HC Deb 27 March 1956 vol 550 cc2039-41
Mr. H. Nicholls

I beg to move, in page 28, line 45, at the end to insert: as the Minister may consider appropriate in the circumstances. When we were discussing Clause 26 in Committee we accepted an Amendment moved by the Opposition which made it mandatory upon the Minister to do certain things, and in accepting it I said that I was sure it would be appreciated that it would make necessary some consequential drafting later. This Amendment flows from that. It is consequential upon the Opposition Amendment moved in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. H. Nicholls

I beg to move, in page 29, line 30, after "who" to insert "in his opinion."

In Committee we had a debate, which waxed loud and long, on what was meant by the words: … a substantial interest in the market … as they are used particularly in subsection (3). Hon. Members opposite asked us to make clear, if this were the case, that it would be for the Minister to decide what was in fact a substantial interest.

My right hon. Friend said that the difficulty of defining the word "substantial" had arisen on many occasions, and it is no doubt within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman, who has had to pilot many matters through this House, that the word "substantial" is one which always causes difficulty if people want to frame a speech around something or other. My right hon. Friend promised to look at the matter again to see if words needed to be added to make the intention clear.

We have looked at this again because it is an important point, and the proviso in which it occurs gives the Minister power to refuse to approve an agreement without notifying the parties of the modification if he finds that certain refiners did not take part in the original agreement. He can hardly send it back to them to ask them to modify something which they did not enter into in the first place. If they can prove that they have had discussions with one another and have come to a conclusion that is not satisfactory to the Minister, he can send it back with modifications, but in those circumstances he has to give at least a month's notice. Where the refiners did not take part, in the original discussions, there is no need to give a month's notice. We have looked at this matter again and we had decided that the only thing that we can do with the connotation of "substantial" in this context is that it should be a matter for the Minister and therefore we propose the Amendment.

I think that the Amendment meets very largely the point which hon. Gentlemen put in Committee, and I should like to thank them for their suggestions which I hope will make this operate much better when the Bill comes into effect.

Mr. Willey

We certainly accept that this is an improvement. It will prevent lawyers from arguing what is "substantial" and, on the whole, that will probably be an advantage.

Amendment agreed to.