HC Deb 13 May 1889 vol 335 cc1861-2
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the four Bills which were simultaneously introduced as constituting together the scheme of Local Government in Scotland proposed by Her Majesty's Government, whether it is intended that, on the stage of Second Reading, the Bills should again be simultaneously discussed, or that each Bill should be taken separately; and whether the former course will be in accordance with the Rules of the House?


I hope the House will be content to refer No. 2 Bill to a Standing Committee, and in those circumstances will consider in debate Bills Nos. 1 and 2. With regard to No. 3, Parochial Boards Bill, it will be open to the House to take what course it prefers. But if it should be the pleasure of the House to give a Second Reading to that Bill immediately after the other Bill the Government will be exceeding glad. Bill No. 4, referring to Private Bill legislation, is totally distinct, and, I am afraid, must be separately considered.


It is evident, from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, that he is in an extremely genial state of mind, and is disposed to give all the information he can. May I ask whether we are to understand that when the Scotch Bills are disposed of in their material stages it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Sugar Bounties Bill?


I fully appreciate the good feeling of the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall be glad to inform him at the earliest possible moment what we intend to do.


As a point of order arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask the Speaker whether, if the two first Local Government Bills are taken together, it is competent for the second standing on the Paper on the same day as the first to be discussed along with it. Must not the debate be restricted to the Bill regarding which the question will be put in the House?


I have been privately asked my opinion upon the matter, and I hold the opinion that it would be impossible to discuss all the four Bills together, but that the Bills referring to the Poor Law and to private Bill legislation should be entirely distinct. But the first and second Bills might be discussed together, the second Bill, if I recollect rightly, dealing with supplementary provisions to Bill No. 1, the precedent of the Local Government England Bills would thus be followed.

SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy)

To what Grand Committee is it proposed to refer Bill No. 2? Any Bill dealing with law may be referred to the Grand Committee on law, but this deals with trade and commerce as well as law, and is it proposed to appoint another Grand Committee?


If the hon. Gentleman will ask me that question when we reach the Second Reading of the Bill I shall be very glad to give him an answer.