Clause 6.—(AGREEMENTS TO WHICH PART I APPLIES.) (Hansard, 30 July 1956)

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment, which is consequential to the proposed Amendment in page 6, line 31.

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. The words (on other than terms as to prices) were inserted to distinguish between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of Clause 6 (1), but a doubt was raised whether the words "other than terms" should have been "other than terms and conditions." We do not want any misunderstanding about this and the simplest thing would be to leave out the phrase. There may be some overlap between paragraphs (a) and (b), but I do not think that that matters. Rather than have some doubt whether there is a difference between "terms" and "conditions", it may be simpler to leave out the words in brackets.

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
934 This is a clarifying Amendment which, if my memory serves me right, was urged upon us during the Report stage of the Bill. It was felt that some of these obligations are not necessarily express. They may well be implied, as, for example, where a man says that he will agree to sell 90 per cent. of his output to a particular customer when there is an implied obligation that he will not sell more than 10 per cent. to anybody else. These things can generally be expressed in a positive or negative sense and, on reflection, we have weighed the arguments addressed to us from various sides of the House and have felt it right to include these words in the Bill.

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient if with this we took the proposed Amendment in page 6, line 12.
As we amended the Bill on Report, we brought within Part I of the Bill agreements where there were two or more British parties, even though the restrictions were accepted by two or more foreign parties. As we drafted it, where the British parties were in a trade association, we did not allow the trade association to count as one party. We said that that still meant two British parties, but we did not cover the point where the two foreign parties were in a trade association. It would defeat the object of the exercise if the two foreign parties who accepted restrictions could avoid the whole position of being registered if they merely entered into a trade association.
The object and effect of the Amendment is simply to put foreign parties and British parties in the same position, that is to say, that a trade association of either is counted as two persons.

§ Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas
I am completely stupefied by that explanation. I accept what the President of the Board of Trade says, but I completely fail to see how it works out. I have had the advantage of considering this with my 935 hon. and right hon. Friends and it did not occur to any of us—and in saying this I am giving away no State secret—that that was the explanation of the Amendment. As the Clause stands unamended it provides that This Part of this Act shall apply in relation to any agreement made by a trade association the members of which consist of or include persons carrying on business as mentioned in subsection (1) …. The words which the Amendment propose to leave out include the word "include".
I wonder whether the Amendment so drafted might not inadvertently achieve the result that the members of the trade association had to be people who were suppliers or dealers within the meaning of Clause 6 (1), but I gather that that is not the intention. The Amendment goes on to provide that an agreement shall be treated as if it were an agreement between all persons who are members of the association, apparently whether or not they are persons who are suppliers, dealers, and so on, within the meaning of Clause 6(1.)
I am not sure whether my fears are substantiated. I am not sure whether there is anything in what I have suggested. I completely fail to see how the right hon. Gentleman gets from this Amendment the explanation which he has just given. I do not want a textual criticism or anything in detail of that sort, nor am I asking for a construction for the Chancery Courts, but if the right hon. Gentleman can explain a little more closely the wording of the Amendment we shall be grateful.

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
By leave of the House, I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will not get the sort of construction he may have got in a Chancery Court, but I will do my best. I get what I have said from the first part of the Amendment. As it was originally drafted, the subsection referred to an association the members of which consisted of or included persons carrying on business and who were carrying on business in the United Kingdom. What I want to do is, so to speak, to straddle "association" beyond that to cover people who might not be carrying on business in the United Kingdom, but who were accepting the restrictions—and it is 936 accepting the restrictions which is the important thing from the point of view of registration.
The Amendment will permit the subsection to cover not only people who are members of the association, but people who are represented by such members, who ought to be included. The hon. and learned Member is quite right, the main purpose is to apply the "association rule", if I may call it that, to people other than those carrying on business in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to consider this Amendment and the proposed Lords Amendment to line 23 at the same time.
This Amendment deals with the question of recommendations by a trade association. What is registrable under the Bill as we amended it is really the constitution of the trade association. If it happened that the restriction was written into the constitution of the trade association all would be well, but very often it is not. Very often the constitution of the trade association is only the rules about the appointment of the chairman, the payment of the secretary and all the ordinary things which go to make the constitution of a trade association. If the restriction is not written in, but is, in fact, a recommendation, this Amendment, with the Lords Amendment proposed to page 10, line 25, to which we shall be coming later, arranges for the recommendation to be registered as well. Otherwise it would be quite impossible for anyone to see what, in fact, the real purpose was.

§ Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)
Although we are not quarrelling with the main purpose here, may I ask the President what is the verbal explanation, as 937 it were, of this Amendment to line 20? We are leaving out the words in respect of any such matters as are described in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the said subsection (1), and we are saying instead "matter described in." It appears to have become singular instead of plural, but it seems very difficult to see how there could be any difference in the meaning as between "such matter described in" and "any matter described in" the whole subsection. If there is no difference, why is the Minister making the change?

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
There is no difference; it is just shorter.

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a matter which we have debated on a very large number of occasions. I do not think I need enlarge upon it now. It is more of a drafting matter than anything else. I am advised that it is better to put these words at the end of Clause 6. As the House will see, they have been removed from the beginning of Clause 7 and we shall also refer to this matter under Clause 8. For the sake of clarity it is thought better to put in these words here and they link with an earlier Amendment.