G "Let's have a holiday abroad this winter." See the Bank about it DISTRICT BANK LIMITED THE GUARDIAN MANCHESTER, WEDNESDAY, November 14, 1951 MONOPOLISING LIGHT The Monopolies Commission has spent two and a half years in threading its way through the labyrinth of agreements aad cross-patenting by which the electric light bulbs that are used in almost every home in the country are made and marketed The report published yesterdav is worth ' this patient research. Tt lights up some dark corridors of our trading system, and it shows how defenceless . the unorganised user (and buver) of th ings can become when producers combine against him. In 1925 the main electric lamp manufacturers in Europe and America signed an agreement, known as the "Phoebus Agreement," parcelling out world markets among themselves and effectively undertaking not to compete with one another. The " Phoebus Agreement " ! was automatically ended by the war, but it was replaced by a rather similar international agreement in 1948. Here at home the largest manufacturers have been grouped in the Electric Lamp Manufacturers' Association (a registered trade union) since 1933. Each member has a quota of trade allotted to him. If he exceeds it in a year he has to pay a "fine" into a common fund ; from this fund a member who has not managed to sell his quota is reimbursed. The old international agreement imposed fines on a manufacturer who might make electric lamps that would last too long. At home this arrangement still applies to certain cheaper grades of lamp they must not have a life of more than a thousand hours. No member has ever been fined for making a lamp to last too long ; the system was described to the Monopolies Commission as "nominally in force." But it is there. The commission estimates that manufacturers in the association have about 60 per cent of the present British trade in lamp-bulbs of all kinds. But some non-member firms are controlled in one way or another , . , . , , 4 , , , . , ' cers may be dependent on member firms for some essential components. Such combination needs to be considered soberly. The case for the prosecution is not the only side. The organised producers could argue that Ihey were trying to maintain stability of "mployment in their 2'espective countries and that only by agreeing to forgo competition could they share in one another's research. The network of agreements to maintain retail prices can be said to protect the retailer from undercutting. But these arguments only go half-way. It is true tnat there are merits m sharing , , ft ; research, but it is also possible for the discovery, say, of a new process that would make lamps last three times as long to be quietly suppressed. (It is not suggested that this has been done.) For the retailer it may be a comfort- iule l" protected against i a man across the way who can sell his ; wares for sixpence less. But is it a ; ui. i i . , ; .i milium, i uj. Hit pUL(ll . XII kllC ...f 4 1 1 A J .1 I these comoina tions are many times more powerful than they used to be. The sweated labour of Japan may have produced much misery in the world, but Japan- ese competition was at least a check on the ability of monopolies or near-! monopolies to sweat the world at large. And it is an example of what can be done to meet such competition tnat a British electric light firm (not tnen a member of the association) .i-uat lu ul me i.e on ineir 0n srouna in suppling cheap lamps ; r xnere may oe gooa social grounds for limiting competi- tion based on the exploitation of low- paid labour. But such policies should uauer puouc control, ine getting together of producers to put down one form of exploitation can too easily lead to exploitation of the public in some other way. The conclusions of the Monopolies Commission about electric light bulbs are moderate and sensible. It does not object to a manufacturers' association agreeing to fix minimum prices for various types' of lamp, but it thinks that this should stop at manufacturers' prices ; it does not think that they should be imposed on retailers by "collective sanctions" and the stop list It does not see any merit in agreements to limit the quality or life of lamps, or in a " sales quota " system which allows a manufacturer to be paid for not selling lamps. It recommends that both these arrangements should be brought to an end. It also recommends that subsidiary companies should have a genuine independence and should not be used (as some of them were formed to be)-as " fighting companies " to undercut independent competitors without prejudicing the price of established brands of lamp. (A minority report by one economist member of the commission argues that this is "unrealistic" and that the Government had better take over the shares of subsidiary companies.) There is a more compelling reason than ever before for controlling monopoly in electric lamps. Two wonderful American machines are in process of being installed here which can "blow" mechanically more than enough bulbs to meet the entire British trade in lamps. They are owned by two of the largest members of the manufacturers' association and (failing free trade with foreign sources of supply) the controllers of these machines could effectively put a stop to all domestic competition. The" owners have given an assurance to the commission that apart from charging lower prices to themselves and their own subsidiaries they will sell bulbs equally to members and non-members ' of the association. The commission thinks that this is not quite enough ; that price-lists ought to be published, and that if difficulties arise the Government should impose direct controls to see that independent and organised Producers alike get fair shares- rew wil1 c5uarreI these recommendations, and the Conserva tive Government, which has promised us a "greatly strengthened" Monopolies Commission, should have no hesitation in seeing that they are carried out. "Forgotten Men" Our troops in Korea are not " forgotten men " in the way that some of the remoter British contingents were in the Jast war- The Sequent parliamentary questions about their welfare are sure evidence of that. Yesterday Mr Antony Head had to answer his first series of such questions. He reported that new boots of i an improved pattern and better winter clothes were reaching the men I in Korea to which one may add, j " and about time too." On pay, another old and sore subject, he was non-committal. He is "looking into" an overseas allowance for Korea. His predecessor could never persuade the War Office to find a way of granting one, with the result that some soldiers lost money by going to active service. They were deprived of the allowances which they had had in Hongkong. Singapore, and other overseas stations. The War Office view was that the cost of living in Korea was not high (not unnaturally, since there is next to nothing to spend money on) and that it would set a wrongful precedent to grant campaign pay. Officially it may be correct that all soldiers are for the purpose of fighting and therefore none should expect any extra money for doing his duty. But this is an occasion for showing some human warmth and imagination. The men who go to Korea are a sma 1 fraction of the Army and at present they alone are asked to face bitter fighting and casualties. In Malaya also men are being killed and wounded; but the risks there are small compared with Korea. In any case, campaign pay is not without j precedent, since it was granted in parts of South-east Asia towards the end of the last war. An alternative to a local allowance would be to grant additional leave with pay to men returning from Korea or to increase their gratuities. Some way ought to be found soon of rewarding the men who have served in Acheron while . v. - t n i j r-i their fellows have enjoyed Elysium. The war has gone on regardless of the armistice negotiations. Are the negotiators on both sides themselves losing sight of the war ? There is a suspicion that if anyone is " forget ting " the men at the front thev are. The United Nations delegation issued a dav or two ago a statement on the deIavs at Panrnunjom, but its e3,plana. tion was not satixfartor-v Tho ttv- ! delegates were striving for four points, ; Flrst, thev wanted a demilitarised zone based on the battle line the day the armistice is signed To ; this the Chinese on their side (through a similar statement ,on Peking radio) that they agree j The difficulty is that the Chinese want a provisional line agreed now, j whereas the United Nations command i now says it does not The Teas(m .,11.1. .xiiu hlldL LUC U IllkCU lldLlVHS repeated yesterday by a United Nations sookesman that if ,. line . was fixed the Chinese cauld then argue indefinitely about the other j terms. To that the Chinese say, and J have been saying for days, that they w i modifv thP linP .,n tk .Ho luu agreement is signea. it that is the case, why is the United Nations 1 command holding back ? Its action hard to understand. It is causing the innnite argument, not the Chinese. , Admiral Joy or General Ridgway should make a more thorough statement on this point. The three remaining points in the original statement are also obscure. The second is that the United Nations forces must retain " sound defensible main positions." AsreecL hut if j the armistice line is to be based on Is been troubling authorities. " the all the out of censorship. it to got the that the by to 1 the A to least .n-uica, up of the they . ,l the in at scripture the It a i of to if To not ago. ! are live feet in lie lies of to and
