§ 7.25 p.m.
§ LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON rose to ask His Majesty's Government why it is necessary to take Powers under S.R.O. 616 1945, No. 1611, para. 1. 55 A.B. (1) to control prices and services in respect of any particular person or undertaking.
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the question standing in my name I presume that the effect of this Order is to stop profiteering in essential and non-essential goods, for the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in the debate on Clause 2 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill under which this Order exists, said:
At the present time we are in a difficulty, and any Government would be in a difficulty, with regard to price fixing, and for this reason: that under Clause 1 we have got powers to fix the prices for essential goods and services but not for non-essential goods and services; while under the Price Control Acts of 1939 to 1943 we have powers to fix the prices for non-essential goods but only in general categories and not with reference to the prices charged by particular manufacturers. The object of this clause briefly is to stop a gap, to enable us to fix prices, if required, for nonessential goods and services, and if necessary to fix the particular prices charged by manufacturers supplying such goods and services.
The noble Lord did not give an explanation why His Majesty's Government require the power to fix prices with regard to a particular manufacturer and in connexion with that I should be most grateful if he could bear these two points in mind. First of all, the powers under this Order give power to discriminate in price fixing between manufacturers and individuals in the same class of business; and to make it a little clearer perhaps I should read exactly what the powers are:
A competent authority may by order provide for controlling the prices to be charged for goods of any description or the charges to be made for services of any description, and for any incidental and supplementary matters for which the competent authority thinks it expedient for the purposes of the order to provide; and any such order may prevent the doing of anything regulated by the order except under the authority of a licence granted by such authority or person as may be specified in the order and may be made so as to apply either to persons or to undertakings generally or to any particular person or undertaking or class of persons or undertakings, and either to the whole or any part of any undertaking, and so as to have effect either generally or in any particular area.
I should like to give an example of what these powers mean. It means that under them it is possible to discriminate between one manufacturer and another or one shop and another engaged in manufacturing or selling the same class of commodity. I will take as an example the same quality ladies' pig-skin handbags.
617
That is a purely hypothetical example to try to make myself more specific. The second point is that whether one person or many are concerned in a class of business, it is still a class of business irrespective of the numbers engaged in it, and surely the term "class of business" is enough to cover all eventualities. To make myself a little clearer there, what I mean to say is that whether one person or persons or one manufacturer or many manufacturers are the sole manufacturers of a certain article or class of goods, that particular class of goods and those engaged in it comprise the whole sum of people engaged in that same class of business. In conclusion, if the term "class of goods of any description" is sufficient to cover the purpose for which this Order exists, would it not be better to change the Order accordingly instead of giving perhaps assurances which are not the law? The only thing that is the law is the Order.
§ 7.31 p.m.
§ LORD WOOLTONMy Lords, may I at this very late hour just intervene for one moment? I am bound to say I regret it is so late, and that the House is so small. In fact, I regret that the noble Lord has merely asked a question, because he has raised in that very brie: speech, complicated as it was by having to read Orders in Council—which are dreadful things to read anyway—quite a fundamental point to which perhaps the noble Lord who is going to reply will allow me to direct attention. The point is this. As a result of the Order in Council empowering the Board of Trade, I think it is, or the Ministry of Supply, whichever it may be—
§ LORD WOOLTONThe Board of Trade is empowered to make specific decisions regarding the products of individual businesses. I know that the whole object of this thing is to prevent profiteering. But do you realize what it does? Different manufacturers produce articles of almost equal value. In the old days that we used to know, they were in the habit of selling them in the open market; they got substantially the same price, and the public paid the same price. That no longer happens. 618 It no longer happens because as a direct result of the power to which the noble Lord has referred, you have all sorts of different prices—I agree comparatively near—for articles of equal value, but produced at unequal cost because of the productive capacity of the individual firms. The result is that we are all getting cluttered up, and it would indeed be a very useful thing if the noble Lord would be good enough to direct the attention of the President of the Board of Trade—who I am sure is most anxious to get efficiency into industry—to the way in which this clause is being operated, and would ask him if he would be content to withdraw the particular clause which enables him to direct individual firms instead of dealing with classes of merchandise. I am sorry to have detained the House, but the noble Lord has raised a point of some importance. I thought it was worth while intervening to thank him for having raised it, and I am sure the noble Lord who is going to reply will also be grateful.
§ 7.34 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have just addressed us I, too, regret that the hour is so late, and that the House is inevitably so small, and therefore we cannot, in the nature of things, give the attention which is proper to these issues that have been raised this evening. May I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Fair-fax, for quoting me in this House? I have never been quoted in this House before. Perhaps I shall not be again. I was once quoted in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, who was then Under-Secretary of State for War, and he lost his post within a week. That is the only time I was quoted. I hope no such fate will overtake the noble Lord!
Perhaps I should clear up a misconception which lies behind the question as drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, and which is not, I think, behind anything which he mentioned in his speech. I am sure he will not think me pettifogging if I point out that Statutory Rule and Order 1611 and the relevant passage of Statutory Rule and Order 1613 are both concerned with price fixing. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that his question as drafted would scent to read rather greater powers into the Orders in question 619 than actually exist. May I further remind the noble Lord, and indeed the whole House, that these important issues that have been raised to-night have been thoroughly explored in this House within recent times, namely, at the various stages of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill. You may recall that certain apprehensions were expressed, particularly from the constitutional aspect, at the early stages of that Bill's passage, but I should like to think it is true to say these misapprehensions were largely dispelled, perhaps altogether dispelled, by the explanation given by the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor.
If the noble Lord was not in the House on these occasions, I would refer him to Hansard for November 8 and November 15, where these various issues were gone into at some considerable length. I will be brief, and give a specific answer to the specific question. The reason why the Government require these powers is quite simple, namely, that they are an essential part of the—technique of price-fixing, with whose general objects of preventing profiteering and inflation I feel sure the whole House is in sympathy. That is the short answer. I do not know whether the House wishes me to elaborate the point at any greater length. I will just say, before sitting down, that in particular there are three sets of circumstances where it has been found essential during the war to fix the prices of articles provided by particular undertakings. The three cases are these. Firstly, where a particular article is made by one particular firm and by one alone. I believe I am right in saying—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that all the clothing worn by male ballet dancers is made by one particular firm. You will appreciate that does not represent a tremendous output.
§ LORD WOOLTONIt is most important and often paying!
LORD PAKENHAMThat is one case where it is all made by one firm. Secondly, there are cases where, under a programme arrived at in agreement between the Board of Trade and the manufacturers, it has been found mutually convenient to allocate certain styles of production to certain firms, and at the same time to fix their prices. Thirdly, where there are wide 620 variations between high cost and low cost producers of the same product, it is essential to fix a different price for the high cost producer from the one fixed for the low cost producer. Otherwise, if you were going to keep the high cost producer in being at all, you would have prices fixed which would give the most efficient producer far too big a profit. It is, therefore, essential in that case to vary the prices.
There are a good many other points, particularly on the constitutional side, into which I might go, but I think from what I have said it will be plain that this is not a new power. Powers of this character were used during the war fairly widely with reference to essential goods, and now it is being found necessary as the nonessential goods come more into production to extend the war-time power slightly so as to cover non-essential goods. I am afraid I have not dealt with this matter as fully as the subject and the speech of the noble Lord really warrant, but perhaps you will forgive me in the circumstances.
LORD SALTOUNI would like to ask the noble Lord if efficiency of production is not the Government's object?
LORD PAKENHAMIf I said anything to give any other impression, I must have failed altogether in my rather rapid exposition. As I feel sure the noble Lord knows as well as I do, this Government or any Government which is ever likely to be returned in this country is dedicated to efficiency of production.
LORD SALTOUNI understood him to say he fixed a high price for non-efficient production of the same goods.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONwho had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government why it is necessary to take power to give direction to a particular business under S.R.O. 1945, No. 1613, said: My Lords, arising out of the second question standing in my name, I have very little further to add to what I said before as the principle is the same in both cases, the only difference being that in the second case the powers are not quite so wide. I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for the lucid explanation he gave to my question.