CONTROL OF MONOPOLIES

Grey River Argus, 10 May 1948, Page 2

CONTROL OF MONOPOLIES

Britain’s T.U.C. And Labour Party Initiate Legislation Britain’s T.U.C. and Labour Party Initiate Legislation. (From Herbert Tracey, of Britain’s Trades Union Congress). LONDON, April 18. The Bill to provide for investigation of monopolies and restrictive arrangements in industry and trade m Britain, which is to be submitted to Parliament, owes its origin to the initiative of me Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party. In the autumn of last year a jomt committee set up by these two bodies presented a report to the President of the Board of Trade, saying that competitive private enterprise, without public intervention in one form or another, inevitably produced an unhealthy economy and an inequit-i able distribution of economic and political power. In advocating the public supervision of monopoly, the Labour Movement’s objective was to secure the application of selective and adaptable methods of supervisation which would preserve advantages while eliminating disadvantages of monopoly. Socialists of the older generation can remember the arguments that the late Sidney Webb and many of his fellow Fabians used in defence nf some forms of monopoly, on the ground that they promoted maximum efficiency, and served, the public with cheaper commodities than would be obtainable under free competition. The considered view of the joint committee of the T.U.C. and the Labour Party was that legislation for the outright prohibilition ot all monopolstic practices, although it might re-establish free competition, would not be necessarily to the public advantage. Moreover, it was I’ecognised that attempts at complete legal prohibition of monopoly which have been made in othei’ countries have invariably broken down. In the joint committee’s analysis of the problem, the conclusion was reached that if public control of monopoly is to be a rcmity, it must take 'he form either of prohibiting or modifying monopolistic practices where to the public interest.

PUBLIC INTEREST

The report emphasised 1 hat control of monopolies should be an integral part of the Government’s economic planning organisation. It was pointed out that the great difficulty which has beset attempts in other countries to control monopoly was the difficulty of giving a precise definition of what or is not “in the public interest.” There is no generally accepted standard of what constitutes a reasonable profit which can be made applicable to all industries or even to all firms in an industry, ft is only a central economic planning authority, the joint committee said, that can decide. It was strongly urged, too, by the joint committee, that measures against monopoly could not be made to cover either industries in public ownership or trade unions (in the strict sense of combinations concerned with terms of employment, conditions of labour, employment or non-employment of persons in any trade, industry or profession); since in both these cases different problems arose and the public interest, where it was invloved, could best be assured by other means. Broadly, the Bill now to be considered by Parliament gives the Government special powers for dealing with those monopolies and restrictive arrangements which are found to work against the public interest. It authorises the establishment of an independent commission, with a staff to be provided by the Board of Trade. This monopoly commission will be empowered to investigate and report on particular industries referred to it by the Board of Trade which appear to the Minister to be subject to monopolistic influences affecting the supply, processing, or export of particular goods. These monopolistic conditions are set forth in the Bill as meaning the supply of any goods in the country (or any substantial part of the country), of which at least one-third is controlled by two or more persons who conduct their affairs, whether voluntarily or otherwise, in such a way as to prevent oi* restrict competition in producing or supplying the goods; and an-" agreements, legally enforceable or not, by which the goods are not supplied likewise come into the definition of monopolistic conditions. This definition applies also to processing and export of goods.

EXEMPTED AGREEMENTS

In other words, the legislation is aimed at monopolies extending over one-third or more of goods in the production, processin" or export, of which two or more persons have entered into an agreement to limit competition in any way. But the Bill exempts agreements on wages and employment. This requires the commission to leave out of account, in considering possible monopolies, practices as to the workers to be employed, or not to be employed by them, or as to the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of any class of workers they employ. The Bill has been criticised. because it excludes all the restrictive activities of trade unions. Trade union rules, customs and practices, which have a certain restrictive effect. on production or employment, were voluntarily given up on the outbreak of World War 11. A pledge that these workshop customs and practices should be restored after the war was implemented by the present Government in an Act which is still bn the Statute Book. By agreement between both sides of industry, following discussion of the possible dangers of allowing the Act to come into operation in the present economic plight of the country, its operation is held in suspense—indusry, in fact, asked the Government to let the Act lie in abeyance for the time being. When it is thought, wise to let its provisions take effect trade union will then be entitled to ask for the restoration of specific rules and practices of the workshop. A full record of these suspended practices was kept by the Ministry of Labour and National Service during the war. The exclusion of trade union restrictive practices from the present Bill does not, therefore signify preferential treatment of the unions.