§ 3.17 p.m.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. This is the "end of term" Question.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Lord Privy Seal continues to sit on the Government Front Bench when he is required by law to sit on the Front Bench of the seats occupied by the Liberal Party.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE)My Lords, when the Sovereign is not present the House is responsible for its own order and procedure, and it is fairly clear from Standing Order No. 1 (which dates from 1720, I believe) that in the view taken by the House at that time the requirements of the Statute 31 of Henry VIII, Chapter 10, to which I assume the noble and learned Lord is referring, applies strictly only on the occasion when the Sovereign "comes publicly to the House". I understand that the arrangements for the placing of the Lords laid down by the Statute have not been followed in the normal Sittings of the House for at least 200 years, and probably longer. The present arrangements are, I should have thought, convenient and sensible and conform to political realities and the modern custom of the House.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that answer, may I ask him whether Section IV of the Act of King Henry VIII which is printed as an appendix to the Standing Orders of this House, does not say:
It is … ordained and enacted … That the Lord Chancellor, … and the Lord Privy Seal … shall sit and be placed, as well in this present Parliament as in all other Parliaments hereafter to be holden, on the left side of the said Parliament Chamber, on the higher part of the form of the same side, …"?Is that not the place now occupied by distinguished leaders of the Liberal Party? Further, is it not also stated in Section X—… in all Parliaments … the Lord Chancellor, … the Lord Privy Seal, … shall sit and be placed in such order and fashion as is 1369 above rehearsed and not in any other place …"?Is it not therefore plainly illegal for the Lord Privy Seal to be sitting where he is? And does not Standing Order No. 18 of this House provide that if the Lord Chancellor wishes to speak to anything particularly he is to go to his own place as a Peer? Is not that the reason why, although a distinguished member of the Government, instead of speaking, when he speaks as a Minister of the Government, from the Government side of the House, he speaks from the seat which I do not think he has sat on for about 300 years? Is that not the reason why he goes to that place to speak?—because the Act applies to the ordinary Sittings of Parliament.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the noble and learned Lord should know that the Woolsack is not in the House at all, and therefore I was not sitting in any other place in the House than that which the Statute provided. The last time I sat in that place, which is the place provided, was yesterday and not 300 years ago. I have done so on a considerable number of occasions during the present Parliament while waiting to take my place upon the Woolsack.
So far as the law is concerned, as I said in my original Answer, the fact is that the House is master of its own order of procedure when the Sovereign is not present. It is clear that our predecessors who framed the Standing Order so long ago as 1720 took the same view and clearly provided that the due places should be occupied when the Sovereign was present. If I may add what I am not sure to be correct, but which I have always thought to be the situation, certainly up to the reign of Charles II the Sovereign continuously attended the normal Sittings of this House, sat on the Throne, and, in the case of Charles II, made witty and sometimes relevant comments about the speeches as they were delivered. As our first Hanoverian Sovereign did not understand English, I imagine he found the debates rather irksome. Therefore it is no coincidence that the Standing Order dates from 1720 that is to say, six years after the Hanoverian Dynasty came to the Throne.
I have done what research I can to help the noble and learned Lord; but I 1370 should like to add this: this question was mooted during the Labour Government. The noble and learned Lord and his colleagues came to the conclusion that nothing should be done about it. I have the file in my hand. Although it is not on every occasion that I agree with the decisions come to by the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues, in the interests of Party unity on this occasion I am happy to arrive at the same conclusion.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, would the noble and learned Lord please convey to the present noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, the warmest possible invitation to join us on these Benches at any time that he wishes to do so? If this does not commend itself to the noble Lord, perhaps he could consider improving the performance of the present Government by inviting a leading Liberal to become the Lord Privy Seal.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, can the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack tell us in what manner he got hold of a ftle of the previous Government? It is an absolute rule that one Government should not see the other Government's files.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, that is not the absolute rule. I was not allowed to see those parts of the file which, under the rule, I am not allowed to see, but I saw enough to know that the decision was to do nothing about it.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, would the noble Lord on the Woolsack agree with me that that answer merely means that there is an interesting flexible rule about the rules?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to put down a Question about the convention in this matter I am sure that I or some other member of the Government would be prepared to answer it. I think his reading of the matter is wrong and that the convention is fairly well known; but I will not give a definite answer unless he puts down a Question on that matter.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether our Companion says, on page 1371 22, that the Lord Chancellor speaks from his place as a Peer at the upper end of the Earls' Bench? Is this again a reference to the ordinary everyday work of the House—not just the opening of Parliament—and a reference to the Act of King Henry VIII? Regarding the last Government, may I respectfully remind the noble and learned Lord that I had the honour to be Chairman of an All-Party Conference on the Reform of your Lordships' House from whose proposals there emanated the Parliament Bill of 1968–69 by which the Act of King Henry VIII was specifically to be repealed?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I was not unaware of that last point. Unfortunately, although that measure passed with considerable ease through your Lordships' House, it met with unexpected and bitter opposition from another place and was ultimately withdrawn—again at the instance of the Government of which the noble and learned Lord was an ornament. We are thus placed, as a result of his action in withdrawing the Bill, with the status quo.
Regarding the first part of the noble and learned Lord's Question, he will not have failed to notice that I began my remarks by saying that in the absence of the Sovereign the House is master of its own order of procedure. It is perfectly true that when he is speaking in the House from the situation which I now occupy the Lord Chancellor is speaking from the place assigned under the Statute and not from any other. This, I take it, is because the House finds it more convenient that the Lord Chancellor should do this rather than repair to the Government Front Bench from which he speaks when the House is in Committee. So far as I am aware, there is nothing in the Statute which provides that when the House is in Committee the Lord Chancellor should be otherwise placed than where he sits for its ordinary proceedings.
The noble and learned Lord may also remember that yesterday the Lord Bishop of London was introduced. He sat on the Front Bench of the Bishops' Bench, whereas when most Bishops are intro- 1372 duced they sit on the Back Bench. He, too, was taking the seat assigned to him by the Statute of Henry VIII. That, again, is in accordance with the ordinary procedure of the House. When an Earl or Viscount is introduced he takes his seat on a different Bench from that of a Baron. That also is in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. So it is not a complete dead letter. On the other hand, the procedure which we have adopted since at least 1720 is one which on the whole commends itself to the sense of the House.
§ LORD AVEBURYMy Lords, the whole House appreciates the depth of the historical research into which the noble and learned Lord has gone in order to answer this Question, and has listened with interest to his reference to King Charles II, who gave vent to witty asides when presiding over the House. Will the noble and learned Lord permit me to express the hope that those who seek to maintain that position to-day do not suffer the same fate as the King?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am not sure what fate King Charles II suffered from, except to die in his bed.
§ LORD COLERAINEMy Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he is aware that the references of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to historical precedence gave great satisfaction to me, at least? It made me realise that there is at least one other Conservative in the House besides myself.