CLAUSE 33.—(Provisions with respect to submission, confirmation, amendment and revocation of service schemes.) (Hansard, 4 May 1937)

§ Mr. T. Williams
I beg to move, in page 32, line 7, to leave out sub-paragraph (i).
I move this Amendment for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman how he intends to interpret the expression "preponderating opinion." Are we to take it that, if certain representations are made to the Commission, they will produce a service scheme because they feel that those who make the representations are substantially representative of that interest? When the Minister comes to confirm a service scheme, he has to apply another interpretation. There now has to be a preponderating opinion. Will he tell us whether a preponderating opinion has to be a larger proportion than is implied by substantial representation; or must the latter be larger than the former?

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
The hon. Member has asked me a question which is rather difficult to answer, because it is based upon a hypothetical set of circumstances. I think that neither he nor I would have any difficulty in recognising the existence of a preponderating body of opinion if we saw it, but it is rather a difficult thing to describe. I think that the way in which the two provisions to which he has drawn attention should be construed is as follows: The preparation of a scheme by the Commissioners has, as he says, to be preceded by the existence of a body substantially representative; that is to say, before a service scheme has any prospect of functioning 1061 usefully, there would have to be in existence a body uniting in one group the members of that particular section of the industry, and that body would have to be substantially representative of those concerned. As regards the duty of the Minister in confirming the scheme, he has to be satisfied that there is a preponderating opinion in favour of the formation of the scheme among the persons in the class that is liable to contribute. When the Minister confirms a scheme, he must know that he is imposing upon this particular class the obligation to contribute for the object of the scheme, and he must satisfy himself that it is the desire of the great majority of those thus affected that the scheme should be confirmed. In other words, he must be satisfied that any minority that exists is so small that it must not be allowed to hold up the operation of the service scheme. That is the way in which the Minister would regard the matter before he would give his assent to or confirm a scheme which imposes a levy.

§ Mr. Adamson
Would the Minister indicate in what way he would ascertain whether there is substantial representation or a preponderating opinion? Would it be possible to take some form of ballot among the particular class concerned in the operation of these service schemes? Surely some machinery is necessary to ascertain whether there is that opinion which is likely to make the scheme successful. It is difficult for us, without some further explanation from the Minister, to give him the powers that he is going to exercise under this Sub-section, which will prevent a scheme from coming into operation until he is finally satisfied that it will work and will be financially successful. If the Minister could indicate more clearly how the machinery will operate, we might understand and appreciate the extent of the powers which we are about to confer upon him under this Sub-section.

§ Mr. Morrison
Clause 31 makes it necessary, before a service scheme can be considered or prepared, that there shall be a body substantially representing the persons concerned. It is perfectly easy to ascertain how representative these trade associations are, and, when it comes to the question of confirmation, 1062 the Minister will satisfy himself, on the evidence brought before him by the representative body, that there was a preponderating opinion in favour of the scheme. I do not think it would be wise to insist upon a ballot being taken. Some of these associations are extremely representative; there are very few people outside them; and it would be easy to scrutinise the evidence which they would put before one to show that there was a preponderating opinion in favour of the scheme. Ministers are very accessible to those who are not in favour of a proposal, and I have no doubt at all that any minority in the class affected who felt that the scheme was against their interests would let the Minister know speedily, and he would have no difficulty, after a little inquiry, in finding where the preponderating opinion lay.