§ Lords Amendment: Divide Clause 7 into two clauses, the first to consist of subsections (3), (4), (11) and (12). and 938 the second to consist of subsections (1), (2), (5) to (10) inclusive, and (13.)
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The best case for dividing Clause 7 into two is that it was far too long. There are a number of other quite complicated reasons, but I should like to rest myself on that reason.
§ Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)If we agree to this Lords Amendment in this form shall we not be prejudicing several Lords Amendments which are to follow? In the Bill as drafted I understand that there is no subsection (13) and if we pass this Amendment I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether or not we shall be in difficulty when we consider a subsequent Amendment which would become subsection (13.)
Mr. SpeakerI understand that this is what is called a paving Amendment and that it would not hamper debate on subsequent Amendments if this were accepted. It might be that the pavement would be left rather in the air.
§ Sir L. Ungoed-ThomasI understood that the case for an earlier Amendment was that it would make the Bill shorter and that the case for this Amendment is that it would make the Bill longer, but that does not make it any more objectionable. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), I was confused about subsection (13.) Apparently he has found that subsection (13) is referred to somewhere else, but I have not been able to trace that. I suppose that we are to have a subsection (13) and that it is in order.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI understand that it will be possible to discuss the point later when we come to line 42.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 6 leave out lines 35 to 37.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 42, at end insert:
(3) In determining whether an agreement to which iron and steel producers as defined by the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, are party, whether with or without other parties, is an agreement to which this part of this Act applies, no account shall be taken of any term whether
939
expressed or implied which has been approved by the Iron and Steel Board and by the Board of Trade—
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment raises a rather technical point about steel. Ordinarily, any restrictive practices which may exist in the steel industry are treated the same as any restrictive practices in any other industry. That is to say, if they fall within the broad concept of Clause 6, they come before the Court; but there is a technical and rather difficult matter which arises under Section 11 of the Iron and Steel Act. Under that Section, certain powers are given to the Steel Board, and in part, to the Board of Trade, which place certain responsibilities upon them. I am not going to spell out those powers and responsibilities in detail—the Act is available—but they are concerned with the import of raw materials and of finished products. If the Steel Board is not satisfied about the way that is being done and think, that it is in the public interest to do so, subject to certain matters laid down, it can, either itself directly or through agents, arrange for those particular functions to be carried out as a common service.
If the Board did that there would be no question of it being subject to the Act, and it would be a little anomalous to arrange for it to be out of the Act if it does it itself but somehow in the Act if it is a matter approved by the Board but done by the industry itself. What we have done here is to exclude it provided it has been approved both by the Iron and Steel Board and the Board of Trade. We have put in both because both are referred to in Section 11 of the Act, and also because I think it right to maintain the general principle that either things ought to be expressly authorised by statute, in which case they are out, or subject to the Court. If there is a special, 940 exceptional case of this character owing to another statute, I think it probably right that a Minister should be answerable in the last resort in this House so that if there is any question he can be asked about it.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. JayIt seems that we are here returning through the looking glass to the world of commonsense. The President is saying that the Iron and Steel Board has power, through a body known as the Iron and Steel Corporation—at least, it used to be called that—to act as a monopoly importer of certain iron and steel products, and he is asking us to agree that if it does that with the approval of the Board of Trade, it shall not be subject to the machinery of the Bill. In our efforts to disentangle the debates in another place, and before we had these extra documents to help us, we felt rather anxious about the possibility that the Iron and Steel Board might be given power to approve various arrangements which left them outside the scope of the Measure and not subject to the President of the Board of Trade.
As we now understand it, the approval of the President is required as well as that of the Board. Therefore, rather ironically, unlike other parts of the Bill', this is presumably subject to Question and answer in the House. So here, by a rather curious circuitous route, we seem to have reached a situation which is even more welcome to us than some other parts of the Bill.
§ Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)I am concerned only to know whether subsection (1) has not already made sufficient provision to deal with the point covered by this Lords Amendment. I would ask for consideration to be given to that possibility. If I have quite misconceived the matter, I ask the Committee's forgiveness.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftSubsection (1) would not be sufficient. Although it could be, it is not yet ex hypothesi expressly authorised by Statute. If it were so expressly authorised, it is quite true that the Iron and Steel Board could do either of these things, subject to various precautions—including, on occasions, approval by the Board of Trade. The Iron and Steel Board has not yet done so. It would be anomalous to say 941 that when a certain practice was continuing with the full approval of the Iron and Steel Board, it should then be either taken over and done by the Board itself or referred to the Court, and it is necessary to put in some words to cover the position. It is an exceptional and rather technical position, but I think that it has been rightly dealt with here and, as the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend have observed, there is a complete safeguard, in that the Minister is answerable for anything done.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 43, leave out from beginning to "an" in line 44 and insert "In determining whether".
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think it would be convenient if, together with this Amendment, we took the Amendment in line 45. These are really only drafting Amendments. We have divided the Clause into two parts, and in the first part we deal with those cases where no account shall be taken of the particular matters referred to. These Amendments simply put the matter into the same phraseology as the rest of the Clause.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 6, line 45, at end insert:
is an agreement to which this Part of this Act applies, no account shall be taken of any term".
Lords Amendment: In page 7, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert:
This Part of this Act does not apply to any agreement for the supply of goods between two persons, neither of whom is a trade association within the meaning of section six of this Act, being an agreement to which no other person is party and under which no such restrictions as are described in subsection (1) of section six of this Act are accepted other than".
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
We have now moved on to the sole agency provisions. The object of the Amendment is to make certain that an exclusive dealing agreement which goes beyond goods of the same description is registrable, provided that the two parties 942 have accepted the restrictions—as is common in all these matters. Although, on Report, I stated that the position was quite clear, some doubt was expressed whether the provision affected goods of the same description. I think that those doubts have now been cleared up. Otherwise, this is really a drafting Amendment.
§ Sir L. Ungoed-ThomasWe recognise that that is the aim of the Amendment, and we welcome it. There is merely one very small drafting point to which I would draw the attention of the President. The first three lines of the proposed insertion are:
This Part of this Act does not apply to any agreement for the supply of goods between two persons, neither of whom is a trade association…One would not normally regard a trade association as coming within the definition of "a person". I was a little concerned about the effect upon other parts of the Bill of treating a trade association as a person within the meaning of the term as used in the Amendment, but I think that the position is probably safeguarded by the various definitions in other parts of the Bill. I have not gone through the Clauses to check all the definitions, but it seemed to me that a little difficulty might be created, and I suggest that this is a matter to which the President either has given or should give a little attention.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI know that considerable attention has been given to this point. If such an agreement were incorporated a trade association might have been treated as a person in this subsection. It was therefore necessary to exclude it. We have been careful to see that these arrangements cannot be avoided by forming trade associations, and we think that we have achieved that end.
§ Mr. Donald Wade (Huddersfield, West)I did not hear the words used by the President in moving the Amendment. Did I understand him to say that, as a result of the Amendment, if there is an exclusive dealing arrangement which contains some other condition, whereby one or other of the parties is restricted in the acquisition of other goods, that agreement will be brought within this part of the Bill? I do not see how that follows, but I understood the President to say that.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftThe hon. Member is making a fair point. The Clause, as amended, will do two things. I understand that there was some doubt about the question of goods of a different description under the original drafting. Whatever was the doubt about the original drafting, it is manifestly removed now. That is the first thing. The other thing is that the words inserted ensure that an agreement between not more than two parties, neither of whom is a trade association—which is the only combination excluded—is not covered by the Bill.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 16, leave out:
for the purpose of resale
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment makes a small improvement to subsection (4, a). A sole agency agreement may be in a form where the manufacturer will say, "I will not sell to other wholesalers." That is quite a common form of agreement. Equally, it is very common form for him to say, "I will not sell myself." That would be a reasonable precaution to put in. If one sells to a firm in Brighton it would be reasonable to say that one will not sell to other wholesalers there. Unless one was empowered to put that in it would be a rather peculiar sort of sole agency agreement. This is an adaptation to conform to the normal, very common form sole agency agreement.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 45, leave out from "applied" to end of line 2 on page 8.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think it would be convenient to take with this Amendment the Lords Amendment to page 9, line 3, at the end to insert the new subsection (12.)
These Amendments take up again the question of the inter-connected body corporate, and what has been done is to apply that to the whole of what are now Clauses 7 and 8 to make it clear that, where we are 944 dealing with restrictions under the one or the other, inter-connected bodies corporate are excluded.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 36, at end insert:
and subsection (7) of section six of this Act shall not apply in relation to recommendations relating exclusively to such matters as aforesaid.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Under the Bill as we dealt with it on the last occasion in the Commons, we made it clear that overseas trading was outside the scope of the Bill; that is to say, restrictions which did not effect trade in this country, or even exports from or imports into this country, but which was simply trade between one third country and another third country should not be within the scope of the Bill. It is necessary to assimilate to that principle the rules which we laid down about the recommendations of trade associations. If they are not within the Bill, recommendations of trade associations dealing with these matters clearly should not be within the Bill. This is merely a tidying operation to make sure the trade associations are treated the same as anybody else.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 37, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 38 and insert:
In determining whether an agreement is an agreement to which this Part of this Act applies, no account shall be taken of any term by which the parties or any of them agree".
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
We are dealing here with the exclusion of British Standards Institution arrangements, which everybody agrees should be out. All that this Amendment does is to make it plain that these arrangements about British standards are out, but that, if there are other mutual restrictions which make the agreement registrable on other grounds, it will still be registrable, and that one cannot get out by linking it to the British Standards Institution arrangements.
§ Question put and agreed to.
945
§
Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 9, line 3, at end insert:
(12) For the purposes of this section two or more persons being inter-connected bodies corporate or individuals carrying on business in partnership with each other shall be treated as a single person, and any reference in this section to such restrictions as are described in subsection (1) of section six of this Act shall be construed, in relation to any agreement, as not including references to restrictions of which, by virtue of any other provision of this section, account cannot be taken in determining whether the agreement is an agreement to which this Part of this Act applies, or of restrictions accepted by any term of which account cannot be so taken.