AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL. (Hansard, 13 May 1931)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF TEE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Parmoor. I understand that this is agreed to.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
My Lords, I sincerely hope the House will not agree to this proposal. In the first place, it is a very unusual proposal to advance a Bill. Postponing a Bill is, of course, another matter altogether, but advancing a Bill is a most unusual procedure, and should not be done unless it meets with the convenience of every member of your Lordships' House. The Third Reading of this Bill was originally put down for the 9th of June, not by any desire on the part of the Opposition but by the express wish of the Government. Now the Government say that instead of taking it on the 9th of June they desire to take it on Thursday, the 21st of May. That is the Thursday before Whit Monday, and many of your Lordships will have made your arrangements for the Whitsuntide Recess. Yet here is a most important Bill, perhaps almost the most important Bill which has come before your Lordships this Session, which is to be advanced in order that it may be taken upon the Thursday before Whit Monday. It will be most inconvenient for your Lordships who have to come up and go away again by train. That is quite irrespective of the fact that many of your Lordships have made your arrangements on the footing that the Bill had been put down for the 9th of June. There can be no hurry for it. We have until August. The Third Reading probably will only take a day, if it takes a whole day, and there is no reason whatever for this change at the most inconvenient time that it possibly could be made. I strongly object, and I shall go to a Division if the Government do not withdraw.

§ LORD DANESFORT
My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, might I enforce, so far as my own words can, the appeal that has been made by my noble friend Lord Banbury. I agree with every word he said as to the extreme inconvenience to many members of this House who have made their arrangements to go away for Whitsuntide, and who have probably arranged to go on the Thursday. In the case of this Bill, I venture to suggest to the Government that it is most essential that the Third Reading should be discussed in a full House. It has been publicly announced by the Government that the Lords Amendments to this Bill are likely to lead to a constitutional crisis. Personally I do not believe a word of it, but that is their declaration, and it is their intention, if they can, to divert attention from their own misdeeds to the action of the Lords in regard to this Bill. As yet we do not know what the House of Commons is going to do with the Lords Amendments, but whatever it does, I think it will be most important that your Lordships should have the fullest and the amplest opportunity of discussing the Third Reading of that Bill, in view especially of the Government's announcement. Therefore I most earnestly appeal to the Leader of the House not to persist in this extremely inconvenient date, but to put it down for some date after Whitsuntide when it will be possible for most of your Lordships to be present.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)
My Lords, I am astonished to hear the speeches made in regard to the proposal to expedite the Third Reading of the Bill which is the subject matter of the Motion before the House. The object was to meet as far as possible the general convenience of the House, and at the same time we were asked from another place to send the Bill back as soon as we conveniently could, owing to the necessities of business which is becoming very heavy and will be very heavy in your Lordships' House after Whitsuntide. The ordinary communications were made. I see the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is here. I asked him what he thought about it—I put it in that way. I do not say he committed himself in any way, but he raised no objection; I will put it as high as that. I am the last 1192 person to wish any one in this House to be inconvenienced, but I am bound to say that I have not heard a note of protest except from the two noble Lords opposite. I should have thought that probably there would be a much better House on the Thursday before Whitsuntide, when people were here, than there would be at the subsequent date. That is my own view, but I shall be governed by the views of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the Leader of the Opposition, in a matter of this sort.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
My Lords, may I say one other word The noble and learned Lord said it was necessary to advance the Bill in order to expedite business in another place. May I point out that after Thursday, May 21, the other House will rise and, therefore, this Bill cannot get there until after Whitsuntide, and the only question is whether it gets there one day later or one day sooner?

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Banbury has very truly said that this is a matter for your Lordships' House and not for any individual, but the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House referred to me, and it is right I should say to your Lordships that, as he quite accurately states, he intimated to me yesterday that he contemplated taking this course. I asked my noble friends Lord Lucan and Lord Templemore to ascertain whether there was any feeling in the House as to its being inconvenient. I also learned that the probability was that if we took the Third Reading next week the effect might be that we should have about a week longer adjournment than we were likely to get if we took it on June 9, because if we took it on June 9 there would probably be other business which would necessitate our coming back on June 2, which would materially shorten the Whitsuntide vacation. Such information as I was able to secure through the usual channels indicated to me, at any rate, that the course which the noble and learned Lord desired, to take the Bill next Thursday, was one which would be in the interests of the general convenience of the House.
Naturally I only want to see the business of the House conducted with due regard to the requirements of the Government, 1193 who, after all, are primarily responsible, and also with all possible regard for the convenience of your Lordships who are accustomed to attend these debates. Although I should be very sorry to differ from my noble friends behind me, I should have thought that the probability was that more members of this House would be inconvenienced by coming back on June 2 than would he inconvenienced by the debate taking place on Thursday of next week, which, after all, is still a week off and does give some reasonable time for members of your Lordships' House to make their arrangements. Of course there is no suggestion that we should not have to meet on the Thursday in any event. There is one Motion already down for that day, so in any event there would have to be a meeting on May 21. I am only anxious that the convenience of the majority of your Lordships should be consulted, but I confess that such information as I have been able to accumulate indicates that the convenience is rather less in adopting the sugestion which has been made by the noble Lord opposite.

VISCOUNT MERSEY
My Lords, the noble Earl who usually speaks for those who sit on these Benches is, unfortunately, away, but I understand that it would be for the convenience of noble Lords on these Benches if the course indicated by the noble Viscount were followed.

§ LORD PARMOOR
My Lords, I am afraid I shall have to ask that the proposal which I make shall be adopted. I can only say that I think it would be for the general convenience, and indeed that there is a very preponderating opinion in favour of what I am suggesting.

§ LORD PARMOOR
I may say in reference to what the noble Earl said, that we might have to meet a little earlier on Thursday in order to give the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, plenty of time for his Motion, but that is a matter we can discuss.