PRICE FIXING

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 39, 15 August 1919, Page 8

PRICE FIXING

A LIVELY DEBATE EFFECT OF PROFITEERING BILL. (AUSTRALIAN-NEW ZEALAND CABLE ASSOCIATION.) (Received August 15,. 1 p.m.) LONDON, 13th August.. In the House of Commons debate on' the Profiteering Bill, Sir Auckland Geddes replied to the complaints that the Bill did not touch wholesalers or speculators. He accepted an amendment empowering the Board of Trade to investigate prices at all stages. He also accepted in principle a further amendment, to enable the Board of Trade, without waiting for a. complaint, to declare a price which would yield a reasonable profit, or to fix maximum wholesale and retail prices.

Lord Robert Cecil said1 he was sure Sir A. Geddes had accepted the principle contained in the amendment by inadvertence. It would revolutionise the whole trade of the country, and place it under the absolute autocratic control of local committees.

Sir D. Maclean declared; that the amendment was rank Socialism, but muddled Socialism which no one understood.

Sir A. Geddes, replying, said that a scientific examination showed there was reason to believe that national and international combinations existed1 by which, the community was in danger of being bled white. The Board would have power to fix prices. That power would not be delegated to a tribunal which, would continue only for six months. Sir G. Hewart assured the House that it was only proposed to give this power to the central authority. This assurance satisfied some members, but after further strong speeches, Mr. Bonar Law said that alarm was unjustified. There was»o intention to fix maximum puces generally. That would only result in supplies disappearing. Ho was willing to leave the matter to the free decision of the House.

The amendment was withdrawn, in favour of Sir G. Hewart's proposition, with a promise of a further clause limiting the Board of Trade's power to fix prices, and the motion was carried by 132 votes to 95.