§ LORD SOUTHWOODMy Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given private notice. It is to ask the Government whether they are satisfied that they have adequate powers to repress improper transactions in foodstuffs and that the penalties which may be imposed on offenders are sufficiently severe.
§ THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON)My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, directed your Lordships' attention on May 28 this year to the question of the sentences that were being imposed by the Courts on people who had broken the laws relating to the distribution of food, or to the prices at which food was sold. That intervention on his Lordship's part has had most excellent results. It will be useful, I think, if I direct attention to the fact that the power of inflicting punishment does not rest with Ministers, but with Courts. The Lord Chancellor, in the course of the debate or. May 28. said:
It is a principle of our system of criminal justice that where the Court is given a discretion in deciding what penalties to impose, the particular tribunal which has the actual facts before it should decide what is in the particular case the appropriate measure of punishment.It is the business of the Minister, firstly, to satisfy himself that the discretionary powers given to the Courts are sufficient to enable them not only to punish the offender, but to act as a deterrent against those who have the temptation to offend against the law. Secondly, the duty rests with the Minister to ensure that active steps are taken to ferret out those bad citizens who are breaking the law and putting their own selfish interests in opposition to the welfare of the State.314 When I tell the noble Lord that during October of this year 3,130 prosecutions have been undertaken at the instigation of the Ministry of Food, and that 2,887 of these have been successful, I think it will satisfy your Lordships that my Ministry is pursuing offenders with considerable diligence. It is interesting to note that during this same period only 183 of these prosecutions dealt with people who had been previously prosecuted. Notwithstanding this, His Majesty's Government were not satisfied that the existing state of the law was one likely to have impressed on the Courts the very serious view that we take—and which we believe the nation takes—of these offences.
This problem is one that concerns other things than food. In order to be certain that raw materials are used in the best national interest, it has been necessary for the Ministry of Supply to issue Orders controlling their destination. Your Lordships are aware that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has instituted a widespread control over the distribution of articles, particularly articles of clothing. On this very wide front, therefore, it is important to the conduct of government at this present time, that there should be rigid adherence to the law, that punishment of a severe and deterrent nature should be meted out to those who break the law. This is not only a question that concerns the general public. We are, I think, fortunate in having in this country a high standard of commercial morality, and it is patently unjust that those who both pride themselves on their own business standards and have a patriotic desire to carry out the wishes of the Government, should find themselves placed at a commercial disadvantage with regard to their competitors whose standards are lower and below the standard of the law.
The maximum penalties prescribed by the Defence Regulations have been the same since the outbreak of war. They are to be found in Regulation 92. For some technical or minor offences, or some mistake by a shop-assistant, a maximum penalty of £100 in a court of summary jurisdiction clearly is ample. I have no doubt that some such consideration was in the minds of those who fixed the amount in the first instance. But conditions to-day are, unfortunately, different. There has been a systematic endeavour on the part of a comparatively 315 few people to drive a coach-and-four through some of these Regulations. Maximum prices have been fixed for goods at levels confessedly below those that some selfish people were prepared to pay, and the existence of such people has encouraged some traders to cater for their requirements to the detriment of law-abiding people. A fine of £100 in a court of summary jurisdiction, or even of £500 if the man is brought before Sessions or Assizes, is not likely to prove a serious deterrent if the profit out of one transaction is two, three or four times the amount of the maximum fine.
We have therefore introduced a new Regulation. This Regulation in no way interferes with the power of the Court to send a defendant who is found guilty to prison in addition to imposing the maximum fine; but it increases the maximum penalty by adding to the existing penalty three times the value of the goods or of the price at which they were offered for sale or actually sold—three times the value of the goods, not of the profits made out of selling the goods. In other words, an offender will, in future, be liable to the previous maximum penalty of £100 if he is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction, and, in addition, to three times the value of the goods which are the subject of the prosecution. Penalties for offences against Orders under Regulation 55 are now, therefore, to be on the same basis as penalties for offences against the Financial Regulations, such as failure to disclose dollar securities. This new Regulation gives to the Executive the power to arrest goods on suspicion and to dispose of them if need be; the profits realized being held for the payment of the fine if the owner is convicted, and if not, of course, returned to the owner.
Now let us see how this would work out. In the minor cases it will not make very much difference to the maximum penalty that can be imposed. If, for example, a shop-assistant sells cheese at 1s. 3d. instead of 1s. 1d., the addition to the maximum fine is not likely to affect the mind of the magistrate. But on the other hand, when magistrates find themselves dealing with people whom they have adjudged guilty of operating in the black market, I hope the position will be very different. For example, they may be dealing 316 with a case in which the maximum authorized price for a quantity of goods is £1,000, but in which these goods are being offered for, say, £1,500. Under the new Regulation, the maximum fine in that case will be £100 plus three times the amount asked for the goods, making a total of £4,600. I have no doubt that in such cases the Courts will feel that it is their duty to see that the penalty imposed on guilty people bears some close relation to the maximum fine that it is within their power to impose.
The object of the Government in making this new Regulation can be expressed in a very few words. They are determined to give the Courts of Justice both the power and the opportunity to take the profit out of crime. The existence of these black markets is a matter of deep concern to the people as well as to the Government of this country. I have no doubt that the Courts will eagerly avail themselves of the increased powers that we have now given them to eradicate from our national life, an aspect of it which, although fortunately characteristic of only a small section of the community, is one which is highly distasteful to the general sense of the nation, and which is deeply resented by the law-abiding commercial community who are anxious to serve the nation in war-time. My colleagues believe that the Judiciary of this country will welcome this firm indication of the desire of the Government quickly and effectively to stop the practices of these people, more of whom, perhaps, might be removed for a space of time to spheres in which their cunning could no longer be of avail. I know that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has been concerned lest the Courts should not recognize to the full the gravity of offences against these Regulations, and the Ministers who are concerned with this problem are deeply grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the part which he has played in procuring this important alteration in the law.
§ LORD SOUTHWOODMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, for the very clear and cogent statement which he has made on this most important subject. I am sure that your Lordships will all share with me the hope that the drastic steps to be taken will have the effect of stamping out this evil thing known as the black market.