HC Deb 26 July 1960 vol 627 cc1276-8
18. Mr. Jay

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will use his powers under Section 1 (2) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, to secure early consideration by the Restrictive Practices Court of the agreement between manufacturers of telephone equipment.

20. Mr. Darling

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will direct the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Practices, under Section 1 (2) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, to give priority to the bringing of the agreement on the supply of telephone equipment before the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. Maudling

I assume that the hon. Members are referring to the bulk supplies agreements between the Postmaster-General and certain manufacturers of telecommunications equipment. I am advised by the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements that these agreements are not registrable. There is, therefore, no action for me to take.

Mr. Jay

Is not this really rather unsatisfactory? First, we are told that the Monopolies Act does not apply, and now we are told that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act does not work. Is it really in accordance with Government policy that the breaking of this monopoly should be left to a take-over bid by a private firm?

Mr. Maudling

I do not think that that is the situation at all. The monopolies legislation will apply if there is a firm holding more than a certain percentage of the market. I do not think that there is in this case. The question of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act then arises, but there are, of course, clear provisions in that Act that agreements are not registrable where Crown privilege is involved, which is what occurs in this case.

Mr. Darling

Are there not two lots of agreement here; one agreement between the manufacturers themselves, and the manufacturers' agreements to supply things to the Post Office? There surely ca snot be an agreement between the Post Office and the seven or eight firms concerned without those seven or eight firms having an agreement among themselves to give effect to it.

Mr. Maudling

I quite agree that there an: agreements to which the Crown is party and which, therefore, are not registrable. There are also agreements to which the Crown is not a party, which are on the register and may be brought before the court by the Registrar, but Parliament has given to the Registrar. and not to the Government, the power to determine the timing.

Mr. Darling

I think that the latter part of that reply is not quite correct. Under the Act, does not the President of the Board of Trade have power to suggest or give some indication to the Registrar as to the priorities of the agreements to be brought before the court?

Mr. Maudling

We have, if necessary, I agree, power to issue directions, but I think that we would be wise to leave it to the Registrar—who, after all, is the man who runs the thing—as we have in this case, to determine the order in which this should be handled.

Mr. Arbuthnot

Is it not really a matter for investigation by the Select Committee of Public Accounts Committee?

Mr. Jay

If Parliament has specifically given the President of the Board of Trade the power to give instructions to the Registrar in these cases, why does he not do so in this case, in view of its of obvious importance?

Mr. Maudling

As I have said, I do not think that, on the whole, we would be wise to issue a direction to the Registrar, who performs his duties ex- tremely well. The real question is whether an agreement to which the Post Office is a party is a good agreement. I think that that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) had in mind, and questions on that are, I think, better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.