§ 3 p.m.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I rise to appeal to the House in the matter of a Private Notice Question. I do so in accordance with the procedures laid down—
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, will the noble Lord—
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I am appealing to the House.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, the noble Lord is moving away from his Question on Nicaragua to another matter on which I, as Leader of the Opposition, was proposing to put a question—
§ Lord KennetMy Lords—
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I yield to the wish of the House in allowing the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to speak on what I think may be the same matter.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord but I think it would be in the tradition of the House that I should put the matter to 526 the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, of which I have given him private notice; namely, in view of the unhappy conclusion of the crucially important conference at Reykjavik over the past two days, will the noble Viscount be good enough to say whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that a Statement be made in this House at the appropriate time?
§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)My Lords, the Government are currently being briefed on the outcome of the summit and will, of course, wish to make a Statement to the House when they are in possession of the facts. I hope that such a Statement will be possible on Wednesday.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Viscount.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I wish to ask two questions in connection with the welcome answer from the Government. The first is formal and the second is substantive.
My formal question is this. Can the Leader of the House tell the House why he preferred the Private Notice Question from the Leader of the Labour Opposition, which I understand was put down somewhat later in the morning, to the Private Notice Question in identical terms which I had put down at 9.30 this morning? Would it not have been more in accordance with the rules and customs of the House if the Leader of the House had taken the Question chronologically first put down and answered that?
As regards my substantial Question, I think the whole House will welcome the announcement that there is to be a Statement on Wednesday and will fully understand that in such an important and complicated matter it is necessary for the Government to reflect and to receive reports on what happened at Reykjavik. Wednesday seems to be an admirable time. My question, therefore, is this. During the two days' consideration that the Government will now have, will they bear in mind that the impression that President Reagan was insisting on his right to test and deploy SDI in the next 10 years is a false one? He cannot have been doing that because the ABM Treaty prohibits precisely that. Is it not the case that he was proclaiming his intention of breaking or denouncing that treaty? However, the—
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I throw myself upon the mercy of the Leader of the House. Am I not in order in questioning him on a Statement?
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord and the House in two ways. First, on the matter of a Private Notice Question, in accordance with the Companion I have to decide initially whether the Question is of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply, ultimately, of course, with the general sense of the House if that matter is disputed. I 527 understand from the noble Lord that, on the whole, he is disputing not my ruling in the first place. I am grateful to him for that.
Once that is done I believe it is the normal practice of the House that if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to put a question to me on a matter such as this—it is perhaps not for me to say, but I think the House feels, that he should make that request. Finally, it would be quite improper at this stage for me to answer questions from the noble Lord on the substance of the issue. I must also say, in defence of the Government and in defence of many people who may feel as we do, that I do not for one moment accept some of the points he made.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, I am sure that on all sides we appreciate the offer of the Leader of the House to make a full Statement on Wednesday. However, may I ask a question that is not on the substance of the matter? What procedures have there been for consultation and information between European members of NATO and the United States during this period? It is surely a sad commentary on the weakness of the European governments within NATO that after a decision has been made—I understand from what we read a decision possibly to withdraw all cruise and Pershing weapons from Western European—it is strange (and I am speaking on procedure) that knowledge of this—
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, I am asking why the Government are unable to make a Statement now, which is a procedural question. I appreciate that Wednesday is a good time for a full Statement. I am only asking what means of information and consultation there have been between the European members of NATO and the United States Government during the talks in Iceland. It sounds to me as though they have not been adequate and that Europe's interests have not been properly safeguarded in those discussions.
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, that may be the noble Lord's opinion and it would immediately mean, of course, that I would be getting on to the substance of the matter if I agreed with him on it. I simply say, further to my first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the Government must be fully informed before they make a Statement. As will be perfectly clear, there are a number of briefings and discussions now going on which will enable the Government to be in that position on Wednesday. That is why I undertook to make the Statement on Wednesday.
§ Lord AveburyMy Lords, as regards my noble friend's question concerning the order in which the Private Notice Questions were tabled this morning, do the Standing Orders say anything about taking a question by the Leader of the Opposition first, even though it was tabled after a question from a Back-Bencher; or was that something which the Leader of the House made up as he went along?
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, the first answer, as I understand the position according to the Companion, is that if a noble Lord submits a Private Notice Question, that is normally treated as a confidential matter. The decision is then for the Leader of the House in the first instance to decide whether the matter is of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply. If he decides that such a Statement is not of sufficient urgency he notifies, through his office, the noble Lord concerned. Unless the noble Lord concerned decides to raise the whole issue again, that disposes of the Private Notice Question. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, did not wish to challenge my ruling on the Private Notice Question and, therefore, I concluded that that was the end of the matter.
As regards the Leader of the Opposition putting a question to me on such a matter, I would have thought that it was the feeling of the whole House that that is a fairly normal procedure. On the whole, I cannot see why the noble Lord should find anything difficult about it. It seems that the House should be informed. The Leader of the Opposition is the person to question the Government. I believe that is a reasonable proposition. If, of course, the House thinks I am wrong in these matters it can tell me why I am wrong.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I feel I must ask the patience of the House while I set the record straight. I put down my Private Notice Question in the following words:
To ask the Government whether they will make a Statement on the summit?That was at 9.30 this morning. The Leader of the House exercised his right to give a preliminary decision: no, it was not of sufficient interest. I immediately informed his office that it was my intention to appeal to the House, in the words of the Companion to the Standing Orders, against his preliminary decision. I began to do so but I yielded to the apparent wish of the House to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, first. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, then proceeded to ask—and I use his own words—a Private Notice Question to exactly the same effect, which the Leader of the House answered.
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, I do not wish to delay the House, but I think I am being perfectly reasonable on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, put down a Private Notice Question which was, in my judgment—and as I made the decision, obviously it would be in my judgment—declined. Therefore, after that it was for the noble Lord to question my judgment if he so wished. I understood that he did not and according to what he said when he rose I have to say to your Lordships that he did not. At that moment the noble Lord Cledwyn—and I must emphasise this point because I think it makes the matter clear—did not ask me a Private Notice Question. He exercised his prerogative as Leader of the Opposition to ask me a question about business. I think that the two are different. That is the reason behind it.
§ Lord TordoffMy Lords, when he sees the Official Report tomorrow I think that the noble Viscount will find that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to a Private Notice Question that he had asked and of which he had given notice to the Leader of the House. I believe those are the words he used. I may be wrong but I think that the official record needs scrutinising.
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, I am always ready to be corrected in this as in any other matter, but so far as I am concerned I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, dispute my decision on the Private Notice Question and, frankly, I do not think that he did. When he spoke later he was good enough to say that he did not. Therefore I think it was perfectly proper of me to proceed to the business question, the Private Notice Question having apparently been disposed of.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, in order to clarify the position perhaps I may tell the House that as a matter of courtesy, and as I always do, I informed the noble Viscount through the usual channels that I was proposing to ask him whether Her Majesty's Government had in mind to make a statement on a matter of great public interest. I regarded this as the duty of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and this is the practice and the convention in this House. I am not proposing to enter into competition with noble Lords on the Alliance Benches on this issue. It is my duty and while I remain here I shall continue to act in such manner.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I think I ought to set the record straight. I did dispute and do dispute the decision of the Leader of the House that my Private Notice Question was not of sufficient urgency to put to the House. What I do not dispute is the Answer that he gave to the identical question when put by the Leader of the Labour Opposition.
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, on the whole then, to conclude this discussion on a happy and non-controversial note, everybody is satisfied with the prospect of a Statement on Wednesday, and if we are all satisfied with that perhaps that should be the end of the matter.
§ Lord GladwynMy Lords, irrespective of the short discussion that we may have on the Private Notice Question on Wednesday, will it be possible for this House to have a formal discussion of a greater and larger nature on this event of world shaking importance; namely, the Icelandic conference?
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, the answer is that on Wednesday it will not be a Private Notice Question; it will be a Statement, and therefore the House will have its opportunity to discuss a Statement properly made by the Government. How we proceed thereafter is a matter for consideration, no doubt through the usual channels in your Lordships' House; but I have promised a Statement on Wednesday and that is as far as I think I should go today.