§ 4.26 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT)My Lords, in accordance with our custom I propose to move the Third Reading of this Bill formally; then we can take the Amendments, and make such remarks as we have to make on the general principle of the Bill on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I hope that course is agreeable to your 328 Lordships, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I asked the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, at what stage of the proceedings he proposes to answer the question I put to him upon the Report stage in connection with his Amendment to Clause 7. The House will recollect that the noble Lord wished to amend Clause 7, as he then said, so as to make it abundantly clear that the distribution of home-produced products by the Iron and Steel Board was not outside the scope of this Bill. I rather challenged that, on the wording of the Amendment which the noble Lord put down, and he said that he would take it back and look at it. May I ask him when he proposes to give the House the result of his deliberations—now or at some future stage?
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I think it will probably be acceptable to the noble Lord if I try to answer that question in the few remarks that I have to offer on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. The noble Lord follows me in debate, by the usual arrangement, and he can make such comments as he thinks fit then.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThat will be quite satisfactory to me.
§ On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
§ Clause 8 [Excepted agreements]:
§ LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "for the purpose of resale". The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move Amendment No. 1 perhaps I may apologise to your Lordships for the mere fact that there are any Amendments on the Order Paper at all. The noble Viscount, the late Lord Addison. and our old friend Lord Baddeley, both of whom taught us newcomers back from the war the elementary rules of procedure in your Lordships' House, had an almost pathological horror of Amendments on Third Reading; and certainly I myself agree that they are undesirable. So I apologise. But I can say in mitigation that the Amendments on the Order Paper are all completely non-controversial—they are 329 by way of being editorial or procedural, and I think should give your Lordships no trouble, although I make that remark guardedly, because on the last occasion upon which I described an Amendment as being a drafting Amendment, we had a debate lasting forty-one minutes. I have looked at that Amendment again and I still think that it was purely a drafting Amendment. The first Amendment today is concerned with Clause 8, which concerns agreements which are excluded from the Bill, and we feel that the particular limitation to which the Amendment refers in the Bill as it stands is unnecessarily restrictive. This Amendment disposes of it. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, leave out ("for the purpose of resale").—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Cause 24 [Prohibition of agreements for collective enforcement of conditions as to resale prices]:
§ LORD MANCROFT moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, the next four Amendments are connected in one way or another—they are by way of being paving Amendments, looking forward to Amendment No. 8, and they are designed tie up certain references to inter-connected bodies corporate and to individuals carrying on business in partnership. The Amendments at lines 22 and 24 are not actually consequential on the Amendment to Clause 26; they are simply improvements in drafting. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 18, leave out subsection (3)—(Lord Mancroft).
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, Amendment No. 3 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 2, line out from beginning to ("contract") in line 23 and insert ("A ").—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that the noble Lord is right, but it seems to me to be a peculiar thing that on the Third Reading of this Bill, after we have had so much discussion about interconnected bodies corporate, 330 the noble Lord should now come and move art Amendment to delete subsection (3)—the very subsection which, on the Committee stage, I myself put down an Amendment to delete. I then heard all the reasons why it should not be deleted. Now the noble Lord has moved to delete it. If the noble Lord's Amendments, Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (I take them together, because they hang together) are agreed to. subsection (4) will read:
A contract for the sale of goods to which not more than two persons are party shall not be unlawful under this section by reason only of undertakings by the purchaser in relation to the goods sold and by the vendor in relation to other goods of the same description.I believe I have transcribed that correctly. Would the noble Lord tell me in simple language precisely what that means?
§ LORD MANCROFTI will try to tell the noble Lord what we are doing here. The Amendments to which he has referred remove subsection (3) of Clause 24 which contains references to interconnected bodies corporate and to partnerships. As the noble Lord will see, they also remove the last part of subsection (4) of Clause 24, which contains a reference to partnerships, although not to interconnected bodies corporate. The reference to interconnected bodies corporate was omitted because it appeared to be unnecessary, but now that the provisions on interconnected bodies corporate and partnerships are to be included in Clause 26 there seems no reason not to apply them generally to the whole of Part II. That is the reason for this particular group of Amendments.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, all I have to say about the last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is that I regard them with great suspicion. This is the 59½th minute of the 60 minutes left for discussion of this Bill, and the general reason given—that you suddenly discover, before the Third Reading. that there was no reason why this particular provision should not apply to the whole of Part II of the Bill—seems to me extraordinary. I still have that rather suspicious frame of mind about the manipulation of the general Report of the Monopolies Commission which Her Majesty's Government have been so 331 steadfastly against. Though I still have that great suspicion it is impossible at this short notice to put up any detailed argument. But, frankly, I do not like it.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, the only reason why the noble Viscount does not like it is because he does not understand it. As it is very easy to understand I propose to tell him what it is. The clause comes out of the Bill in one place and it goes back in another; it makes not the slightest difference to what is done.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHBut that is exactly what the noble Lord said it was not. It was perfectly open to Her Majesty's Government to have made this position clear on the Report stage of the Bill. Unless there is some special arrière pensée in this matter, frankly I do not quite understand it. Apparently the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment and his colleagues have discovered that the Amendment did not apply to Part II of the Bill as a whole and they now propose to make it apply to Part II as a whole. Perhaps we might know exactly why.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am very anxious to take the noble Viscount with us because, like all noble Lords, I feel that it is a great pity when these Amendments have to be made on Third Reading and I am sure we shall all do everything we can to avoid that when the next occasion arises. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has pointed out, the real secret is that now that provisions on interconnected bodies corporate and partnerships are included in Clause 26 there seems no reason why they should not apply generally to the whole of Part II. That is the point. I am sorry that we have had to raise even a difficult point of drafting at this stage, but I can assure the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that the Bill will certainly be in no more sinister a state with this Amendment than it was before. With that, I hope that the noble Viscount will allow us to have this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHIf Her Majesty's Government put Amendments down on Third Reading they must expect them to be properly debated. These are Government Amendments. If the public interest is not to be protected by proper discussion of Amendments put down at the last moment then I do not think Her Majesty's Government are treating the public fairly.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, the House has already discussed this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 24, leave out ("by virtue") and insert ("shall not be unlawful under this section by reason").—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 26, leave out from ("description") to end of line 29.—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 25 [Individual enforcement by legal proceedings of conditions as to resale prices]:
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, the next two Amendments simply clarify the nature of the remedies open to suppliers under Clause 25 of the Bill. They contain no arrière pensée and hide nothing sinister. I should be pleased to explain them at inordinate length to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, should he wish, but I do not think it is necessary. I beg to move the first Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("breach") in line 33 and insert ("Without prejudice to any other relief which may be granted in proceedings against any person in respect of a breach or apprehended").—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 35, after ("fit") insert ("upon proof that goods sold by the plaintiff have been re-sold by the defendant in breach of any such condition").—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
333§ Clause 26 [Supplementary provisions]:
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
>Page 25, line 45, at end insert—
("(2) For the purposes of any provision of this Part of this Act referring to two or more or not more than two persons, two or more persons being inter-connected bodies corporate or individuals carrying on business in partnership with each other shall be treated as a single person.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, strong exception was taken by the Front Bench opposite just now to my speaking more than once on a particular Amendment. Your Lordships cannot stop my speaking on this one. It is a repetition in this particular clause of what is already provided for in another part of Part II of the Bill. and I object strongly to its appearance in Part II at all, for I still have a grave suspicion about what will be the ultimate effect of this particular provision. I have had that suspicion all the way along and I retain it, so I claim the right to say so on the Third Reading Amendment of the Bill.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the courteous way in which he replied to my request for information on the previous clause on which, as I see it, this Amendment is consequential. I feel that it is a very great pity that a note of acrimony should have crept in right at the last gasp. 'The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the point that the reason why my noble friend did not see the matter clearly was because he did not understand it. He is far too courteous to come here and make allegations of that description. I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for having met with courtesy all our interrogation on this Bill, even if some of it has been based on abysmal ignorance, because we are not all clever enough to write textbooks on Acts before they are passed. Some of us have to do the best we can to give lively opposition. which the Government Front Bench, all the way through this Bill, I think, have appreciated.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
334§ Clause 31 [Provisions relating to export agreements]:
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 34, leave out ("and fourteen") and insert ("fourteen and seventeen").—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 4.40 p.m.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I now rise to move that this Bill do now pass and to offer a few valedictory words upon a measure with which I have lived, off and on, for nearly two years, and of which, quite frankly, I am now heartily tired—though I am still convinced that it is a good Bill. I should like at the beginning to join with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in expressing our appreciation to the small band of enthusiasts, from both sides of the House, who have helped the progress of this Bill and taken part in our debates throughout, and who have never flagged throughout the long, sometimes very long, discussions.
We have certainly improved this Bill and made important Amendments. Some of them, I am sure, wil prove to be of assistance to industry and commerce. They will undoubtedly have helped industrial concerns in preparing their timetables, adjusting their procedure and rearranging their affairs, as many are doing in order to fall into line with the provisions of the Bill. Some of the Amendments have been directed towards the proposed procedure of the Restrictive Practices Court and the conduct of the Registrar. They have, I think, in a large measure simplified the procedure for all concerned. We have not really made any major changes in the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, reproved us gently for not giving: the Opposition more concessions. I am afraid that that was not possible, much though we should have liked to have done so. It was not possible for this reason. Most of the more important points which noble Lords opposite have put forward have been fundamental points, and we have not been able to give way.
I am certain, however, that the noble Lords themselves cannot complain that the matters they have raised have not been most carefully considered. I do 335 not think that I have ever heard important Opposition Amendments so meticulously, so fully and so courteously dealt with as they were dealt with by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack at the end of the Report stage. On the last occasion on which we were dealing with Opposition Amendments, the noble and learned Viscount again pointed out that upon those which related to important matters of principle we naturally could not give way. That also applies to Clause 21. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, is in his place and I should like to express our appreciation to him and to Lord Baillieu and others for withdrawing their difficult and important Amendments to this clause. We know how strongly the noble Lords feel about the onus of proof, but it would have been a matter of great regret to us if this Bill had left the House for another place with Clause 21 amended in a way that was not acceptable to the Government. I am confident that industry will co-operate in operating this Bill. I should like to emphasise again that there is no odour of criminality attaching to restrictive practices.
Naturally I regret that the Co-operative Movement feel that the Bill does them injury. I have argued this point with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. and have sought to convince him that that is not so. I will not argue it all over again. If I did, I do not think I should have any more success with the noble Viscount. I would repeat, however, that to injure the Co-operative Movement is far from the intention of the Government. The noble Viscount will not be convinced that the provisions of the Bill do not support the accusation he makes. However many times I say that they do not, I feel that there is no hope of convincing, him.
My Lords, I turn last to the Amendments to Clause 7, particularly to subsection (1), relating to iron and steel. Lord Lucas of Chilworth asked me during the Report stage whether it was to be understood that the exemption given by the Amendments we were then discussing did not cover any distribution of imported products in the home market. I hoped that I had made the position clear in my original remarks, but apparently that was not the case. Let me try to 336 state the position again. What I said was that the Amendments concerned the importation and distribution of imported raw materials and products, and that it was not the intention that restrictive agreements about home-produced raw materials and products should be exempted from the Bill. In other words. exclusive dealing agreements about the distribution of products imported as a common service for the steel industry are exempted from the Bill. This is because the provisions of Section 11 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, cover the distribution of imported raw materials, and it is the object of the Amendments which have been made to the present Bill that there should be no conflict with the Act of 1953.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, may I put a question and have it treated as a question and not as a speech? Do I forfeit my right to speak again by asking a question? If that is the case—as seems to be suggested—how can we deal with a Bill like this in this way? It is an impossibility.
§ LORD MANCROFTWith great respect, the noble Lord will have the right to make a speech in the near future and he can then argue his case and can disagree or agree with me as he sees fit. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor is going to wind up the debate.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHAnd then I shall not have the right to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question?
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I am in the hands of the House and I will do whatever is required of me. I have attempted to answer the noble Lord's question. If he disagrees with me he can say so as plainly and as loudly as he likes. However, we must leave the matter there—Lord Lucas of Chilworth seems to think we are leaving it in an unsatisfactory state: but I do not think so.
I will now, if I may, refer to the general principles of the Bill, with which few noble Lords have quarrelled. We regard this Bill as an important development in the industrial and commercial legislation of this country. We regard the establishment of a special judicial court to deal with restrictive practices as the right solution. The Monopolies Commission, as 337 your Lordships know, has, however, been preserved and will continue, though of course in a more restricted field, the valuable work which it has been doing in the past. We do not claim that this Bill will result in a sudden and dramatic fall in the cost of living. We do believe. however, that only good can come to the economy of the country if restricted practices are limited to those which can be shown to make some positive contribution to the public welfare. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
§ Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ 4.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, on such an occasion as this, and in respect of such a controversial Bill, it is always difficult to approach the final stages. There is, however, one thing that is common to these occasions. When I cast my mind back to the manner in which our debates have been conducted from both sides of the House, I must say, speaking on behalf of noble Lords on this side, that although in the view of many of your Lordships we may have been perhaps unnecessarily combative at times, we cannot complain of the manner in which both Lord Mancroft and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack have dealt with us, however much and however violently we may have disagreed with their views. One must acknowledge the courtesy with which they have treated us and received our sometimes quite indignant remarks.
By saying that, I do not intend for a moment to forfeit the opportunity of saying during this last and final spasm of the Bill how much we disagree with the whole of Part II of the Bill. It would be unfair and wrong if we did not make that clear. Part I of the Bill, if fairly administered, may bring substantial advantages to traders who have in the past been subjected to discriminative collective agreements, and it may bring substantial advantages also to consumers who have suffered thereby. I hope that Part I of the Bill will so turn out that substantial progress may be made in the direction along which all of us who love freedom in these matters have been hoping to move.
But when we come to Part II of the Bill I really think your Lordships ought 338 not to complain if we express ourselves strongly, for we feel that, instead of relieving the public from the bad effects of discriminatory and restrictive practices. as could have been done if the Government had adopted the Majority Report of the Monopolies Commission, the Government are, in fact, instituting a new statutory power to those engaged in restrictive practices as to the final conditions of sale to go to the High Court for special action by way of enforcement. Having regard to the sixty or seventy years of continuous agitation, in which millions of members of industrial and provident societies have engaged, quite apart from other sections of traders in this country, I must say that that is a most disappointing result from the Government after the Majority Report of the Monopolies Commission.
Possibly it has been a fault of mine. in dealing with this Bill, that I have been guided in the main by my own lifelong experience of a movement associated with industrial and provident societies. Naturally, that is so. But do not let your Lordships be under any doubt about the fact that all kinds of other associations are worried about the provisions of Part II. Look at the representations we have had from such organisations as the people dealing with motor accessories, who have been highly concerned about the tendency to compel certain garage owners to sell a certain type of petrol if they are to be able to sell certain types of accessories. Perhaps some of these practices may be caught under Part I of the Bill, if they can be shown to be collective agreements for enforcement, but it may well be that under the provisions of Part II such practices will still continue. Therefore, whilst I welcome the fact that Part I of the Bill may save those people with whom I have had an interest all my life from some of the effects of collective price resale agreements, nevertheless I am disappointed in Part II of the Bill.
I do not propose to argue the details I have argued before, but I should like to say to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we have gained something from the discussions in this House. I have read carefully the Reports of the statements made by Ministers during discussions in another place, but the actual legal position which might 339 be fairly forecast in matters which will arise, especially out of Part I of the Bill and, in some cases, indirectly under Part II, have been made much clearer in your Lordships' House by the opinions—and that is all they can be in the circumstances—expressed by the noble Lords. It would be churlish not to say here that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has given all the assistance he possibly can in this matter. It might well be that a careful study of the opinions which have been expressed in this House will be of value to those who have now to prepare for dealing with the operation and administration of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, outside.
I profoundly regret that the Government missed the great opportunity they had of taking the biggest step forward in dealing with these restrictive practices which any Government have ever had and which they would not take by accepting in full the Majority Report of he Monopolies Commission. Perhaps the best thing I can say. in answer to the courtesy of the noble Lords dealing with the matter, is that, although one would not dream of voting in such circumstances against the Third Reading of the Bill, I might have been tempted, but for their very great courtesy, to put down what is called in another place a "reasoned Amendment."
§ 4.54 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, may I say one or two sentences before the House passes with this Bill? The noble Viscount suggested that he had been a little too combative. On the whole, I am not against combativeness as a principle. I happen to be one of those who thought that, in his own objection to the Bill, his combativeness was inspired by misunderstanding of what the Bill really did and how it did it. I think it is too late to remove all those misunderstandings, but perhaps I may be allowed to say this. Of course, I can understand the complaint of noble Lords opposite that the Government ought to have been persuaded by the policy of the Majority Report of the Monopolies Commission to institute a general prohibition backed by administrative machinery. That is a great question of principle about which I think the Parties of this country differ. But when we have said that and admitted that there is a difference between the two Parties on the point, 340 I think it is wholly illegitimate to try to mutilate this Bill, which pursues a totally different line of policy, or denigrate this Bill, because it is not mutilated by the introduction of inappropriate bits of imaginary remedies for its major decision of policy.
The noble Viscount attacks Part II of the Bill. He says that he disagrees with the whole of it. Frankly, I do not think he can disagree with the whole of Part II, if he will only look at Clause 24. If he does disagree with the whole of Part II, he has in fact gone on record as saying that he wants the continuance of trade courts, stock lists and other forms of collective resale price maintenance which are prevented by Clause 24. I know that he really believes the opposite, but he has been violent in some of his criticism and has said a great deal more than he really intends. What he really intends to say, I feel certain, is that he is against Clause 25 because he thinks that it will hurt the co-operatives. I believe that he is quite mistaken about that. It so happens that Clause 25 will hardly touch the co-operatives.
The position is that before the Bill was passed a supplier of goods was entitled, as between himself and his customer, to insist on a clause as regards the sale price. The co-operatives, neither less nor more than other customers, are bound to keep their contracts. Clause 25 does not interfere with that, either for better or for worse. It says only that if you buy from somebody else and thus become in possession of goods with a notice of somebody else's contract, you must not do that rather doubtful thing—namely, something in breach of the original contract with notice of it. It puts the third party in the same position as the purchaser of a branded article, neither more nor less. I do not believe there are many cases where the co-operatives are affected by individual price resale contracts to which they are not themselves parties. I am convinced that there is a very small minority of cases indeed where the cooperatives are touched at all by the Bill. I would not he surprised at all if there is none.
Having said that, I feel that a great deal of the combativeness which has been engendered on this Bill has been misguided. Whatever view one takes of the major principle underlying the Bill, it would be inappropriate, having established Part I, which provides for a 341 Restrictive Practices Court, to insert in Part II, which is confined to resale price maintenance, a general fiery denunciation of discriminatory practices which renders the Court unnecessary and undesirable. It would make nonsense of what is otherwise a valuable piece of legislation.
For my part, I should like to say, both to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has taken such an active part in these debates, that I should be the first to recognise the great public service they do by keeping what they describe as a live opposition to measures in this House. I feel that they perform a great and indispensable public service in that way. But they will forgive me for saying that, when a live opposition takes place, it is some measure of the success of its aliveness that it provokes a certain amount of retaliation from the supporters of the Government.
§ 5.1 p.m.
§ LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTONMy Lords, I should not have arisen but for the remarks which my noble friend, Lord Mancroft, addressed to my noble friends and me for our efforts in regard to Clause 21 of the Bill. I should like to place on record our real appreciation of the courtesy and sympathy with which our efforts have been handled by the noble Lord and by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I would repeat, if I may, what I ventured to say on Second Reading. I regret that we have not been able to persuade the Government to alter Clause 21 as we should have wished. Nevertheless, I have little doubt that those engaged in industry will do their utmost to help in the working out of the measures. Believe me, my Lords, the efficient working and progress of industry in this country at the present tine is far too important to all of us to allow minor difficulties to stand in the way. We wish the Bill success, and we trust that the Board of Trade will carry out its provisions, novel and sometimes difficult as they are, with consideration for all parties concerned.
§ 5.3 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I should like to preface my remarks by requesting that "the usual channels" take serious note of the difficulties that we have experienced in this 342 House on two Bills, the Road Traffic Bill and the Bill that we are now discussing, by the Opposition being seriously handicapped, through sparseness of numbers, in their struggle to carry on a reasoned argument upon Amendments that have appeared on the Report stage and Third Reading. Because of our sparse numbers we cannot deploy our arguments in the way the Government side of the House and the Government Front Bench can. There are times when we find ourselves with a single spokesman who has to oppose the whole of the argument for the whole of the case, and when the Government put down long Amendments, major Amendments, Amendments of principle, and even whole clauses on the Report stage and Third Reading of Bills, it does make it impossible to carry on reasoned debate, which I feel the Government Front Bench always desire, and at the same time keep within the Rules of Order. I may have been a hardened sinner in that, but I have always been treated with courtesy and understanding by the Government Front Bench over it. No one wants to breach the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, and perhaps "the usual channels", during this long holiday which I hope will soon break upon us, will give that matter consideration.
I should now like to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack a question that I was going to ask of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I have not the slightest doubt that, intricate and obscure though the point is to me, the noble and learned Viscount will give me an answer that will satisfy me, so that I shall not have to break any more rules. I understood the noble Lord, Lord 1Vlancroft, to say that Clause 7 (1), "Restrictions to be disregarded", safeguards the position that the distribution of imported raw materials and products in the United Kingdom does not come outside the scope of this Bill. This is what Clause 7 (1) says:
in determining whether an agreement to which iron and steel producers as defined by the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, are part y, whether with or without other parties, is an agreement to which this part of this Act applies, no account shall be taken of any term whether expressed or implied which has been approved by the Iron and Steel Board and by the Board of Trade—(a) by which those producers agree to acquire raw materials or other iron and steel 343 products as so defined exclusively from a person who undertakes as a common service for the iron and steel industry the importation of those materials or products, or the distribution of those materials or products when imported, or from any person nominated by such a person;I read that to mean that no imported steel product need come within the scope of this Bill —and therefore that its distribution in this country can be subjected to restrictive practices, because it is outside the scope of this Bill—if the Iron and Steel Board and the President of the Board of Trade approve an agreement. If the agreement has to be made, why should those words be in?—because it would !hen come under the Act and have to be a registered agreement. That is what I do not understand. I expect that it is my fault, and that I am completely dense, but I confess that I did not want the Bill to go until I understood it.The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in opening his contribution to this Third Reading debate, said that he regretted very much that he could not give the Opposition more than he did. I have searched my brains to try to recollect whether at any stage of the Bill he has given us anything at all. I believe that on this major Bill, affecting the whole of the industrial life of this country, both the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the Noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, have been completely stone deaf to anything we have had to say in an endeavour to get them to alter anything contained in this Bill. I think that is a remarkable achievement. I was almost going to say that I should think that if the English cricket team ever wanted two opening "stone-wallers" to defy the attack of anybody, they could not do better than choose the Lord Chancellor and Lord Mancroft: they have certainly "stone-walled" through this Bill with great skill.
I am not going to fight all the battles over again. Our principal disagreement with this Bill, as my noble Leader has said, really centres on Clause 25. That is where the Government have departed from the advice of the Monopolies Commission. Up to and including Clause 24, the proposals of the Government were more or less based upon the recommendations—some of the Majority; some of the Minority—of the Monopolies Commission. The only real blessing or 344 commendation which the noble and learned Viscount could give to Clause 25 was during the Report stage (he will agree with what I am saying) when he said, "It is a small thing, but mine own". Usually, that would commend it to me. But where the Government had "cold feet" at the last moment, and where they ruined all or the majority of the good work they had done right up to Clause 24, was when they did not outlaw resale price maintenance of any kind and make it unlawful to take sanctions against anybody who sold below an advertised price. I listen studiously to every Government pronouncement from the Government Front Bench on any subject, and never one day passes in your Lordships' House when one Government spokesman does not contradict Government policy in this Bill. Even to-day, the noble Earl the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in reply to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, said—I wrote down the words—that this Government were steadfastly opposed to a closed economy. Could there be a better example of a closed economy than giving, not the Government but individual producers in this country. the right to make a distribution system as rigid and as closed as they desire?
We have heard a lot about "setting the people free": setting some people free to do things in the future that—I will hazard a guess, here and now—will so revolt the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that amending legislation will have to be brought into this Bill before many years have passed. What has happened already? Organisations are being formed to-day. Private Gestapos and clever lawyers are now devising ways and means by which collective price maintenance can be carried on by driving holes in this Bill. I said on a previous stage of this Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, took exception to it, although I do not think he was being serious—that in my view this Bill creates a lawyers' paradise. I think the briefs will come rolling in to the chambers of lawyers who practise in this branch of the law which I believe, in my ignorance, is the Chancery Division.
Only yesterday I was invited to pass an opinion upon a serious proposition as to whether it would be permissible under this Bill for an organisation to be set up on the basis of a Gestapo, to go round finding out who was cutting the 345 prices of manufacturers who had individual price maintenance agreements. so that they could go to the manufacturers and do the job that some of these price maintenance systems and private courts were carrying on before. My reply was to use the words the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack used on Tuesday, which encouraged me to believe that now Clause 24 is to come into operation, Clause 25 may stand a chance of working in this way. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has read Tuesday's OFFICIAL REPORT. I will not ask him to make a pronouncement upon it now, because that would be unfair. But the noble Viscount is, if I may say so without offence, an expert on this Bill.
What does the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack say? I am freely interpreting what he said, but I do not think I shall exaggerate. He said that no price maintenance agreement that had not equity would hold water in a court of law under Clause 25 of this Bill. In other words, no producer of an article can take to court somebody who has breached the agreement to maintain those prices unless the producer has himself in equity entered into the same agreement that he will not do the same thing. That will be a novel thing in price maintenance agreements in this country in the future. I feel that all our battles upon Part II of this Bill have been worth while in getting that pronouncement from such a high authority as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.
I do not think I have any more to say. So far as this House is concerned this Bill has had a real investigation, and I wish it well. If it is not unseemly for me to do so, I should like to congratulate the officials, both male and female, of the Board of Trade for the work they must have put. into this Bill before it got as far as being debated in Parliament. Perhaps they have slipped up in some places. I think they have slipped up by putting into Clause 25 the power to control the second-hand markets of the country. But still, that always comes from poking one's nose into something that one knows nothing about; and even Government Departments make that mistake now and again. However, perhaps experience will teach them. With my noble Leader I would once again thank the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for 346 his unfailing courtesy, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his share. As I said at the opening of my remarks, I hope that the usual channels will try to lighten our burden a little in the future. If they can do that I believe it will make for more harmonious working in your Lordships' House.
§ 5,19 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, it is with some trepidation that I address your Lordships yet again on this Bill, as your Lordships must be getting extremely fatigued, if not tired, at the many interventions I have made. But I should like to say, first, most sincerely—this is not a mere figure of speech, and I think everyone in this House will understand—how grateful we are to the noble Lords who have taken so active a part in this Bill from the Front Opposition Bench. I should like to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that I am the last person in the world to object when he gets combative or even militant. I do not believe you can conduct anything about which you feel strongly at half cock, and I should like to tell him that, so far as I am concerned, there are no sore feelings left from anything he has said. With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I think he has won the admiration of us all by the really hard work he has put in on this Bill. He has put down useful Amendments and spoken on them so clearly in the House. It is a great service to your Lordships' House, and I hope he will not mind a speaker in your Lordships' House saying that of him on this occasion.
With regard to the general criticism of the Bill, I want only to say this, and I want to say it shortly and arithmetically. If your Lordships will take up the Bill as it is now and consider the speeches that have been made, I think your Lordships will see that Clauses 1 to 23 have received the general blessing of the House. Clause 24 as it is now (because the numbers have been changed) is the clause which prohibits agreements for collective enforcement of conditions as to resale prices. That has received the universal blessing of the House. If one turns for a moment to Parts and IV, one finds they certainly have not received any serious criticism. At this stage of the Bill, to be able to say that 347 the real criticism and the feeling is centred on one Clause, No. 25—the individual enforcement by legal proceedings of conditions as to resale prices—is a remarkable achievement for a Bill on a controversial subject. I am glad of that fact.
I shall not go through again the arguments that we have had on Clause 25. I want only to say that collective price maintenance is prohibited under Clause 24. No doubt, people will try to drive a coach and horses through it, but it contains a firm and strong prohibition. It is not so easy when you get a firm and strong prohibition to turn something into an effective piece of machinery which in the end cannot be destroyed. We shall watch it as stringently as the noble Viscount will, and, if we find defects, we shall be glad to reconsider the position. We stand firmly by that prohibition of collective price maintenance and we want no shilly-shallying in its application. But with regard to Clause 25, no one who believes in price maintenance would ever suggest for a moment that individual price maintenance is as easy or effective as collective price maintenance. You are dealing with something much more difficult and you are dealing with it, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, from this point of view: that the only people against whom action can be taken under Clause 25, against whom action could not be taken without Clause 25, are people who know of the conditions imposed at an earlier stage and decide not to keep them.
I re-state that only because that is the essential basis of the matter; that they know the conditions are there and they decide that they will not keep them. Without Clause 25 it would always be possible to enforce any contractual basis for individual price maintenance, and I am inclined to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that it is difficult to see where the many instances which are expressed in the fears of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will come.
I have dealt frequently with this point. I want to try to deal with it now very shortly and pass to another point. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had asked me to try to clarify again the object of what I may call the iron and steel 348 provisions. May I put it this way? Arrangements for the exclusive buying and selling of imported raw materials and steel products and their distribution as common services for the steel industry—those are the important words: as common services for the steel industry—are exempted from the Bill because under the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, they are under the control of the Steel Board; and if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will have another look—I know it is not a very easy matter—at Section 11, and also at Section 10, of the Iron and Steel Act of 1953, he will see the point that I am making.
The exclusions from the Bill are, of course, limited to those that are the results of the common services under the Act, and the inclusion of distribution in the clause now in front of your Lordships is due simply to the fact that the agency which buys the imports may, as a matter of convenience, arrange for their distribution to purchasers. But the noble Lord will see that it is limited to the imported goods. My noble friend Lord Mancroft was entirely right when he said that it was not the intention or the effect of the Bill that restrictive agreements about home produced raw materials and products should be exempted from the Bill. It is the point I ventured to put earlier on. The general plan of our dealing with iron and steel is under the Act of 1953. There, the industry is broadly under the control of the Iron and Steel Board and we cannot, by this Bill, though we are dealing with another and important part of the industrial field, alter or worsen the position under the Iron and Steel Act. This part of the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has rightly directed our attention is dealing with the common services which are the result of the earlier Act.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWhat is a common service?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIt is buying on behalf of industry as a whole.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHIs it only for users or is it also for makers?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI have not got the point.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHDistribution of imported steel joists can be restricted unless it is given as a common service to the steel industry?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMNo, the other way round.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWhat does it mean? Does that mean to the fabricators of steel or to the users of steel? Whereas the home produced steel joist must be free of any price ring control.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am most anxious not to say anything wrong through not appreciating fully the technical terms, but broadly the steel industry in this country, as I understand it, imports certain materials and products. Through the operation of the Steel Board—this is what is set out in the Iron and Steel Act—it is possible for them to have common service agreements to buy, so long as they are under the Steel Board and approved or subject to the action of the President of the Board of Trade under Section 11. It may be that from what is bought—whether it be the raw materials or products which are then used in the industry —there may be certain sale agreements of the things bought by the common service. That is the limit of the exclusion; beyond that it is all right.
My Lords, I hope that I have been of some help. I want to make only three general points. The first is in answer to what my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton was good enough to say. I am most grateful to him, and I hope that he will convey my personal thanks to my noble friend Lord Baillieu for not pressing the Amendment which he mentioned in his speech. I put it this way to the noble Lord. One of the most difficult problems of modern government is something which we are all apt to talk about with great facility and ease in our speeches—the noble Lord and I have said it more than once—that it is the function of the State, so far as industry is concerned, to create the conditions under which industry can function with prosperity and success. That is broadly, I think, what he and I have always said was the function of the State. If we accept that, it means that what the State does must not only he done in fact in order to create prosperity and success. but be understood by the majority of interested people as doing that; and, after the 350 gravest consideration of the final form of the Amendment, I felt strongly that it would have been misunderstood by the people who had up to that time appreciated our primary point—namely, of encouraging competition and getting rid of restrictive practices.
It was for that reason that I could not, compatibly with my conception of what a Government ought to do, accept the Amendment. I want my noble friends to appreciate that that was the reason, and that it was not either because I was being difficult with them or because I imputed to them any motives which they had not got—nothing would have been further from my mind. I state again my reason. I have said that I hope, as my noble friend Lord McCorgnodale of Newton said so clearly to-day, that industry which, through my noble friends, has already in this House blessed the principle of this Bill, will now apply that principle to the general benefit of the country. I am sure it will.
The other point is a more selfish one, which I have indicated and I ask your Lordships' patience in mentioning it once again. I have the honour to be the transient and embarrassed temporary head of the legal profession in this country. I am aware that my position is transient and temporary, but I am none the less proud of it, as I am sure everyone has been who has held it. I believe that the law, although deeply rooted in the history of the institutions of our country, is not an heirloom which is to be taken down, dusted, reverently considered and placed hack. I believe that the law is as effective a -dynamic force in modern problems as it is soundly based on these historical roots. Therefore, I believe that the law should be brought in to help in the solution of the great problems of a modern State. This is one of the great problems, and therefore the solution which I advance to your Lordships is one which provides for those affected the best machinery for arriving at the truth and reaching justice which the world has so far devised. It is because of that, because I believe that this is not only beneficial and effective in dealing with the problem, bin is an example of the dynamic use of the law. that I am glad to see the Bill reach this stage, arid I ask your Lordships now to pass it.
§ On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.