HC Deb 14 June 1956 vol 554 cc803-7
Mr. Walker-Smith

I beg to move, in page 19, line 24, to leave out "by retail purchase" and to insert otherwise than for the purpose of resale in the course of business". There is nothing to this Amendment, other than that it makes clear that the exemption from legal proceedings applies only to a genuine retail purchase made otherwise than for the purpose of resale in the course of business. It meets points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and other hon. Members.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

May I now, with respect, pursue the point of order which was interrupted by the intervention of the Parliamentary-Secretary? I was mentioning the importance which we attach to the Amendment to Clause 20, in page 19, line 35, which seeks to insert: (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the right of a trader to provide a discount for his customers based on purchases and payable not more frequently than once in three months. I understand that Amendment is not being called. I was explaining the importance which we attach to it and pressing to have the matter discussed at this stage. I will not repeat the speech I made before the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Norman Dodds (Erith and Crayford)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Will you bear in mind that already the information that this Amendment will not be called has got to certain quarters and, in view of its vital importance, there is deep concern. Will you give some guidance and, if it is not to be called, give some sort of explanation why an Amendment of this sort has not been called, so that millions of people can understand why, in our Parliamentary democracy, a thing of this sort can be cut out of the Bill?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith

Further to that point of order. I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that all these facts are fully within your mind. But, if I may, I will recall to the memory of the House that the point raised by the Amendment was very fully debated during the Committee stage—

Mr. Dodds

And so were many other things.

Mr. Walker-Smith

—and the debate filled 44 columns of HANSARD.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

Further to that point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that it was a matter which was discussed and considered when we debated dividends and the very important question of principle involved in enforcement and discrimination against the co-operative societies, and making it enforceable by the Court. That was the only reference to this cooperative matter in the whole of the proceedings on the Bill. It is a very important feature of the Bill. We have had no reconsideration of it and no discussion during the Report stage or earlier, after the Government—and this is the important thing—had had an opportunity to consider at their leisure the points made in that debate. Therefore, the observation of the Parliamentary Secretary, that this matter has been adequately dealt with and disposed of in one debate, does not meet the point.

Mr. Walker-Smith

May I say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, without wishing to turn into a debate what is a request for your guidance, that had the Government considered that 44 columns of debate dictated any different approach to this problem, an Amendment would have been put down. But the Report stage is not supposed to be a vehicle for the reiteration of the same considerations which have already been expressed at length during the Committee stage discussions.

Mr. Jay

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am reluctant to allow it to go on, because I ought not to allow it all.

Mr. Jay

Is it not because the attitude of the Government is still so unsatisfactory that it ought to be debated at this present stage? Are you not aware also, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Amendment which we now seek to move is in a different form and makes a substantially different suggestion from the one which we debated during the Committee stage?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The point is that under Standing Order No. 31 Mr. Speaker has the power of selection and it cannot be discussed. Otherwise, we could go on discussing the question of selection all the time. This Amendment has not been selected, and that is all I can say about it.

Regarding the point about people being aware of the position, after the conference it is known which Amendments are to be selected and which are not, for the convenience of people who wish to make speeches, because they might prepare a speech upon an Amendment which was not selected. Consequently, the information is, more or less, public property.

Mr. G. Darling

I do not wish to appear to be questioning your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am confident that Mr. Speaker did not take into consideration the view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, that 44 columns of discussion got rid of any subject—that, however important it might be, 44 columns of discussion was sufficient to get rid of it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I cannot answer that. The conference was yesterday morning at eleven, and as I had been up until six o'clock I asked leave to be excused. I do not know, therefore, what was said, and even if I did, I could not inform the House.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I did not suggest that 44 columns of debate, or any number of columns, was sufficient to get rid of this, or indeed any other point of principle on which differences might be sincerely and deeply felt. I was addressing myself to the contention that insufficient attention had been given to this matter by the House. No one disputes that it is an important matter.

Mr. Dodds

I never made any suggestion that this matter had been insufficiently discussed. I said there was deep concern that this part of the Bill was not to be discussed and I asked you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to be good enough to explain how we work in our Parliamentary democracy. The Parliamentary Secretary simply was not listening to what I was saying.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

May I mention a further point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The Parliamentary Secretary has intervened three or four times and mentioned 44 columns of debate. It was I who suggested that 44 columns was no indication of the adequacy of a debate. I did so because that debate took place on one occasion, and one occasion only. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think that if the Government had considered a debate and wished to do nothing about it that was good enough for the House, but that is not so. This House is not a place for dictation by a Government. It is a place for finding the reasons for which a Government act. The suggestion we make is that the House should be given an opportunity of probing the matter further, and of probing the reconsideration which we trust the Government have given to the matter in the light of the debate concerned.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think I can allow this question to be considered further. Mr. Speaker and I have to work under the Standing Orders of the House.

Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

On a further point of order. As this question concerns, not 44 columns in HANSARD, but 11 million people in the country, would you consider the submission of a manuscript Amendment to cover the point?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No.

Mr. J. C. Forman (Glasgow, Springburn)

Is the Parliamentary Secretary entitled to censure the Chair for allowing 44 columns of discussion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think the occupants of the Chair can look after themselves.