Clause 25.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TEXPORT AGREEMENTS.) (Hansard, 17 May 1956)

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
I beg to move, in page 21, line 14, after the first "of". to insert "subsection (4) of".
It might also be convenient to discuss the following Amendment, in line 15.
These are barely more than drafting Amendments. They catch up what was euphemistically called a simplifying Amendment in Clause 6, page 6, line 6. They catch up the exclusive export arrangement or agreement and move it from the Restrictive Trade Practices Court and under the aegis of the Board of Trade and the Monopolies Commission. As drafted, the Clause would exclude agreements dealing with exports if those agreements included any other form of agreement dealing with overseas trade. It was obviously not the intention of the Committee to allow agreements to escape just through the inclusion of some other provisions dealing with some other forms of overseas trade.

§ Mr. Cronin
I beg to move, in page 21, line 23. to leave out subsection (2).
In moving this Amendment I hope to emulate my previous brevity. The benevolent purpose of the Amendment is rather hidden because it concerns a Clause which is not widely comprehensible. The purpose of subsection (2) appears to be that the Board of Trade is absolved from laying before Parliament a Report of the Monopolies Commission unless the Report states that conditions to which the 1948 Act applies are likely to operate against the public interest.
The Act of 1948 refers, with certain excluding provisos, only to exports in which the exporters are in a monopoly position or else have indulged in restrictive practices. Section 9 of that Act gives the President a very proper loophole to avoid the laying of the Report before Parliament in certain conditions. Those conditions are, briefly, when the disclosure of particular matters is against the public interest, and also when secret processes, or 2286 the presence of mineral deposits, or damage to legitimate business interests are involved.
We think that Section 9 of the 1948 Act gives the President complete scope to absolve himself from laying a Report before Parliament, and that it is not, therefore, necessary to include this subsection. Certain important points of principle are involved. This subsection means, in so many words, that when the verdict is "guilty" it is given but that when it is "not guilty" there is absolute silence. That seems to be rather contrary to elementary principles of justice. I see that the President looks puzzled, but whether he is puzzled by the Clause or by my exposition—or by both—is a matter of some conjecture.
It is an important point of principle that unless there is some really important reason to the contrary, Parliament should know what the Commission reports. Commissions, as a rule, have a very high standard of work, but I think that at least part of that high standard must be due to the fact that their final Report is given to a very appreciative and, if necessary, critical audience. If this subsection is left in the Bill these conditions will not apply, so I suggest that the President should look at this important point of principle again to see what he can do to meet our objections.

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
Perhaps I may say that I certainly was not puzzled by the speech which the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) was delivering. If I may say so, his speech was rather clearer, sometimes, than the Clause. If I had a frown it was caused by my doubt as to whether I could persuade hon. Members opposite that I was right about this point. I have a case to put which 1 ask hon. Members opposite, although they may probably disagree with me, to accept my sincere belief in, even though it is a difficult one to argue.
I favour publicity about these matters. I believe that it is better, on the whole, particularly in cases where the home trade is concerned—where the supply of goods is to consumers in this country—or if it forms any part of the arrangements. I believe that on balance people should know about it; they should know what is going on. Moreover, I do not share the view that publicity does a lot of damage to the industry concerned.
2287 I really do not believe that the publication of the Reports of the Monopolies Commission can be said to have done a great deal of harm to any industry reported on. Very often it does show that many accusations which are made are quite unfounded. In many cases the industries come out with a completely clean bill of health; and sometimes, on the matters that are criticised, it is shown that wise men can hold very different opinions, even on the Monopolies Commission.
That relates to agreements which concern in some way the supply of goods at home, but here we are dealing with cases which are exclusively in the export field. Let me say absolutely fairly to the Committee what this Clause does if it is passed—because, of course, it is open to the Committee to vote against me if it disagrees. This Clause allows the Board of Trade not to publish a Report or a part of a Report dealing with a particular aspect of the export trade if, in fact, it is decided in the Report of the Monopolies Commission that the facts do not disclose something which is against the public interest. I want to be absolutely frank about this. The Clause is unashamedly designed to secure a greater degree of privacy about some of our export arrangements than I think can be attained under the law as it stands.
The hon. Member for Loughborough spoke about the public interest. He is quite right to draw attention to these provisions, but may I say that I think the provisions should be strictly construed? I do not want anyone occupying my position to have to start construing the public interest very loosely in order to hide export arrangements. I would rather be absolutely frank with the Committee. This deals with arrangements that are exclusively in relation to exports. I am not here concerned with an arrangement which restricts the supply of goods into this country in exchange for other arrangements overseas. That is a mixed agreement and comes under a different part of the Bill altogether. This is exclusively an export matter. What I want here is an arrangement whereby if it is decided that what is being done is not contrary to the public interest 2288 we are not under an obligation to publish it all.
It may be inconvenient. It may not be strictly contrary to the public interest, in the widest sense, to publish it. Opinions can vary about privacy and publicity and their rival merits. But, on balance, I think that we will get better inquiries into and better Reports of some of these matters if we are not under an obligation to publish everything when, in fact, no harm is being done to anybody. I hope the Committee will weigh those as genuine and sincere arguments, and will support me here.

§ Mr. Cronin
I am a little puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. So far as I can see, he already has all these powers under Section 9 of the 1948 Act. That Act specifically mentions public interest as being a reason for departing from the principle of laying the Report before the House. I therefore do not feel that there is real validity in his argument. At the same time, having had the benefit of the President's reassurance that he will not use this exemption in a way of which the Committee will disapprove, I beg to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
I beg to move, in page 21, line 29, to leave out "unless, according to the" and insert: Provided that where according to any such Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we take with this Amendment that in page 21, line 33, at the end to add: this subsection shall not apply to so much of the report as relates to those conditions or to the things done as aforesaid These are really drafting Amendments. based on the decision which we have just taken. As drafted, the Clause would mean that if any aspect of a voluminous agreement was contrary to the public interest we should have to publish the lot. Obviously, that is not the sense of what I have been saying. All these agreements are generally parcelled out into separate packages, and if one is found which is not contrary to the public interest, it need not be publicised.