HC Deb 23 February 1939 vol 344 cc715-8

Amendments made: In page 6, line 32, leave out from beginning to "as," in line 34.

In line 34, after "may," insert "satisfy the Minister to be a sum which has."—[Sir R. Dorman-Smith.]

10.40 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith

I beg to move, in page 6, line 35, to leave out from "section" to "during" in line 43, and to insert: been determined by the Board (by reference to transactions carried out by such curers as may be specified from time to time by the Minister, after consultation with the Bacon Marketing Board, acting independently of the Development Board) to represent the average market value per hundredweight to curers.

Mr. T. Williams

I should like to inquire whether this Amendment has been accepted by the Bacon Marketing Board or whether any consultations with them have taken place?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith

Consultations have taken place.

Mr. Williams

And the Bacon Board have actually approved of this Amendment?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith

What I said was that consultations have taken place.

The Chairman

I think I am right in saying that this Amendment is a consequential one which is necessitated by an Amendment which we have already passed.

Mr. Williams

If this is an Amendment introducing a fundamental change which may adversely affect the Bacon Marketing Board, surely we are entitled to know whether they have accepted it. If, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to indicate, they are rather diffident about their acceptance of it, though having put forward no sustained opposition, we should like to have the position made a little clearer.

The Chairman

A point of Order arises here. If I am right, this Amendment is a purely consequential one and is neces- sitated by an Amendment which has just been passed by the Committee when considering Clause 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 46, after "delivered," insert: of whole sides of green Wiltshire-style bacon of all selections produced by the tank-cure process from pigs produced in Great Britain."—[Sir R. Dorman-Smith.]

Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill."

10.43 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

May I now ask the right hon. Gentleman exactly what the Bacon Marketing Board think about the Amendment which has just been embodied in the Schedule?

The Chairman

As the hon. Member has met with some difficulty perhaps I may explain the position. This is a rather new method of drafting and the position is one of some importance. A few minutes ago Amendments to Clause 1 were passed, and as a result of the Amendments then made the Schedule, which is merely a reprint of the previous enactment as altered by those Amendments in Clause 1, must have the same Amendments made in it. It is a matter of order of some importance when an Amendment has just been made to a Clause and the Clause has been passed, that where a consequential Amendment to the same effect arises later—that is, a necessary consequential Amendment which does not raise any different point from that which arose upon the Amendment on the Clause—it would be out of order to discuss it over again, it being a matter which has just been decided.

Mr. Benn

I do not wish to challenge your Ruling, but do we understand that the question which you have just put, namely "That this, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill must in fact, be decided without amendment and without Debate.

The Chairman

I carefully and purposely avoided going quite as far as that. I cannot see that in this particular case there is anything on the Schedule which might be properly debated. At the same time I can quite conceive that there might be cases where it might be so, and therefore my Ruling does not go beyond the exact words I used, that in so far as an Amendment to the Schedule is identical with an Amendment which has just been passed by the Committee in a previous Clause, it cannot be debated over again.

Mr. T. Williams

I think, Sir Dennis, you are perfectly correct in your Ruling and we have no desire to restrain the right hon. Gentleman from producing such Schedules as that embodied in the Bill, which has proved very valuable to every Member of the Committee. But on the question of whether or not any observations should be permitted on Amendments to the Schedule, if those Amendments follow upon Amendments made in a Clause in a Bill, I wish to put this point. Would it not be strictly within the limits of ordinary procedure to allow a question to be submitted upon a consequential Amendment in the Schedule arising out of an Amendment to one of the Clauses of the Bill?

The Chairman

The hon. Member's suggestion is very ingenious but the answer to it is that he is too late; the fact that the previous Amendment was not discussed or divided upon does not alter the fact that the Amendment was made and that the matter was then decided, which means that the hon. Member has lost his chance of raising any question upon it. The only exception which I can see is that it might be reasonable to make some observations on the Schedule as a whole in view of Amendments which have been made in existing legislation.

Mr. A. V. Alexander

That is the point to which I was about to address myself. There is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent Debate on the question of the Schedule being the Schedule to the Bill. On that I would say that because of the course of the Debate, and the information which has been given to the Committee by the Minister, some of us will have to look into this matter between now and the Third Reading, when we shall have an opportunity to express our views, if we find that in fact the interests concerned have not yet been met.

Mr. Garro Jones

May I ask, with great respect, upon whom does the duty fall of deciding whether or not an Amendment is consequential? Is it for the Chair so to familiarise itself with the provisions of every complicated Bill as to be in a position to decide whether or not a given Amendment is consequential. If there should be a difference of opinion on that point between a Minister and the Opposition, would it not be in order that Debate should arise. A Minister frequently has to say that an Amendment is consequential and if that statement is challenged by the Opposition, is it not inevitable that Debate should arise on the point?

The Chairman

The hon. Member began by asking me a question which is a hypothetical question. He suggests that the Chair when asked to decide whether an Amendment was consequential or not, might be in a difficulty. That is not the case on this occasion. The duty of deciding this point now does rest on the Chair, but in this case I do not find it a difficult one. Having read the Amendment to the Clause and then the Amendment to the Schedule, I find that the words are identical.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]