HC Deb 29 May 1933 vol 278 cc1683-4

11.4 p.m.


I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.

This Clause removes the alleged equitable basis of compensation in the original Act and leaves the question of compensation entirely in the hands of the board. This Bill involves more or less all industrial interests and the users of primary products of agriculture, and we fear that all sorts of difficulties may arise because of the encouragement given to production in certain circumstances and the discouragement of production in other circumstances, and the method of determination of compensation may be so difficult that we doubt the wisdom of the Minister in changing the Section of the original Act. This Amendment was moved in Committee, and the best arguments were advanced in favour of it. Some of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's friends were very disturbed, and we hope that the Minister has had a further opportunity of examining the question.

11.6 p.m.


Consultations have taken place as to whether or not Clause 13 is better than the original Section 7, and in three sentences I can tell the House why in the opinion of the Minister in charge of the Bill Clause 13 is a considerable improvement. In Section 7 of the principal Act every scheme had to provide that compensation should be payable. What is wanted is not that compensation should be compulsory even though equitable, but that the board should have power to pay it in proper cases. Clause 13 so provides and is therefore an obvious improvement.


If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there will be no inequity and no disturbance among his farmer friends I do not object and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.