§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the provisions of Section 84(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 afford adequate guidance to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the quasi-judicial approach to "public interest" in the case of mergers.
§ The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield)My Lords, it has never proved possible to define "the public interest" with the degree of precision required for legislation. This indeed is evident from the fact that Section 84(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 specifies certain criteria by way of example rather than by way of exhaustive definition. It is for this reason that where the commission rules against a merger, either unanimously or by a sufficient majority, the ultimate decision is reserved to the Secretary of State.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, may I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very full and considered reply. Will he agree that as each member of the Monopolies Commission is enjoined to make a value judgment, unless the reservations of the members of the commission are made known before final submissions, then the justification of mergers will become unduly burdensome?
§ Lord CockfieldMy Lords, I note the point that my noble friend makes. The reports of the Monopolies Commission are always expressed in great detail and the reasons for the decision are set out at length.
Lord OramMy Lords, does not the noble Lord's Question arise out of the commission's decision in the Anderson Strathclyde case? We recall that the noble Lord the Minister acted with complete honour in relation to his personal position in that case. But will the Minister now resist the suggestion of his noble friend—as that suggestion was unwelcome within the Department of Trade—that if you do not like the referee's decision, you think of changing the rules of the game?
§ Lord CockfieldMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his initial remarks. As regards the main point of his supplementary question, there is an area of legitimate debate here. The monopolies legislation, on which the merger legislation in this country is based, proceeds on the test of the public interest. In the United States the relevant tests are purely competition ones. There is a pefectly legitimate argument that the tests to be applied might well be more closely defined 472 than they are at present. I express no view on this, but it is a legitimate issue of policy.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, in order that unworthy suspicions shall not be held, it would be desirable for all Ministers to divest themselves of all shares upon assuming office?
§ Lord CockfieldNo, my Lords, I do not think that that arises out of this Question; nor has it ever been the practice.