CAB129-78 — Page 228

5

Page 228 (iv) The tribunal might decide that an agreement was contrary to the public interest, but the Minister might decide that it was harmless. It was likely that this would happen only rarely, but, if it did, the proper procedure would again need to be by Affirmative Resolution, since the tribunal would be overruled.

5. The enforcement of the Minister's Orders could be by way of the same procedure as is prescribed in the existing Monopolies legislation i.e., in the event of a breach of an Order, the Act would give the Crown or private parties the right to seek an injunction in the High Court, with the usual consequences attaching to disobedience of the injunction.

6. If the tribunal's functions described above are to be carried out by a non- judicial body, and if the Monopolies Commission itself cannot be used for this purpose, it would be necessary to set up a special tribunal (or a series of tribunals) with a lawyer in the chair and with two or three other members picked from the ranks of distinguished persons with no particular axe to grind (e.g., retired senior civil servants, lawyers, university dons). Much would depend on how far the tribunal felt that their rulings would be upheld by the Minister. The status of the tribunal would be enhanced if, in cases where the Minister overruled it, he was required to submit to Parliament a statement of the reasons for his decision.

ANNEX III

A RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COMMISSION

""

A tribunal could be constituted on the lines of the Railway and Canal Commission which was set up by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and which lasted, virtually unchanged, until its abolition by the Railway and Canal Commission (Abolition) Act, 1949. That Commission consisted of two" appointed Commissioners,” who were laymen, (and one of whom had to be a railway expert) appointed by the Home Secretary on the recommendation of the President of the Board of Trade; and three "ex-officio Commissioners, one each for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who were Judges of the superior courts in those countries assigned to the Commission by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. The nomination of the ex-officio Commissioners was for a period of not less than five years, and the Lord Chancellor had power to remove an appointed Commissioner" for inability or misbehaviour.

<<

2. A Restrictive Practices Commission could similarly consist of nominated members of the Judiciary and appointed laymen. The laymen might be appointed by the Lord President of the Council.

3. In order that it should be able to dispose of a large volume of work, it would probably have to sit in Divisions, so that the Lord Chancellor would have to be able to nominate more than one Judge of the High Court to the Commission, and there would have to be more lay members than the two considered necessary for the Railway and Canal Commission. The state of business in the High Court at the moment is such that it is improbable that the Lord Chancellor could spare more than one Judge unless the statutory number of High Court Judges was increased. It seems unlikely that there would be any substantial volume of work in Scotland or Northern Ireland, but an increase in the judiciary in those two countries might also be required.

4. The lay members would be drawn from persons having knowledge of industrial, commercial or economic matters. It is desirable that they should be appointed whole-time so as to secure uniformity of practice, to add prestige to the new Commission, and to ensure that the public and industry do not get the impression that they are mere assessors. But it may also be necessary to have part- time members, if only because it may prove difficult to find suitable people to take whole-time appointments. In order to attract people of the highest quality the remuneration of the lay members will have to be substantial, and the question of pensions for the whole-time members will arise.

Page 228

Page 228

268

269