§ House in Committee (according to Order).
§ [The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:
§ Forfeiture of excess profits from overcharging for food.
§ 1. Where a person has, after the passing of this Act, sold any goods at a price in excess of that allowed by or under any order made by the Food Controller in pursuance of the powers conferred on him by the Defence of the Realm Regulations, that person in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable, shall forfeit to His Majesty a sum equal to double the amount of such excess, and in any proceedings taken to recover such amount the court, if satisfied that there has been a breach of the order, may order an account to be taken in like manner as if the sum recoverable under this provision had been money had and received for the account of His Majesty.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD) moved to omit from Clause 1 the words "in any proceedings taken to recover such amount the court, if satisfied that there has been a breach of the order, may order an account to be taken in like manner as if the sum recoverable under this provision had been money had and received for the account of His Majesty," and. to substitute the words in his Amendment. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is purely a technical one, and deals with the method of procedure. Your Lordships will remember that the main object of the Bill is to copy the method adopted in the case of persons who offend against the Customs and Excise Acts—that is to say, the statutory penalty imposed upon the offender is twice or three times the amount of the money of which he has defrauded the Revenue. The Amendment which I now submit provides that where a large number of offences have occurred—as unfortunately is only too common, because it sometimes happens that the same offence is committed 100, 1058 200, and 300 times—what is called an account shall be taken by which the amount charged in excess of the stated price is assessed under the authority of the Court. The second part of the Amendment also is purely technical. The language, I understand, has been carefully chosen by the Scottish Law Officers, and makes the Bill applicable in all respects to Scotland. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment standing in my name.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out from ("and") to end of line 16, and insert ("that sum shall be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown.
(2) In any proceedings in England or Ireland under this Act against any person in respect of any such sale as aforesaid, the court, if satisfied that there has been a breach by him of any order so made by the Food Controller, may order an account to be taken with respect to that sale and with respect to any other sales by that person of any goods to which any such order applies, and may upon such account being taken direct the payment of double the amount of the excess thereby appearing to have been realised on the sales.
(3) In any proceedings in Scotland under this Act against any person in respect of any such sale as aforesaid, the court, if satisfied that there has been a breach by him of any order so made by the Food Controller, may proceed in like manner as if such proceedings were an action of count reckoning and payment concluding for production of an account of the aforesaid sale, and of any other sales by that person of any goods to which any such order applies, and for payment of double the amount of the excess thereby appearing to have been realised on the sales").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
§ LORD PARMOORI should like to ask one question of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I have only just seen this Amendment. It appears to me to be technical, except in this sense. Is there any difference as to the area over which the account is to be taken, or is it the same in both?
§ LORD PARMOORAs the noble Earl says that, I raise no objection; but it is difficult at the moment to follow it on the Paper.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clause agreed to.