HC Deb 02 April 1936 vol 310 cc2241-3

8.26 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I beg to move, in page 9, line 36, to leave out "whether parties to the agreement or not."

This Clause provides for schemes under which, among other things, there will be assessments of contributions to be made by registered refiners. The extraordinary thing is that in regard to this industry which is apparently to be closely regulated and controlled in future, words are included in this Clause which will make subject to the charge people who are not parties to the agreement at all. I think we ought to have some guidance from the Government as to what is the real purpose of the insertion of the words, "whether parties to the agreement or not." Do they apply to people who are making different classes of sugar which may not be on sale to the general public to-day as white sugar production, or are they intended to apply to new entrants into the industry who may perhaps not be able to begin sugar production on their own initiative unless they are able to buy out existing interests? If they are to apply in that way, I can understand them. But supposing any section of the trade or any members of the public desire to go into the production of sugar of this kind in future, and are willing to do so at their own risk and without any help at all from the subsidy, are they to be subjected to the charge? I would like to have some information as to the people who are to be made subject to the charge, whether they are parties to the agreement or not.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM

The persons who are to be subjected to the charge are the registered refiners. I am not quite clear as to what object the right hon. Gentleman has in mind in moving this Amendment. Even if the words were omitted, I doubt whether that would affect the purpose of the Clause. The main recommendation of these words is that they add to the clarity of the Clause. Even if the words "whether parties to the agreement or not" were left out, there would still remain the words "assessment of contributions to be made by all registered refiners."

I thought the right hon. Gentleman's object might be to confine the liability to contributions solely to those refiners who are parties to the agreement, but I hope that is not so for if it were, it would be most unfair. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the contributions imposed by the Bill upon refiners are in return for certain advantages which the refiners get, and it would not be fair if there were certain refiners not parties to the agreement who would share in the advantages conferred by the Bill without having any liability to make contributions. The sole object of the words referred to in the Amendment is to clarify the position, and if the right hon. Gentleman had any other object it would not be achieved by the deletion of those words. I cannot believe he wishes to produce a situation in which there would be certain registered refiners who would enjoy whatever benefits are given without incurring any of the disadvantages and liabilities imposed by the Bill in the way of contributions.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Do I understand that what the Parliamentary Secretary is submitting to me is that this Clause is necessary in this form in order to secure the implementing of the arrangement contained in the White Paper of last July, that the refining section of the industry should pay 1s. 4½d. per cwt. upon 720,000 tons of notional quota over the year?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM

Under this Bill they get what is called a differential excise benefit and a limitation of the Corporation's output of white sugar to 500,000 tons. In return they make certain contributions under the refining arrangements. That is the transaction from both sides. It would be very unfair if certain refiners not parties to the agreement escaped the liabilities but enjoyed the advantages which I have enumerated.

Amendment negatived.