HC Deb 29 June 1948 vol 452 cc2082-90
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "Monopoly," and to insert "Restrictive Business Practices."

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this Amendment deals with a point of great difficulty which has probably given him a considerable number of headaches in the past. I think the argument in favour of "Monopoly" is that it is one word which, in its adjectival form, has become a convenient term of abuse. "Monopolistic" is a term of abuse because it is usually used without any serious regard for its content. There is the advantage of a single word, but then we come to the point, first of all, of derivation, that it still conveys to many people its true sense of a single seller.

An hon. Member opposite in distinguishing between monopoly and restrictive practice showed the difficulty which many people fall into in this respect. They differentiate between monopoly and restrictive practice so strongly that they are surprised to find that the Bill deals with restrictive practices at all. It is perfectly clear that the various Clauses which state the conditions to which the Bill applies include what are really restrictive business practices in addition to something which, I think, faintly approximates to the idea of a monopoly. When the test is one-third of the goods in a substantial part it is rather an affront to the senses to imagine that there are three monopolists functioning at once. It is a contradiction in terms, which causes considerable difficulty. I entirely agree that "restraint of trade" is not suitable, because it has its technical, legal, connotation and does not apply to matters with which we are concerned. Restraint of trade is now very largely limited to service agreements when people are bound not to set up business on their own account, having been in service with somebody else. Historically, it is a pity that restraint of trade has become limited in the development of English law, but we must admit that.

I now come to my proposal about restrictive business practices. I think the word "business" must be included, because the words "restrictive practices" are largely used with reference to to practices of labour which were dealt with in the Economic Survey for 1947. Here, we are dealing with restrictive practices in the business sphere, and not in the sphere of labour. Therefore, the word "business" must be put in to make it clear. I think a good test of this is for the right hon. Gentleman and those Members who have taken part in the discussions on this Bill to consider how often Members in all parts have referred to rings, price fixing arrangements, and things of that kind, which are essentially restrictive business practices rather than monopolies. It is the obvious desire of Members in all parts of the House that these matters should be well and thoroughly dealt with when the occasion arises. I am very conscious that I have not found a heaven-sent title even in the phrase I suggest, but I ask the House to consider whether it does not fit all the points which we want people to know we are dealing with in this Bill and, more exactly, fit the circumstances which we have in mind?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Daines

I should like to support the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). He made a very valuable point when he called attention to the economic background which was gone into in Committee. I was trying to reflect when on any occasion we discussed what was a clearly definable monopoly and I can hardly recall one. All the time it was trade associations, price rings and so forth. I have here memoranda which show that the definition even in 1935, of monopolistic practices was where three economic units took up to 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. It is far more realistic to accept the new description that has been put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I see that the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) is bursting to follow me. I hope on this occasion we are going to have unanimity, but I must say, if I am not out of Order, that there are times when impudence is sometimes mistaken for wit on his part.

Mr. Shepherd

I see that I shall have to persevere with the hon. Member for East Ham, North {Mr. Dames). This time he is a little nearer the target than on other occasions when we had these discussions, and I am glad, indeed almost overjoyed, to support the view which he has put forward. It is lamentable that this Bill should leave this place with an inadequate and misleading title, for it is both inadequate and misleading. I have not been convinced even after re-reading the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade on this matter when it was raised in Committee, and I do not take the view that a legal connotation should prevent us from using a term which conveys to the general public more clearly what the Bill seems to do. We pay lawyers to go through a maze of complications, and the fact that we may confuse some lawyers because we call the Bill the Restrictive Business Practices Bill does not seem a valid reason to me for objecting to this proposal.

What does matter is that the trader in any business will see the purpose of the Bill and accordingly will shape his attitude towards the practices with which the Bill deals. I suggest that the phrase used by my right hon. and learned Friend, while it is not a perfect phrase, is better than the present title. It is almost impossible to find a worse title than the present one, and if the Government insist on excluding from the purview of the Bill all State monopolies then the present title becomes indefensible. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be more helpful and responsive to what is obvious alarm in all parts of the House, and that he will indicate a form and title which will be more satisfactory than the inadequate and misleading one which we have at the present time.

Mr. E. Fletcher

May I say one word in support of the Amendment. I think the title of "Monopoly Bill" would be very misleading. It would create an unfortunate approach. The title of the Act and the Commission is very important, because I believe that this Commission is going to play a very important part in the future commercial life of this country in stimulating private enterprise, and in eradicating those restrictive practices to which we all are opposed and which we wish to see eliminated. I am not entirely happy about the alternative, but I am anxious to get a title as small in size as possible. If it were possible I prefer "restrictive practices" but there is another alternative. I sometimes think it is unfortunate that we do not take a leaf out of the book of our American friends, who have a lot of anti-trust legislation which they call by the name of the sponsor, like the Clayton Act and so forth. We could call this the Wilson Act, as we believe it will become known in common parlance in the future.

Mr. Wilson

I am very sorry about this. This matter has been plaguing me for some months. On the Second Reading and again at the beginning of the Committee stage, I put out an appeal to all Members of the Committee to help to choose a better, more accurate and still reasonably sounding title. Right up to the last day of the Committee stage that appeal had gone, perhaps not altogether unheeded, because hon. Gentlemen I am sure cudgelled their brains to get an answer, but without producing a result. At the last stage of the Standing Committee the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) put forward this suggestion of "Restrictive Business Practices" which I see is now on the Order Paper.

I admit again as I have admitted before that the present title of the Bill is not strictly accurate. It is not correct on any understanding of the word "monopoly" as coming from the original Greek, and certainly we are going to cover a lot of things which technically would not be monopolies. The nearest I can get to a strictly accurate definition of the Commission and the Bill would be something like this: "Monopoly - monopolistic - cartellistic—and other price-fixing arrangements (whether voluntary or involuntary) between otherwise sovereign firms—Commission," which obviously is a clumsy title though it is much more accurate than either the present title or the one suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If there is going to be a shorter title it will be found that such a one immediately becomes something less accurate. I admit that the present title is not accurate, but at least it is simple and it sounds pretty good.

Mr. Shepherd

And it is simply misleading.

Mr. Wilson

The Opposition's proposal is also inaccurate and misleading, and has not the virtue of being so good. It is, in fact, a little cumbersome and somewhat ugly. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) if he speaks on this will, I am sure, point out that the Government in a certain Charter did accept these very words: "Restrictive Business Practices," but it is of course an Americanism. We had to agree to it in the I.T.O. Charter in order to secure rather more substantial concessions in return. In that Charter quite a number of things are expressed in the American rather than in the English language.

It would be a mistake at the present time to borrow an American phrase of this kind and write it into our own statutes, particularly at a time when a good deal of effort has been put forward in simplifying official English. The right hon. Member for Aldershot, when he was at the Board of Trade, issued a very fine document, which I saw at the time, and which I hope is still in circulation, on the subject of simplifying Board of Trade jargon. I hope he feels that some of our recent efforts did give effect to what he was then trying to bring about. We should be going back if we accepted this phrase, "Restrictive Business Practices." If it were 100 per cent. accurate or even more accurate than "Monopoly Bill" I should feel rather more disposed to accept it, even though it is a clumsy and rather hideous phrase. As matters stand, I cannot accept this inaccurate title.

Mr. Daines

Surely my right hon. Friend is also arguing that "monopoly" is inaccurate. Therefore, to add another title that covers a further part of the Bill must lessen the margin of inaccuracy.

Mr. Wilson

Both are inaccurate, but one is better sounding than the other. If I thought that "Restrictive Business Practices" was more accurate I should be prepared to accept it even though it is an ugly sounding phrase. Since it is not accurate it would be wrong for the Government to accept this title. I mentioned in the earlier stages of the Bill that a considerable part of the work of the Commission will relate to monopolies and many of them ought to be investigated and subject to a critical report even though they may not be indulging in restrictive practices.

For instance, the report of the Ever-shed Committee on textile machinery manufacturers criticised the combine not for any restrictive action but for simple inertia, lack of enterprise and inadequate research. That was not restrictive. On the other hand, it was using its monopoly position to be less enterprising and efficient than it would have had to be in competitive conditions or under some different form of organisation. It may be that when a monopoly is brought before the Commission the complaint will not be that it is restricting production or charging excessive prices but that it is failing to develop as successfully, quickly and efficiently as it ought to be doing.

I do not want to be unreasonable but we cannot accept the title "Restrictive Business Practices Commission." I do not think they would be much understood in the country. It would not be a very satisfactory phrase. I throw open once again my offer. I am not satisfied with the present title of the Bill and if either here or in another place, a suggestion could be made which expressed the problem with which the Bill has to deal, and used reasonably plain English, I should be only too delighted to accept it. I am afraid that this Amendment will not do.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton

One view which the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) shares with me is that the present title of the Bill is definitely misleading. "Restrictive business practices" is not a very attractive combination of words, I agree, and it may not be comprehensive and entirely accurate, but it is far less misleading than the word "monopoly." What could be more ludicrous than making an Act of Parliament to deal with monopolies when we may have three or more monopolies in different parts of England in the same commodity? Other hon. Members made it clear early in our deliberations that the title of the Bill was misleading as to its scope. I should like to accept the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman to find -something better than the word "monopoly," not a hybrid or bastard word, and something other than "Restrictive Business Practices." If the Bill goes forward with the name "monopoly" it will be misleading.

Mr. O. Poole

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to accept our Amendment. I would not pursue this matter if it were only concerned with the academic question of the title of the Bill. I have some difficulty in understanding this Bill or any other Bill, and I know there will be difficulty when this Measure goes out to the country. Many of us feel that one of the great advantages of setting up the proposed Commission will lie in the mere fact of its being set up, quite apart from its investigations. It is desirable that people should understand what the Bill is about and what the Commission will do when it is established. It is, therefore, evident that the title of this Bill has much more significance than in the case of some other Bills. Apart from the fact that the present title of the Bill is definitely and almost deliberately misleading it seems wrong that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept our Amendment, which would make a great improvement. We cannot accept the view that "Restrictive Business Practices" would be as misleading as the present title. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman before the Bill gets to another place will be able to find or to accept an alternative title. Failing either being done, I hope he will be able to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert: (7) In the case of an equality of votes on any question at a meeting of the Commission, the chairman shall have a second or casting vote. When this matter was first considered it was our intention to keep the Commission an extremely small body. In view of what has happened since, and in view of the Amendment which was carried this afternoon, it is likely that the Commission will be larger in membership, with the possible result that there might be a more stubborn difference of opinion among the members of the Commission. In that case, in order to avoid deadlock, we think it desirable to give the chairman a casting vote. That is the purpose of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Belcher

I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, at the end, to insert: Provided that the quorum necessary at any meeting held for the final settling of a report of the Commission shall not be less than two-thirds of the members of the Commission. The purpose of the Amendment is to implement one of the undertakings which my right hon. Friend gave in the Standing Committee. He asked the right hon. Gentleman opposite to accept an offer of reconsideration at this point, and to withdraw an Amendment, and promised to put down a form of words at the present stage of the Bill. The Amendment does not mean that at every meeting of the Commission, at some of which only evidence will be heard, two-thirds of the members must be present. There may be cases where members will undertake special responsibility for special inquiries and it may be desirable to use only a portion of the membership of the Commission to inquire into certain aspects of a particular case. When it comes, however, to the settling of reports, obviously that is a matter for all the members of the Commission. The proviso in the Amendment is intended to make it clear that for the purpose of settling a report of the Commission at least two-thirds of the membership must be present.

Amendment agreed to.