CLAUSE 5.—(Power of Board of Trade to specify basic price, permitted increase, or permitted price.) (Hansard, 25 October 1939)

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, to leave out from "If," to "it," in line 23.
This Clause is designed to give the Board of Trade power to fix prices in certain cases, but it cannot function except on the application of any body of persons appearing to the Board of Trade to be representative of traders in goods of any description. The Amendment is designed to give the Board this power without necessarily requiring representations or application to be made to them by any body of persons representative of traders. If it be desirable, as I think it is, for the price to be fixed in certain cases, I submit that the Board should have the power to do it without necessarily waiting for representations from any particular body of persons, or, alternatively, that if they are to receive applications, they should not be limited to bodies which are representative of traders but should be open to anyone. The simplest way would be to leave out these words and to leave the Board of Trade to fix prices wherever 1468 they think it desirable after representations have been made to them, possibly by all sorts of people. The Clause now shuts the door to representations from anybody but a body of persons representing the traders, and the Board could function only after representations were made to them. It would give the Board wider powers if the words were omitted.

§ Mr. Stanley
On a point of Order. There is an Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)—in line 23, after "in," insert "or consumers of"—and another in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—in line 23, after "description," insert "or of the central price-regulation committee appointed under Section eight of this Act"—dealing with the same point. I wonder whether it would be convenient if we took a general discussion on the question whether there should be any applications at all and who should make them.

§ The Chairman
That would probably be for the convenience of the Committee. I understand that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is to be moved in a somewhat different form, but I think that all these Amendments deal with the same point and can be discussed together.

Major Lloyd George
The point raised by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment is that, according to the Clause, only a body of traders can make representations to the Board of Trade, and he feels that that right ought to be extended. I think that his Amendment is due to some extent to a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Clause, because the Clause is intended primarily as a protection to the Board of Trade against having too many applications. It might become almost impossible if the Board had to deal with individual applications from all over the country. The Clause will enable bodies of traders to approach the Board of Trade so that they can get the prices as suggested in Clause 5. I believe that there is an impression that in this way the Board will fix maximum prices. That is not so. What they will do is to fix permitted prices. The trader could sell at or below that price, but there is nothing to prevent him from selling above that price. Still, we have no 1469 objection whatever to other people being allowed to do this as well as bodies of traders, and I think the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) covers that point and covers also the point of the Amendments of the hon. Members for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I suggest to the other hon. Members that they should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.

§ Mr. Bevan
I understand that the actual language of my Amendment does not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman and he has therefore suggested that it should be moved in another form, namely, after "description" to insert: or on the application with respect to goods of any description of the Central Price-Regulation Committee appointed under Section eight of this Act. That would empower the Central Committee to initiate an investigation and to recommend to the Board that either the basic price, or the permitted increase, or the ultimate price should be fixed, but there is a difference between prices fixed under Clause 5 and prices fixed under Orders, because I understand there is nothing to stop the Board issuing an Order with regard to any class of goods and that Order fixes the prices. In this case the price is intended rather to be a pointer. There will be two categories of goods, those for which prices are regulated by Order and other goods for which the prices flow free. Do I understand the President of the Board of Trade to dissent from that? I say there will be two prices after he has issued his Order, the prices of the goods which are regulated and other goods the prices of which flow free; but the trade may feel that it is necessary, for guidance, that the price for a particular commodity shall be fixed, in which case they have the right of appeal to the committee. Am I wrong?

§ Mr. Stanley
I think the hon. Member has misunderstood the position. When a commodity is brought under this Bill by an Order it does not mean that immediately a price is fixed. What it means is that a man then may not sell at more than the permitted price. The permitted price is not the price laid down by the Board of Trade but is the basic price plus the permitted increase, and he has at his 1470 peril to prove that the price at which he sells is within that formula which has been laid down. The object of Clause 5 is to enable him to come to the Board of Trade and say in advance of any possible prosecution, "I want to prove to you that this is my basic price, this is my permitted increase, and this, therefore, is my permitted price, and if you say it is all right then I shall know that I am perfectly safe."

§ Mr. Bevan
In the case of the goods which are the subject of Orders, that will have been done. Obviously, a tender will not go to the Board to fix the basic price, or the permitted increase, or the ultimate price for any class of goods concerning which Orders have been issued; but there is the case in which the trade itself might want to initiate an investigation with a view to the definition of a price, and my hon. Friends hold that it is unreasonable to limit that to the trade and that it should be possible for initiation to come from outside the trade. Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared for the committee itself to do it if it wishes to do so? I believe it would meet most of the points raised in the Amendments if not only the trade but the other interests represented on the Central Committee were able to initiate such a proceeding. I should find it difficult to believe that there would be many cases in which it would occur in respect of those articles about which the Board has itself already issued Orders.

§ Mr. Mander
If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is accepted, it will cover the point which I had in mind, and I shall be quite satisfied.

§ Mr. Silkin
On the understanding that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is accepted, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. Bevan
I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, after "description" to insert: or on the application with respect to goods of any description of the Central Price-Regulation Committee appointed under Section eight of this Act.

§ Mr. Lewis
Am I right in having understood the President of the Board of Trade 1471 to say that when he issues an Order stating that a certain class of goods is to come within the operations of the Act he does not at that time propose to name any price?

§ Mr. Stanley
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, to leave out "body of."
This Sub-section deals with appeals against the fixing of prices and provides that appeals may be made at the instance of any body of persons appearing to be representative of traders or buyers of goods of that description. I feel strongly that consumers should have a right of appeal, and if we included the words "body of" buyers that would rule out consumers, because there are no bodies of consumers. By deleting these words we should give buyers the right to make an appeal and that would bring in the consumers.

Major Lloyd George
I have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment.