Skip to main content

Coal Industry Bill

Volume 463: debated on Monday 28 March 1949

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

3.35 p.m.

Before you call the individual Amendments on the Paper, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether, for the guidance of the House, if you would be good enough to indicate the sort of discussion which you think might properly take place? I gather that you are of the opinion that discussion on Clause 1 was fairly full in the Committee upstairs and that therefore any further discussion of the principles in Clause 1 should take place on Third Reading. As to Clauses 2 and 3, I wonder whether there might be a fairly wide discussion on any Amendment which you select, without going into detail. I think that course would meet the convenience of Members on both sides of the House.

So far as the new Clauses are concerned, I shall select the third one on the Order Paper—(General Regulations to be subject to annulment), which I think is the most important, although it was debated at length upstairs. I also consider that discussion on Clause 1 should be taken on Third Reading, as that Clause was fully debated, as were the proposed Amendments to that Clause.

I am prepared to allow a wide Debate on the first Amendment to Clause 2 and on the first Amendment to Clause 3. I think that will cover all the Amendments on that page of the Order Paper, including the Minister's Amendment, because there will be a fairly wide Debate. I then propose that we should go right down to the bottom of the next page to the Amendment in Clause 3, page 3, line 44, to insert "to which this Section applies." That will be a separate Amendment.

I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, that you would allow a wide Debate on the first Amendment to Clause 2, that is, to leave out Clause 2.

No, I think Mr. Speaker was referring to the actual Amendment, in line 23, to insert a new proviso.

Then I understood that we should have a fairly wide Debate on the Amendments to Clause 3.

I am sorry that apparently I did not make myself clear. I propose to omit the Amendments to leave out Clause 2 and Clause 3. Those Amendments are not usually accepted on Report stage. In Committee the Clauses were divided upon, on the Motion that they should stand part of the Bill. I was refering to the first Opposition Amendment in Clause 2, line 23, and the Amendment in Clause 3, to leave out, "or include terms which provide." I thought a discussion on those Amendments would cover all the Amendments on pages 1393 and 1394 of the Amendment Paper, except the last but one, in Clause 3, page 4, line 31, to insert subsection (5). Then in Clause 4 I shall select the following two Amendments: page 5, line 36, and page 6, line 9.

Might I ask whether on the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 23, which you have selected, it will be in Order to discuss all aspects of bunkering and foreign coal stations?

I gather that in Committee there was some confusion on that matter, and therefore I thought it would clear the matter up if we had a fairly wide discussion on that Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that you have selected the third of the proposed new Clauses. The effect of this new Clause is very easy to explain—

I am sorry, but I cannot find the hon. Gentleman's name on the Order Paper as one of the movers of this new Clause. On Report it should be moved by somebody whose name is against the new Clause on the Paper.