Lords Sitting of 27 July 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Lord St. Audries—Took the Oath.
The Lord Darling—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

THE IMPERIAL COLLEGE
2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to make known their decision on the outstanding matters in relation to the expansion of the Imperial College, on which they stated in this House on 7th December last that they hoped to reach an early decision.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL. OF SELKIRK): My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware from the recent statement made by my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary, the intended expansion of the Imperial College has run into certain legal difficulties which had not been originally appreciated, and for this reason it may be necessary to introduce enabling legislation after the Recess.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl will realise the extremely difficult position in which those responsible for the College are placed by the inability of the Government to make a decision. I sincerely hope that this decision will be given shortly to the College to enable them to get on with the detailed planning of the site.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I assure the noble Viscount that the Government are just as anxious as the Governors to come to a decision about this matter, but I am sure he will agree that, when one is dealing with a £15 million project, that is not the occasion on which to reach a "snap" decision. A decision has to be reached with full knowledge of the circumstances. But, as I have said, the Government are just as anxious as the College to get on with this particular matter.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, may I ask whether the impending legislation will, in particular, include power to pull down the Imperial Institute, in order to make room for the new Imperial Institute and for the extension of the College?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sorry, but at this stage it is not even certain that legislation will be necessary. It is certainly not possible for me to say what will be in the legislation.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: No, but will the noble Earl take steps to make sure that it does include such powers, which are absolutely vital if we are to have a satisfactory building on that site?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Viscount says and see that my right honourable friend knows that point.

PURCHASE TAX ON TABULATING CARDS
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government by what regulation, enactment, or authority Her Majesty's Customs have been able to rule that in future purchase tax on tabulating cards, previously calculated at 25 per cent. of 75 per cent. of the selling price exclusive of tax, shall be calculated, from the 1st July, 1955, at 25 per cent. of 85 per cent. of the selling price exclusive of purchase tax, and what is the justification for this further increase in costs to be imposed on public boards, local authorities, and industrial producers.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, purchase tax in respect of tabulating cards, as indeed on all other goods, is calculated on the wholesale price. Difficulty arises when there is no sale by wholesale. In such eases, under Section 21 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, the wholesale value is determined as the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, these goods would fetch in the wholesale market. In revising their assessment the Commissioners are fulfilling the duties imposed on them by Statute.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl, may I ask whether he is aware that the new decision imposes a large-scale charge upon industry, at a time when it can little afford it in competition in the export market?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am sure that what the noble Lord says is, within certain limits, correct. None the less, the Commissioners have no alternative but to fulfil the duties which are imposed on them. I can assure the noble Lord that this decision has been reached only after extensive negotiation extending over many months.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, having given us so much information, for which we are obliged, can the noble Earl tell us what is the margin allowed by the Customs Commissioners for the assumed wholesale operation?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is in the Question: the margin is 15 per cent.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Fifteen per cent.: that is the one?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Fifteen and eighty-five.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I was not sure about that.

VICTIMISATION OF NON-STRIKERS
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the case that during the
1074
recent strike of footplate men on the railways the Prime Minister broadcast personally an announcement that the strike was contrary to national interests, and that many footplate men remained at, or returned to, their posts and drove the trains to which they were directed; whether it is not also the case that since the conclusion of the strike those who remained at work have been subjected to victimisation by those who had been on strike; and, if this is so, what arrangements were made by Her Majesty's Government with the Transport Commission to prevent this state of things occurring and what Her Majesty's Government are doing to protect those who obeyed the Prime Minister by remaining at their posts.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, as an aftermath of the railway strike there have been cases where ill-feeling has been shown between men who had been on strike and others who had remained at work. The British Transport Commission have been in contact with the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen in the light of the agreement which they concluded with that Union, and the officers of the Society have, I am told, taken appropriate action in a number of cases. The trouble has died down considerably and is restricted now to a few cases only. The British Transport Commission are doing all they can to help in the restoration of good relations between all members of their staff. I do not consider that Her Majesty's Government can usefully take further action.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer and am glad that some action is being taken in the matter. May I ask whether the Department have been steadily in touch with the situation and watching it since the trouble ended, and whether they will continue so to do?
LORD CARRINGTON: I think my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and his Department are well aware of what is going on.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government not agree that the time is opportune for some measure of protection to be given to those who, not only now but in the past, have suf-

1075
fered this persecution and this cruel ostracism, as a result, so frequently, of their patriotism and their moral courage in putting the country's needs before those of purely sectional, and frequently purely selfish, interest?
LORD CARRINGTON: I should have thought it would be very much better to leave this sort of thing to the people most directly concerned—namely, the unions and employers. Speaking for myself, I should think it inappropriate for the Government to intervene in matters of this sort.
LORD REA: My Lords, would not matters of this sort fall, to some extent, within the scope of the debate which we are to have later in the afternoon, and would the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, bear the noble Lord's question in mind when he replies?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's last answer, may I also ask whether the responsibility does not fall directly upon the Government, in view of the Prime Minister's broadcast and his appeal to the loyalty of the men to remain at work?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the agreement which settled the rail strike was entered into between the Transport Commission and the union concerned, and there was in that agreement a clause that there should be no victimisation. As I said in my Answer, I do not think the Government can usefully intervene any more.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, to facilitate the course of the debate later to-day, may I ask the Leader of the House to give us some guidance? The point has been raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party that the substance of this Question might fall within the terms of that debate. Is that the sort of line that he, as Leader of the House, would like your Lordships to follow?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the Rules of Order in this House are very wide and elastic, but I should have thought that this particular point still came rather outside the question of monopolies.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Bill is in the usual form. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 19), Bill read 3a, and passed.

VALIDATION OF ELECTIONS BILL
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to validate the election of two Members of another place and to indemnify them for any breach of the law that their technical disqualification from membership of the House of Commons may have led them to commit. There is also another Bill, the Validation of Elections (No. 2) Bill, dealing with a further case, which has not yet come from another place but which we expect to receive in the course of the afternoon. I may have to ask your Lordships' permission to interrupt our affairs in order to present that Bill. The Commons' copies of the Bill are already in the Printed Paper Office.
The reason for the urgency of these two measures and for ensuring that they receive the Royal Assent today is to frustrate any attempt by a common informer to take any action during the Recess. These are not matters with which your Lordships are greatly concerned. I think all I need say is that there is no question of the bona fides of the three gentlemen or their innocence being in any way in doubt. I confess that there was some controversy in another place when the matter was debated, but it was a domestic controversy which I do not think your Lordships would in any way wish to follow. At the moment, as your

1077
Lordships know, a Committee is examining the position of those Members of your Lordships' House who, although entitled to sit, do not desire to take any part in our proceedings. I think it may be a pleasant end-of-term exercise to pass a Bill for the benefit of certain Members of another place who wish to take part in the proceedings of another place but are not entitled to do so. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, it is not customary for your Lordships to interfere in these matters, which are primarily—indeed, almost entirely—matters for the House of Commons, and I know that there is a major Bill coming along which will deal with the whole matter. I may give your Lordships this personal recollection. When I was Attorney-General in the year 1929, which such a long time ago that the noble Lord who has just moved the Second Reading of the Bill was probably running about in a small sailor's suit, I had prepared a Bill which I thought was absolutely perfect to deal with this whole matter; yet it has still not come along.
The present position represents an unfortunate state of affairs. All Governments have suffered from it all down the ages, and Members of another place have quite unwittingly offended against an exceedingly obscure law. I think it high time that we had a Bill making the law relatively plain. I hope that some improvements on the Bill I prepared in 1929 have now been evolved. Is it not possible for the Government to consider that everybody who stands for election to Parliament should have sent to hint a note explaining what the law is, in order that he might consider his position relative to the law? Although we shall, of course, pass this Bill, it is not at all a satisfactory state of affairs. I do not know the facts of this case. I know that the people concerned are innocent; but people keep getting into this sort of trouble and it requires a Bill to get them out of it. I think it well worth while considering that something on the lines I have suggested should be sent round, to avoid this sort of difficulty arising in the future.
My Lords, having said that, I would add that of course we have no objection to the passing of this Bill or the other
1078
Bill which the noble Lord has indicated we shall receive. We shall facilitate their passage into law in the usual way, but I think it would be worth while considering whether this sort of thing could not be avoided in the future by adopting the course I have suggested, or by the passing of the major Bill. But, having regard to my past experience, I am a little sceptical.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned the question of a common informer. I was under the impression that "common informing" is no longer legal. Is that so, or can one still be a common informer if one so desires?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I, too, fell into that trap. The common informer has been abolished for all purposes save that of elections.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords in view of what the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition has said perhaps I might intervene for a moment. I hope that the legislation which is contemplated will be comprehensive and will cover all possible cases. I will, of course, pass al the suggestion which he has made, but in view of the fact that legislation is impending I should have thought that it was hardly necessary to take any other action. No doubt there have in the past been numerous and most inconvenient cases, usually resulting, I think, from the ingenuity of somebody who has discovered something which nobody knew before and which, in any event, did not matter much. One cannot prevent that happening. In legislation and regulations there are always unintentional errors which lay Members of Parliament open to things of this kind; but legislation is contemplated to do just that which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition says has long been needed.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 19), Bill read 3a, and passed.

RATING AND VALUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
CORN EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.] MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.] NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
CHESHUNT URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
STOCK EXCHANGE CLERKS' PENSION FUND BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

REPORT OF MONOPOLIES COMMISSION
2.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) rose to move to resolve, That this House welcomes the Report of the Monopolies Commission on Collective Discrimination as a basis upon which Her Majesty's Government can formulate its proposals. The noble and learned Viscount said, My Lords, in rising to move the Motion that stands in my name with regard to the Report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission, I am sure that the first thing we should do is to express the gratitude of every one of your Lordships for a careful and thought-provoking document. Again, I think your Lordships will agree that this is a complex and difficult subject, and therefore, to my mind, it is an advantage that there is a Majority Report and also a Minority Report, because this fact highlights the points on which each one of us has to make up his mind. For Her Majesty's Government, the Report is not only a basis for thought but a basis of action which I shall try to put before the House.
It is important that noble Lords should have clearly in mind what the Report is about and what is excluded from its purview. With all deference to the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Report is not about any and every aspect of monopoly and restraint of competition; it is about a particular group of practices which differ in detail from each other but have a strong family likeness. They all involve collective agreements between traders requiring the -parties to discriminate in their dealings with other traders. For example, a group of suppliers agrees to give favourable terms to certain customers; a group of customers agrees to give favourable terms to certain suppliers; or a group of suppliers and a group of customers agree to give favourable terms to each other. Hence the convenient short title which the Commission have adopted for their Report—Collective Discrimination. It is important to note what the Report does not cover. It does not cover price rings because there is no discrimination here, the price being the same to all customers. It does not cover sole agency agreements and it does not cover resale price maintenance as such—that is, the question whether it is, in general, in the public interest that suppliers should prescribe and enforce resale prices for their goods. This was separately reported on in 1949 by the Lloyd Jacob Committee.
The Commission found it possible (as those noble Lords who have the Report in front of them will see at paragraph 29) to identify six broad categories of agreements, each of which may operate separately or in association with others. I hope noble Lords will think it convenient if I state them so that they may be kept in mind. The first is collective discrimination by sellers without any corresponding obligation on the buyers. The second is collective discrimination by sellers in return for exclusive buying. The third is collective adoption by sellers of a policy of imposing resale price or other trading conditions on buyers. The fourth is collective enforcement by sellers of resale price or other trading conditions. I pause here for a moment because I feel it is important that noble Lords should have in mind the clear distinction between the third and fourth categories. In relation to the fourth category, the parties are free to choose whether they will fix resale price conditions for all or any of their

1081
goods; but they agree that they will collectively enforce the conditions which any of them chooses to lay down. I shall try to indicate to your Lordships why I feel a distinction should be drawn between these two categories of practice. The fifth category is collective discrimination by buyers without any corresponding obligation on the sellers. The sixth category covers aggregated rebates.
In dealing with these categories it would be useful if I indicated, as briefly as possible, the proposals that have been put forward, first by the majority of the Commission and, secondly, by the minority, compared them and then indicated why Her Majesty's Government have taken the line which they have chosen. The majority of the group of ten members of the Commission who considered this problem—a majority consisting of seven members, including the Chairman—point out that, because these practices involve collective obligations which in some way limit the freedom of the parties in the conduct of their business, all the arrangements within the reference in some degree restrict competition. I will quote the exact words in paragraph 233 of the Report. The majority:
"do not say that in every individual case this restriction is necessarily against the public interest "
but are nevertheless
"satisfied that all the types of agreements which we have examined do adversely affect the public interest, sonic to a considerably greater degree than others."
Now it is worth looking at the matters that have influenced the majority in coming to that conclusion. They have been influenced, as they say in paragraph 234, by the fear that traders are prevented from experimenting and trying out new and different ways of business, and by the fear of undue rigidity, with its consequences. May I for a moment relate these fears of the majority of the Commission to the categories of practices which I mentioned to your Lordships? The majority say that the collective selection of favoured traders—that is categories I, II and V—
"can easily lead to the creation of a privileged group, subject to relatively little outside competition."
Then they say, in paragraph 236, that agreements on resale price policy—that is category III—
"prevent experiment and protect established traders from the competition of those who
1082
would otherwise be willing to introduce new techniques, and thus create a rigidity in trading practices which is contrary to the public interest.… The final verdict … should be left to the market, where the consumer can exert his influence and should not be reached by collective decision of traders which prevents hint from doing so."
With regard to category IV—and I invite your Lordships' attention to this because I think this is a most important point in the discussion—they say that agreements on collective enforcement:
"leave little freedom to manufacturers or distributors in choosing the trading methods and the price policies they will adopt, or to consumers in exercising a choice between better service at a higher price and a lower price with less service."
The majority express no opinion on the merits of resale price maintenance as such, but think that these disadvantages arise—and I quote again:
"to an important extent from the uniformity and rigidity of its application in many trades."
and that these are largely consequences of collective enforcement. Moreover, it is generally against the public interest, they say, for combinations of traders to be able to exercise extensive powers over individuals, and for this to be done:
"through private tribunals whose procedure cannot provide the safeguards which public justice requires."
To complete the story, I refer your Lordships to paragraph 239 where they deal with aggregated rebates. There they say that these:
"encourage the spreading of orders in ways which may not promote the most efficient production, and are likely, where common price systems exist, to render independent competition more difficult."
That is the criticism on the one side, and I am sure your Lordships will consider that it is criticism which deserves careful consideration from every one of us interested in the problem. Let me remind your Lordships that the majority go on to say that though they have not—I quote again:
"come across any instances in which we were clearly satisfied that the practices were beneficial,"
yet they think that their exceptional use might, subject to suitable safeguards, be justified in certain circumstances. I pause for the moment to point out that this is one of the acute difficulties which every fair-minded person who has tried to study the subject has come upon. In other words, it is impossible to generalise

1083
on the question of monopolies and restrictive practices without, as the majority do here, making certain exceptions. And, of course, the field of exceptions must change with the different views which different persons take.
I return to the majority, and I would point out—and I ask your Lordships particularly to note this because it is material in assessing the rightness of Her Majesty's Government's course of action—that the majority bring forward these considerable and important exceptions. The first is where consumers are not able to judge the standard of services which it is in their interests to demand from distributors and the matter cannot conveniently be dealt with by legislation. I cite that to show what I think is an important point—that is, the difficulty in the working of the exception that they make. The second is where an exclusive-buying or exclusive-dealing agreement protects an industry of strategic importance or one (and I ask your Lordships to note this) that is particularly susceptible to damage from imports, and protection by Government action is impracticable. The third is where a common price agreement is found, after inquiry, to operate in the public interest and agreements within the scope of the Commission's inquiry are necessary for its effective operation. The fourth is where the practices are necessary to enable small firms to compete with a very large concern which is, itself, employing restrictive practices. I have given to your Lordships—I have tried to do it as fairly and as objectively as I can—criticisms which the majority advance and exceptions which the majority would make. I sum up their solution by saying that they recommend a general prohibition of the practices, with provision for exceptions on the grounds I have indicated where an independent body think that a case has been made out.
I will now try to deal—again briefly—with the Minority Report. The minority are not prepared to say, on the evidence and information put before the Commission, that the practices are in general injurious to the public interest. They recognise that some may be injurious in certain circumstances, but do not think that industries should be prevented from using them without an opportunity of having their cases examined individually. They say:
1084
"A general statutory prohibition seems to us to create a degree of inflexibility in the law which might in the future prove undesirable."
The minority deal in some detail with the question of resale price maintenance, and they draw a clear distinction between "policy" agreements (that is, Category Ill) and "enforcement" agreements (Category IV). Of the first, they say that agreements and the enforcement of agreements, obliging all the parties to fix resale prices or handle only price-maintained goods, are
"likely to be against the public interest"
I draw your Lordships' attention to that—it is in paragraph 262—because it shows where the mental approach of the majority and the minority do come together. But the minority disagree, as does one of the majority, Mr. Gifford, with the view that collective arrangements for the enforcement of resale prices prescribed by individual manufacturers of their own free choice are likely to be against the public interest. That is category IV. I think that is a most important matter for your Lordships to consider.
I venture to remind your Lordships of the points that they made. They say that they see no objection in principle to persons having like interests joining together to secure the enforcement of lawful obligations to which one of them is a party (paragraph 264). In paragraph 265 they make the point that the price cutter deserves no sympathy. He has either broken one of the conditions of sale on which he bought the goods, or knowingly bought them from a wholesaler who has done so. Thirdly, they point out that it is lawful for individual manufacturers to prescribe resale prices and, if that is so, it is illogical to debar them from enforcing maintenance of these prices in the most effective manner consistent with the general law. They also point out that to forbid collective enforcement favours the large manufacturer as against the small one, who cannot withhold supplies of his goods in a competitive market without serious risk of injury to his own trade.
The minority take the view that where trade tribunals exist,
"the evidence goes to show that considerable trouble is taken to ensure that the procedure is fair and in conformity with the law. In our view, there is more reason to be uneasy where no tribunal exists—but even there we are not satisfied that in any case brought to our attention the decision was wrong on the facts."

1085
That is a very different approach, as your Lordships will see. I sum up that approach by stating their views. In the light of all this, the minority's solution is to provide for compulsory registration of all agreements coming within the reference. They say that this will provide a basis for the examination of individual agreements to determine whether or not they operate against the public interest. As I understand it, they say: let us have registration, but, having got registration, let us proceed broadly in the way we are proceeding already.
I want to ask your Lordships to consider for a moment the question of resale price maintenance. Although this was not directly before the Commission, it seems to me to be so closely allied to the matters which they were considering that it really brings us to a point on which we have to make a decision. Although the Commission did not consider this, it was exhaustively examined in 1949 by the Lloyd Jacob Committee. I am sure that many of your Lordships have read the Report of that Committee and I will not go into it in detail. What is important in the Report of the Committee is what they say on price cutting, their summary of witnesses' statements, especially those of women's organisations and the pronouncements of the trade union movement and of individual trade unionists on this vexed subject. Unless one has considered all the pronouncements from these various angles, I think it is difficult to get the question into true perspective. I especially ask your Lordships to note what the trade union movement and prominent trade unionists have said.
In the event, though the Lloyd Jacob Committee recommended a ban on collective enforcement of resale prices and thought that individual manufacturers should not use their power of enforcement so as to impede the development of new methods of distribution, they stated, in paragraph 163 of their Report:
"We recommend that no action should be taken which would deprive an individual producer of the power to prescribe and enforce resale prices for goods bearing his brand."
I ask your Lordships to take with that what the said—this was quoted by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place on July 13 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 543 (No. 27), col. 1945]:
1086
"The individual manufacturer who wishes to prescribe retail prices for his products should retain the right to do so and should in the last resort be able to enforce these prices-by taking price cutters to the courts."
I have quoted that statement because it is important that your Lordships should have the whole problem before you. It is interesting that the majority of the Commission say, in paragraph 238, that they
"appreciate that some manufacturers may at times have good grounds for wishing to be able to check extreme forms of price competition among retailers in the distribution of their branded goods, and that under the existing law the enforcement of conditions of sale in the courts, even where there is privity of contract, may well be difficult and expensive. We appreciate that distributors as well as manufacturers may be concerned at the possibility of marked and persistent loss-leader selling where resale prices are not effectively enforced."
However, the majority regard the question of whether there should be any change in the law as outside the scope of their inquiry. They content themselves with recording their view that
"collective enforcement arrangements of the kind covered by our reference do not provide an answer which is consistent with the public interest."
It seems to me that the majority of the Commission, the Lloyd Jacob Committee and the trade union comments on the Lloyd Jacob Report pose this problem, which again I shall try to state as fairly and as objectively as I can. Here is a practice, resale price maintenance, which no authoritative inquiry has condemned as such, and which manufacturers, distributors and apparently consumers and the trade union movement believe to be in the public interest. That is the one side. But for many goods the only effective way of enforcing resale price maintenance under the existing law is by collective arrangements, which both the majority of the Commission and the Lloyd Jacob Committee condemn. Moreover, the criteria for exemptions proposed by the majority, which I put shortly before your Lordships a few moments ago, though they might let in some cases of collective resale price maintenance where after-sales service or the safety of the consumer are important, do nothing to meet the fear of selective price-cutting in the field of ordinary consumable goods, for which fear the majority recognise that there is a good deal of justification.
This is not in any way a Party matter. It is a real problem to which we have all to try to provide a solution. We have to ask ourselves: how it this dilemma to be resolved? Her Majesty's Government came to the conclusion—and I shall try to justify it—that it is not to be resolved by a simple ban on collective enforcement and nothing more. Either the law must be changed to make individual enforcement easier—a problem which, believe me, my Lords, requires full and careful consideration, which I am quite prepared to give it; or there must be provision for collective enforcement (perhaps under supervision) in approved cases, and not only on the limited grounds recommended by the majority.
I ask your Lordships to consider this point—and I do not think there will be much disagreement from anyone who has had ministerial experience: that legislation on the basis of either the Majority or Minority Reports presents some thorny problems. The answers to some of them cannot be found without a good deal of further thought and discussion; but an attempt to state them may at least give food for thought to those who have ever held the view that there are short and simple answers. The general policy of the Government was announced in the other place on July 13 by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade when he said—again I state it quite shortly, but your Lordships will find the full statement in columns 1945–46 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"We intend to take power by Act of Parliament to require the registration of those restrictive practices which we shall from time to time specify.…."
And he went on to say:
"The tribunal will call upon them"—
that is, firms wishing to continue their practices—
"to come forward and make out their case for employing that particular practice."
The Government believe that their policy will obviate the need for creating new criminal offences. I think this is right, because to do so would be quite inconsistent with the ideas embodied by Parliament in the existing monopolies legislation; for example, a breach of any order made under Section 10 of the present Act does not expose the parties
1088
to criminal proceedings. I believe there is a good reason for our view. Although the detailed provisions needed would require further consideration, there seems no reason, on the face of things, why any breach of a prohibition should not, like the breach of a Section 10 order under the existing Act, be dealt with by civil proceedings, by an injunction or otherwise, and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General said that that is the method by which the decisions of the tribunal would be enforced.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Would the noble and learned Viscount give us a little further enlightment? We are anxious to understand the position in regard to the proposals of the Government for registration. A question was interpolated during the speech of the President of the Board of Trade which I do not think was satisfactorily answered. Is it proposed to have a general registration of all those who are found by the Report to come within that scope which in the majority opinion would deserve exemption? Are all these to be registered initially? If so, since there are a great many of them, obviously to deal with them will be a process of years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount may rest assured that I will deal with that point. I think one of the most helpful things I can do is to elaborate the proposals of the Government as to registration and examination, and to deal with the suggestion, which I believe is quite fallacious, that it will take more time than the majority proposals. I assure the noble Viscount that I will deal with these points, and if there is anything about which he is not clear I hope he will interrupt me again. I apologise for taking some little time to deal with this matter, but it is important, and I particularly want to deal with the points the noble Viscount has put.
The first point I was making—and I think it is an important one—is that the majority suggestion would establish new criminal offences; and as I have said, I do not think that the establishment of new criminal offences is a suitable or right method of dealing with this sphere of activity. I would remind your Lordships that many of the practices which are condemned in the Majority Report came

1089
into existence at a time when they could be justified on economic grounds, to protect the industries from the difficulties of the slump in the 1920's and the 1930's. It may well be—I concede the point at once—that they have been continued into times when the economic justification no longer applies, but the point I am making at the moment is that there is nothing inherently criminal in this. What is implicit in the proposals of the Government is that if the Tribunal decide that these practices, which are not in themselves criminal, must be abandoned, it is clearly better to deal with them as a civil matter, by injunction, rather than as a criminal offence. I emphasis what my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade said: that these are essentially economic and commercial problems, and that questions of ethics arise only incidentally.
Now I come to the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, his criticism and suggestion of excessive delay. I said that there are two points which may be made in answer. In so far as the critics favour the Majority Report—as do the Party of the noble Viscount—it is obvious that considerable delay (I believe greater delay) is inevitable if the majority proposals are adopted en bloc, as the Party of the noble Viscount desire. Again let me not put the matter on a Party argument, but on an argument of objective examination of these proposals. If a wide range of practices were to be declared illegal, and provision were to be made for exemptions—and I have indicated to your Lordships the nature of the exemptions and the terms in which they are defined by the majority—especially if the exemptions are to be the kind I have mentioned, it is certain that many industries and trade associations would seek a loophole in order to get out. They might, for example, plead that their goods were peculiarly liable to competition from dumped imports. I ant not going back over history, but many of your Lordships have as clearly in your minds as I have in mine what has happened in similar circumstances. That would be one problem.
Then, since each case would have to be examined on its merits—this is the majority proposal—it might be many years before all cases for exemption could be dealt with; and even if a volume of Case Law were built up on their pro-
1090
posals, it would not, I respectfully suggest to your Lordships, have any more effect, and probably not as much effect, as if a body of Case Law were built up on the proposals which Her Majesty's Government advance. On this point I would venture to remind your Lordships of what was said in the Economist on on July 16 in regard to the proposals of the Government, because I think it summarises the point; and in any event I shall be glad to have it answered. The writer in the Economist says:
"The advance should be carried on faster than the Monopolies Commission envisaged, because under the system proposed in the Commission's Majority Report"—
and I stress this point for the noble Viscount's consideration—
"no general prohibition could have come into effect until all appeals had been heard: under this system"—
this is the Government's system—
"each trade association will have to drop any condemned practice immediately its own case has been heard and rejected. This time advantage—between an individual ban immediately after an unsuccessful appeal is heard, and A general ban that would operate only after all appeals have been heard—could be important, because the Tribunal will presumably call up what look like the worst cases first."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I should say that that was a weak attempt to answer the much stronger argument made in The Times on July 19, two days before.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is a great thing to have quotation to counter quotation, but for the moment I shall deal with the basis of the, argument, and I hope someone will put forward the Answer, because I cannot see it. If we have to wait until all these exceptions—I am not doing anyone an injustice when I call them wide exceptions—are dealt with on an individual basis, then we shall have a long time to wait. But that is only, in a sense, countering another suggestion. It would be positive on the advantages of the Government's own suggestion. In the first place, it is clear that not all industries would wish to plead their case before the Tribunal. I do not think anyone who has examined the operation of monopoly legislation in other countries would doubt this: I do not mind which countries are chosen, and if the noble Viscount wants one for a special consideration, I refer him to the Swedish results, with which he is probably

1091
familiar. Some industries would decide to abandon their restrictive practices, or some of them, just before, or immediately after, registration. There are always some which go at that stage—at least, that has been the experience in other countries. Secondly, if all the practices are not abandoned because of the need to register, many industries will decide to give up the most restrictive features. That is also a fair inference from historical fact.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I do not like to keep interrupting, but I want to get the case clear. If that is the argument, cannot that be used in exactly the other respect—that if you have a general ban, a large number of the people within the ban will not take steps in the matter. Where does the first argument of the Lord Chancellor come in?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Because, as I have tried to point out—I am sorry if I have not made it clear—in the first case you have a general ban with four wide exceptions, and your general ban cannot be put into operation until you have decided whether an individual firm comes within one of these four wide exceptions. That takes a long time, and any individual can say, "I am within this exception even if my neighbour is not." Our proposal—and I repeat it to the noble Viscount—is that there will be registration, and then the firms will be called up to justify their practice. First of all, I say that some will not desire to be called up and will make some alteration or modification.
Now I come to the next point, and I ask the noble Viscount to follow me. After a few cases have been tried in this way, where firms have got to justify themselves, it will become clear that similar practices are likely to be dealt with in a similar way by the Tribunal. Here, it is a question of establishing principles inductively from the cases that are considered. It is not a question of trying to argue that you are within a wide exception. Here your Case Law will have accumulated effect from every class and series of cases that are tried. I put it to the noble Viscount that there is a limit to the number of variants of a particular practice, and the establishment of case law will, when applied in the way we suggest, act as an effective deterrent
1092
to unnecessary or frivolous appeals to the Tribunal. I put it another way: that this approach, as opposed to an approach which leaves open to individuals the bringing of themselves in particular within exceptions, is much more likely to have a general deterrent effect, and will be speedier. That is the way in which the Case Law will be built up.
Having heard a few representative cases, the Tribunal, unless the cases showed marked dissimilarities, would announce their decision. The decision will be that either the practices must be discontinued because they are against the public interest, or that they can be continued, or that they can be continued with modification. On our system it would not be necessary to examine all the other firms following the selected examples of the class of restrictive practices, because, in the light of the decision, there would be a general presumption that the selected practice was or was not against the public interest. I ask the noble Viscount to consider it. I do not want to be dogmatic, but if he applies his mind to the general history of people who have sought to bring themselves within exceptions and to establish a special position for their own point, he will agree that the result would be a much longer process. Therefore, the Government think that the procedure they propose would, in practice, deal more quickly with these restrictive practices—particularly the least desirable—than the majority proposals, which could not be enforced without giving traders a chance to prove that their practices came within the exceptions to the general prohibition that I have mentioned.
The noble Viscount asked me another point and I am glad to answer it. He asked: How will the registration be done, and how will the cases be called up to the Tribunal? I would remind the noble Viscount of what my right honourable friend said. He said:
"We intend to take power by Act of Parliament to require the registration of those restrictive practices which we shall from time to time specify. We shall select the ones we want and in the order we want. … The Tribunal will call upon them"—
that is, the firms wishing to operate or to continue to operate a particular agreement—
"to come forward and make out their case for employing that particular practice."

1093
My right honourable friend indicated that the Government would require firms to register their practices with the registering authority, and he also implied that an early indication would be given of what practices would be registered and, following registration, the order in which they would be examined. That is a matter for the legislation. I cannot tie the Government to the foot of the letter at the moment, but I point out that my right honourable friend made that clear.
I have used the phrase "the worst cases," and I would remind your Lordships that I drew the attention of the House to the fact that the Majority and the Minority Reports agreed on practices in category III as being the most subject to criticism on the grounds that they might he against the public interest; and indications could be given in the legislation
"that the onus to be discharged in getting category III agreements through would be a very heavy one indeed."
As my right honourable friend said,
"It might be right … that the agreements in this category should be the first to be registered and certainly among the first to be examined."
Respectfully, I am quite ready to listen, but I do not think it is a good thing to make your lists of registrations final and conclusive. There may well be other practices that you want to include and you want registered. I would deprecate the suggestion of the noble Viscount that one should have a closed list. I think you ought to have a selection made on the basis of all the information, not only the Commission's Report but the cases that they have examined and other matters that may arise, and take power to register in that way.
On the second point with regard to the calling up, again I think that it is easy, from examining both Reports, from examining the other Reports that we have had from the Commission and the various Reports that have appeared on this matter of the call-up, to take these cases which are most clearly contrary to the public interest and let the person answer them first. That is the Government's proposal. I say, as I pointed out and as one
1094
must not forget, that there is a large measure of agreement between the Majority and the Minority Reports, and among the public on the ultimate objectives: to prohibit those restrictive practices and collective discriminations and others which are contrary to the public interest. The Government have tried to synthesise the different means which ate majority and the minority suggested of reaching this objective, and have suggested a procedure which will, in practice, be the fairest and surest, and in the end the quickest, way of dealing with a very complex social and commercial problem.
I make this point. Registration will, in itself, have a powerful effect. A method can be found—and I have endeavoured to indicate the criterion—of dealing with priority of practices, both for registration and for calling up. Again, I emphasise my point to the noble Viscount that those practices dealt with by the Tribunal and of which the Tribunal disapprove will then stop. There wilt not be the period of delay which the majority suggestions involve. If the practices are not stopped, they can be dealt with by civil process. It is better to deal with them by civil process than to create new crimes. Further, I put this general point to your Lordships. I believe that every country should evolve its own method of dealing with these difficulties that we all recognise. I believe that the British method, the method that suits our country best, is that of inquiry into the facts of the practices, as to whether they are in the public interest, and, after that, for practical action to be taken to deal with them. I believe that we are carrying this out. We are taking it a stage further. Respectfully, I prophesy that your Lordships will be glad in future years that this country has evolved its own method rather than taken another method which might create injustice. I beg to move.
Moved, to resolve, That this House welcomes the Report of the Monopolies Commission on Collective Discrimination as a basis upon which Her Majesty's Government can formulate its proposals.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE TRUSTEE LIST
3.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, perhaps at this point, with the permission of the House, I may intervene to make a statement on the amendment of the Trustee List similar to that made by my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary in another place. The House may recollect that this matter was the subject of one of the important recommendations of the Committee on Charitable Trusts, of which the noble Lord opposite, Lord Nathan, was Chairman. The statement is as follows:
"The Government have given careful consideration to the suggestion of the Committee on the Law and Practice relating to Charitable Trusts (the Nathan Committee) that the range of investment authorised for trustees of all kinds should be extended. In particular, the Committee suggested that the range should comprise (subject to certain safeguards) the debentures and stock and shares (including equity stock and shares) of financial, industrial and commercial companies quoted on the London Stock Exchange. The Committee also suggested that trustees should be permitted to invest in authorised securities standing at a premium.
"In the opinion of the Government, the proposal for a general extension of the range of investment to include equity stocks and shares is open to serious objection. The very considerations which in some circumstances would lead to the enhancement of the trust funds might in other circumstances lead to considerable losses, and the Government has to recognise the possibility that the inclusion within the Trustee List of securities hitherto excluded might be regarded by the general public as conveying a measure of official guarantee of their suitability for investment. The object of the Trustee List is to ensure the safety of the trust funds in cases where, for example, the settlor has not thought fit to give a wider power of investment. Its purpose is not to offer wider opportunities to trustees to exercise the skill in investment which the management of investment in equity securities continually requires. The List also affords
1096
a protection for trustees who have to balance the interests of tenants for life against those of remaindermen. Furthermore, trustees of existing trusts can already obtain extended powers of investment either by agreement with the beneficiaries (in certain cases) or by leave of the High Court. The Government's conclusion is that any general extension of the powers of investment of trustees would not be desirable.
"As has been outlined in paragraph 17 of Command Paper 9538, the Government have it in mind to take powers to simplify the procedure by which trustees of charitable trusts can obtain wider powers of investment (on application to the Ministry of Education and the Charity Commissioners). They have given careful thought to the feasibility of introducing some similar new procedure in the case of non-charitable trusts but have reluctantly reached the conclusion that this would be impracticable. In the case of non-charitable trusts there are commonly divergent interests, the pattern of which is very varied, and considerations of a nature with which only the courts can properly deal often arise. Such difficulties are generally not involved in the case of charitable trusts, which are virtually all perpetuities.
"On the other hand, there are some minor amendments to the Trustee List which the Government propose to make. First—as the Nathan Committee suggested—the removal of the anomalous restrictions on investment in certain stocks standing at a premium. Secondly—and this is at present the subject of discussion with the representatives of local authorities—the removal of some anomalies regarding local authority stocks and mortgages. Thirdly—the inclusion of sterling securities of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Government propose at a convenient opportunity to introduce legislation to carry these proposals into effect."
3.48 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Earl for his statement, may I point out that it has long been the tradition of this House that, if statements of this sort are to be made, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party shall have some opportunity

1097
of having a sight of the statement in order that they may make, on behalf of their Parties, such comment as would seem to be useful. If we are not to have statements given to us beforehand, then I suggest that statements from another place need not be read in this House. I am sure that in this case it is a slip-up. I do not want to make an undue "song and dance" about it; on the other hand, I do not want to let this opportunity pass without saying anything about it, because it is most undesirable that statements should be made in this House, and debates interrupted, when the Leaders of the other Parties in the House have had no opportunity whatever to look at the statements even a few moments beforehand, so that they n: ay be in a position to make any comment they desire.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Earl that there is not the slightest intention to interrupt the practice to which he has properly referred. I can only express my regret that, whatever the reason, the noble and learned Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, did not receive a copy of the statement beforehand.
EARL JOWITT: Mistakes will happen, even in the best regulated families. I am sure that this was a mere mistake, but I thought it right to call attention to the practice which has always been observed and which I am sure the noble Earl would desire should always be observed in the future.

REPORT OF MONOPOLIES COMMISSION
3.50 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, your Lordships are fortunate in having the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to give such an exhaustive explanation of this most complex matter. I am sure that you would wish me to endorse the thanks that he has expressed to the Monopolies Commission for the exhaustive though, as I shall endeavour to point out, somewhat limited Report that they have produced. My excuse for being so presumptuous as to address your Lordships on this subject is that I have spent a commercial lifetime grappling with this almost intractable problem. I remember saying thirty years ago that
1098
at some time or another industry would have to justify at the bar of public opinion a number of the restrictive practices built up as a result of the economic transition through which this country had passed. The subject is vast, and those of us who know so much about it are apt to talk for a long time about it, but I am going to try to narrow down my remarks to within the compass of what I believe to be your Lordships' patience.
This is not a problem which can be viewed in the sharp colours, black or white. I think that is where a number of people make a mistake. This problem stems from the introduction into commerce in this country of the branded article which upset to an appreciable extent the age-old theories of Adam Smith. The branded article is here to stay it will grow. The branded article is the only guarantee of quality which the ordinary man in the street has to guide him. Sonic of us do not think it is as good as it might be, but at least it is better than products with no name which ate put forward as being "just as good" articles but which are sometimes rather shoddy. With the branded article has arisen price fixing and the price maintenance procedure; with it also has arisen a most vicious principle. In general terms, I say that British commerce has lost the art of competing with the one thing that really matters—the lowest possible price to the ultimate consumer. Competition has gone on in margins, margins and margins until the gap that divides the cost of production from the price which the ordinary man in the street is asked to pay has been widened out of all recognition and out of all justification.
I am going to try to address myself to this problem from the point of view of that unfortunate, unrepresented individual, the ordinary consumer. I think that my right honourable friend Mr. Herbert Morrison, made a profound statement in the debate in another place, when he said that Parliament, the trade associations and everybody, had really forgotten this individual, although he is the man who matters. All the argument I have heard upon this Report has rather tended to argue what is good for trade and industry, and not what is good for the national interest. I interpret the national interest to be the wellbeing of the 52 million people who are the backbone of the country. After all, trade and industry

1099
exist to serve the public; the public do not exist for the benefit of trade and industry.
When I address myself to this problem, I can do so only in very general terms, because in my view we have here a Report which does not really get to the heart of the problem. The Report admits it—the noble and learned Viscount, I think, read the paragraph. The terms of reference were narrow. Perforce, they had to be, because if the Commission had been given the whole problem to investigate, as I see it we should never have had a Report in the lifetime of the majority of Members of your Lordships' House. The Report says, at the end of paragraph 26:
"We are not asked to say whether we think the maintenance of resale prices is a good thing; we are asked to say whether collective agreement to adopt or enforce resale prices is or is not in the public interest."
Having lived with this problem, I fail to see how you can judge whether it is in the public interest to have a collective enforcement of a retail price unless you have inquired into the method by which that price has been fixed. That, I think, is the kernel of the trouble, because, as the Report quite rightly says, there are many things outside that. There is collective level price fixing. But level price fixing is only the start. You have level price agreements, level tendering, level agreements as regards retail prices. The next step is to maintain them, and the next step again is to enforce them. I submit that you cannot finally make up your mind whether this is right or wrong until you have started from that basis.
The noble and learned Viscount has put before your Lordships three choices. In general terms, one is the Minority Report; the second is the Majority Report; and then there are the Government proposals. Anything that I say this afternoon is rather tentative, because it is among the Government proposals that there shall be introduced a Bill to give effect to these proposals. The test will be what is in the Bill when it is presented to Parliament. The greater test will be what is in the Bill when it leaves Parliament. I think the majority of the detailed discussions had better be centred around the Government proposals when we see them in the form of legislation. I think that may save us a lot of trouble. I reject
1100
out of hand the Minority Report. I can quite understand how it was written. And let this be a warning to Her Majesty's Government when they set up the Tribunal: do not have it full of lawyers who will look at things from the legal and academic viewpoints. The Minority Report was signed by three lawyers. Nor do I think that holus bolus acceptance of the Majority Report will get us where we want to get.
If I rightly understand the proposals of Her Majesty's Government—and I make that qualification—we are going to make a far more extensive stride forward towards solving this intractable problem in that way. From my knowledge I do not think that bringing the Majority Report into operation overnight would get to the heart of this problem. That course would leave a lot of loose and ragged ends. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are sincere when they say that they will take the whole of the practices set out in the Report plus a lot of others—and I hope the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will forgive me for saying that the test of that sincerity will be the Bill—and will refer those practices to the Tribunal. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not fall into the cardinal error of trying to get agreed legislation; for if they produce a measure which is the lowest common denominator of agreement in industry, then that measure will not be worth the paper on which it is printed. The Government have to be bold and to lead.
I would accept the proposals of Her Majesty's Government as being preferable to the other two sets of proposals provided that the speed factor is such as satisfactorily to overcome the time lag in legislation. I say that because I honestly believe that the Government will go further than the Majority Report goes. I am not going to rule out that some of these practices are good; but some are evil. What has to be justified at the bar of public opinion, however, is how these prices are arrived at before they are fixed and maintained. If industry is told that before we grant them power to maintain their prices we have to be satisfied that those prices have been fixed in the public interest and publicly, before a Tribunal sitting in public session, I do not think there will be much worry with a lot of investigations; they will automatically go by the board.

1101
As things are to-day, and in the light of price-fixing to-day, I cannot find it in my heart to subscribe to the principle of collective resale price maintenance. This is not a cynical expression, but I believe that the majority of producers who are so enthusiastic in their support for resale price maintenance want resale price maintenance for the other fellow, not for themselves; having fixed their retail prices, they then, behind the scenes, give all these special rebates to selected purchasers until these who pay the price at which an article is advertised are in the small minority. Margins have widened to take care of so many selective purchasers that the gap between the cost of producing an article and what the public have to pay is now far too wide. Without any fear of contradiction, I would say that resale price maintenance has had two major impacts upon the economy of this country, both wholly bad: it has built up a huge redundancy and has attracted far too many people into the distributive trades. There are too many middlemen whose profits are fixed without competition, and this parasitical element have erected their toll gates along the distributive channels, paying little or no consideration to the economic needs of the country. Also, the practice has sheltered inefficiency. So far as the distributive trades are concerned, resale price maintenance has contributed more to inefficiency than has any single factor.
Level price fixing has kept alive in the production industries of this country more inefficiency than any other single factor. That cannot be good for the public economy. Advocates of collective resale price maintenance have to answer this question which I have never yet heard satisfactorily answered: when the ordinary purchaser pays the same price for an article in the biggest store in the country as he pays in the smallest village shop in a rural area, where does that retail purchaser receive the benefit of the supposed efficiency of the large-scale organisation? In productive industry it is an axiom that the more one produces, the lower is one's unit productive cost; but, through a rebate scale that has been introduced into distribution wholly and solely by a collective resale price-maintenance policy, the more that is sold the greater is the margin of profit.
1102
Those are sonic of the arguments that the advocates have to answer. I say quite frankly that a good case could be argued in favour of resale price maintenance, if once the public were assured that the prices so fixed were fixed in accordance with the public need and the public policy. But—let us be frank about this—there was an idea years and years ago, when some of these practices first started, that it did not matter in industry what low wages were paid or what low conditions of employment existed so long as you could undercut your competitor. Those days have long gone by. So I leave collective price maintenance which, as it exists today, does not really operate. It is a myth to a large extent, because there are so many privileged purchasers that the man who walks along the street and thinks that the price he sees advertised represents the honest opinion of the producer of the value of the article displayed is deluding himself. There are many thousands of different classes of buyers all over the country who can always buy that article cheaper.
Now, turning from price maintenance to trade courts, I must say that I have never been happy about them. I am not going to say for one moment that they are operated unfairly. But unfairness is inherent in the system, as this Report quite rightly says. You get one law for the rich and another law for the poor; one law for the big and another law for the small. We have seen Press reports of the hounding of back-street traders for price cutting. The collective activities of these people would make no more impact on the economy of this country than sticking a pin in the hide of an elephant would upset that creature. These people have been hunted and caught by the most detestable method of the agent provocateur. I should like to see an attempt made to stop the practice where it has been carried on. It does not operate against people who are among the largest and most influential people in a trade. The manufacturer does not cut off his nose to spite his face: he could not afford to withhold supplies from one of his biggest and most influential purchasers. So I believe that resale price maintenance to-day as practised by trade courts is against the public interest.
Now I come to the individual. I believe I am right in saying that the

1103
Majority Report and also the Lloyd Jacob Committee came down against collective resale price maintenance but upheld individual price maintenance. I fail to see how you can prevent any man who produces an article from putting his name on it and saying who shall and who shall not sell that article and dictating the price at which it shall be sold, so long as the conditions of sale are legal. I do not see how you could say to a producer of anything: "You shall not sell your articles to people with ginger hair," if that producer so desires. I do not see how you could say that a man could not put in his sales agreement what conditions of sale he liked so long as they were within the law. But when it comes to his taking action in concert with his fellows to bring sanctions to bear, to bring economic pressure and forces of economic life and death to bear on people trading in this country, that is a different thing.
Would it be practicable for the law to be altered so that the individual could maintain his own prices? Very likely the answer is: "Yes, it would be." But a greater degree of equity would have to go into some of the sales agreements than are in them to-day. As I say, I think it would be possible. But would those concerned do it? I doubt it. The manufacturer would be afraid that if he took sanctions against one of his own big buyers and held up supplies, all his competitors would run round to that man in half-an-hour and sign him up. Such is the belief of a great many of these people in the real principle of resale price maintenance! So I think that until trade and industry can satisfy the British public at the bar of public opinion that the prices of these protected and price-fixed articles are arrived at in a proper manner and not unduly inflated against, if I may use the expression, the common man, I think it would be better if resale price maintenance were not allowed.
That, really, is the burden of what I have to say. With those general observations I should like to reserve my judgment completely until I see what are the Government's proposals in legislation. That will be the test. I want to see how they propose that registration shall work, and how they will get over the time factor. I tried to follow the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Wool-
1104
sack very closely, and if I appreciated correctly what he said I can see that there can be a speeding up if it is done in one way rather than in the other. But I do not know whether it will not, even with speeding up, take a long time. I think the Government have really got to work this in batches. I do not like the expression "case by case": that savours to me of thousands and thousands. Batch by batch, and practice by practice, might be better. If they will do that, and if they will see that this Tribunal which they are going to set up has only one lawyer—I would have only one lawyer on any Tribunal—I think they will be on a course calculated to lead to good results. I say this with great respect to many noble Lords who are learned in the law. The chairman of such a Tribunal should always be a lawyer because there are such things as the practice of sifting evidence and ascertaining facts. The terms of reference must be far wider than the terms of reference in this document, and if they include power to inquire into these matters, and it is a condition that no trade or industry shall be allowed to carry on resale price maintenance until they satisfy the public about the method and manner in which the prices are fixed, I think we shall have made one more step in the economy of this country which will redound to the benefit of all its citizens.
4.20 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, as usual I am going to be short, but I should like to mention one or two matters about which I feel strongly. I am perturbed because the Government have brought this matter into prominence just now. As we listened to the extraordinarily clever and able speech of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack we must all have realised how complicated this question is. Already I have found, through my connection with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, that there is a good deal of perturbation with regard to the future of our foreign trade. In view of the statement made in the other place, it seems to me that there is what I may call a Sword of Damocles hanging over the whole trade and commerce of this country. If the noble and learned Viscount is correct in what he said, it will take a long time to unravel the whole problem embodied in this Report.

1105
I am not going to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. He seemed to me to be almost getting to the street corner. He seemed to be saying, "Sweeten up the rich and down with the poor!"—almost in those words.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord thinks that I said that, either I spoke badly—I expect that was the fault—or the noble Lord has misconstrued what I said. By rich and poor, I meant large and small. I had no idea in my mind of money profits.
LORD TEVIOT: Then the noble Lord was referring to big and small firms and not to rich individuals—if there are any to-day—and to the less well off. I am sorry that I misunderstood him. The noble Lord threw a stone or two at the three lawyers who added a dissenting note to the Commission's Report. I have read the Majority Report and the Minority Report, and I am bound to say that I came down wholeheartedly, so far as my limited intelligence allows me, in favour of the Minority Report. I feel that we must bear the Minority Report very much in mind, in spite of the fact that three lawyers put their names to it. What I am most anxious about is that we should retain the foreign trade we have and not lose it, as we are doing to-day. I know that the noble Lord opposite, who referred to various habits of trade in this country, is well aware that there are two things at which we must aim. One is date of delivery and the other is price. My noble friend Lord Teynham will corroborate this because, like myself, he is a director of a shipping company. My own shipping company had a definite statement from one of the biggest shipbuilding firms in this country that they could not give us a date and could not give us a price for the construction of a new ship. So we were forced to buy elsewhere. We were quoted a price a great deal lower than we should have got here, and we were given a delivery date. In fact, delivery was three months before the date arranged.
I hope that noble Lords opposite will not think I am going to cast stones at them, but there is missing from this Report one reference which I think ought to have been included in it. I am all in favour of trade unions, but I am perturbed at the situation of members of the
1106
trade unions at the present time. I am all against unwarranted and wrong restrictive practices and surely the trade unions should have been included within the ambit of this examination of the problem, because, if I do not completely misunderstand the word "monopoly," they are probably the most powerful monopoly in the country. I find it difficult to define a monopoly, and I should like the noble and learned Viscount to tell me the real definition of a monopoly. Where State monopolies have been instituted, with the possible exception of the Post Office, undoubtedly they have been a ghastly failure. The results have been high prices and enormous staffs, and the wretched consumers get the worst of the bargain all the time. That is the experience we have had in the last ten or fifteen years. For goodness sake do not let us begin to go any further in that direction!
One of the things that worries me is what a big firm—a rich firm, as my noble friend opposite likes to call it—is going to do, in view of this position. They get the offer of big business abroad and their foreign business is very material to the business they are doing here. In view of the statement made in another place, I can understand the big firm asking themselves, "What are we going to face? An Act is going to be passed which may stop some of the methods by which we have been doing business for a great many years. What is going to be the effect on the business that is offered to us to-day?" I am worried about this matter, because I know that it is in the minds of many big firms who do big foreign business. We know that every week and every month competition is increasing, as the world is recovering from the effects of the war.
I would ask noble Lords opposite to bring the trade unions right into the middle of this problem, because they are probably the most important element that should be considered in discussing it. Yet, so far as I can see, the trade unions were not mentioned in the terms of reference of the Commission. I think that is a pity. I think the trade unions themselves would appreciate it. The Trades Union Congress were consulted, but they were not brought into the middle of the picture in regard to monopolies and restrictive, practices. If they had been, I am sure that many members of trade unions would have appreciated it. That is all I

1107
have to say. I hope that this question will not be rushed—I do not think it can be. I hope that every step will be taken to make all these matters as clear as possible, and that the greatest publicity will be given to whatever deliberations take place in regard to this matter. Again, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for an extraordinarily clear speech on what is obviously a most intricate and difficult subject.
4.32 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in emphasising the debt which we owe to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for his careful exposition of this subject. As we all know, technical advance has added greatly to the complications of manufacture, and it is not surprising that in the field of distribution and marketing many new devices should have been invented, not only, as the Commission point out, under the stress of the conditions in the 'thirties but because of the prevalent desire—I might almost call it an obsession—to be more scientific in all that we do to-day. No one will question the advantage of being scientific when you are dealing with matter, and it may be permissible to be scientific when you are dealing between individuals who have approximately, at any rate, equal freedom of action. But when you come to a body which has too great a concentration of power, you may have all the qualities of tyranny in their action. I would prefer not to try to define "monopoly," as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, suggested, but rather to refer to those where there is too great a concentration of power.
I have always believed that it was one of the primary functions of government to hold a balance between conflicting interests so that there was no bullying and no tyranny exercised by one citizen on others or by a group upon the community. I do not think the Government can shirk this duty, for to do so would he to abdicate as Government. In another place the Attorney-General, referring to retail price maintenance, used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 543 (No. 27), col. 2062]:
"If we can find methods of enforcement which are effective without collective boycott
1108
and private courts, then, of course … it would be possible to prohibit such methods … if we cannot … then … we must secure adequate supervision and control over the exercise of these sanctions."
With all respect, we on these Benches do not feel that that is a satisfactory statement of Government policy. I should not like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that even if the time factor is expedited the procedure suggested in the Minority Report may be preferable to the recommendations of the Majority Report. Nor should I like to follow him in the sort of investigation which he envisages, not only into restrictive practices but into whether prices are fair or not. It may take a long time to investigate particular restrictive practices, but if the price that is asked for any commodity is to be investigated, I do not know where our investigations are likely to end.
Surely the only fitting attitude for the Government to take is to say that certain methods are not permissible, and then leave business to adopt methods which are within the rules which the Government lay down to prevent the possibility of oppression or exploitation. Hardship in the trade is not the only issue, as the Commission have pointed out; nor is it even the most important issue. Few in the trade may complain: presumably to have taken such deep root these practices are not unremunerative, at any rate to those in the circle, and most manufacturers and distributors have been tempted inside. We all realise that the problem is complicated, because the practices complained of are so widespread. But I think it is obvious that mere registration of restrictive practices, followed by individual investigation, must take years, and will create the impression that the Government are not in earnest in this matter. I do not believe that this can be the wish of the Government, in view of the clear promises which were made by leading members of the Government in the recent General Election.
The Majority Report is quite explicit in this matter. It says:
"We are satisfied that all the types of agreement which we have examined do adversely affect the public interest."
We ask the Government, therefore, to start by specifying certain practices as illegal. I do not suggest a wide range of practices, as the noble and learned

1109
Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, feared, and if exceptions are to be granted, I think they will be very few. My suggestion is that all forms of collective enforcement, including private courts, should be made illegal and I would include within the term "collective enforcement," enforcement by a large supplier where no alternative competitive supply is available.
I have great sympathy with the desire of the Attorney-General and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack not to create more criminal offences. Prevention by injunction might well be tried; but if so, the procedure must be made simple and inexpensive—and at the moment it is neither. This would leave contracts between individual suppliers and distributors without any appearance of duress, and enforceable in the ordinary courts. I do not think one need feat what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggested, because it would be a question not of stopping the supplies, but of bringing a claim for damages for breach of contract under agreement to supply; and to refuse to supply after such an action would, of course, be made a practice which would not be permitted. I think that this method of individual enforcement conforms to the trade union view to which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor referred. At the same time as this first measure, is introduced, the Government could proceed, as is their declared intention, to require registration of restrictive agreements; and in our view this requirement should apply to all the restrictive practices dealt with in this Report. We hope that the Government will not limit this by themselves specifying only particular restrictive practices. They can be classified after registration in their order of importance.
I should like to say a word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said in the matter of grade union restrictions. While on this subject, surely the registration of restrictive practices so that the public may be the better informed, should be widened so that we have also the registration of other restrictive practices not included within the terms of reference of this Commission, and, in addition, any such practices imposed by the trade unions. In no case is judgment passed upon these particular practices by the requirement of registration. But
1110
surely the public have the right to know what devices are practised in the interests of a group or section of the community which may or may not be acceptable on their merits.
We must not lose sight of the bearing of this subject which we are discussing to-day upon the problem of checking inflation. It is not increased dividends that have to be attacked, as has been suggested in some quarters, if we are to check inflation. They may to some extent reflect the inflationary trend. But what must be ruthlessly attacked is restrictive practices of all kinds which artificially put up prices. I am sure that if what I have suggested is put into operation it would, in particular, have a salutary effect in the building industry. The present over-high costs in that industry are one of the greatest threats to an expanding economy. That is why I ask that the trade union restrictions should be considered alongside the restrictions practised by the suppliers of materials.
Finally, we should like to stress that, in our view, these restrictive practices which have grown up have been facilitated and multiplied under the cover of tariff protection and other devices to limit competition. This is particularly true of the large combines. The relation between tariff and reorganisation was made abundantly clear in the discussions with the steel industry in the 1930s. Tariffs facilitate the formation of combines which, when in being, use their influence to preserve them. A Board of Trade committee, when it was considering industrial efficiency in 1927, said that a protective tariff offers inducements to combination with a view to limiting competition. This comment has been more than justified by events. Subsidies plus compulsory marketing schemes have a similar effect, and I think, for example, that the trawler owners would find it difficult to justify before a Tribunal some of their actions in regard to fish. This tariff aspect should, we consider, be included in the terms of reference for further inquiries. The threat of the withdrawal of such protection might well prove a powerful additional deterrent to procedure by way of injunction.
I hope that one other aspect of this subject, which has not been before the Commission, will not be overlooked by Her Majesty's Government. There are

1111
quite a number of nationalised institutions, Government Departments, nationalised industries and corporations which keep approved lists of persons or companies for a number of purposes. Of course, integrity and financial capacity are proper tests for anyone to be put on an approved list, but I should like an assurance from the Government that they will issue a reminder to all these institutions that such lists should be overhauled from time to time and, in particular, that they should not be used in restraint of competition by a refusal to put a proper applicant on the list. One still hears stories of lists which were compiled on pre-war statistics, or at the time of the nationalisation of an industry. In a changing world we must avoid this sort of rigidity of which the Commission complained. I should like to see the Government taking the initiative by example in this matter. Monopoly and monopolistic practices can flourish only with the support or connivance of Government. The responsibility of seeing that these practices do not flourish rests squarely on the shoulders of Government, and the declarations of Ministers confirm that they accept this responsibility. We await action, and action which is adequate to deal with the abuses which have crept in and which have gone so far that they threaten the structure of free enterprise and competition in this country.
4.48 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will not, I hope, expect me to comment on the further suggestions that he has just put forward to your Lordships, particularly the interesting ones that he brought forward in the latter part of his speech where he suggested a widening of the scope for investigation. I am sure we shall all read the speech to-morrow in Hansard with the greatest interest. Personally, I should like to address your Lordships briefly, and to confine my remarks to one or two general points. To do otherwise would get one involved in a maze of detail which would probably lead nowhere, for much of the detail one might feel like mentioning may be beside the point when we come to read the Bill which we understand Her Majesty's Government will be introducing, we hope in the course of the next few months.
1112
I should like to make one general point first—it has already been made, but I think it cannot be made too often. It is that the matter which we are discussing is a commercial point. It is not a political issue, and it must only and can only be discussed on the basis of its being a commercial matter. I say that because, reading with some care the debate in another place on July 13, I was rather disturbed to find from time to time that a certain amount of what I could only describe as political prejudice seemed to arise. It was allowed to creep in on more than one occasion. One got the sort of innuendo that the motive behind the various schemes and practices which are dealt with in the Report must, of necessity, be sinister or immoral; that it was ridiculous to suggest that they were other than at times dishonest; that it was wrong to think that these schemes had in fact been originally conceived as a sincere attempt to enable some particular industry to give service to maintain its quality, perhaps to strengthen its opportunities for research, even to protect its employees; and that the overriding motive could only be—and here I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT in another place—that
"some firms or groups of firms might make a bit more profit,"
suggesting that the only motive that actuates those who direct industry is the question of how much profit they can possibly make.
To discuss this important, technical matter on that line, or with that background, would be entirely wrong; and no one in your Lordships' House who has spoken so far this afternoon has got anywhere near it. But I think it is worth mentioning, because this matter is of great interest, not only in Parliament but in the country as a whole. One wants, however, to make quite sure that that point of view is not allowed to creep in. Indecently high profits are, obviously, indecent and immoral, but profits from industry, whether from nationalised industry or from private industry, are an essential part of our economy. If there were no profits, or if private industry, shall we say, were to follow the pattern of some of the nationalised industries in the way of profits, where would the Chancellor of the Exchequer be when he came to look for his revenue? Where would the Welfare State be? Where

1113
would the money come from for development, for progress, for reseach and for all the essential investment that is necessary if this country is to continue to exist at all?
I would say—and the writers of the Majority Report seem to agree with this point—that most of the schemes and practices referred to, at the time they were started, were conceived with sincerely held motives. I would go further and say that most of those schemes are to-day being carried on as such. Again, the Majority Report agrees with that, for in paragraph 25 it refers to many
"who feel strongly and sincerely that their arrangements are in the general interest."
That is not to say that those schemes are right or wrong, black or white, or some shade of grey, but it means that it would be both unfair and ungenerous, and I think would be doing a disservice to all in industry—who are, after all, trying to earn a living and at the same time trying to assist the national economy—to question their sincerity. I think that is important. Whether the practices are right or whether they are wrong, they are not, as the noble and learned Viscount has said during his most interesting speech, the work of criminals; and to approach this matter as if they were—and, having listened to the noble and learned Viscount's description, I am still of the opinion (I may be corrected) that the Majority Report's suggestions, if they were carried through, would count all these people as criminals—would at once undermine all the good will that inspires the genuine attempts of industry to heed the exhortations of successive Governments since the war, of both Parties, to produce and export more. I believe that the psychological aspect must not be lost sight of in anything that Her Majesty's Government may decide to do.
It is because of that that I particularly welcome what I regard as the statesmanlike approach that Her Majesty's Government have announced towards this problem. Also, for the same reason, I welcome the refusal to be stampeded into hasty legislation which in my view, whatever it was, would be bound to be unfair to somebody. I have read a good deal of the Report and find it most interesting. I agree with other noble Lords who have paid their compliments to those who have done so much work to produce both the Majority and the Minority Reports, but
1114
what I have just been saying is strengthened, I think, by what the three eminent members of the Commission wrote in their Minority Report when they said (paragraph 255):
"The evidence and information put before us do not in our view justify so sweeping a condemnation."
If one takes paragraphs 255 and 256 and considers them in conjunction with paragraph 25, where the Majority Report, in arriving at their conclusion, said:
"We have had rather to attempt to make broad general judgments taking into account both the views of those who have come before us and our own assessment of the effect of the practices …"—
and there may be other paragraphs—I think it is clear that the only proper course for Her Majesty's Government is to proceed with a due amount of caution, though that is not by any means to suggest that what they do should not be both firm and effective.
Of course, there is much that we do not yet know about the details of the Government's proposals: the constitution of the Tribunal; its exact function; whether it is to be advisory or judicial; how it will work; what is the right of appeal that will be given to those industries whose practices are condemned. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government are hard at work on that point, and one knows that those who are interested in this in industry are also giving it a considerable amount of thought. I hope, and feel some confidence, that as a result of those considerations there will be opportunities before legislation is introduced for an interchange of ideas between industry and Her Majesty's Government. I may be wrong (the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will correct me if I am), but I rather sensed from one remark he made that he feared that the Government might allow themselves to be too subservient to the views of industry. I do not know whether he meant that but I hope that that fear is unfounded.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is precisely what I meant. I am afraid that the vested interests in this will bring sufficient pressure to make the Government give way on a number of points on which they should not give way. If the Government do not yield, then they will deserve the thanks of everybody.
LORD ROCHDALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord and am glad that I put the question to him, because he has confirmed the point that I made. All I would say, speaking for myself, is that I have every confidence that, whilst industry may put strongly its point of view, Her Majesty's Government will take their own line when they see what is right.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hope so.
LORD ROCHDALE: There are, however, to my mind four general essentials that must be watched. First, nothing must be done to weaken the enthusiasm and energy which is now being shown by industry in its great task. That is not to condone any practice which may be shown to be against the public interest; nor is it to suggest that Her Majesty's Government should not press on with what it obviously becomes their duty to do. But it is to avoid losing what, to my mind, is a priceless national asset which we have at the moment—the degree of team work between Government Departments and industry, which I think is of immense importance when we come to consider our overseas trade.
The second point I want to make is that nothing must be done which might give an industry whose practices are condemned the feeling that such opportunities as it may be given for appeal are not genuine. The opportunities for appeal must not be suspect in the eyes of those who have to invoke them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: The noble Lord knows so much about this matter from the manufacturers' side that I should like to put this question to him. When he stresses the overseas position, is he arguing that we should have especially gentle treatment in regard to the agreement in this country, but that when he goes to New Zealand or Canada with his goods he need not do something similar to what is proposed? There is permanent legislation in New Zealand and in Canada to prevent this kind of collective restriction on price; action has been taken by the Governments concerned. Is the noble Lord arguing that he would be content to export to two such countries and to expect the restriction of these practices there, but that he wants them to be continued here?
LORD ROCHDALE: I was not dealing with the point that the noble Viscount has in mind. What I was saying was that to-day, thanks to a considerable amount of mutual team work between Government Departments and industry, a great many of the difficulties that our exporters meet in their overseas trades are mitigated. That situation is obviously arrived at by good will on the side of the Government Departments and of industry, and we do not want to do anything that might upset that. That is not to say that one should pander to industry when industry is palpably doing something that is wrong. I hope that meets the noble Viscount's point.
The third point that I wanted to make is that every effort should be made to hasten a decision on any particular practice that may be questioned by the Tribunal. Again, that is not to suggest that there should not be adequate time for proper investigation. But with any period of investigation, there is a period of uncertainty for the industry, and it ought to be made as short as possible. A certain amount has already been said about this question of time. Will the procedure of registration and justification take too long? I would say that there can be no possible simple short cut towards solving this problem. To attempt one, I believe, would easily land us in far worse problems. Looking at the relatively small number of serious disclosures that the Monopolies Commission's individual reports have so far brought to light, I should expect that Her Majesty's Government's present plans would achieve more, and achieve it more quickly, by dealing first with those practices which more obviously call for justification than by some sweeping and more general legislation, which could only let loose a flood of argument and problems, and a good deal of heartburning as well, and would require years to unravel.
My last and fourth point deals with the question of what is the public interest. All I want to say on that point is that in laying down or deciding what the public interest shall be (I realise that Section 14 of the original Monopolies Act deals with this point) the system must be sufficiently flexible, not only as between one industry and another, or as between one practice and another, but also—and this is perhaps even more important—to take

1117
account of changing economic circumstances. My Lords, when the noble and learned Viscount was speaking, he did not mention those four points as such, but listening to what he said I got the impression that he already had them clearly in his mind. Therefore, I conclude by again saying that, in my view, Her Majesty's Government have so far taken the right step; it only remains to be seen how they go from there. Provided that they exercise wisdom, tact and determination to push through the essentials, then I believe that they are on the right lines.
5.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I would venture to make only one or two comments, in view of the thorough way in which the points have so far been discussed by your Lordships. There is, I think, one most pertinent matter which runs through the whole of the debate and derives from the instructions given to the Commission before they made this Report—I refer, of course, to the exclusion of any question of the rightness or wrongness as such of individual price maintenance. It seems to me that this is the foundation of the difficulties in which we find ourselves. As has been said, these schemes, of one sort or another, derive mostly from the times when trade was bad and manufacturers and traders wanted to maintain the level of the value of their products as best they could, and over a period of years the system of practices in regard to which we have the comments of the Report has grown up. In two places, if not more, the majority of the Commission refer specifically to the fact that, while they are not permitted to discuss individual price maintenance, they are bound to observe that there seems to be no other alternative than the collective system which was remitted to them. The Minority Report makes the same sort of comment.
Throughout the Report one sees that the efforts of the individual manufacturer to maintain his own prices are bound to be considerably weaker than the efforts of a group acting collectively. I think it is agreed by most people that abuses have crept into the collective system and that many of them should be modified or prevented. But what I think we lack is a more positive suggestion as to how manufacturers may keep up their indi-
1118
vidual prices by any action which remains open to them, without resorting to the collective practices which are, to a greater or lesser extent, condemned by various bodies of opinion. To put it rather crudely, it is all right to maintain your price if you do it individually, but it is all wrong if you do it collectively. I am not disagreeing with those who say that there are abuses which ought to be checked, but I think that there is a gap in the thought which has followed from what appears to be the incorrect terms of reference to the Commission. Lord Lucas of Chilworth pointed out that had that limitation not been put on, too lengthy a period might have elapsed before any Report was received; but it seems to me very material that it weakens the deductions one can draw from the Report which we are discussing.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made a most interesting contribution to this debate. As I understand it, his argument on prices as such was that before setting up a Tribunal or any other body which might be set up as to the necessity and propriety of some form of collective price maintenance system, the individual differences of prices had to be established—briefly, the margin between what the manufacturer receives and the purchaser pays. I follow the noble Lord as far as saying that the interests of the consumer must come first in these matters, but to that I would add (and I am sure the noble Lord would agree) that, while that is essential, it is also essential that industry must earn its keep.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I believe that if individual detailed prices or margins were discussed in relation to the approval or otherwise of price maintenance schemes, the matter would become so complicated as to be almost unworkable. With the noble Lord, however, I should like to see a simplification of the distribution system which might increase efficiency and in many cases reduce such margins. I feel, however, that that matter is beyond the scope of anything that may be done in the Bill now under consideration. Next to that, a difficult point will be the definition of that which is going to do harm in the practices which are to be considered. The wording of the present Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act

1119
would seem unsuitable for this purpose. A definition must be found. Whichever body is appointed to carry out the work of this Tribunal must have terms of reference and instructions, and, naturally, must be given some lines on which to work. I find it very difficult to imagine precisely how a definition as between what is right and what is wrong in these collective practices can be reached.
It is fair to say that throughout the Report of the Commission, as expressed by both the majority and the minority, while the conclusions that certain practices are probably harmful are fairly drawn and seem to be right, there is, on the other hand, little detailed statement or evidence as to precisely what harm has been done. I point that out to emphasise the difficulty of wording that part of the Bill which is to be passed for this purpose. If the Commission had had more complaints before them, or more detailed criticism, it would have been that much easier. Nevertheless, I believe that Her Majesty's Government are on quite the right lines.
I do not take the same view as some noble Lords in regard to the time factor, because the object of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be, first, to discourage people from carrying out practices which are thought to be harmful. If they can be so discouraged without having to be brought to a Tribunal, or having to appeal in any way, so much the better. It is the public interest which matters. It would be a very important part of the procedure so to adjust the timing as to make it clear when the Act is passed that it has powers and teeth, but carefully to arrange the period so that the various associations, industries and trades can adjust their affairs to bring themselves within what appears to be the law under the new Act. I hope, too, that Her Majesty's Government will not listen too much to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that the possibility of removal of tariffs should be held over the head of various trades rather like a stick over a naughty boy, warning them that if they do not comply with the Monopolies Act the tariff will be removed. Such action would be far too hazardous and hasty.
I do not agree that Her Majesty's Government are in any danger through
1120
consultation with industry. It would be wise to talk to the people responsible for the trade of this country, those who are organising the earning of this country's livelihood and who know these matters in detail. I do not believe that any leader of industry will approach this matter with any attempt to hoodwink or deceive the Government, and I have sufficient faith in this Government to believe that they would not be hoodwinked if that did happen. The best results can be produced by a measure which has been discussed with leaders of trade and industry. That course would have the great benefit of leading, rather than driving, people into the way in which the Government and the people feel these things should be conducted.
Let us get out of the atmosphere of thinking that these things are criminal, selfish or wrong. They were started and were necessary in their time, for very good reasons. They have become out of date and redundant and even, I think noble Lords will agree, harmful. But let us not think of them, in the way in which they have been referred to during discussions in some places, as being petty and selfish. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will agree that, in their time, these practices have done a great deal of good. I could quote a rather different but parallel example. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to tariffs in connection with the steel industry. Had we not had the Import Duties Advisory Committee and steel tariffs I doubt whether we should have had as much steel as we had during the war. That is not, of course, a restrictive practice but relates to a maximum price imposed by Government powers; in a sense, however, the idea is not dissimilar. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue in the way that they have announced.
5.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate upon what is to me an intensely interesting subject and one which has been near to my heart for the last fifty years. Frankly, an attempt to get behind the difficulties involved in monopolies or restrictive practices in restraint of trade and to the detriment of the public weal has been a large part of my public life for nearly forty years. I agree with my noble friend

1121
Lord Lucas of Chilworth that the only basis from which Parliament can approach this subject is the position of the consumer. If the consumer can be justly dealt with, we may depend upon it that, in the long run, under any decent efficient organisation of industry and distribution, the traders concerned are bound to be satisfied. I have very strong doubts on the extent to which, according to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, some of these practices may have fallen to the point where their continuance is justified, or whether they may have done some good. That probably will remain a matter of difference of opinion between the noble Viscount and myself on this occasion, and possibly on many others when the Bill comes up for discussion.
First, the general interests of the consumer must at all limes be set before Parliament. In the history of Parliament, over the last 250 years, the position of the consumer has never been adequately represented. I say that in the presence of the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party, because although Liberals often made good speeches, and sometimes did good things on behalf of sections of the community, the case for the consumer has never been really thoroughly maintained in Parliament in our modern times. If you take an analysis you will find some interesting facts as to the composition of Parliament. I have been refreshing my memory. I have had the impudence to read one of my own essays which I wrote nearly thirty years ago. It is entitled Parliament and the Consumer. One finds that Parliament has been made up largely of certain sections, especially on the representative side. History shows that a cross-section of its make-up reveals substantial proportions of representatives of the professions, the industries, directorships, finance and so on. And history shows, beyond doubt, that in general the bulk of our legislation has been for certain interests and not, in the main, for the general body of consumers.
I have been taking up that matter all my public life. I have striven always to get the position of the consumer properly stated and, wherever necessary, defended. For that reason, I have given most of my life to the Co-operative movement, and if it were not for the position the Co-operative movement holds, and for the fact that the Co-operative movement
1122
stated its collective case against these restrictive and abominable practices, you would not have had the body of evidence which has been given to the Commissions, one after another, which have been organised in respect of the different trades. You would not have had that evidence upon which to make as much progress as has been made towards this decision. It fell to my lot on more than one occasion to have to prepare and submit evidence to the various Commissions, but I think that never, until the days of these post-war Parliaments, has any really serious consideration been given in any Parliament to the question of the growth of monopolies and the fears for the consumer resulting from the spread of these general restrictive and price-fixing practices.
I do not want to spoil the effect of what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said with regard to the setting up of tribunals in the future. He said that he hoped there would never be more than one lawyer on any such tribunal, and that the tribunals should be widely based in order to give them a comprehensive range. Your Lordships are aware that we had a remarkable opening speech by a great lawyer—one who has reached the summit of the just and reasonable ambition which might be entertained by any lawyer in the country. I was so much taken with that speech that I looked up a little passage in the essay to which I have referred. I wrote this when I was dealing with the constitution of Parliament in relation to the defence of the consumer. Because I want to put myself right with the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, so that he will understand that I am grateful to him for the way in which he introduced the debate, I am going to quote the passage. It was written in 1929, which makes it not too ancient as legal records go:
"Many brilliant lawyers first made a name in Parliament, and some of our most famous statesmen, past and present, have at one time been engaged in some branch of the legal profession, sometimes, to their credit, surrendering golden fees for public service and the relatively modest income of a Minister of the Crown. Generally speaking, too, politics has some reward to give to lawyers in employment in Crown cases, and in such remunerative advancement as may be found in appointments as Law Officers of the Crown, or even the summit of all lawyers' ambition, the seat of the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack."

1123
That was a comment which I then made on the situation, and I would not withdraw from it after all these years. I should say, speaking both with reference to my noble and learned Leader and to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, that they are among those lawyers with records of the greatest and most distinguished service who have given up very much larger incomes in order to render public service. So whatever more I say about lawyers in the course of my speech, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not think that I am making any personal references.
When I look at the Report of the debate which took place in another place on July 13, and analyse some of the speeches, I can see some grounds for the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on lawyers, because I found a division of opinion on both sides of the House; and those who were usually defending any kind of encroachment on the consumers' rights and who would see these practices continued were frequently lawyers. If I have any wide and general criticism to make with regard to the kind of policy which the Government now propose to adopt, it is that this is going to be a fine thing for the lawyers—it really is. There is going to be one long process of getting counsel and other people to justify what is done in these individual cases. It is all very well for the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to say that it is a great mistake to think of making these various practices the basis, as it were, of a crime, and to deal with them as criminal cases. I gather that he suggests it is very much better to deal with them, one by one, as civil cases. When we delve deeper and deeper into this matter we find that where big business is concerned we seem to be getting away from some of the primary principles on which the old law and the practice of industry under the law were built up.
I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, like myself, must be a member of some City Guild or Company. We look back into history from time to time to see how we have progressed, and in this connection I am going to quote again from my own little writing of years ago because it
1124
refreshes my memory. I see that I wrote this:
"It is evident from a study of our English history that the consumers' interest was by no means overlooked in the Middle Ages. Our ancestors of that day regarded as essential an ample supply of pure food. Every town had its Assize of Bread and Ale, which fixed standards of quality, measures, and, in most cases, price, and there is a record that the Government of 1266 issued an Act which enforced the local assizes and fixed a general price."
I made a bit of a study of this matter. I am a Warden of the Bakers' Company, and I find that at one time we were charged with the duty of the assize of bread. In regard to justice to the consumer they were then far and away ahead of Parliamentary practice to-day in dealing with those practices. I further wrote this:
"In those days the view was held that there was a 'just price' for commodities which would ensure an honest living to the producer, that you were not justified in compelling the people to pay more for necessities in time of scarcity, and that no commercial crimes equalled those of the forestaller and regrator."
If the noble Viscount Lord Ridley, had been here, I should have assured him that I did not want anything to be done to prevent a just price for the producer. Anyone who looks back on the war of 1914–18 and thinks of the £4,000 million which was the assessed amount of profit-making, the extra profit of profiteers in the First World War, knows what is meant by the passage:
"you were not justified in compelling the people to pay more for necessities in time of scarcity.…"
What is the modern man or company who withholds goods from the consumer in time of scarcity but a "regrator"? What are those who support collective price maintenance but "forestallers and regrators." I should like the lawyers to answer that. I suggest that it is the same thing.
Again, I wrote this:
"To corner or forestall the market by buying supplies before they reached it, or by purchasing large quantities to sell at a higher price (or regrating) was the last stage of commercial immorality."
I do not think your Lordships' House should be quite so tender about regarding these things which are still being done, as only civil indiscretions or something of that kind. The basic law of our country in the old days regarded them as a crime, and they were so included

1125
in the administration of justice then—both local justice as it was exercised, as well as the national legislation as it gradually developed.
I look back at the history of my own, movement and I claim, and claim with justice, that the Co-operative consumer movement in this country has grown up to be the main bulwark of the consumer in this country. When I look at the record of Governments, while I am most anxious to fall in with the spirit of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that so far as possible these matters should be dealt with in no Party spirit, I am bound to say that in my period of some thirty-five to forty years of public life, I have found little to encourage me to believe that we should get special treatment of the case of my comrades in the Co-operative movement from the other side. The Co-operative consumers' movement sprang from the injustice, the exploitations and the profound wickedness of the capitalist system in the early part of the nineteenth century. It was founded by a handful of cotton weavers—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, is listening because it was founded in the town from which he takes his title. They were poor because they were robbed, and they were robbed in buying their goods because they were poor. They founded their own co-operative society, in order that they might save themselves on the price. And the early history of the Co-operative movement was that as soon as a few local centres copied the Rochdale example they were boycotted. There was the immediate sin of boycotting and forestalling. The final result was the setting up of the Co-operative Wholesale Society to take the place of the boycotting wholesalers; and that Society has gradually grown until now it is the largest trading organisation in the whole country.
What is the experience of the Cooperative Wholesale Society? Let us take their evidence to the Commission—and, incidentally, on the question of evidence I should like specifically to put to the noble and learned Viscount, and to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, this point: that if the Government are to introduce legislation, as apparently they are, in the autumn, it will be advisable to publish the evidence upon which this Report is based. Most of the evidence laid before them was written,
1126
although there are six or seven oral passages, marked with asterisks in the Report, which, from the names mentioned—though I am not going to mention them—I should judge to be most interesting. I think that when Parliament comes to make up its mind what is going to be the first major step in permanent legislation to deal with this great evil in our national life, it will want a record of all this evidence, because this question is going to be most controversial.
I say straight away, from the evidence submitted by the Co-operative movement, that toilet articles, groceries, cigarettes and tobacco, chocolate and sugar confections, stationery and books, hardware, bicycles and motor-cycles, motor-cycle accessories, electrical goods and electric lamps, radios and televisions, refrigerators and refrigerating equipment, dental goods and all kinds of developments from any one of these trades have all been subject, and are subject, to collective resale price maintenance. I find that that is confirmed by the Report of the Lloyd Jacob Committee. Co-operative consumers have proved clearly that in this very period during which this Government, on top of other Governments, have had to deal with a very serious financial position, and when it is vital to the interests of this country that we should be able to keep our cost of living as low as possible, because of its effect on the cost of labour in producing for export, the one place in which we could make a serious contribution towards redeeming the pledges of the Conservatives in 1951 is in passing on to the general public as great a part of the surplus between the prime production costs of articles and the final price to the consumers as is justified by the greater efficiency of modern distribution. There is no possible doubt that that is not being done.
I claim that between £400 million and £500 million of ordinary household purchases are reflected in the index of the cost of living which ought not to be there at all—they are what Professor J. A. Hobson, in his Science and Wealth, would have described as "surplus profit": not merely profit, but surplus profit. Anybody who knows anything of conditions in the trades I have mentioned knows that in many cases the prime cost of articles is no more than 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of

1127
the retail price, and that it is a common thing in these industries to allow 50 per cent. to cover the wholesale and retail margin. How do we expect to deal with a problem like this, when, in spite of increasing outputs, the cheapening of the basic costs of production by the increased use of machinery and the extension of new systems of distribution like the self-service shop, the same final retail prices are still claimed from the consumer?
I will give an illustration to bring the matter home to noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is going to reply seems to have some doubt—No? I beg his pardon. If we take the trade figures of the Co-operative movement for 1954, we find that their retail turnover was £792 million, distributed amongst 11,700,000 members, who have banded themselves together to get the most efficient supply of goods and services through their own organisation. After paying trade union wages—in the distributive trades only about 10 per cent. of employees outside the Co-operative movement are in trade unions—we have a surplus amounting to £52 million to £53 million. That is divided between a small fixed-rate interest on capital, averaging not more than 3 per cent., and the co-operative consumers, serving to reduce their cost of living. If this system were applied to the total distribution and production of goods for the home market, it would mean that my claim would be made good: that in the amount of money required to meet the cost of the standard of living some £400 million to £500 million is being dissipated in what J. A. Hobson would have described as wasteful profit, instead of being used to increase the spending capacity of the great majority of the people of this country.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, does the noble Viscount wish to intimate to us that the prices charged by the Co-operative stores all over the country are less to the consumers than those charged by any other organisation? I just want to know.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am glad to have that question asked. Because the consumers in the Co-operative movement own their own business, they have the benefit, in
1128
the final adjustment of their income, over an accounting period of six months or a year, of a substantial addition to their purchasing power, because they get distribution of the collective results of their co-operation given back to them.
LORD TEVIOT: The "divi."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In the dividend, certainly. What we complain about in the Co-operative movement is that, while we have a great deal of production and we fix a price, our price to be charged by other people is always a maximum and not a minimum price. We do not ask any store selling our goods, who can sell at a lower price than we fix because their distribution is more economic and efficient, to stick to the fixed price. Our aim is the maximum price. Yet we say to every one of those traders and producers who go on with these collective price-fixing arrangements: "We want to buy your goods. It does not matter what your price is, we will pay it. We do not ask you how it is made up; we do not ask you what is the proportion of profit you have made; but we assume that in putting this on the market you have covered yourself in all your production costs for raw materials, for labour, for plant and overheads and in every detail, and have covered yourself in profit sufficient for you to be able to maintain and replenish your resources in your industry. If that is so, we are willing to charge that price of yours across the counter. But if we do not ask questions about your profit and what you do with it, or your method of distribution, you have no right in this free England to ask what we are doing with our surplus, especially when we use that surplus only for the benefit of the community, and we block out no single entry into that organisation under any conditions whatsoever." That is all.
There is nothing here that comes within the definition given by Professor Taussig. I may tell the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that I was astonished to find that in our wonderful Library in the House of Lords we had not a copy of Professor Taussig's works; it is a useful set to have about, and I wanted to consult it to-day. Professor Taussig made it clear in his definition what kind of things these are. There are two classes of monopoly: there is a public monopoly, owned on behalf of the State or the

1129
municipality, and the other sort of monopoly, which is a monopoly, says Professor Taussig, in order to provide increasing profits and to restrain trade in other directions for the purpose of those profits and for the benefit of a limited number of shareholders. That is the kind of monopoly we are up against; that is the kind of monopoly we are fighting. I can see no virtue at all in playing about with the situation any longer.
I now come to the more controversial questions, from my point of view, on which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack endeavoured to instruct me during his clear and lucid speech. I am afraid he will find I do not accept all his views about the situation. The President of the Board of Trade, a lawyer (I would recommend both him and certain other lawyers in the House to go back to some of the elementary books on economy and trade, if they have not been in trade themselves: I could recommend Hobson's Science of Wealth or Hobson's Economics of Unemployment, and others) seemed to me to be in a great quandary up to almost the moment of having to face the House of Commons with a statement of policy. We have had faithfully produced for us this afternoon by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack the differences between the majority and the minority recommendations. It is quite clear that the majority considered that all the practices concerned are against the public interest. They only admit, as they go on, that there may be some cases which are not—I think they are doubtful about it; and, to be fair, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack quoted words which said that they had not heard any real evidence which would show that there could be many exceptions. They recommend that these practices should be banned by law, and that if anybody wants to continue all or part of the practice complained of they should be allowed to bring their case to a Tribunal: in other words, to ban, and then put the onus on the individual man who is doing this kind of thing to come to the Tribunal and state his case.
I was bemused and bewildered by the difference of emphasis put by the noble and learned Viscount on the time question between the two methods. He said he thought it would probably take far
1130
less time to have registration of the sort recommended by the President of the Board of Trade, and to take it case by case, because they would then fall into line, largely because a bit of Case Law would be established and a number of cases would drop away under that. Why does that not apply in the other direction? If you ban it by law now, and say that the individual, if he feels that he has a grievance, and he has a real purpose to serve the community by continuing the practice, should state his case, what is the difference? All the newspapers that I have seen which have been commenting on the subject seem to think that that would be much quicker. I listened carefully to the noble and learned Viscount, but I did not hear a single word that indicated there could be any saving of time in the other direction.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but this is an important point. Our proposal is, as he stated, that the person who wanted to justify his policy would have the right to be called to the Tribunal to do it. The difference is that the majority say that he would have to bring himself within certain exceptions, and it is the bringing himself within the exceptions which I said would encourage an infinite variety of cases.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I quite see the point of view which is adopted by the noble and learned Viscount, but I must say that he has not convinced me by any means. These practices are harmful and unfair to the consumer, and undermining to the ultimate general resources of the community. Instead of putting their profits into a limited area of the country, we want to have them spread over the purchasing power of the whole community, to try and erase some of this policy of wages chasing prices and always living with a state of inflation. I believe, therefore, that the case is for banning at the earliest possible moment those cases which, by a majority of 7 to 3, the Commission consider to be against the public interest. What I cannot understand about the President of the Board of Trade is that he says, first of all, with great élan—he is very proud of it—that he has accepted the general principle of the Majority Report. Then, when we read on, we find that he is not adopting the

1131
recommendation of the Majority Report, but he comes back to the Minority Report which, ipso facto, if he has accepted the principle of the Majority Report, is quite against it, and he says: "I am going to adopt the policy of the Minority Report and go in for registration"—registration which, I should have thought, from reading the recommendations of the minority, would have applied only to a limited number of cases. I gather, from the reply given to the interpolation by Mr. Harold Wilson in the other place on July 13 that it is almost certain that if the President of the Board of Trade is to keep faith with the House of Commons, then 600 to 700 cases will have to come in for immediate review.
The other thing I am surprised at is this. The President of the Board of Trade, in the course of this same statement in the same Parliament, referred to the support, as he thought, of the Financial Times for the point of view that he was adopting for the Government. The Financial Times certainly had articles in June and July about the Report, before any announcement was made by the Government, but I could find nothing in those articles which would justify the kind of policy adopted by the Government. I followed with great interest what would be the final view of the Financial Times. I am glad it is the Financial Times which I am quoting. I suppose if I quoted the Daily Herald it would not be held in the same esteem with regard to the substance of the evidence. This article is really remarkable. There is no time to read it all, but it would be to the instruction of your Lordships if you would read it in the Library. I will take the last part of it only. It says:
"When the Report was published these arguments seemed overwhelming. They were not, in fact, disputed in the Minority Report which had never envisaged the proposed register as anything more than a basis for the selection of agreements for detailed examination. Even if the individual inquiries should be made as brief as possible it must take a very long time to cover the whole ground. It has been estimated that there are 600 to 700 agreements which have to be considered. So far the Monopolies Commission has published eleven reports under Section 2 in the course of seven years, and that is at least some indication of the difficulty and delay inherent in this kind of case-by-case treatment. It is probable, then, that the Government's policy will prove unworkable if it comes to be applied."
1132
Now that is something I hope your Lordships will bear in mind. This great financial paper, of such Conservative erudition and stability, says about this matter
"It is probable, then, that the Government's policy will prove unworkable if it comes to be applied."
They go on to say:
"The argument in its defence seems to be that no more workable system would be devised. Yet in fact the recommendations of the majority of the Commission would plainly be more effective. If trading agreements are against the public interest they should be made illegal. Provisions should be made for specific grounds of exemption, as the Commission suggested, but that would not mean a hearing of every agreement that came within the scope of the Statute. Only those agreements in which there was a prima facie case for exemption would require examination in detail. This was what the majority recommended, and the majority was right. As the Government accepted the principles of the Majority Report it should also now accept the one effective way of carrying them out."
Now that is from the great financial and Conservative journal to which the President of the Board of Trade had paid such tribute, and whose articles had primed him towards his policy. What an amazing thing! Here is the case put by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack today answered in advance.
I say only this in conclusion. I would be failing in my duty to my own movement if I did not say this. There has been no attempt by Governments of all kinds in the last fifty years to deal effectively with this matter. I think the first Government majority we had for Labour was in 1945, and that led to the passing of the Act under which all these proceedings are now taking place. But in this movement we are today suffering from the fact that whole ranges of articles are prevented from being supplied through a Co-operative store, although we are willing to meet every one of the producer's conditions except that we will not be interfered with regarding how we distribute our final surplus, any more than we ask him to tell us how he distributes his final surplus. The proprietary articles, and the trades that I have mentioned this afternoon I will deal with when I come to speak upon the Bill. In the meantime, I beg that the Government will put its own house in order and make quite sure that they have agreement. I close with this remark. In the course of the 1951 Election I took from a Luton paper

1133
a statement by Dr. Charles Hill. He said of the Labour policy then:
"I am against the Government policy on retail price maintenance, and I shall do my best to defeat it."
We feel that the Government can do a great deal to meet the situation if they will follow the recommendations of the Majority Report accepted in principle by the President of the Board of Trade and bring in the ban on those practices straight away.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, there is a Royal Commission at six o'clock, and I beg to move that the House adjourns during pleasure and that we reassemble as soon as the Commission is over.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House adjourned during pleasure accordingly.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Appropriation (No. 2),

European Coal and Steel Community,

International Finance Corporation,

Miscellaneous Financial Provisions,

Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons), County Courts,

Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions),

Validation of Elections,

Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation,

Stromness Harbour (Guarantee) Order Confirmation,

Bournemouth Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Doncaster Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Order Confirmation (Colne Valley Sewerage Board),

Taf Fechan Water Supply,

Cardiff Corporation,

German Potash Syndicate Loan,

Kent Water,

Nuneaton Corporation,

1134

Sandown-Shanklin Urban District Council,

Chatham and District Traction,

Corn Exchange,

Liverpool Corporation,

Dewsbury Moor Crematorium,

Maidstone Corporation,

Salford Corporation,

Bristol Corporation,

Cheshunt Urban District Council,

Stock Exchange Clerks' Pension Fund,

London County Council (Money),

Milford Docks,

North Wales Hydro-Electric Power.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

REPORT OF MONOPOLIES COMMISSION
6.19 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, after the extremely able and clear speech that was given us by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I am happy to inform your Lordships that there is not much more I need add by way of explanation to this Motion. This has been art extremely helpful debate. In saying that. I am not giving voice to the customary clichés which one is accustomed to utter—I mean that. As your Lordships are now fully aware, the Government's proposals are not complete, and it was therefore a great advantage for us to hear your Lordships' views. Those views will bear very strongly upon my right honourable friend when he comes to formulate further proposals. The Government welcome the comments of your Lordships, and we shall welcome the comments of industry and the trade unions. Here again I should not like noble Lords to think that that is a mere platitude, for we genuinely wish to receive those comments and suggestions. If we could receive them by the end of September, it would greatly help us in expediting the necessary legislation. I can assure my noble friend Lord Rochdale that, although the Government seek these views, there will be no question of applying the lowest common multiple. The Government will be prepared to toe the line to nobody but will take their own line, or any other line if they so see fit.

1135
All of us who have studied this Report of the Commission and the Lloyd Jacob Report will readily admit that this is an extraordinarily complicated subject. Even those who have spent a lifetime in industry sometimes have difficulty in understanding the niceties of it, and Her Majesty's Government have had only a few weeks in which to study this extraordinarily complicated subject. I feel that we are entitled to take some small credit for producing the outline of our scheme as speedily as we have. I would emphasise that the Motion before the House to-day is in deliberately broad terms. We are only asking your Lordships to welcome the Report as a basis for the formulation of our proposals. For that reason I make no apology if I am unable to answer many of the questions which you have put to me to-day. It is not for the usual reason that either I do not know or have forgotten the answer; it is for the slightly unusual reason that there is not yet an answer in existence. At least the debate gives us some indication of the way in which noble Lords are thinking.
The fact that we have not yet formed all our plans is understandable when it is appreciated what an enormous and genuine divergence of view there has been on this subject. There is divergence in the Report, of course, and I would caution the undesirability of counting heads between the majority and the minority in assessing the virtues of the two Reports. There has been a difference of opinion among certain noble Lords who sit opposite and their supporters, as we have seen in the debate in another place, and I think even slightly to-day. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I may even suggest that there are differences upon this subject between noble Lords who sit on these Benches behind me, although I know that those views are strongly held by others. There have been divergencies, too, in the sober and informed Press.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, gave us a splendid, rumbustious speech which we all, on both sides of the House, thoroughly enjoyed. I even agreed with some of it, though I can assure him not with all. The noble Viscount even went so far as to read to us from his own works, a habit started, I believe, by Charles Dickens. I have taken
1136
a rapid check of your Lordships' Library. Thirty-six noble Lords have written books and presented copies to the Library, so that if this precedent catches on we shall have some interesting debates. I am entitled to reply to the noble Viscount's quotation from the Financial Times by a quotation from a paper of equal weight and worth, the Economist, which stated on July 16:
"The Monopolies Bill that the Government intends to introduce in the Autumn looks likely to be a much bolder measure than most M.Ps.—and most of the Press—realised after Mr. Thorneycroft's statement on Wednesday."
And it went on:
"If it is really pushed through it will carry the struggle against monopolies slightly further and faster than outright adoption of the Majority Report could have done."
I have read that statement so that noble Lords may realise there are divergencies among responsible papers, as there have been on the Benches of this House.
One approach which it would be clearly wrong to take is that of Party politics. We have had very few Party politics this afternoon. They crept into the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, now and then, but perhaps that was because he was carried away with his own enthusiasm for his lifelong hobby. I make no complaint about that. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that not everything is black or white; there must be grey from time to time. I say that only to emphasise that the scheme which Her Majesty's Government are putting forward is not a compromise between various things. It is not the lowest common multiple, and I think that, as the Economist says, it will go
"further and faster than outright adoption of the Majority Report could have done."
May I turn to one or two points which have emerged in the course of this interesting debate. There has been unanimous support for the undesirability of creating new crimes out of old practices. I remember that in a debate a little while ago on the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will doubtless remember, the Lord Chief Justice cautioned us, on certain very sensible-looking proposals on the Order Paper, against inventing a large number of new crimes. That seems to be advice which we should take in regard to the proposed Bill on this matter.

1137
Industry and the public would resent the creation of a large number of such new crimes. I was happy to hear my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack emphasise the civil aspect of the sanctions involved here. We are approaching it from the economic and commercial viewpoint; the ethical viewpoint arises only incidentally.
We have had several speeches this afternoon on the subject of secret trade courts, popularly called "Star Chamber courts." From listening to those speeches it is perfectly clear that noble Lords do not like such courts. But, in justice, I must say that many of them go out of their way to be scrupulously fair; and they succeed in being so. I could not help being amused at the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to the difference of opinion over one law for the rich and one for the poor. In the treatment meted out by these courts, I have heard it suggested that it is not always one law for the rich and one for the poor, but rather one law for the rich and one for the very rich. That is certainly an accusation that can occasionally be levelled, but it is only fair to say that we do not doubt the sincerity of the motives or efforts of many trade courts. Some of these trade associations have come in for some very rough handling, for people regard them as organisations solely concerned with manipulation of trade courts, whereas they have a multitude of other duties and play an important part in the economy of the country. They are very far from being as black as they have recently been painted. It is also fair to bear in mind that the "crime"—if that is the word—for which somebody is tried is the not very attractive one of breaking a bargain made with one's fellows in order to collect a larger profit for oneself.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, that is a very important point to many noble Lords. It is rather out of place to discuss whether we support the fairness or otherwise of action taken by a court of this kind because people break a contract into which they have entered. Our submission is that no contract of that kind should be entered into which includes any restraint of trade and which might lead to supplies being withheld.
LORD MANCROFT: I fully appreciate the point of the noble Viscount, but in carrying out that procedure the courts are perfectly fair.
We have heard a great deal about price maintenance, collective and individual, and at this hour of the night I am not going to argue the pros and cons—indeed, it is not my job to do so; nor is it relevant to the Motion before us. But since the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made the point, it is worth noting that women's organisations which gave evidence before the Commission expressed a preference for one form of it because it gave them confidence in the reliability of branded goods. That is not the real problem. The real problem that we have to solve is the problem of finding some alternative method of enforcement. That is the difficulty.
The other point with which we cannot have failed to be struck, in listening to the speeches this afternoon, is that we are fully agreed that not all monopolies and collective discriminations are necessarily bad. Listening to your Lordships, I could not help coming to the conclusion that monopolies are rather like babies—none of us likes them until he has one of his own. But that does not necessarily mean that they are all bad; and nobody has tried to put that theory forward. That is a point which should be welcomed, because in all walks of life, in the complexity of the modern age, some element of monopoly must be found. This is not a Report on monopolies generally—it is a very specialised and highly technical branch of the monopolistic field that we are dealing with this afternoon. I would ask the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Teviot, to forgive me for not dealing in detail with the interesting points which they made. These seemed to me to go a little wider than the actual matter which is before us to-day. We are agreed upon this, I hope: that we are hostile to the monopolistic practices which have been proved to be damaging to the community. If practices are questionable they will have to be justified before being accepted by the community in the future. That seems to me to be the difference of tone that has come into our approach to the subject in the last few years.
As to points that have been raised in this debate, I suppose that the specific

1139
question of delay was the main one. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough made much of it. I hope he was satisfied—though I am rather afraid he was not—with the extremely able answer which was given to him by my noble and learned friend. Perhaps he will study it carefully, and we can go into the matter again when the question of legislation arises. I assure your Lordships that we intend to press on, not only with legislation but with administration after legislation, with all possible speed. I can promise my noble friend Lord Grantchester that we desire to get on with this matter as fast as possible. We think that our scheme is speedier than the majority's proposals, with their possibilities of a multiplicity of loopholes and exceptions. The noble Lord disagrees. We must discuss it later.
There is one point to which I think he has not given full weight. Once the precedent is established, and the machinery working, I think that the smaller trades will, in the words of my noble friend Lord Ridley, "adjust their affairs accordingly." That was the expression he used. If my noble friend will cast his mind back to the passing of the Merchandise Marks Act, he will remember that there was talk at the time of many prosecutions. But we always thought that what would happen would be that people would study the working of the Act and adjust their plans accordingly. As things have worked out, there have not been many prosecutions. And I think that is how this scheme may well work out. I think that people will voluntarily accept decisions given about another firm and will adjust themselves to judgments by consent. I even hear tell of one trade organisation which has already started to readjust its affairs in order to "beat the pistol." I think that more will follow. I must admit to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that the scheme will probably start slowly. That, I believe, must be so and in my view is desirable. I think that once the machinery starts working, it will be found to go much faster than Lord Alexander anticipates.
I was asked several questions, notably by Lord Rochdale, about the nature of the Tribunal. I rather gathered, from listening to Lord Lucas of Chilworth, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough and
1140
Lord Rochdale, that the House seems to favour a judicial type of Tribunal, with a lawyer at its head, rather than an administrative tribunal, with a Minister or some Governmental representative presiding. I believe that I am coming to that way of thinking myself, but I have not delved very deeply into this point. I am sorry that noble Lords opposite think that there are too many lawyers. I used to think so myself when I was in practice, but I have changed my views since. This debate, of course, was opened by a lawyer, and it is being closed by a lawyer.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is quite a close corporation.
LORD MANCROFT: I see the noble Viscount's point. We shall obviously have to take great care in deciding on the size and composition of the Tribunal. If I have understood the House aright, I will tell my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade, which way your Lordships are thinking—that is, that you would prefer a small Tribunal, composed of three persons or five persons, at the most, of whom one should be a lawyer, to sift evidence, and one, obviously, an individual with experience of industrial affairs. I think there must be a right of appeal. If it is a judicial tribunal, the appeal would be to a court of law, but if an administrative tribunal the appeal would be to the Minister. I think we must consider the possibility, once we have accumulated a collection of Case Law, of reviewing that Case Law from time to time, particularly if the economic situation changes.
My Lords, these are rough ideas. I think we can see which way we are moving. We should welcome more suggestions. One or two of your Lordships have wondered whether there might be some clash between the Tribunal and the Commission itself. That is something we shall have to consider very carefully; and I think we shall have to take steps to ensure that there is not too much overlapping.
I feel that there will still be useful and valuable work for the Monopolies Commission to do, with big firm monopolies that have still to be investigated. But I do not see much prospect of trouble there. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of

1141
Hillsborough, asked me about the publication of evidence. I think there would be considerable difficulty about that owing solely to the fact that the evidence was given in confidence.
Those are the main points that have arisen in our debate to-day. I must apologise for not being able to deal with one or two of your Lordships' points, We have not yet come to a decision on these matters. This solution which we are putting forward may not be perfect—few solutions in this world are. But we think that this will go a long way to carry out what we want. At the same time we acknowledge that there is room for further improvement, and we shall welcome any suggestions. This is only the basis of the proposals: we think it is a sound basis, though one which can be improved. This is a sincere attempt to meet our obligations and to carry out what we have always wanted to do. We think it is a fair and practical solution of a difficult problem, and we feel that, as public and professional reaction has time to manifest itself, it will swing more from the views of noble Lords opposite to those of noble Lords on these Benches. I ask your Lordships once more to think the matter over. We consider that this is a much bolder scheme than was at first realised, and one which may well prove a major legislative achievement in the years to come.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NOISE OF HELICOPTERS
6.38 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take immediate action to prevent the interruption of the debates in this House caused by the noise of the helicopters passing between South Bank and London Airport. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for only a few minutes. On Wednesday last, during a most interesting debate, we were subjected to various interruptions by the noise of helicopters. The noise became so bad that I was moved to make what was, for your Lordships' House, a violent protest. I asked whether something could not be done "to stop this infernal row." And the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who was speaking at the time, said that he would acquaint the noble Marquess the
1142
Leader of the House of this and see if something could be done. Knowing that on the following Monday the noise was likely to get considerably worse, as the number of helicopters, I understood, was to be greatly augmented on that day, and without casting any reflection on the noble Marquess—I hope the noble Marquess will accept this; he always does everything that he can for your Lordships' convenience—I put this Question on the Order Paper, hoping that perhaps my protest and the Notice on the Order Paper, three days ahead, would have the desired effect.
Through the enterprise of one of the daily journals which report the affairs of your Lordships' House, I read the following morning that the executive head of B.E.A. had been interviewed upon the subject and had stated that the helicopters in future would not fly over the Palace of Westminster but would follow a devious route and that they would be fitted with even more effective silencers. I must confess that to-day and yesterday there has been a marked improvement. We have had interruptions to-day, it is true. Fate seems to be unkind to me because the major interruptions have occurred each time I have been addressing your Lordships. I would not say that that was malice aforethought on the part of B.E.A. It has been a nuisance and I think it is likely to remain a nuisance, because I understand that the South Bank landing site for helicopters will be used not only by B.E.A., an organisation which appreciates the importance of your Lordships' House and the speeches that are made in it, but also by other users of helicopters, notably the Service Departments. I assume that they are not going to fit silencers, so that when one of these machines is passing over we shall be interrupted as much as ever.
I do not want to make a big point of this, but some of us who attend the House regularly and take great interest in the proceedings do like to hear the speeches that are made, and I think we are entitled to hear them. On the previous occasion we had not been able to hear some of the speeches that were made, and during the reply on behalf of the Government, on a very important subject, I could not hear a word. That was what prompted my outburst. I am not going to broaden the issue too widely, but I hope that the

1143
situation which is going to be alleviated for your Lordships is not going to be passed on to somebody else. I say definitely that this aircraft noise has to be treated seriously. If not only Members of your Lordships' House but also ordinary citizens are going to be subject to this "infernal" noise—I repeat the expression—I think the British public will have something very strong to say. I do not accept the argument that may be put forward that these machines cannot be silenced.
As this is not a Motion, but only a Question, and I shall not have the right of reply, I hope I am not going to be told that I am standing in the way of progress. As I understand it, progress is the furtherance of the amenities of the ordinary citizens. This is just the furtherance of a nuisance. If in their wisdom Parliament had not passed an Act thirty odd years ago, we should be deafened by unsilenced motor cars. Motor cars are now silenced, and if it is possible to silence an internal combustion engine in a motor car, it is equally possible to silence an internal combustion engine in an aeroplane. I can say that, not only from my own technical knowledge and experience but also after consulting experts on the subject. The reason why aircraft are not silenced as much as they should be and in many cases not at all is that the law does not require it. That is the plain reason. Necessity is always the mother of invention, and if there were a law saying that no aeroplane could fly over a thickly populated area unsilenced, the technicians in the aircraft industry would soon find a way of silencing them. These helicopters have been silenced and I would express my appreciation to B.E.A. for taking that step. I do not see why they cannot be silenced a little more, because we have had some disturbance this afternoon, though not so much as we had before. I hope the noble Earl will convey my remarks to the powers that be. I think that I am not alone in making this protest and that many other noble Lords agree with what I have said.
I have discussed this question of silencing aeroplanes with one of the most prominent makers of aircraft engines in this country, who makes one of the most famous motor cars in the world. His firm have succeeded in making the motor
1144
car engine absolutely silent, and the same thing could be done for aircraft, though it may take time and may be a little expensive or add weight to the aircraft. I make a strong plea that aircraft noise should have the serious attention of the Government, and I hope that in your Lordships' House in future we shall be able to listen to the debates in reasonable silence.
6.45 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to make a brief intervention because I have always been interested in the development of the helicopter and have a great belief in its future. All noble Lords will agree that it is most desirable that our debates should be conducted without interruption or disturbance and I am sure that British European Airways Corporation realise that also. We have the advantage of having the Chairman of the Corporation amongst us, and I know that Mr. Masefield, the Chief Executive, is an extremely reasonable man who spends a great deal of his time and energy in consulting the convenience of the public. I am sure he would wish to consult the convenience of your Lordships just as much.
I should like to congratulate B.E.A.C. upon their enterprise in starting this service, cutting out the drive to the airport. I think it was the American columnist, Mr. Walter Winchell, who said that flying would never become popular until the drive to the airport had been cut out. I think that is very true, especially in regard to the drive to the airport in New York. It is a deadly affair. It is on that account that I should wish to congratulate B.E.A.C. on their enterprise in starting this service. I am perfectly sure that they are doing all they possibly can to minimise any inconvenience the service might cause. Of course, at the present time they are under certain difficulties, because they are operating the service with single-engined aircraft, which involves their taking a certain route. They have to follow the Thames more than they will have to do when the twin-engined aircraft comes along. I think that the South Bank site will not go on for ever and that in the reasonably near future another site will be chosen as the base for this service.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said something about being

1145
accused of standing in the way of progress. I do not level that accusation against my noble friend, but, of course, it is the fact that progress almost inevitably involves a certain amount of inconvenience to the general public and almost inevitably encounters opposition. I remember reading that when the railways were developed in this country a certain clergymen preached from his pulpit that it was contrary to the will of Almighty God that men should travel at more than twenty miles an hour. I do not want any of that sort of spirit to obstruct the progress of the helicopter, which I think is bound to play a greater and greater part in meeting the convenience of the public. In conclusion, I would say that we can safely trust the Chairman and executives of the B.E.A., now that this matter has been ventilated, to do all that they can to see to it that your Lordships are not subjected to inconvenience by their helicopter service.
6.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to express my admiration for the assiduity and perseverance of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has now addressed your Lordships for the third time in two days quite apart from a number of Questions. I can assure him that any interference with your Lordships' debates is necessarily a matter of concern to Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps I may say a word or two about the service to which the noble Lord has referred. It is being run by British European Airways between the South Bank and London Airport. I am not aware of anyone else using the South Bank, though there are other helicopters, which are not necessarily subject to the same control as those of British European Airways.
I should like to emphasise that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport made it quite clear that before he was prepared to authorise this service, the helicopters being used on the route should be silenced—that he insisted upon. I think it is fair to say that these silencers have, in fact, made a considerable difference; I believe that something of the order of one-third of the previous noise is not now heard. For reasons of safety, it is necessary for the helicopters to be routed along the course of the Thames. The instructions now are that
1146
they shall fly at at least 1,000 feet, until they come practically over the landing site. Therefore, they should not cause undue disturbance to anyone who happens to be on the route. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised the question, which I cannot attempt to answer to-day, of aircraft noise in particular. At this hour perhaps I may confine myself entirely to helicopters.
The service to London Airport is by way of an experiment, and I want to emphasise that, though it may seem small, it is an important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, emphasised that one of the great problems in every city, and not least in this city, is getting people from the centre of the city to the airport. It is a great problem, and it may be that helicopters can play an important part in the solution of that problem. But there is the other side—that of the development of the helicopter itself. The helicopter is among the most mobile things that man has invented: nothing else will go up or clown, backwards or sideways—and there are few things, even in nature, which have the astonishing ability of a helicopter. This type of machine has been under development for some twenty-five to thirty years, and it is still restricted to a relatively small field in which it has been operating successfully. I feel that anyone with a little imagination must realise that, when it is more fully developed, there is a considerable field in which it can be utilised. That is the background. The service is not a simple, idle commercial venture, but something which is being done as an experiment which may be of great significance.
However, that is no reason why it should cause unreasonable inconvenience to anybody. I think we can claim that the instructions that have been issued will minimise the inconvenience, if, indeed, they will not obviate it altogether. I was not in the House the whole of this afternoon, but I was yesterday. I find that six helicopters flew over yesterday, but I was not aware of one of them. It may be that I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, speaking, and that may be the reason I did not hear one, although others with more sensitive hearing possibly did. I do assure the noble Lord that the point he has raised will be watched, because it is obviously of great importance that we here should not be

1147
disturbed, or indeed that anyone else should suffer what I may describe as unreasonable inconvenience. As the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said, the site at South Bank is not a permanent one. At most it is hoped that it will be used for not more than two years, and steps are now being taken to find an alternative site which would perhaps better meet requirements. I assure the noble Lord that we have listened carefully to what he has said. He has brought the matter clearly to the attention of those who have control of the situation, and I feel sure that they will watch it closely in the future.
6.55 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, the noble Earl has confined himself to the complaint of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth with regard to this House, and we have not heard anything of any difficulty so far as another place is concerned. The reason, obviously, is that in another place the windows are not open. I believe that this complaint has arisen solely from the fact that the windows here have been wide open during these warm days. I think that, as a result of the great improvement that has been observed during the last day or two, there would have been no inconvenience at all if we had been in the fortunate position of another place of having air conditioning and therefore not requiring the windows to be open. Therefore, we must not blame the helicopter too much, because we have the position very much in our own hands. If this Chamber were equipped in the same way as the other place is equipped, I am sure that we should be free from the inconvenience that seems to have made a special butt of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. It was noticeable that when he spoke earlier to-day the helicopter was there; and even when he made two short interventions, on each occasion he seemed to cause a helicopter to fly across. I feel that we should express our indebtedness for the steps that have already been taken in regard to the greater flying height of the helicopter, and for what has been done to make it less of a disturbance to the debates in your Lordships' House. However, I believe that the real solution,
1148
so far as we are concerned—it is being selfish, because other interests outside are probably feeling the inconvenience as well—is that if the windows were closed it would make all the difference and would enable my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth to speak in peace.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can only address your Lordships again with permission, and I ask for that permission only so that I may thank the noble Earl very much for his reply.