§ 2.52 p.m.
§ 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 the complex structure of administration concerned with various aspects of anti-competitive practice—namely the Secretary of State, the Director-General of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the Restrictive Practices Court, the High Court, the Commission and Court of Justice of the European Communities, and privatisation "watchdogs"—is considered to be requisite, and cost-effective and to afford sufficient protection.
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, the machinery for regulating anti-competitive practices has generally worked well. Because it operates on a discretionary basis, it is flexible enough to take account of developments in the market place and of the special circumstances of particular cases. Nevertheless, the Government keep the effectiveness of all their policies under regular review; and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intends to give attention to this important area in the near future.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that half-encouraging reply. However, may I ask him whether he is aware that the cumbrous and costly statutory regime that evolved piecemeal since the end of the war until the advent of the oil crisis fails to serve the interests of the consumer, of manufacturing and of wealth creation either to balance our books or to afford relief for unemployment?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, my noble friend asks a number of questions. If he is suggesting that the number of bodies responsible for competitive policy is too great, all I can say is that in many instances it is rather better to have an overlap at the margins than to have loopholes. The legislation gives specific functions to each authority. Broadly speaking, the Director-General of Fair Trading has powers of investigation and referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the commission reports where the public interest lies. The Secretary of State has powers of remedial action where appropriate. In that way we feel that the interests of all the bodies to which my noble friend refers are well served.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the organisations named in the Question are not merely anti-competitive but were primarily designed to prevent cheating, accidental or otherwise, and they also have the responsibility to curb what has been described by an eminent ex-Prime Minister as the other ugly side of the face of capitalism? As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, it would appear that they rarely defend individuals, and so do we not require something like the consumer councils of the publicly 1061 owned industries which do a good job, and a much better job than the bodies listed in the Question, and at least defend the individual, which many of the organisations claim that they have no right to do?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, three Acts essentially take care of nearly all that the noble Lord speaks of—the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980. The introduction of a right of private action would involve the fundamental innovation of the statutory prohibition of certain kinds of behaviour, which I think would sit uneasily with the discretionary nature of the rest of United Kingdom competition legislation.
§ Lord Peyton of YeovilMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that that part of his Answer in which he stated that it is the practice of his colleagues to review the effectiveness of their policies is wholly to be welcomed? But would it not be slightly difficult to avoid reaching the conclusion that many of our organisations and procedures are so complex and slow-moving as to be wholly ineffective? While he is pondering on those issues, I wonder whether he will go on to reflect that in a world where neither greed nor folly have entirely disappeared it is possible that self-regulation would prove wholly inadequate to protect the less well-informed against the very clever.
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his earlier remarks. The Government look at the effectiveness of their policies and in this regard I have already said that my right honourable friend is to do so. Legislation in this field particularly is complex. With regard to the time procedures, most references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have a statutory time limit which is typically nine months. If my noble friend will forgive me, I feel that self-regulation is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the last review of institutions in the competition sector was in 1978 by the so-called Liesner Committee which was published in the form of a Green Paper, and that there has been no review since then of those institutions? In view of his noble friend's Question, is it not about time that we had a formal review to see whether we can rationalise the procedure further?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, I feel sure that the noble Lord will have taken account of my main Answer in which I said that my right honourable friend is to pay attention to that matter shortly.
§ Lord BroxbourneMy Lords, in spite of the unkind things said about the various organs in the supplementary questions, will my noble friend confirm, without prejudice to the review, that in its nearly 30 years of existence the Restrictive Practices Court has functioned well and has wholly justified the intitiative of those who put the legislation on the statute book in the 1956 Act?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He will recall that measure because he had an important part to play in it. The division between the Restrictive Practices Court and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has proved extremely effective in dealing with a number of the problems that arise.
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer to the original Question seems very much at variance with answers he has given to many of the supplementaires? In answer to the original Question, he indicated that a review will take place because there is a feeling that something should be done. His answers to supplementaires seem to say that things as they are are all right and that there is not a great deal to worry about. Is he aware that this sort of variance is rather puzzling.?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, if my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls reads Hansard tomorrow he will see, I believe, that I did not imply either one of those two things. I said that the Government keep the effectiveness of all their policies under regular review and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intends to give attention to this important area in the near future.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance, in view of the conduct of British Telecom since privatisation, that a formal case may be submitted to the Monopolies Commision for it to investigate? Will he also give the House an assurance that, before inflicting the privatisation of British Gas on a long-suffering public, again he will make prior submission for clearance to the Monopolies Commision?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, the latter position does not arise. As to the first question that the noble Lord asks, Parliament has given the director-general of Oftel the necessary powers to look into matters concerning British Telecommunications.
§ Lord RentonMy Lords, when the Government are keeping these matters under further review will it be borne in mind that, in addition to our laws and procedures, which are, as has been stated, fairly complex, the people of this country are also subject to the far more complex procedures of the competition laws of the European Community? Will my noble friend further bear in mind the possible desirability, for the enforcement of domestic anti-competition procedures, of having a single agency and a single court for enforcement?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, of course I accept what my noble friend Lord Renton says with regard to the Commision and the Court of Justice of the European Communities in so far as competition law is concerned as between one member state and another. So far as there being one single body is concerned, this is a point to which I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend. I have indicated, however, that we feel that the three arms that we have are a better way of attending to all the 1063 various and flexible issues to do with competition policy rather than having one single authority.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, will the Minister, when the review takes place, look at the rights of individuals as well as associations to lodge complaints?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, I have replied to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in an earlier answer. I did say that the introduction of a right of private action would involve fundamental innovation of the statutory prohibition of certain kinds of behaviour. This would sit somewhat unhappily alongside the present discretionary nature of our procedures. Nevertheless, I take the point that the noble Lord makes.