Debate on The Clockmakers' Registration Regulation Act

Official report · Assembly of SchwartzistanSession 1958 · col. 14474

The Speaker: The question before the House is that the Bill be now read a third time and do pass. I call the Minister.

Viktor Nussbaum (Minister of Chronology): I beg to move the third reading of the Bill, and I shall be brief. The Bill is short, the Ministry is satisfied with it, and the register will not be disturbed by it. I read the material clause to the House. Administered by the Ministry of Chronology. I move.

Manfred Eckholt (The Osmoor; The Reed Party): Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister one thing: does the Bill send an officer out to the farms, and if it does, who feeds him? The Bill concerns dates, and the House does not argue about dates. It passes Bills about them. My constituents in The Osmoor wrote to me about the Bill, all 9 of them, and they were against it until they read it. I oppose the third reading. [The Line!]

Marta Hauk (Norrfeld; The Assembly Union): Speaker, I ask the House to consider the tradesman who will have to comply with this. He has not been consulted; he has been notified. Norrfeld has had a hard year. I say that not against the Bill but so that the Minister remembers it when the fees are fixed. I have no observation on the reckoning of years, which is the Ministry's business and not mine. The schedule is plain enough. Offences under this Act are tried before the Court of Chronological Offences. We shall divide the House. [The Line!]

Sigmund Dahlmann (The Capital District; The Continuity Party): Mr. Speaker, The Continuity Party supports every measure that keeps the record whole and opposes every measure that does not. This one keeps it whole. In The Capital District, which I have the honour to sit for, the Bill will be read at the market cross and understood by half. The calendar is the calendar. The licence is a small thing to ask of a clockmaker, and the clockmakers have said so themselves. The material provision is this: Administered by the Ministry of Chronology. I ask the House to note it. I cannot vote for the Bill as it stands and I shall not. [The Line!]

Viktor Mossbach (The Ostrand; The Workers' Front): Speaker, There is not a word in the Bill about wages. There never is. I put the word in now, so that it is in the record. The Bill concerns dates, and the House does not argue about dates. It passes Bills about them. My constituents in The Ostrand wrote to me about the Bill, all 6 of them, and they were against it until they read it. We shall divide the House. [Hear, hear.]

Liesl Rusk (Norrfeld; The Continuity Party): Mr. Speaker, The people of Norrfeld will ask what it costs them, and I should like to be able to tell them. Nothing in the Bill disturbs the record. The Continuity Party asks only that the register be kept as it has always been kept. I read the clause. Offences under this Act are tried before the Court of Chronological Offences. The calendar is the calendar. The licence is a small thing to ask of a clockmaker, and the clockmakers have said so themselves. I support the Bill, with the reservation I have stated.

Tobias Sanmeil (The Capital District; The Continuity Party): Speaker, I rise only to say what the House already knows: there is nothing irregular in the Bill, nothing irregular in the calendar, and nothing irregular in the record. The Ministry of Chronology has examined it; the Clerk has entered it; the House may proceed. [Hear, hear.]

The Minister, in reply, said that the points raised were answered in the printed Bill and that the Ministry would consider the rest.

The question being put, a division was called for, and the members went to the lobbies.

The Speaker declared the Ayes to have it and the Bill was passed.

The remaining Orders of the Day were deferred and the House rose.