Results 1-20 of 171 for speaker:Mr Frank Bishop

Orders of the Day — Resale Prices Bill: Clause 5. — (Power of Court to Exempt Classes of Goods.) (23 April 1964)

Mr Frank Bishop: I do not think that I can entirely follow the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom), but I wish to express the hope that my right hon. Friend will give some consideration to the purpose of the Amendment. What concerns me is what might be called the side effects of the Bill in country areas. I do not represent a country area, but I live in a small village...

Resale Prices Bill (22 April 1964)

Mr Frank Bishop: Reference was made to electrical appliances. The only one mentioned was a sun-ray lamp used for the purposes of health. Would this provision also cover domestic appliances such as electric blankets, which might be liable to cause accident if not properly used? Would the reference to danger to health cover them?

Resale Prices Bill (22 April 1964)

Mr Frank Bishop: I should point out at this stage that I was ready earlier to accept my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will look into the question of whether electrical appliances would be covered. An electric blanket, for example, can be misused by the public. There are different kinds of electric blanket. There is one called the "under blanket" for which the instructions are, briefly, that one must...

Resale Prices Bill: Clause 4. — (Civil Remedies for Breach of Restrictions.) (21 April 1964)

Mr Frank Bishop: Whatever may be thought of arrangements through newspaper franchises, they have never included resale price maintenance. There has never been any form of r.p.m. in the sale of newspapers.

Resale Prices Bill (21 April 1964)

Mr Frank Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, bear in mind that there is no such thing as a newsagent pure and simple. The whole marvellous system of the distribution of newspapers in this country depends not only on the direct arrangements between the newspaper proprietors and the agents but on the other business which they all conduct and which may be dependent to some extent on resale price...

Orders of the Day — Resale Prices Bill: Clause 2. — (Prohibition of Other Measures for Maintaining Resale Prices.) (25 March 1964)

Mr Frank Bishop: I am a little doubtful about the meaning of the Amendment in relation to the preceding sub-paragraph, where reference is made to refusing delivery of goods, one reason being because of unfavourable conditions as to credit. It is now proposed, in relation to sub-paragraph (b), which deals with a case where the supplier contracts to supply goods, that he should not be permitted to make less...

Orders of the Day — Resale Prices Bill: Resale Prices Bill (25 March 1964)

Mr Frank Bishop: The hon. Member perhaps does not realise that the Clause would work both ways. Supposing a supplier wanted to give extended special credit to a small shopkeeper like those he is referring to, the supplier would be debarred by the Clause from doing so unless he was prepared to give the same credit to all his customers.

Orders of the Day — Resale Prices Bill: Resale Prices Bill (25 March 1964)

Mr Frank Bishop: Unlike the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I think that the Amendment does not go far enough. I apologise to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) if I misled him about it when we referred to this matter earlier. I was under the impression that we might be able to discuss the whole subject of credit, but it may be that we shall have to leave that until...

Orders of the Day — Road Safety Bill (28 February 1964)

Mr Frank Bishop: Would my hon. Friend make this a little more clear? In London, for example, what would be the relationship of this new police force to the Metropolitan Police when it comes to questions of prosecution? Would it have entirely separate powers not coming under the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, or what would be the relationship?

Orders of the Day — Road Safety Bill (28 February 1964)

Mr Frank Bishop: Suppose a car driver has had the two whiskies that my hon. Friend regards as the maximum and, knowing that, decides to leave his car and walk home along the highway. Is it really suggested that he is guilty of the same offence in walking home on the highway as he would have been if he had driven his car?

Orders of the Day — Road Safety Bill (28 February 1964)

Mr Frank Bishop: Surely the effect of subsection (3) is that a person who accompanies somebody else who has drunk two whiskies, even if he himself has drunk nothing at all, might find himself under the necessity to submit himself to a test for alcoholic content if he wanted to establish the innocence of his friend, and to prove that his friend had been accompanied by someone who had not himself been drinking.

Clause 36. — (Restriction on Persons Under 16 Taking Part in Public Performances, etc.) (15 July 1963)

Mr Frank Bishop: I beg to move, in page 19, line 15. to leave out "three" and to insert "six".

Clause 36. — (Restriction on Persons Under 16 Taking Part in Public Performances, etc.) (15 July 1963)

Mr Frank Bishop: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The three Amendments go together, and they have the very simple and modest object of providing a little more flexibility in the rules governing performances by children without licence. As the Bill stands, two performances are permitted without licences in any period of three months. The effect of the Amendments would be to permit up to four performances in a period...

Orders of the Day — Estate Agents Bill (22 March 1963)

Mr Frank Bishop: I still cannot find the figure 5 which my hon. Friend mentioned. I am looking not at the Explanatory Memorandum, but at the Schedule.

Orders of the Day — Estate Agents Bill (22 March 1963)

Mr Frank Bishop: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, will he deal with this point? He began his speech by saying that he thought that the Bill should have a Second Reading. I wondered, at the end of his speech, whether he was still of that opinion. Does he really think that the criticisms he made could possibly be put right in Standing Committee?

Orders of the Day — Estate Agents Bill (22 March 1963)

Mr Frank Bishop: Is there any provision at all in the Bill which would enable any change to take place in the control which is established over the chartered bodies?

Orders of the Day — Historic Buildings Bill (22 February 1963)

Mr Frank Bishop: I share the sympathy which has been expressed by every speaker for the purposes behind the Bill, but I must say immediately that I doubt whether I can respond to the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) that we ought to give the Bill a Second Reading and hope to make it a viable proposition in Committee. In a...

Orders of the Day — Historic Buildings Bill (22 February 1963)

Mr Frank Bishop: I am saying that I should want to feel that there was some reasonable possibility that Clause 2 could be so amended as to get rid of the difficulties that one sees there now. Clause 2 is essential to the Bill. Without it there is very little left, except the other objectionable feature that the owner of a public building is put in a privileged position compared with other people.

Local Authorities (Land) Bill (22 February 1963)

Mr Frank Bishop: I agree with both the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). Of course, I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that local authorities must have every power to deal with land which is neglected in the sense of being dangerous. I should have thought that this would probably come under the word...

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1. — (the London Boroughs.) (13 February 1963)

Mr Frank Bishop: I intervene to make it clear that the Harrow Borough Council is not in favour of this scheme and has so decided, not that we do not recognise what it means to be wooed in this way by our neighbours. We make the reply that Lord Balfour gave when he was asked why he did not marry a certain lady, that he rather thought of having a career of his own. That is Harrow's view.