HL Deb 20 October 1953 vol 183 cc1246-59

2.48 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, I appreciate that it is not customary for any observations to be made on what is normally a formal Motion—namely, the Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee on a Bill—but, in view of the fact that this Bill has been absent from your Lordships' minds for the best part of three months, I thought it might be of some slight service to your Lordships if, before we launched into discussion of these rather technical Amendments, I were to remind the House briefly of what are the principal objects of the Bill.

The Bill has a limited scope. Its sole purpose is to enable the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission to be strengthened, so that they can handle a greater number of investigations at any one time. The Bill does not modify in any way either the conditions governing the reference to the Commission of matters for investigation, or the powers and duties of Government Departments when the Commission has in fact reported. The plan for strengthening and reorganising the Commission embodied in the Bill has three main features. The first is this. The Chairman is to be, and up to two deputy chairmen may be, appointed on a long-term and pensionable basis. Secondly, the Commission's maximum permissible membership is increased from ten to twenty-five. Thirdly, the Commission may work in self-sufficient subdivisions or groups. The Amendments standing on the Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster involve no departure from this general plan; their sole aim is to improve the chances of the smooth working of the Commission. All the Amendments but one are designed to clarify minor technical points about the working of the group system. The remaining one deals with the pension position of a Chairman or deputy chairman who has had previous pensionable service under the Crown. That, my Lords, is all that is involved in this Bill. As I have said, it is a strictly limited Bill. On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Woolton, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question. Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Chairman and deputy chairmen of Commission

1.—(1) The Board of Trade shall appoint one of the members of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") to be chairman of the Commission and may appoint not more than two of the other members to be deputy chairmen thereof.

2.53 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "four" [deputy chairmen] for "two." The noble Lord said: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for having refreshed our memory about the contents of the Bill. I agree that it is a Bill with a strictly limited purpose; and the Amendment which I am moving seeks to amend this restricted Bill in a very restricted way. The noble Lord has reminded us that the purpose of the Bill is to enable the Commission to function on a bigger scale. The fact is that, although the Commission has now been in existence for four and a half years, it has not been able to undertake more than a very limited number of inquiries. I believe that up to now it has issued some six reports, and has had referred to it twelve or thirteen different matters. I believe it to be true to say that the Commission would have had referred to it many more matters, had it been able to deal with them.

The reason for this Bill is to enable the Commission not only to expedite the inquiries that it actually has in hand but to undertake more inquiries which on all sides are regarded as essential if we are to deal with the important question of monopolies. The Bill increases the membership of the Commission from ten to twenty-five, and it is intended, I understand, that the Commission should work in groups of five, so that there could be five committees or groups sitting at the same time. The membership is part-time, and the members are appointed from all parts of the country. I understand from the President of the Board of Trade that there is some difficulty in getting suitable members at all, and it is, therefore, all the more important that the chairmen of the committees or groups should be full-time members and should be capable of giving their whole attention to the work of the Commission. That has been recognised to the extent that, under the Bill, the President of the Board of Trade is empowered to appoint not more than two deputy chairmen. But, of course, two deputy chairmen can preside at only two of the committees; and if it were necessary that all live committees should function simultaneously, there might be a shortage of chairmen.

The Amendment which I am moving is intended to give the President of the Board of Trade authority—which he would, of course, use only if necessary—to appoint up to four deputy chairmen, instead of two. I realise that the President of the Board of Trade has given the answer in another place that in certain circumstances four deputy chairmen might be unnecessary. He has suggested that it would be a good thing if, occasionally, the Chairman of the Commission himself were to preside at one of the committees. That may well be true, but the Chairman will have other duties to perform. The important thing about these committees is that there should be continuity, and the appointment of, and relying on, part-time members would not provide a guarantee of continuity in the work of the committee. It is for that reason, I imagine, that it is proposed to appoint the Chairman, and it is suggested that the Chairman of the Commission himself might, in the case of an important inquiry, preside. It is also suggested that some of the deputy chairmen might preside at more than one committee. It is even suggested that there may be an occasional part-time member who would be willing and suitable to preside. On the other hand, I would not rule out the possibility of having more than five committees by "doubling up" of the part-time members. Some of the part-time members might be willing—I say "might"—to serve on more than one committee; and if that were the case, it would be possible to hold more than five inquiries at the same time.

While I agree that these things are possible and conceivable, I also recognise that it may well be that the Commission would be called upon to deal with a number of inquiries of such magnitude and importance that it would not be practicable for any of the deputy chairmen to "double up"—that a particular inquiry might be a full-time job in itself. That is borne out by the fact that in the four and a half years of the Commission's life, only six reports have been published. I imagine that the Commission has been working hard, and the Chairman of the Commission himself recognises the disability under which it has been suffering. I imagine that in the early days, certainly, there will be a number of very important inquiries conducted by the Commission which might well take up all the time of the one Chairman, and that it would not be possible to "double up."

Therefore, I feel that, if we are going to make progress with these inquiries, it would he wise to have in reserve this power—which need not be exercised until it becomes necessary. It is not mandatory on the President of the Board of Trade: he would exercise it only when he was satisfied that it was necessary. I suggest that it would be wise for him to have this power to appoint up to four deputy chairmen. It seems to me an eminently sensible thing to give this power. There will be five possible committees sitting, with the Chairman of the Commission and each of the four deputy chairmen to preside. If the President of the Board of Trade is right, and it is possible to "double up" so that one of the deputy chairmen can preside over several inquiries, then he will not make the appointment; but if the position is confined to having two deputy chairmen, with the possibility of five inquiries sitting, it looks as if the Government are not serious about prosecuting this matter with the utmost vigour. I do not know whether the noble Lord is empowered to do anything about this except to say "No." but I hope that at least he will feel that there is something in the contention that I am putting forward which is worthy of further discussion with those who give him his instructions—unless he is in a position to accept the Amendment here and now.

I do not at all want to make heavy weather of this. I hope that we are all out for the same purpose: to make this scheme work. I imagine that Her Majesty's Government would not be increasing the numbers of the Commission from ten to twenty-five unless they meant the basis of the scheme to be broadened, but I maintain that we cannot seriously broaden the basis unless we are quite sure that we shall have the requisite number of responsible chairmen in charge. There is just one other thing that I want to say on this Amendment: I hope the noble Lord will not say that it is always possible to have further legislation if it becomes necessary. We do not want legislation merely to increase the number of deputy chairmen from two to three, or from three to four. It seems a sensible precaution to have the number of chairmen that one might possibly require. I, for one, am prepared to trust the President of the Board of Trade in this matter, not to make the appointments unless they are really necessary but I feel that he should be given the power to make them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, Line 8, leave out ("two") and insert ("four").—(Lord Silkin.)

3.2 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT

There seems to be little between the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and myself. With much that he has said Her Majesty's Government cordially agree. There is every desire to make this Bill work and to increase the output and energies of the Commission. That is the reason for the Bill. Equally, the Board of Trade will not do anything to flood or overwork the Commission because the Board of Trade themselves have the power to control the amount of work that is given to the Commission. Equally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the amount of work so far accomplished has not been spectacularly large. That, again, is the reason for altering the size and constitution of the Commission; but I think the noble Lord will agree with me that it would have been highly undesirable if the work that has been undertaken had not been undertaken with the meticulous care that has distinguished the Commission's work, if the impression were given that the inquiries had been slap-dash or hurried, and if the firms or various businesses whose affairs were investigated had any sense of injustice from feeling that there had not been a full inquiry into their case. That is the answer to the point he makes concerning the time and detail which has been expended upon the various six or seven inquiries that have so far taken place.

I agree with much of what the noble Lord says but I think he labours under one delusion the answer to which he almost gave himself. It is perfectly true that the Bill would permit five groups to work concurrently, but it does not follow, in my submission, that five long-term, pensionable appointments are necessary to provide the group chairmen. The noble Lord has almost provided the answers himself. The chairmen and the deputies are full-time, whereas most of the other Commissioners will be part-time. That is how we envisage the Commission will work under the Bill. The full-timers, the regulars, can serve on more than one group. It is obvious that the part-timers may find it difficult to serve more than about once a week. I can envisage the case that the noble Lord mentioned of some particularly enthusiastic part-timer being prepared to serve more frequently than that, but I should think that that is about the limit, and the regulars will have no difficulty at all in presiding over one or two of the groups.

Nor is there anything to prevent other Commissioners acting as group chairmen—not the regulars, but part-timers acting as group chairmen—and I can see that this might be occasionally desirable, particularly where special knowledge and experience is needed. One other point that occurred to me when listening to the noble Lord was this. Although five members is the minimum size for a group, that does not necessarily mean that five groups will always be working at the same time. As I say, it is up to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade to control the amount of work that is fed to the Commission and not to give them more work than they can do. I can only repeat the argument which my right honourable friend used in regard to a similar Amendment in another place, that it is not really very sensible to appoint more than are necessary. My right honourable friend is fully convinced that at the moment the Bill provides for the full number of regulars he requires to make the scheme work as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it would be wrong to come back and waste the time of Parliament by asking merely for one more deputy chairman to be appointed.

I must confess that there is some slight difference in the noble Lord's Amendment. He makes his power to appoint permissive, whereas I think that in another place the Amendment suggested was mandatory. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, for the reasons I have given. My right honourable friend is satisfied that the powers of the Commission, as envisaged in the Bill, are fully adequate for any work he is likely to give them. The noble Lord put a fairly fat worm at the end of his line when he suggested that something a little less than four might be acceptable. The Government have suggested two, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin has suggested four. I think noble Lords will realise that there is room mathematically for a compromise. I must tell him I could not possibly advise my noble friends on this side of the House to accept his Amendment, but if he feels strongly about it I will see whether I cannot persuade my right honourable friend to agree to three. I may have some slight luck. By doing that I am not suggesting for one moment that I think in is necessary. However, since the noble Lord only wants it to be permissive, and no great harm can result, I will see what can be done. Perhaps the noble Lord will put down such an Amendment on Report stage, which must, of necessity, be very soon. I will do my level best to persuade my right honourable friend to agree to three rather than four but I must confess I do not think there is any burning need for it.

EARL JOWITT

I should like to enter this controversy very briefly, because I do not think we have had the real answer given to us. I suggest that the real answer, whether the noble Lord knows it or not, is something very different. All we are seeking is to give a permissive power. That is different from the purpose of the Amendment moved in another place. The President of the Board of Trade will not appoint more than the two unless he wants to appoint more than the two. But, as I see it, the point behind the Amendment is this. If at the present time more committees are required than can be staffed by the chairman and the deputy chairmen, the need can be met. There is a group of five, and the Chairman of the Commission, if I understand it aright, can appoint one of the five to act as a chairman. What is the distinction between the President of the Board of Trade appointing some extra person to be a deputy chairman, and the Chairman of the Commission appointing someone to be chairman of a group?

If I understand it aright, under this Bill the only pensionable officers are those appointed by the President of the Board of Trade. Therefore I suggest that the real explanation of the objection to this Amendment is that the Treasury have insisted on keeping that number to the two—or I hope, if the noble Lord gets into an expansive mood, to three—in order that there may be no risk of anybody else becoming pensionable. They do not become pensionable as of right; they become pensionable only if the Board of Trade get the consent of the Treasury to pay pensions to them. Speaking of the third or the fourth man, if that man has worked very hard, I think it is right that when he retires he should be paid a pension. The only thing between us is this: we can work a scheme perfectly well by the Chairman of the Commission appointing group chairmen, these offices not being pensionable; but if we want to have the right to make those offices pensionable then the person concerned must be appointed as a deputy chairman.

It is entirely a matter for the discretion of the President of the Board of Trade. I think here we ought to insist that the President of the Board of Trade be given a wide discretion. The grant of a pension will not follow, save with Treasury approval. I think that, save with Treasury approval, there is not a pension as of right; there is a power to grant a pension. If a man works hard and well and gives great service, then it should be possible that he should be pensionable. I hope that the noble Lord will urge his right honourable friends, the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to see whether the powers of the President of the Board of Trade cannot be extended. I should like that power to be extended to cover the appointment of more than three; but three is better than two. If the need arises he may appoint—he will not appoint unless the need does arise—he will have the right to say that a pension is granted.

I do not suppose that my noble friend intends to press this Amendment now. The offer of the noble Lord to see what he can do between now and the next stage of the Bill is a very helpful one, but I ventured to rise because I think your Lordships ought to know that I strongly suspect, although I may be quite wrong, that the real reason behind this opposition is the desire of the Treasury not to run the slightest risk that anybody except two deputy chairmen will get pensions.

LORD SILKIN

I do not think that the noble Lord would challenge that.

LORD MANCROFT

I would challenge it.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Lord would challenge anything. One must be grateful for small mercies, I suppose. I must confess that I have stated his case, and I can well see that the additional chairmen might not be necessary—I concede that. But unless the Commission is going to be frustrated in its work, I cannot understand how anyone can dogmatise and say that they will never be necessary. So I would appeal once more to the noble Lord to go back to the President of the Board of Trade and say that we still think that four should be accepted as a maximum. If, however, he feels that he would rather have three than two, although I do not want to lose the number of three, I do not myself want to put down an Amendment. If the noble Lord would put down an Amendment—

LORD MANCROFT

No.

LORD SILKIN

Then I must consider the position, because I think that a maximum of four is essential.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Exercise of functions of Commission by groups of members]:

3.15 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Woolton, I beg to move this Amendment and the next one, which runs with it. I am happy to say that this is an entirely uncontroversial and really rather technical Amendment. Its purpose is to make clear that, on any given reference, work may be started before the task has been remitted to the group. Normally, the first stage of the inquiry is the fact-finding work by the staff of the Commission. The real work of the Commissioners does not begin until later. It may be impracticable to name all the Commissioners for the group at the time the reference is received by the Commission; some perhaps may not yet have been appointed and the future deployment of others may be a little uncertain. Therefore, as I see it there must be provision for getting fact-finding work under way before the group is actually set up. Nominally, of course, this work will be in the hands of the whole Commission; actually, it will be supervised by two or three Commissioners who will be the nucleus of the group which is eventually set up. The arrangement that I am proposing in the Amendment is exactly similar to the existing arrangements of the Commission. It merely relates the existing practice, which has proved sensible and workable, to the new form in which the Commission will find itself. I think the Amendment is quite uncontroversial, and I commend it to the Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 47, leave out ("and report on") and insert ("of").—(Lord Mancroft.)

LORD SILKIN

I quite agree that this Amendment and the rest of the Amendments on the Marshalled List are uncontroversial, and are an improvement on the Bill as it stands.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MANCROFT

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 2, after ("made") insert ("or (if any stage of the investigation has been begun before the direction is given) continued, and the report on the said matter or question made").—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MANCROFT moved, after subsection (5) to insert as a new subsection: (6) Where a person is appointed to be a member of the Commission during the proceedings of any such group as aforesaid, the chairman of the Commission may appoint him to be a member of the group.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is also merely formal and technical. Its purpose is to permit a newly-appointed Commissioner to be added to one of the existing groups. Were it not for the Amendment, newcomers might be unable to play their full part as Commissioners until a new group was set up. They could join existing groups only if an accidental vacancy occurred. I think one can readily accept that it might be frustrating if a Commissioner was sitting in a group and his vote was unable to carry any weight. That would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs, as the Committee will probably agree. I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule [Pensions and Other Benefits for Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Commission]:

LORD MANCROFT moved, in paragraph 3 (1)(a) to leave out "the Treasury may direct" and insert "may be prescribed." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next two relate to the pension position, to which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, referred in what I hope he will forgive me for saying was a very faintly cynical observation concerning the pension position of the regular members of the Commission. I did not want to interrupt him at the time, but I can assure him that the rather hard-hearted attitude which he attributed to the Treasury was not uppermost in the course of the remarks that I was addressing to this subject. Here we have the Treasury, I think, in a much more benevolent and generous mood.

The purpose of this series of Amendments is to clarify the pension position of the chairman and deputy chairmen—be they two or three or (though this will never be the case, I hope) four—who have had previous pensionable service under the Crown. Some special provision appears to be necessary in this respect. Otherwise, it might happen that a former Crown servant might serve a substantial total period, partly with the Commission, and partly in earlier Crown employment, without getting any pension for some—or even for all—of his service. To take an extreme example, a civil servant might serve nine years in the Civil Service and he would not then be entitled to a pension from that Service, as he had not completed ten years. Then he might serve four years with the Commission; and, again, he would not be entitled to a pension in respect of that service. So there would be an individual who, after thirteen years of public service, would not be entitled to a pension. That would obviously be very unfortunate. Paragraph 3 was intended to deal with this problem.

It was criticised in another place as being excessively generous. Some right honourable gentlemen seemed to think that it might permit "double counting"—Service pension in respect of service years, and counting them in full for Commission pension, even though a member had only a few months' service with the Commission. I know that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will agree with me when I say that that was never intended at all. Her Majesty's Government recognise that the existing position is not wholly satisfactory. The Amendments follow provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1946. The Treasury, in this case, will make regulations (subject, of course, to Negative Resolution) for each case or class of case. I am certain that that is the best way to do it. It is essential that in the case of the pensions of a rather unusual type of person there should be flexibility. Clearly, remarkable varieties of different cases and different circumstances may arise. For instance, pension may have been earned for service in both capacities, in only one, or in neither. Treasury action, in this case, will be within the control of Parliament, because there can be annulment by Negative Resolution. I am sure the Committee will agree that this is the best way of dealing with this rather queer case of pensionable rights. These three Amendments are put down on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friend Lord Woolton to carry oat an undertaking given to friends of noble Lords opposite in another place. I think that they will find these Amendments satisfactory. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 7, leave out line 7, and insert ("may be prescribed").—(Lord Mancroft.)

LORD SILKIN

I think it is only right that I should say that we are satisfied that these Amendments do, in fact, carry out the undertaking which was given, and I should like to thank Her Majesty's Government for putting them forward.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MANCROFT

I beg to move the second in this series of Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 10, leave out from ("as") to end of line 11 and insert ("may be prescribed").—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MANCROFT

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 14, at end insert— ("(3) In this paragraph the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and regulations under this paragraph—

  1. (a) may be made generally or subject to specified exceptions or in relation to specified cases or classes of case;
  2. (b) may provide that in calculating relevant service either the whole of a person's prescribed service of any description shall be taken into account or such part thereof only as may be determined by or under the regulations;
  3. (c) may make different provision for different cases or classes of case.")—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule [Supplementary Provisions relating to s. 2]:

LORD MANCROFT

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 49, leave out ("and") and insert ("or further investigation and the").—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure—I should say until about a quarter to four o'clock.

Moved, That the House do adjourn during pleasure.—(Viscount Woolton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and House adjourned during pleasure accordingly.