§ 3.25 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of their action over restrictive practices in the retail trade, they will now turn their attention with equal thoroughness to curbing restrictive practices in all sections of the community.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN)My Lords, the Government are opposed to restrictive practices in all sectors of the economy, unless they can clearly be shown to be in the public interest. Their proposals for further strengthening the legislation dealing with restrictive practices are contained in a White Paper published to-day.
§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARDMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, but is he aware that there is in this country a growing volume of opinion which considers that, in the interests of the economy and the real value of wages, the time is now approaching when Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with the unions, should set up some form of inquiry into the working of the trade union Acts as regards restrictive practices in the unions?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the Government regard this matter primarily as a matter of management, whose duty it is to negotiate by voluntary agreement for the progressive removal of restrictive arrangements, and they regard it as the Government's responsibility to remove the obstacles to change which so often encourage such restrictive arrangements.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, would the Government not set an example by removing the restrictive practices on postmen?
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, if the Government are so much against restrictive practices, could the noble Lord explain why, out of 23 recommendations made by the Monopolies Commission, the Government have acted on only three of them?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, under the monopolies legislation, the Government's duty is primarily to persuade industry to adopt the recommendations that have been made. This has been successful in all the cases where the Government have decided that this is the right course to adopt. As the noble Lord will see, when he reads the White Paper, it is now proposed to go a little further and to take powers where it is not possible to persuade industry to adopt the recommendations which the Government think fit.
§ LORD PEDDIEMy Lords, as well as giving attention to restrictive practices among trade unions, would the noble Lord give some indication of whether the range is to be extended so that some attention is given to the restrictive practices of the legal profession, so that we may secure some reduction in legal costs?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I think that this is probably not a question for me, but perhaps I should explain that the Government consider it right to move step by step in this field of services, and propose, in the first instance, that commercial services relating to goods should be included in future legislation.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, in that case, may I ask when the proposed restriction upon householders being forced to accept, willy-nilly, unaddressed mail they do not want, a restriction of the rights and freedom of householders, may be properly protected?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I think that that is a suggestion which goes rather outside the scope of this particular Question. It does serve to show what was the purpose of the 222 Question of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, which I am afraid I did not appreciate.