HL Deb 01 April 1930 vol 76 cc1071-3
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, might I venture to ask the noble and learned Lord who leads the House if he can give your Lordships any welcome information as to the holidays?

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)

My Lords, I hope it is welcome. We do not come back after the holidays till, I think it is, April 29, that is the Tuesday after Easter week. I hope we shall get away in Holy Week, but exactly on what day we shall get away in Holy Week I cannot give any further information at the moment. I am sure we shall want to do all our work before we go away and not leave matters outstanding. To-morrow we have a very important Motion which I think will take up our time—the Archbishop of Canterbury's Motion in reference to the investigation he has made regarding Russia. On Thursday there is the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill of which we want to get the Second Reading. It is not a long matter. But we also have to discuss the question of Mr. Brangwyn's frescoes which will be brought forward on the Report of the House of Lords Offices Committee by the Lord Chairman. From information I have obtained that is likely to take some time. Next week, on Tuesday, April 8, we propose to take the Land Drainage Bill. That Bill was put down for an earlier date, but representations were made to me that a longer time would be advisable and it was put off (and Notice has been given of this) until Tuesday next. On Wednesday, April 9, Lord Trenchard will make his maiden speech to us when he introduces his Motion on the Air Force. Beyond that I have no desire to say anything, except that if the Land Drainage Bill is not finished on the Tuesday it will be on the Paper again on the following Thursday. I hope that information is satisfactory.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I have had an opportunity of conferring with one or two of my noble friends in respect of the Land Drainage Bill and I am afraid it presents very grave difficulties; I do not mean to say grave difficulties in respect of its ultimate fate but owing to its immense complication. I am not quite sure that your Lordships will feel inclined effectively to discuss the Second Reading of the Bill on Tuesday. I do not know which member of the Government is in charge of the Bill.

LORD PARMOOR

My noble friend Earl De La Warr.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Earl would think it right to make on Tuesday his statement on the Second Reading of the Bill, and your Lordships were not asked to go any further with regard to it without more consideration, that might perhaps be a way of adjusting the various difficulties; but I feel sure that a Bill so complicated and covering so many objects wants very careful consideration. I would like to point out, if your Lordships will allow me, that this Bill is one of those Bills which does something which we are generally most anxious to avoid—consolidation and amendment in one. It is almost impossible for any of your Lordships who are not very familiar with the subject to disentangle the two, and I think it will be almost necessary for noble Lords to have more information before they actually effectively discuss the Bill. I do not want, if I may say so, to interfere with the noble Earl making his statement on Tuesday, but I hope the Government will not be surprised if your Lordships think it right not to discuss it effectively until they have had time to consider this very elaborate Bill.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I rather regret what the noble Marquess has said, because we have a good deal of business that we want to get on with, and I hope to have at any rate a large part of the discussion on Second Reading on Tuesday. But let that matter stand over. The Bill has been put off, as the noble Marquess knows, a long time; and so far as consolidation and amendment are concerned I think the contrary to the noble Marquess. I thought it was the view of this House that the two should as far as possible go together.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

No, no.

LORD PARMOOR

Oh yes. There is a mistake about that. The Consolidation Committee has often done it at the same time and for a very good reason. You do not want directly after consolidation to have an amending Bill. That defeats to a great extent the purpose of consolidation. But I do not want to go further at the present time into that question, though I feel sure there is nothing wrong in it.

Back to