HC Deb 26 June 1941 vol 372 cc1157-61
Mr. Moelwyn Hughes

I beg to move, in page 12, line 35, at the end, to insert: (2) Where any person has been found guilty of an offence under this Act or under the principal Act and the Board of Trade is satisfied that the penalty imposed upon such conviction is inadequate (which shall be conclusively shown by a certificate of the President of the Board of Trade directing an appeal) an appeal shall lie against the penalty at the suit of the prosecutor in the proceedings before the court of summary jurisdiction to the appropriate court of Quarter Sessions. This Amendment is designed to deal with a situation which has caused, I know, considerable concern to the administrators not only of the Act which we are now seeking to amend but of other Acts, Orders and Regulations—a concern which arises quite naturally because of the many cases where those guilty of flagrant offences have had derisory penalties meted out to them. In case after case the penalty imposed has been but a flea-bite in comparison with the profit of the illegal trading. We have been told that prosecutions under the Prices of Goods Act have been few. That points clearly to the fact that we have had manifest difficulties which we are concerned to cure, but we have been given no particulars of those prosecutions, although such particulars were asked for during the Second Reading Debate. I am prepared to say, without any personal knowledge at all of that list of prosecutions, that there will be found on that list, penalties of the kind to which I have already referred. That has had serious effects on the administration of the Act. It has had effect not only upon committees which have to administer it and upon the enthusiasm of the inspectors whom we send round, but it has had effects and repercussions extending right up to the top of the Board of Trade. Imagine the President of the Board of Trade, or my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, calling for the returns of prosecutions for the last month and, on looking down the list, finding these little penalties— £1 here, 40s. there—and turning round and saying to his officials "Why on earth have we engaged in all this expense and bother "—because it is expensive and bothersome for the Department to conduct these prosecutions—" in order to produce these fiddling results? "

The result is a complete discouragement of the efforts which ought to be put forward to secure that the provisions of the law are properly carried out. I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the Second Reading, and was emphasised by the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland), that it is only a fringe of traders who are responsible for non-observance of the law. At the same time we must remember that of that fringe, not more than a small percentage is ever caught and the only way to deter the remainder who are not caught is to be certain that the penalty fits the crime. That is all the Amendment is designed to do. I can see that I am up against serious difficulties. There are, as far as I can see, only three ways in which we can see that the penalty is adequate. The first is to impose a minimum penalty. That is not a method which would commend itself in this country. A system of justice which is not flexible enough to take into account all the necessary variations of liability is not the kind of system we want in this country. There is a second alternative—the setting up of special tribunals. Again I do not advocate that kind of Star Chamber method.

There remains only one other way of doing it. I challenge my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to point out any other way but the one I suggest, that is, to give to the Board of Trade, a responsible body, the power, where the penalty is inadequate, to appeal against the deficiency of the penalty. It is a right of appeal which is given to every defendant; he can appeal if he thinks the penalty is too much. In a case like this I think we, as a Committee, ought to grant the President of the Board of Trade the right of appeal when the penalty is not as heavy as it ought to be. It is a restricted right, a limited right, under the control of the President of the Board of Trade and has the safeguard, in that respect, that it would not be indiscriminately exercised. I shall look forward to the reply of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I venture to forecast that the only argument that can be offered against this proposal will be that we cannot have it because it is new and because there is no precedent in our law for this kind of case. I do urge that something should be done to make sure that we do not get these derisory penalties, and to see the law is adequately enforced.

Mrs. Hardie

It is not congenial for me to ask that heavier penalties should be imposed on anyone, even those who have done wrong. On the other hand, we do not want to make it possible for people to make a profit out of breaking the law, and that is what is happening in certain cases. I believe that the bulk of traders will not seek to break the law. Once the prices are fixed they will probably abide by them. There are, however, a few who break the law knowing quite well they are doing so and that they may be penalised, but who reckon that even when they take the penalty into account, they can still make a profit. There have been one or two glaring cases of food prosecutions. There was one particular example in the City of Glasgow where someone in respect of the marketing of eggs, was fined £1,000. It was reckoned that they had made £3,000 or more on the transaction, and were prepared to pay the fine. It is just because there is a small section of traders of this description that we ask, in this Amendment, that where a fine or punishment is inadequate, the Board of Trade should have the right of appeal against the sentence.

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt)

The hon. Member who moved this Amendment prophesied as to who would give the answer and what the answer would be. He proved to be a very bad prophet about who would give the answer. I am not sure that he is in any better case about what the answer will be. Of course, one part of the answer is obviously to say that this is a wholly novel procedure that is suggested, without any precedent in our law, to make this very far-reaching alteration in our law giving a right of appeal to a prosecutor, and it cannot be dealt with as a side issue on a Goods and Services (Price Control) Bill. Obviously, if you are going to do any such thing, it ought to be part of a thought-out policy, applying, not only to this Bill, but to all sorts of other Bills as well. In addition, there is, as I see it, another very serious objection to the proposal. One thing we are very insistent upon, and proud of, in this country is the fact that the judiciary are free from interference by the Executive, and are not to be browbeaten by the Executive at all. It seems to me that this proposal would be quite a departure from that principle. Let us assume this case: A local bench of magistrates imposes a fine which is thought to be inadequate. Then my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has to give a certificate that the justices, in that particular case, imposed what is, in his opinion, too small a fine.

Mr. Hughes

I thought I had drafted the Amendment in such a way as to show that the certificate of the President of the Board of Trade directing an appeal would be of itself sufficient, and would not have" to specify the President's view.

The Solicitor-General

Of course, it implies the President's view.

Mr. Hughes

Certainly it does.

The Solicitor-General

The President gives a certificate directing an appeal, a certificate which conclusively shows that the penalty imposed is regarded as inadequate, and then the matter goes before the court of quarter sessions. At the court of quarter sessions the scales are indeed weighted against the defendant. Not only is he put in peril twice, but, on the second occasion, the prosecutor comes there waving in his hand a certificate of the President of the Board of Trade, who has applied his mind to the particular case, and saying that in the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade the previous penalty was inadequate. It is quite a proper thing for the Executive to circularise benches of magistrates throughout the country on general topics not relating to a particular case. The other day the Minister of Food did circularise magistrates pointing out how serious to the community, socially, were the consequences of breaches of the food laws. Here, too, it is desirable that some general course might be taken, but I should think it entirely wrong to send what is in effect an instruction, coming with the great authority possessed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to justices who are hearing a particular case, telling them that in the opinion of the Board of Trade this, that, or the other penalty is inadequate. I must, therefore, resist the proposal, which I consider retrograde, undesirable, and in every way unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.