PRICE COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL

HC Deb 31 January 1979 vol 961 cc1501-631

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair.]

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)

On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I am perplexed over the non-selection of amendment No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after 'examination)', insert 'and except in so far as the Secretary of State may have power to make regulations under Section 9 should he deem it necessary to do so to maintain employment in the assisted areas' and amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 17, at end insert— '(2A) In section 4 (proposals to investigate price increases) there shall be added, at the end of subsection (5), the following paragraph: (a) that account ought to be taken of the whole or part of the costs of imported raw materials".'. Naturally, my hon. Friends and I accept the ruling, but we hope that some consideration will be given to certain arguments in favour of the amendments. The amendments appear to be non-destructive of the purposes of the Bill as established in the long title and approved on Second Reading.

The Bill seeks to limit the operation of section 9 of the parent measure, the Price Commission Act 1977, but clause 1 of this Bill does not repeal section 9 in its entirety. It weakens the application of that clause, but brings in an exception on its own account. I draw attention to the fact that clause 1 (1) lays down that section 9 of the Act shall cease to apply except as regards the profits which persons are not to be prevented from earning by virtue of any such notice as is mentioned in section 13(1) of that Act. The Bill as drafted, although limiting the application of section 9, does not obliterate it entirely. I contend that it would be appropriate for amendments embracing further exceptions to be considered by the Committee.

Page 506 of "Erskine May", under the heading "Functions of a Committee on a Bill", says: The function of a committee on a bill is to go through the text of the bill clause by clause and, if necessary, word by word with a view to making such amendments in it as may seem likely to render it more generally acceptable. The rules as to admissibility of amendments are discussed in detail … but the general powers of a committee and the limitations by which it is bound should be clearly borne in mind. I here draw your attention, Mr. Murton, to sub-paragraph (1), which states that A committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner that is destructive of this principle. I wish to develop that point. Sub-paragraph (2) says that: The objects of a bill are stated in its long title, which should cover everything contained in the bill.… On the origin of instructions passed by the House to a Committee, and on the operation of those rules, page 509 of "Erskine May" states that: The rigidity of this rule was found to be inconvenient, and in 1854 the House, by Standing Order No. 42, gave a general instruction to all committees to which bills were committed, empowering them to make such amendments therein as they should think fit, provided that the amendments were relevant to the subject matter of the bill". That is my principal point. The amendments which have been tabled are not destructive of the Bill and they are relevant to the subject matter. As I shall seek to point out, they are not in any event at variance with the Bill's long title.

Amendment No. 2 specifically accepts the limitation in application of section 9. It is put down on the basis that section 9 shall be limited. The amendment reduces those powers. It accepts the removal of the duty that was placed upon the Secretary of State under the parent legislation to make regulations on the generality of profit levels. It substitutes a provision that the Secretary of State shall have the discretion to retain safeguarding powers in the specific circumstances described in that amendment.

These circumstances, in themselves, are not additional to the parent Act or to the limitation of section 9. That section, applied to the whole country, by construction and implication includes the assisted areas that are referred to in amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 18 is different. It applies to clause 1(2). It does not cross the grain of clause 1(2), nor is it in conflict with the purposes and long title of the Bill. It accepts the prime purpose of the Bill but imposes a condition regarding the impact of external costs, which in any event would have been covered in the guidelines that the Price Commission is to follow. In short, amendment No. 18 would render explicit what was implicit in the parent Act and the amending Bill.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Murton, for listening to me on these two amendments, which we regard as most important. They are not hostile to the intent of the Bill, nor do they contravene the principle established by the Bill on Second Reading. For those reasons, I hope that you will be able to reconsider the selection of the amendments. The Committee appreciates that your decision is final, but it also knows that the Chair is always willing to listen to arguments and that if they are reasonable the selection may be reconsidered.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I am also surprised that three other amendments were not selected, one of which is in my name. On page 453, "Erskine May" states: it has become the normal practice … to post a notice setting out those amendments and new clauses which he"— the occupant of the Chair— has provisionally decided to select … Under more modern practice, the Chair does not normally give reasons for not selecting an amendment. The House accepts that. It goes on: The Chair may ask any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of his amendment as may be necessary to form a judgment upon it. I raise this point of order particularly in connection with my amendment No. 1 to clause 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out from "apply" to end of line 32 on page 2. The purpose of that amendment is to leave out the whole of the Bill after the word "apply" in line 6. That would eliminate section 9 of the Price Commission Act 1977.

On 29 January the Secretary of State said of this section: It was added to the Bill to provide reassurance to industry about the behaviour of the Price Commission during its early life. He went on to say: the Price Commission Act frankly has proved a good deal less effective than we hoped and believed … when it was passed by the House in 1977. He then said, of this particular section and the work of the Price Commission in future, that the Price Commission will no longer be hampered by the safeguard clauses. I want to see that happen. A little further on he said: I believe that the time has come when that hampering and that fettering of the Commission's intended task has to be removed."—[Official Report, 29 January 1979; Vol. 961, cc. 1062–67.] The proposition in the Bill is fundamental. It is proposed that a section passed by the House after considerable debate will be amended to the point where the original purpose of the Act will be seriously affected. I have only briefly rehearsed the arguments that I would like to make to the Committee, but I say in all seriousness that my amendment should be selected as it enables the Committee carefully to look again at the nature of this clause. It would be argued that this could be said on clause stand part, but on clause stand part we can debate only the clause as it is, amended or not amended. The purpose of my amendment and those of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is to enable the Committee to debate these matters with the opportunity of amending the Bill. That is a different position.

In view of all this, I would be grateful if you would seriously reconsider your decision on amendments Nos. 1 to 4 which you have provisionally decided not to select.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarvon)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Hon. Members have mentioned specific arguments on amendments Nos.2, 18 and others. I suggest with great respect that in the case of an amendment to a Bill that amends an Act that already stands, to the extent that that Bill is sought to be amended so that it makes a smaller amendment to the original Act, any such amendment must fall within the precincts of the Bill, in that it attempts to retain the powers of the original Act to a greater extent than had the amending Bill been passed without further amendment. To that extent, the arguments that have been put forward, particularly in relation to amendment No. 2, should have been accepted, not only in this case but generally.

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton)

I thank the hon. Members for putting forward their pleas. I have had notice that they wished to raise these points with me. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) quotes the fact that the Chairman's selection is provisional. I understood him to say that the word "may" is used in "Erskine May" in connection with what the Chairman may or may not do. I point out to him that it is permissive and not obligatory for the Chair to give reasons.

Notwithstanding that, I would like to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Cambridge. I say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that I did not include amendments Nos. 2 and 18 in my selection because in my view they are outside the scope of the Bill. The purpose to which the Bill is directed is to limit the application of section 9 of the original Price Commission Act. This section gives the Secretary of State certain powers for the purpose of safeguarding profits during and after periods when price increases are under investigation.

Amendment No. 2 adds another consideration, namely, the maintenance of employment in assisted areas. Amendment No. 18 would oblige the Price Commission to take into account a factor which is not solely related to profits. For these reasons, although I have given the matter the most earnest consideration, I cannot call the two amendments concerned.

The hon. Member for Cambridge dealt most specifically with amendment No. 1. This has the effect not merely of limiting the application of section 9 of the Act but of abolishing it altogether. It is, therefore, outside the scope of the present Bill, the purpose of which is to limit the application.

With regard to amendments Nos. 5 and 6, I should point out that these have been selected. Should it be so desired, and should the circumstances arise, I would be agreeable to allow a Division on amendment No. 6.

Mr. John Pardoe (Cornwall, North)

On a different point of order, Mr. Murton. Perhaps we can clear up the question with regard to amendment No. 7 and the order of the names attached to that amendment. To those outside the House this may seem rather petty, but it is very important to the procedures of the House, because whose name heads the list dictates who moves the amendment, as well as whose amendment it is considered to be. This is particularly true with regard to those who may read our debates in the press.

If a minority party tables the same amendment as the main Opposition party, such a minority party can move the amendment only if it tabled it before the official Opposition. In the nature of things, it is almost always true that where a minority party and the official Opposition table the same amendment, the amendment of the official Opposition will be tabled first, simply because they occupy the Opposition Front Bench.

I do not like the "rugger-scrum" rules. It would be far better if we left amendments to come out of the printer's bag simply by chance. However, that is the rule of the House. It is a question of who gets the amendment in first. I understand that on the part of the powers that be there is no doubt at all that my amendment was submitted first. I did not have a rugger scrum with the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), but I won the race to the Table. I can only think that the printing order was subject to some kind of Conservative picket and that it has been altered for that reason. I understand that we are all in agreement that my amendment was tabled first, and I should like you to confirm that I shall be called to move it.

The Chairman

I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that his premise is correct. Without in any way getting into the political arena—the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I cannot do so—I suggest that this is one occasion when the Liberals are grateful to be first past the post. In fact, great care has been taken. There were numerous witnesses, and there is no doubt that even though it may have been by only a whisker, the Liberals were first past the post. In this case, I have pleasure in informing the hon. Gentleman that he will be called.

Mr. Michael Neubert (Romford)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I am sorry to strike what may appear to be a sour note after your genial contribution, but this misplacing of names was in evidence on yesterday's Amendment Paper. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) had the opportunity yesterday to correct that mistake, if mistake it was. Is it in order for him now to apply to you successfully for the switch to be made when it was open to him under the normal procedures to do so at an earlier time?

Mr. Pardoe

Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Fortunately, I queried this yesterday. I received a letter stating that what you have just said was correct. I was informed that the names would be altered on today's Amendment Paper. Obviously, a second Conservative picket was operating in the printer's office.

The Chairman

I can assure the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ncubert) that the mistake was entirely unintentional. I understand that it was decided that it would be best to leave the situation as it was and give the explanation in writing, so that there could be no thought that it was anything but a misadventure.

1. Clause 1
cc1507-607
1. AMENDMENT OF PRICE COMMISSION ACT 1977 39,298 words, 8 divisions
c1607
2. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 22 words
cc1607-10
3. PRICE COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL 312 words
4. New Clause 2
cc1611-31
1. DURATION OF ACT 8,807 words, 2 divisions