24. Miss Leeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Monopolies Commission reported in 1957 that the British Oxygen Company was abusing its monopoly position by charging unjustifiably high prices and by indulging in objectionable business practices; and what further action he proposes to take under Section 12 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, to satisfy himself that the recommendations of the commission have been complied with.
§ Mr. MaudlingThe Board of Trade obtained from the British Oxygen Company in 1958 undertakings on a number of matters covered by the Commission's Report. I have no reason to think that the Company is not carrying out these undertakings and there is therefore no occasion for a Section 12 inquiry. The Board did not accept the recommendation that it should keep the company's profits and prices for oxygen and dissolved acetylene under review.
Miss LeeIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the Monopolies Commission reported, the profits of this company have risen by 50 per cent.? Can he explain to me what purpose is served by the appointment of a public committee and the expenditure of public time if we are treated in this offhand manner? Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell us what practical steps will be taken?
§ Mr. MaudlingThe hon. Lady is beside the point on this. As a result of the Monopolies Commission's Report, a number of undertakings were obtained from the company. If she has any evidence that these undertakings are not being carried out, I should be very happy to look into it.
Miss LeeI can give the right hon. Gentleman a piece of very concrete evidence. That information was collected, as the Minister knows, up to the end of 1956. At the beginning of 1957 further public statements were made. Since that time higher profits have been made by a monopoly that was condemned by the Commission, both for profiteering and for undesirable business practice.
§ Mr. MaudlingI cannot accept the hon. Lady's assumption that higher profits are a sign of iniquity.
§ Mr. JayAs the President of the Board of Trade says that he has no reason to think that these undertakings are not being carried out, will he tell us whether he has reasons to think that they are?
§ Mr. MaudlingYes, because if they were not the customers would soon complain.
§ Mr. SpeakerMiss Jennie Lee, Question No. 25.
Miss LeeOn a point of order. Before we go on to Question No. 25, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your guidance on Question No. 24.—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Lady rises to a point of order. What is it?
Miss LeeYes, Sir. I rise to a point of order, and I shall be corrected by you, Mr. Speaker, if it is not a correct point of order; but it is a correct statement of fact. You, Mr. Speaker, will guide me on this. A Committee was set up to investigate a monopoly. That Committee reported that this monopoly had been guilty of profiteering. Will you then, Mr. Speaker, tell me if you think that the Minister is treating the House with proper respect when he replies to my Question by saying that he sees no iniquity in a company condemned for profiteering now extorting still higher prices?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order. I hope that hon. Members will be careful about that, because a large number of hon. Members desire Oral Answers to their questions. I now call Miss Jennie Lee to ask Question No. 25.
25. Miss Leeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will safeguard the public interest by introducing legislation to bring oxygen under public ownership and control.
§ Mr. MaudlingNo, Sir.
Miss LeeIs the President of the Board of Trade aware that a great deal of publicity has been given to the unofficial strike in the British Oxygen Company? Would it not be a good example to all employees if steps were taken to see that British Oxygen was brought under public ownership and control so that profiteering could be controlled?
§ Mr. MaudlingI do not think that experience will confirm that nationalisation stops unofficial strikes.
§ Mr. PeytonDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that that is far too dire a threat to hold over the heads of the employees of this country?