§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)My Lords, early in the spring of last year, after the Government had taken control of wheat and breadstuffs generally, a very large and serious speculation sprang up in articles such as peas, beans, and pulse. The price to which this pulse was forced was so abnormal and so unduly high that my noble friend Lord Devonport determined to take prompt and strong action to prevent the growth of what was profiteering in a very extreme form. Burmah beans had been resold from seven to ten times over. This was largely done by people who had no connection whatever with the trade and were mere interlopers in the food markets, and who, as I say, drove up prices to fabulous figures. I could quote examples if it were necessary which I think would convince your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Devonport had no option whatever in issuing the Order to prevent further profiteering. This he accordingly did on May 1, and he repeated the Order in another form on the 17th of the same month.
Those Orders took over from the original consignee the pulse, beans, etc., at the original figure, and for two or three months no objection was taken. An action was, however, brought in the Courts in the middle of last summer which settled that, in point of form, the Orders issued under 344 the Defence of the Realm Act were not adequate, and that the original consignee named in those Orders, having ceased to be the actual possessor of the commodity, had no longer any personal or proprietary interest in the beans. This decision, which was pronounced by Mr. Justice Rowlatt, was carefully considered by the Law Officers of the Crown, who came to the conclusion that it would be fruitless to appeal to a higher Court. The decision, therefore, was allowed to stand until Parliament had the leisure and opportunity to intervene, and the Bill which I now submit to your Lordships confirms the original intention of the Orders as issued by the Food Controller in May, 1917.
I should like to say that in my judgment the Orders then issued, although to some extent they way have failed in their immediate object, provided a very salutary lesson to persons who were not engaged in legitimate food trade and commerce against, following the ignoble practice of these who had been speculating in beans. I need only add that representations have been made to Lord Rhondda on this point by legitimate and bona fide traders who deal in peas, pulse, and beans in the ordinary way, and those who show that the result of this measure would subject them to unwarranted loss will be entitled to lay their claims before the Food Ministry upon the passage of this Bill. I am confident that arrangements can be made with such traders by which a fair and equitable adjustment of their claims can be settled by the Food Controller. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Cranford.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy Lords, one point has occurred to some of us on this Bench relating to the latter part of the first and operative clause of the Bill with which the noble Earl opposite dealt at the conclusion of his speech. It appears that any consignee who had parted with his property therein and bad engaged in any contract under which the property passed from the original consignee to any other person Is liable to a fine, and the contract is of no effect, however long age the contract may have been made. I understood the noble Earl to say that in cases of this kind, where transactions had been carried through bona fide and where there was no suspicion of the sort of profiteering to which the Department very 345 naturally, and properly, if I may say so, objects, such a person would have a complete remedy by arrangement with the Department; but the Bill says nothing at all to that effect. There are no words in the clause which, so far as we can see, safeguard the bona fide trader from the possibility of his being placed at the mercy of the Department in a matter of this kind, and it does not seem entirely satisfactory to say that we may be sure that everybody will behave as well as possible and that no injustice will be done, unless some kind of safeguard exists in the measure itself which would prevent the possibility of anything of that kind; and I should be glad to hear whether the noble Earl is able to satisfy us on this particular point.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDMy Lords, there is no clause in the Bill setting up an Arbitration Court after the measure becomes operative, but I may say that the assurances given by Mr. Clynes in the House of Commons, also publicly stated by Lord Rhondda, the Food Controller, and repeated by myself in your Lordships' House, have been considered by the legitimate traders concerned as an adequate guarantee that their claims will be fairly treated. The grievance is not on the part of those persons who, in pursuance of legitimate motives, brought these foodstuffs to our shores. The grievance is on the part of persons quite unconnected with the produce market, and who at subsequent stages ran these prices up to a scandalous level. Those persons, it is true, have but little to hope from what I call the arbitration proposed by the Food Controller. The original consignees, who have been fairly consulted throughout the proceedings, have, I understand, expressed themselves as satisfied with the course proposed. On the whole, it is probably most convenient to both parties that it should rest on a formal rather than a statutory undertaking, and it would not be very simple, in a clause of the Bill, to embody what we propose to do. I hope I have satisfied the noble Marquess.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINMy Lords, I want to say one word in reply to the noble Earl. I do not wish to express any disbelief whatever in the assurances which he tells us have been given by the Government on this matter. On the other hand, the Bill is quite specific on the powers which it gives, because it says certain con 346 sequences shall follow where the sale, or the alleged sale, took place before or after the respective dates in the said Orders. As far as I can see, there is no limit as to the amount of time before the Orders when these goods could have been sold or might have been sold. Is that one of the cases in which the noble Earl would proceed?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI think it would reassure my noble friend if I told him that ninety-nine per cent. of the articles affected by this Bill have already been dealt with.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINThat is, dealt with in the sense that the penalty has not been imposed? I do not quite follow. The objection I take is that there is no limit whatever as to the time when these goods may have been parted with. It may have been months before that date. I want to know whether the assurances that have been given to us extend to cases of that kind, or whether they are still left indefinite. Is there any power to recover by law supposing the goods were sold a great period before they were parted with?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI think I can completely reassure my noble friend on that point. The whole of the peas, pulse, and beans with which this deals have already passed either into Government control or reserve, or into consumption. There can, therefore, be no question either under Lord Devonport's original Orders or under this Bill, which gives them the force of law, of re-opening old contracts which may have been closed long ago.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINThere is no limit of time under the Bill?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDThere is no limit of time in regard to beans, as that limit has been already reached.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.