CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions of district scheme.) (Hansard, 9 July 1930)

§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords 559 Amendment, after the first word "or," to insert the words "ought to be amended on the ground that it."

I am afraid these words, as I propose them, will seem rather unintelligible, but I will endeavour to put the point to the House in the simplest terms. Subsection (6) of this Clause refers to the committees of investigation and the duties they have to undertake in connection with the operation of a scheme. When the Bill was in Committee and on Report stage hon. Members opposite raised the question of the overriding public interest, which we felt ought to be a consideration, and the case of individuals to whom the scheme might be unfair or inequitable. It was proposed at that, time to add the words: or is unfair or inequitable in its operation. The House of Commons did not agree to the insertion of those words, but the House of Lords insisted. I have just moved that we do not insist on our disagreement with the House of Lords, and I am now proposing to amend those words in order that they may read in the following way: or ought to be amended on the ground that it is unfair or inequitable in its operation. The meaning of that alteration is that in practice the Board of Trade will be given rather greater discretion. I think the House will agree that in a matter of this kind, as indeed was admitted in another place, the public interest must prevail; but unless the words are amended in the sense that I have proposed, the position would be that any single individual to whom the scheme was unfair or inequitable, even though it might be on a quite minor point, would be able to achieve this result: the Board of Trade would have to make representations to the owners in the district, and, if a remedy were not found, then the other procedure would have to go through its various stages; and sanction for the scheme might be withdrawn on the ground that the difficulty had not been remedied. I have only to say to the House that I think that would be an impossible state of affairs, and the words we propose in the Amendment make the point quite clear. There is a subsequent Amendment in Sub-section (8) which we propose to put on the same basis. In these circumstances, 560 we are prepared to accept the words which have been proposed in another place. The adoption of the words on the top of page 14 will give an additional right of appeal. I think my explanation makes it clear that we have added to the discretion of the Board of Trade by an additional right of appeal which is proposed on the top of page 14.