Mr. Jim Callaghanasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he expects to publish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply and export from the United Kingdom of insulated wires and cables.
§ Mr. John FraserThe report is being published today.
In relation to supply in the United Kingdom, the Commission found that a monopoly situation existed in favour of BICC Ltd., BICC Cables Ltd. and its seven subsidiary companies engaged in the production and sale of cables, since they together supplied more than 25 per cent. by value of the insulated electric wires and cables supplied in the United Kingdom in 1974.
The Commission considered the effect on the public interest of BICC's monopoly in the United Kingdom, and dealt in turn with the effect of the monopoly in relation to each of the five categories of insulated electric wires and cables, but concluded that BICC's monopoly did not operate and might not be expected to operate against the public interest. In this connection, the Commission was precluded from considering the effect on the public interest of BICC's involvement in unregistered restrictive agreements, the most significant of which was in respect of sales of external telephone cable to the Post Office, which came to light during its enquiries. These agreements were operated by BICC Ltd., Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd., Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd., and Telephone Cables Ltd. and were terminated in December 1974. A new agreement for sales of external cable to the Post Office was subsequently introduced, but its operation has since been suspended. In June 1978, it was announced that the four cable-makers concerned had agreed to repay to the Post Office £9 million by way of adjustment of the prices charged during 190W the period before 1975, when they were operating unregistered agreements.
The Commission went on to consider whether a complex monopoly situation existed by virtue of the way in which general wiring cable and winding wire and strips were supplied and also by virtue of the conduct of buyers. However, it found no evidence that competition was restricted and, therefore, concluded that no complex monopoly situation existed. As regards exports, the Commission found that a monopoly situation existed in favour of BICC Ltd., BICC Cables Ltd. and its seven subsidiary companies engaged in the production and sale of cables, which together produced more than 25 per cent. of the insulated electric wires and cables produced in the United Kingdom in 1974. The Commission also found that a complex monopoly situation existed in favour of a number of companies which belonged to one or more of the export agreements in the industry, which had the effect of restricting competition in some way, and which accounted for more than 25 per cent. of the insulated electric wires and cables produced in the United Kingdom. The companies were BICC Ltd., Delta Group, AEI Ltd., Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd., Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd., Crompton Parkinson Ltd., Concordia Electric Wire and Cable Co. Ltd. Thames Wire and Cable Company Ltd. and those of their subsidiary companies in the United Kingdom that exported types of reference goods in respect of which one or more of the agreements was operative.
The Commission did not consider that any public interest issues separate from those arising from the complex monopoly situation arose from the fact of BICC's monopoly in relation to exports. The Commission considered the effect on the public interest arising from the United Kingdom cablemakers' membership of the various international associations and also of the domestic export associations. It concluded that neither British participation in the international associations nor the arrangements of the domestic export associations operated or might be expected to operate against the public interest.
In the absence of any finding of adverse effect on the public interest, there are no 191W grounds for any action on this report by my right hon. Friend.