§ 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 redefinition of "public policy" within the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as applied to both monopolies and mergers, lies within the ambit of the terms of reference of the review body on mergers and restrictive practices set up by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 5th June 1986.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)My Lords, the review is to examine all aspects of law and policy on mergers and restrictive trade practices, including the statutory definition of the public interest as it applies to mergers. Policy on monopolies does not fall within the scope of the review.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend the Minister for that unexpected reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the subject which his Answer has excluded from review has been accepted as ripe for a fall since the days when the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, answered at that Dispatch Box and before? That being so, may I further ask him whether the terms of reference may not be extended to include redefinition of public interest in the context of monopolies?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, it is clear that mergers and restrictive practices legislation are the areas that at present are of most concern, and it is right that the review should concentrate on these particularly regarding the definition of public policy.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in recent days we have had several Bills in this House which have sought to define the public interest for that particular purpose? I refer, for instance, to the Gas Bill, the Airports Bill, and indeed other Bills. We are now in a state where the public interest to which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is required to address itself has several different definitions for several different purposes. Is it not right therefore that the review should decide where and how the public interest should be defined, and that this should be properly codified?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, it is in the areas of mergers and restrictive trade practices legislation that the definition of public interest is causing the most concern. As regards special arrangements for regulating privatised areas, I think that at the moment it would be inadvisable to disturb those arrangements since the regulations are so newly in force.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, leaving aside for one moment—though I do not know why one should—the question of the privatisation Bills (as they are called), surely this subject, which has been ripe for a fall for many years, ought to be included in these terms of reference. Can my noble friend the Minister convey a hint to his right honourable friend that perhaps the review might be extended?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, as I have sought to explain, it is the areas of mergers and restrictive practices that are giving the most cause for concern. Therefore it is right that the review should concentrate on these areas. If anything should follow from that, of course it will be dealt with. I can give my noble friend the assurance that I shall do more than hint to my right honourable friend. I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend the concern that my noble friend and others have in this regard.