Mergers and Take-overs

HC Deb 19 March 1969 vol 780 cc473-4

10. Mr. Arthur Davidson

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on his policy towards mergers and take-overs.

Mr. Crosland

My policy continues to be based on the principles of the 1965 Act. But, as I said in a recent speech at Manchester, of which copies have been placed in the Library, I am considering whether I can give more information about the way in which we use the discretion which the law confers upon us.

Mr. Davidson

In that excellent speech, my right hon. Friend meditated on the dangers of merger fever. Have those meditations now been translated into positive proposals to deal with the situation?

Mr. Crosland

No, Sir. I think that meditation is in itself a positively desirable state of mind, and, as far as I am concerned, it is for the moment still continuing.

Sir G. Nabarro

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that if his meditation leads him to the important conclusion that too much in the nature of activities of a meddlesome Mattie—a meddlesome Mattie—a meddlesome Mattie—by his Department would be wholly injurious to British industry, he would be well advised to meditate at greater length and stay out of the arena?

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no need to repeat a metaphor.

Mr. Crosland

The hon. Gentleman's language was a little mystifying. As regards the substance of what he said, he should recall that his party—I believe that he was in the House at the time— did not vote against the 1965 Act which lays down the broad principles of monopolies and mergers policy, which we are still continuing.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

Has not the President of the Board of Trade noted the almost universal expression of view in the debate on Friday, 7th March, about the ridiculous situation in which the biggest merger which has taken place in this country in recent months—the G.E.C.-etc. merger—never reached the Monopolies Commission but was dealt with by an entirely different and, in the view of many, entirely unsatisfactory procedure?

Mr. Crosland

I read that debate with great interest and was sorry that, being then in Latin America, I could not take it. I read with particular interest the hon. Gentleman's speech. I have always held the view that that merger was in a different category from other mergers which we have referred, first, because it was strongly supported not only by the I.R.C. but by the bulk of independent opinion, and, second, because there were circumstances in terms of the buyers of the goods produced by the merged firm which appeared to me and to my colleagues to give sufficient guarantees against any excessive monopoly power.