PRICE CONTROL (DETERGENTS) (Hansard, 9 February 1954)

§ Sir Richard Acland (Gravesend)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the retail price of Surf, Daz, Fab, Persil, Tide and other soap powders, soap substitutes, detergents, &c. This is the first of what I hope will prove to be a series of useful and popular Measures, all designed with the simple and laudable object of reducing the cost of living. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you do not like us to bring into the House bulky articles by way of exhibits to illustrate the arguments which we have in mind, and therefore I have purchased a few packets and emptied them and flattened them in order to illustrate the purport of the Bill.
This first packet when full of Surf is retailed today at 1s. I and my honourable supporters propose the maximum price of l0d. This next one retails at 1s. 11d., and we propose 1s. 7d. This one when full of Tide retails at 1s., and we propose 10d.; and this retails at 1s. 11d., and we propose 1s. 7d. This one when full of Daz retails at 1s., and we propose 10d. This one—you will never guess—retails at 1s. 11d. and we propose 1s. 7d. Minor adjustments in these proposed prices and in those which we shall propose for packets of other sizes and products of other makes can be considered during the Committee stage.
This packet is very remarkable, because on the back of it will be found a money-saving coupon, which is an infernal nuisance to the grocer or ironmonger, with which one would be entitled to purchase a 1s. 11d. packet of this substance for 1s. 5d. That is not the only way in which one can come across these coupons. This one, for example, was put through my front door on Friday, and with it one can get two large packets of Tide for 1s. 6d. In this connection the word "large" is a trade term meaning small, because it refers to the shilling packet, than which there is no smaller.
Here is another remarkable package, because I did not pay anything for it. On the contrary, only on Monday of last week a van and two runners entered our street. The runners ran along the street and rang all the bells and ran away, so that when I and other householders went 1008 to our front doors no one was on the step except a packet of Daz.
More than £2½ million is spent each year on advertising these things in the Press, not to mention posters, free distribution and the competitions in which houses worth £4,000 and cars with several hundred pounds worth of petrol are given away as prizes. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are interrupting should know that this Ten Minutes Rule Bill will develop into a Twenty Minutes Rule Bill if they continue, and that would be out of order.
The principle behind this Bill is simple. This is not a Bill to object to advertising as such. Therefore, if any hon. Member or any honourable advertising agent opposite makes a speech in favour of advertising in general, he will be missing the point. We have got no objection against the quality of these products, although I think that the manufacturers will agree that it is best to use some of them in rubber gloves. And I will agree that a couple of years ago when detergents first came on the market, there was nothing seriously wrong in spending money to tell the public about them.
The principle behind this Bill is this: We have reached the stage when we, as responsible representatives in our constituencies for the housewives, have got a right and a duty to say that the leaders of privately-owned big business shall not play the fool with public money any longer, but should cut down this advertising to reasonable proportions, and should do what is manifestly wanted, namely, reduce prices. It might surprise and exasperate hon. Members opposite to hear it suggested that the money spent on this advertising campaign is in fact public money, but I insist that it is, and that for two reasons. [Interruption.] As there is little time to debate this Measure, the hon. Member opposite should try to restrain himself. After all, he may have the advantage of catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
I was saying that I may exasperate and surprise hon. Members opposite when I say that the money spent on this advertising campaign is, in fact, public money, but I suggest that it is for two reasons. First, advertising expenditure is a deduction for Income Tax and Profits Tax purposes. It varies, of course, from company to company with the different incidence of Profits Tax, and how the 1009 different individuals happen to be rated for Income Tax and Surtax, and so on.
But, roughly speaking, when an advertiser of petrol inflames the passion for speed and acceleration by putting up pictures of leaping tigers, and when, for example, D. H. Evans give us a picture of a smug polar bear enjoying himself with a rather scantily dressed young lady, we are paying one-half of the show. [Hon. Members: "Which half?"] But apart from that, this advertising is financed with the money which the public pays for detergents and I contend that the money paid for packets of detergents and soap powders is every bit as much public money as the money paid for railway tickets or for education through rates and taxes. We have a right to say that this thing has gone far enough, and that we have no more desire to see perhaps some £4 million worth of the nation's resources in manpower and materials—largely imported raw materials and many of them from dollar sources—squandered in this way.
I hope no hon. Member opposite is going to get up and say that these big companies have given us the great blessing of detergents and that we ought not to complain in any way about their policy. Let us get away from this habit of de-personalising these issues. A big limited liability company is a legalistic concept which existsfor accountancy purposes and for almost nothing else. It has no legs, it does not wear trousers, it has no eyes and cannot see, and it certainly cannot invent detergents. These detergents are invented by scientists and chemists who work for salaries. We are indeed very lucky that we live in an age when these blessings are made available to us by these working men, and I think it is silly that these playboys of the big business world should now stand in the way of the ordinary housewife getting these things at the cheapest reasonable price.

§ Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) rise to oppose the Bill?

§ Mr. Nicholls
I do. I could hardly distinguish whether the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) was introducing a Bill, conduct- 1010 ing a mock auction or putting on a theatrical act—

§ Brigadier Terence Clarke (Portsmouth, West)
How much was he paid for it?

§ Mr. Nicholls
—or whether it was a serious Bill or part of a technical move to call attention again to the cost of living. I prefer—

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke)—

§ Mr. William Keenan (Liverpool, Kirk-dale)
He does not use detergents.

§ Mr. Lewis
—shouted out quite audibly to hon. Members on this side, "How much is the hon. Baronet paid to bring in this Bill?" Is that in order?

§ Mr. Speaker
I did not hear that remark, but if it was made, it ought to be withdrawn.

§ Brigadier Clarke
I willingly withdraw the remark, but I thought that it was the best bit of advertising that I have heard so far for detergents.

§ Mr. Nicholls
I prefer to believe that the hon. Baronet, who is well known to the House, was deliberately putting on an exhibition, because I would hate to believe that he is so naive as to think that merely by the Government producing a Bill such as this we could set about reducing prices. If it could be done as easily as that, and if this great problem of living costs could be dealt with by passing Bills, we should find ample time to do it.
We all know that merely passing a Bill giving the Government extra power over an industry does nothing at all in the way of reducing costs. If we look at past experience in this matter, we find that when the Government took control of industries in that way, fax from prices being reduced they were very much increased. In no field has that been proved more completely than in the field with which the hon. Member has been dealing, namely, soap and detergents.
Controls were applied to them in 1942, and in the 10 years of their existence prices did nothing but rise, and I think that if the House is to consider this Bill it should have the evidence before it. The pre-war price of Persil was 3½d. On decontrol 10 years afterwards it had risen to 6d. The pre-war price of Rinso 1011 was 6d., and after 10 years of the sort of control which I presume the hon. Member has in mind the 6d. grew to Is. The pre-war price of hard soaps was 4d. a 1b. and after 10 years of control the price had gone up to 1s. 0½d. Toilet soaps have increased by something like 100 per cent. The hon. Member is not doing the housewives much of a benefit if the effect of the policies which he wants to put into operation means that the price of the soap has got to rise.
So I believe that the first lesson we can learn from experience, which we ought not to ignore, is that Government controls of any kind increase the prices of the goods we buy. This lesson is reinforced by what has happened over the last two years since we have been freed from the kind of control which the hon. Baronet now wants to re-apply.
I will give the figures to the House. [An Hon. Member: "What about tea?"] Sunlight soap has gone down from 1s. 0½d. to ll½d.; Fairy soap from 1s. to 11d.; Persil from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 8d.; Rinso from 1s. to 11d. As far as detergents are concerned, whilst there has not been any great reduction in cost, it is clear that the quality has improved so much that the housewife is getting much better value than before. [An Hon. Member: "Soft soap."] I am suggesting that, as regards price reductions, the policy that I presume will be included in this proposed Bill is one which, on evidence, has increased prices and not reduced them.
Then I fail to understand the antipathy of the hon. Baronet to the energy shown by manufacturers as reflected in their advertising campaigns. I have nothing whatever to do with advertising; I have nothing whatever to do with soap or detergents—by way of profit—but I have some slight contact with small business, and any business house decides as a definite policy what money it can spend on its advertising campaign, and if that is spent in one way or another it does not matter to the consumer. It certainly is not the fact that if this money were not spent on advertising the manufacturers could bring down the cost of the article.
Any business man knows that the best advertisement he can produce for his goods is to reduce their price, and at this 1012 season of the year, when there are queues outside the shops which have "annual" sales, that point is brought home to us vividly. What advertising does is to put the various manufacturers of the same product in competition with one another. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Oh, yes, and the result of the keen competition is that we have much better quality detergents now. I am arguing that this form of advertisement has resulted in keeping prices down so far and has resulted so far in putting up quality.
The third point mentioned by the hon. Baronet was the suggestion that the manufacturers were tied up with one another, all playing a game against the consumer. All this talk about monopoly does not bear examination. There are five big concerns and, in addition, there are about 200 small ones, all in keen competition with one another. In the case of the five big firms, there is no question of a friendly ring set up to exploit the consumer, because among the five firms there is fierce and keen competition.
As I have said, I believe that the hon. Baronet was indulging in a gesture this afternoon. Whether or not he gets his Bill today, I am convinced that it will reach no further stage than its mere presentation because, since we have had decontrol of these products, so many variations have been put on the market that it would be practically impossible to bring about any form of price control which would alter the picture in the way suggested by the hon. Baronet.
Whether or not my hon. Friends will take the trouble to spend their time this afternoon in opposing the Bill, I do not know, but I suggest that whether the hon. Baronet gets it or not, this is the last we shall see of the Bill as regards any effective results arising from it.