the method of fixing the basic price. The basic price is that at which goods of a particular kind were sold on 1st August, or whatever the date decided on may be, and to deal with the case where an establishment was not selling goods of that kind at that date, these words were inserted, that the price could be ascertained by reference to 1464 the date when they were last offered for sale. It has been represented to my right hon. Friend that that might work considerable injustice in the case of traders who had not been trading in that particular commodity for a number of years and who desired to resume trading in it. Obviously, it would work unfairly there, and it was thought that the best way of dealing with that kind of case was to apply the test contained in Subsection (3), which is to find out the price at which comparable goods were sold in comparable shops on the fixed date, and apply that as your test of the basic price in respect of the goods.

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to add: (5) There shall be exhibited in a prominent place accessible to buyers on any premises where price-regulated goods are sold the basic price of such goods; and a seller of such price-regulated goods shall, on request by a buyer or prospective buyer, inform such buyer or prospective buyer of the basic price of such goods. If this Measure is to be a success, it is vitally important that we should have the co-operation of consumers. As I understand it, after the long discussion which we had on Clause 2, it is the intention of the President of the Board of Trade to price-regulate goods from time to time, and it will be done by Order, but the general public will have very little means of informing themselves as to what kind of goods are being price-controlled. They will go into a shop, it will strike them that unreasonable prices are being asked, they will not know whether or not the goods are controlled, and they will have no opportunity of finding out. I suggest that where an order has been made price-regulating goods, that fact should be stated at the price where the goods are being sold, and I am also proposing that where a buyer inquires whether or not the goods are price-regulated, there should be an obligation on the seller to inform him and also to inform him of the basic price. I imagine that in time there may be hundreds of articles which will be price-regulated, and unless some machinery of this sort is provided the buyers will be simply in the dark and will not be in a position to judge whether or not goods are being offered at a reasonable 1465 price. I therefore submit that the Amendment is reasonable and that it ought to be accepted in the interests of the consumer.

§ Mr. E. J. Williams
I do not know that we are actually wedded to these words, but we hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate what we are driving at. We are very anxious that the consumers shall have the greatest amount of knowledge of the prices that are fixed, and if it cannot be done by this means, although we think it is a very good means by which to do it, we think the committees in any case will obtain the basic price and any other regulated prices that are charged from time to time, and that the consumers should have some guarantee that they are not being exploited. The basic price is obviously the pre-war price, fixed on 1st August or other convenient date, but it is impossible for the consumers to know what that basic price was or to keep a record or have any knowledge whatever of what was actually paid for the articles before the war commenced. I trust that the Minister will realise that he must help the consumers in this regard, as it is impossible for them to obtain any schedule of prices of the regulated articles.

§ Mr. Stanley
I realise the object with which hon. Members have put down this Amendment, and to some extent—I think probably to the only practicable extent—I had already anticipated them in Clause 5 of the Bill, but I do not think that the Amendment which they now move would really be of great service to the consumer, and undoubtedly it might be a very considerable source of trouble to the traders. First of all, let me take the point, although it is not the point made in the Amendment, which was made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), that the consumers should know, when they go into a shop, which were and which were not price-regulated goods. As a matter of fact, I want to avoid drawing that distinction, because I am going to move an Amendment later in the Bill which will make it the duty of the central and local committees to keep a general eye on the prices of goods, non-regulated as well as regulated, in order that they may be able to report to me, and I do not want the consumer who goes into a shop to feel, "Here are 1466 price-regulated goods, and if I think I am being unfairly dealt with, I can go to the committee; here are non-price-regulated goods, and even though I feel I am unfairly dealt with, I cannot go to the committee. "I want instances of what appear to be extravagant profits, whether they occur among price-regulated or non-price-regulated goods, to be taken to the committees, so that the local committees all over the country and the central committee may be able to keep in touch with price changes outside the range of goods which are immediately regulated, and be able, therefore, to give me advice as to when and how orders may be made. I think the idea of dividing the two in the mind of the consumer is from that point of view a bad one.
With regard to the question of giving the basic price, I do not see that that will do any good, because the question whether an offence is committed or not does not depend on the basic price of the goods. It depends on the amount of the permitted increase as well. Surely the remedy for the consumer is the local committee, which will be ready to hear his complaints and to take them up, not in any spirit of harassing the trader, but really to get at the truth. Therefore, a person who goes into a shop and feels by comparison with what he paid previously for an article that there has been an undue increase in price, can go to the local committee and ask them to look into it. I do not think that his opportunity is lessened or his chance strengthened by telling him what the basic price of an article was on 1st August, which may, after some months, bear little obvious relation to either the permitted price or the price at which the article is actually being sold. The real remedy of the consumer is to go to the local committee whenever he feels that there has been an increase which he thinks is severe and unjustified. The local committee can immediately obtain the basic price and inquire into the reasons given for the increase so that they can satisfy themselves whether it is justified within the permitted increase and whether, therefore, the price is a fair one. I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman has made, and I would draw attention to Clause 5, under which application can be made for a price to be specified and provision is made for goods to be marked.

§ Mr. Silkin
In view of the explanation I do not desire to press the Amendment.