§ 34. Mr. Abseasked the President of the Boa rd of Trade whether he is aware that the Institute of Public Relations, in breach of paragraph 3A(ii) of its memorandum of association and the code of professional conduct implemented by this paragraph, has failed to take action against a member, Mark Quin, a public relations practitioner, who assisted in the creation of a genetic study unit purporting to serve a scientific cause but actually serving the private interests of a client, the London Rubber Company; and whether he will order an investigation under Section 165(b)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1948, into the affairs of the Institute.
§ Mr. DarlingI understand that the Institute of Public Relations has invoked its disciplinary procedure after a preliminary investigation of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. My right hon. Friend sees no grounds for appoint-154W ing an inspector under Section 165(b) of the Companies Act, 1948, to investigate the affairs of the Institute.
§ 47. Mr. Abseasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the contraceptive products of the London Rubber Company account for more than 90 per cent. of male contraceptives used, that the profits made on these products is excessive, that their manufacturing standards and reliability compare unfavourably with those of other countries, and that some of the profits have been deployed in order to maintain their monopoly through the Genetic Study Unit; and whether, since this monopoly is harmful to the public interest, he will refer this company for investigation by the Monopolies Commission.
§ Mr. DarlingI am advised that there would appear to be monopoly conditions, as defined in the monopolies legislation, in the supply of these goods. I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind, but a reference to the Monopolies Commission is not made in all cases where the statutory conditions for reference are satisfied.