Clause 1.—(THE MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION.) (Hansard, 17 January 1967)

§ Mr. Stodart

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 40, at the end to insert: 90 (8) No recommendation made by any trade association or group of persons engaged in any section of the livestock industry or livestock products industry and which is in accordance with advice given or recommendations made by the Commission by virtue of paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to this Act shall be affected by 91 the provisions of Part 1 of the Restrictive Practices Act 1956. This subject will not be entirely unfamiliar to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), because I recollect a discussion on it in the very dim days when the Committee on the first Bill was sitting. It is possible, it may even be likely that recommendations about contracts that could be made, perhaps, by a trade association in the livestock or meat industry, would have to be registered as an agreement under Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. The court might regard these recommendations as contrary to the public interest. Paragraph 8 of Part I of Schedule 1 specifically excludes the financial aspects of contracts from the Commission's duties, but I do not think that a recommendation need necessarily be financial to be regarded as being against the public interest.

The Parliamentary Secretary, replying on that occasion, said that there was a fear that a trade association might, and I think that I am quoting him here, or nearly so, "bless the Commission's advice and then have to go to the Registrar". He said that his right hon. Friend was discussing the matter with the President of the Board of Trade, and asked me to withdraw the Amendment then so that we could discuss it again in relation to paragraph (8) of Schedule 1. In our anxiety to make progress with the Bill we did not, as the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, put down any Amendments on matters that had already been discussed. We had the most virtuous objection to doing so. I should, therefore, like to know what the present position is with regard to the discussions that the Minister is having with the President of the Board of Trade; and whether, in fact, it would be advisable that these words should at this stage be inserted.

§ Mr. Hoy

I hasten to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I will not waste any time in talking about this exposition of his virtue during the Committee stage, but I want to say a word or two about the Amendment.

This Amendment would exempt from scrutiny under the restrictive trade practices legislation certain recommendations that trade associations might make to 92 their members. The proposal is limited to recommendations" in accordance with" the advice which the Commission is empowered to give on the terms of contracts for the sale of meat and livestock. That advice, as the wording of the Amendment duly notes, cannot competently go as far as the financial terms of such contracts, but it could be very useful advice on, for example, the form of the contract.

I should like to explain how far we can go under the Bill as it is now drafted. Two points must be made clear. The first is that there is, of course, no reason why the Commission should not itself publicise its recommendations in regard to contracts. There would be no question of those recommendations being registrable under the 1956 Act. Secondly, we and the Board of Trade are advised that if trade associations wished merely to pass on the recommendations of the Commission to their members without themselves commenting on those recommendations or urging that the recommendations should be followed, there is no reason why those associations should not do so without incurring an obligation to register under the Act.

That covers a large part of the field; but once we go beyond publicity by the Commission itself, or the mere passing on of the Commission's recommendations to a trade association, we should be opening the door pretty widely. We should be admitting cases in which the association added its own advice, endorsing or urging compliance with some or all of the Commission's recommendations. This is not an issue which arises only with advice originating from the Meat and Livestock Commission. It could arise with other commodities and with trade associations outside agriculture and food, desiring to endorse recommendations made by bodies more fully representative of the industry as a whole than they themselves might be.

Legislation designed to control restrictive practices must cause some difficulty whenever this point is reached. The problem has come up before, for example, in commending horticultural standards. A blanket exemption would raise greater issues than those concerned with meat and livestock contracts. If there is any question of whether it is right that restrictive practices legislation should apply 93 to recommendations of trade associations, it would have to be considered generally, as would any proposal for revising the categories of agreements and recommendations which are subject to registration.

I know that hon. Members opposite would not wish to weaken the restrictive practices legislation any more than we would wish to do so. Indeed, they are on record as wishing to strengthen it. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade considers that any attempt to deal with this question piecemeal could seriously weaken the 1956 Act. I therefore ask hon. Members opposite not to press for an addition to the Bill to cover this point. What has been said by the hon. Gentleman on this difficulty has been carefully noted by the Board of Trade, where the working of the 1956 Act is kept under review. I can assure him that the points he has made have been noted. I think he will welcome this explanation, but I regret that I cannot go any further this afternoon.