HC Deb 28 June 1948 vol 452 cc1916-9

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation Signified.)

[MR. ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for inquiry into the existence and effects of, and for dealing with mischiefs resulting from, or arising in connection with, any conditions of monopoly or restriction or other analogous conditions prevailing as respects the supply of, or the application of any process to, goods buildings or structures, or as respects exports, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of salaries and other remuneration paid to officers and servants, and contributions under pension schemes in respect of members, officers and servants, of the Monopoly Commission constituted under that Act."—[Mr. H. Wilson.]

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

It is only right that on an important Resolution such as this we should know something about it before it is passed, because this is in connection with a Monopoly Bill which has been introduced into the House of Commons. The Money Resolution stands on the Order Paper in the name of the Financial Secretary, who only a few days ago reprimanded me because I did not know everything about everything in a Scottish Bill. Here with his own Resolution the right hon. Gentleman is not even in attendance to help us with information which we might need. We miss the right hon. Gentleman very much indeed.

The first point I should like to put is that it will be noted that this Resolution is for the purpose of setting up a staff to deal with monopolies when this Bill becomes law. I should like to know—we are entitled to know, because this Bill is granting the Government money for the purpose—approximately what is the sum to be taken from the taxpayers for this purpose. There must be some estimate of it. In the old days there would always have been information on the point. The Financial Secretary in those days could have told us that it was approximately so-and-so and we should have some sort of idea of the sum involved in this case. I should also like to know what staff will be required for this pur- pose. The taxpayers, particularly in Cornwall as well as in Scotland, would like to know very clearly what this is to cost and what sort of new officials are to be taken away from work that is necessary.

Have the Government any idea at the present time where the quota of staff is coming from and what kind of monopoly they are going to deal with? The only monopoly of which we have heard anything in the House is that dealing with willows. Perhaps the willow monopoly will be the first with which they will deal. As far as I am concerned, the Resolution is altogether unnecessary. With the exception of the willow monopoly, there has never been any instances of monopolies, but I suppose at this stage we should allow it to go through.

7.30 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson)

We can always rely upon the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to put the question he has put tonight. When the substantive Financial Resolution was before the Committee he kept hon. Members till two o'clock in the morning to ask what the cost was going to be. If he had read the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at that time he would have seen there an estimate of £50,000. Today, he asks, quite properly, what is the cost going to be, and today I give him the same answer, £50,000. I can well understand the fear he may have that the figure might be substantially increased as the result of the change which the Financial Secretary is proposing, and which has led to the putting down of this Financial Resolution. I do not propose to attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the monopolies into which we intend to inquire. If he had followed the proceedings of the Second Reading and had read all the speeches on the subject he would know how many monopolies there are outside the willow growing industry, into which it might be appropriate for this Commission to inquire.

The whole purpose of this amended form to the original Financial Resolution is to make provision for the Commission to be able to pay public money for pensions and pension contributions for their staff. The only reason why we have had to put this Resolution down is that there is now a change in the set-up of the Monopoly Commission. At the time of the earlier Financial Resolution, the staff of the Commission was to be appointed by the Board of Trade. It was therefore reasonable to suppose that the staff would consist of civil servants whose pension rights would be adequately looked after. There has been a widespread feeling, to which I have agreed, that the staff should be appointed not by the Board of Trade but by the Monopoly Commission itself. That being so, there is the possibility that some members of the staff, if not all of them, might be brought in from outside the service. It seems reasonable that every step should be taken to enable the Commission to pay superannuation contributions for such staff. That is the only reason for introducing this change. It was done, I believe, to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not likely to make any difference to our previous estimate, and that the cost should not exceed 50,000 a year.

Mr. C. Williams

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very sincerely for the speech that he has just made, and for pointing out that the main purpose of the Resolution is the payment of pensions and pension contributions. I do not know whether I ought to be relieved upon hearing that the cost will come on to the Monopoly Commission instead of the Board of Trade. In both cases it is likely to fall upon the taxpayer, so there is not much difference between them, as a matter of administration. The right hon. Gentleman seemed a little afraid lest I should keep him up until 2 o'clock in the morning. I was not aware I had done so before. I had no intention of doing it at the present time because I have other interests in mind. I thank him also for having emphasised my point that there is a willow monopoly, of which I was not quite sure. I thank him further for having said that there may be other monopolies that he does not think are anything like as bad as the willow monopoly.

Mr. H. Wilson

The hon. Member obtained that impression quite erroneously from the remarks that I have just made.

Mr. Williams

I wish the right hon. Gentleman would know his brief before he speaks, and make it clear to the Committee. I understood that there was some agreement with the Monopoly Commission on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there were other monopolies mentioned in the Debate and I concluded that the others did not loom as large as the willow monopoly and—I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to speak.

Mr. Wilson

There was nothing in my brief at all about willows. It was a most extraordinary subject to raise. When I said there were other monopolies besides willows it was not the same thing as saying that other monopolies are less important than the willow monopoly.

Mr. Williams

I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that the other monopolies may not be so important. Perhaps it is because they are not so monopolistic. We will leave it at that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.