HL Deb 10 April 1919 vol 34 cc294-300

The SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to consider proposals for an improvement in the Procedure of the House presented the following Report—

ORDERED TO REPORT,

1. That on Wednesdays, on which day there is no judicial sitting, the House shall sit at 3.45 p.m., when prayers will be read and private business taken; and that public business shall commence at 4 p.m.

2. That the same rule shall apply to all days, and not Wednesdays alone, after the judicial sittings of the House have terminated in the latter part of the session.

3. That the introduction of Peers, and private business, shall, as far as is practicable, be taken on Wednesdays, in order to enable public business to commence as early as possible on the remaining days of the week. That publicity be given in the Orders of the Day to the intention of a Peer to take his seat in the above circumstances, with a view to the general convenience.

4. That on every day other than Wednesday (subject to the condition named in 2) the House shall meet as now at 4.15, but that, in the event of there being no private business, public business shall commence at that hour.

5. That, in the event of a Debate being adjourned until a subsequent day, it is desirable, as a general rule, that the adjournment shall not be moved until 8 p.m.

6. That, in the event of a 'Debate being adjourned over dinner, an interval of 1¼ hours shall be allowed for the purpose.

7. That it shall be in the power of any Peer who asks a question for the purpose of information only, and not with a view to making a speech or to raising a debate, to indicate his intention by prefixing an asterisk to his question when he hands it in to the Clerk at the Table. Such action on his part will not deprive the House of any of its existing privileges, but will be for the general convenience in the arrangement of business.

8. That the House be invited to exercise a stricter vigilance in the enforcement of its own Standing Orders, notably Standing Order No. XXVII., which prohibits any Lord from speaking twice to any question or proposition except the mover of a Motion in reply, unless it be to explain himself in some material point of his former speech (no new matter being introduced), and then only after first obtaining the leave of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL Of DONOUGHMORE)

My Lords, the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the Procedure of your Lordships' House has been printed and is before your Lordships. I beg to move that it be now considered and adopted.

Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee be now received and adopted.—

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I rise to move the adjournment of the debate. I do not think it is worth while going on with this. It seems to me to be tinkering with an important subject and not making any real change or doing anything that will be of the slightest good to the House. The first suggestion is that we should meet a quarter of an hour earlier on two clays of the week and a little more on Wednesday. By that arrangement you will save about one and a half hours in the week. It is not worth while doing that. If we want more time, why have we given up the idea of sitting on four days of the week? We used always to sit on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. For the last three or four months Monday sittings have been given up entirely. I do not know the reason. The result is that there is only one day in the week for Notices apart from Bills; and Wednesdays are always taken up long in advance and are often very much crowded.

What, really, is the meaning of this suggestion that a Peer who asks a Question for the purpose of information only, and not with a view of making a speech or raising a debate, is to indicate his intention by prefixing an asterisk to his Question? He need not make a. speech unless he wants to, whether he puts an asterisk or not; and by the reading of the Report, although the Peer who asks the Question places an asterisk beside it, apparently it does not bind and is not intended to bind other Peers, who reserve all their rights to say what they desire to say. I do not want to say anything rude, but I cannot conceive any one putting a Question in this House without reserving his right to make a few words of explanation. If you put a Question you get a Government answer. It is handed in writing to the noble Lord who answers the Question. We have had here to-day two intelligent answers by the President of the Board of Agriculture, but nine times out of ten if we ask a Question we get a written reply and it is impossible to cross-examine the noble Lord who replies. If you do, you get no answer, because the noble Lord who has had the answer handed to him is not aware of the facts of the case.

If we are going to make a change we should make a much larger change. If your Lordships want more time you should sit much earlier, and I am confident that some arrangement could be made for the Court of Appeal to sit elsewhere. If you are going to begin tinkering with these things you will have to go much further. I simply move that the debate be adjourned. I know that the noble Earl is much engaged, but. I think, on a matter of this kind, we ought to have the attendance of the Leader of the House when we are tinkering with our procedure.

Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I certainly do not want to raise any objection to the proposal of my noble friend to adjourn this debate, if that be the pleasure of the House. There is rather a small attendance to discuss a matter which is of general interest to most of us. I think my noble friend is a little unduly severe in his criticism of the proposals of the Committee. He objects to what he calls "tinkering" with this important subject. These proposals are not, I agree, of first-rate importance, but they are framed with the object of introducing certain appreciable improvements in the procedure of the House. The first clauses are an attempt to save time. I think, under present arrangemtent, a good deal of time is wasted. Something will be gained, even if the total gain of time measured in half hours or quarters of an hour does not amount to a very large total.

Then my noble friend was extraordinarily critical over the proposal, contained I think in the seventh clause, under which it is suggested that members of your Lordships' House should mark with an asterisk Questions with regard to which the Peer who puts the Question only desires information on some particular point. I think that is an improvement. I quite understand that any attempt to curtail the liberties of the House should be resented, but this proposal does not hurt anybody at all. It certainly will not hurt the Peer who desires to put the Question down, because it is left entirely to his option whether he will "star" his Question or not. Will it hurt your Lordships? I do not think it will. It is expressly stipulated that the House is not to be deprived of any of its existing privileges, and if it should be the pleasure of the House, in spite of the fact that the Question has been marked with a "star," to prolong the discussion, there is nothing on earth in this proposal to prevent the discussion being prolonged as long as any member of your Lordships' House desires to prolong it. This proposal is defended as being for general convenience in the arrangement of business. I think it will be to the general convenience. It will be for the convenience of the Minister concerned that he should know whether he is to be asked a simple categorical question, to be replied to by a categorical answer in regard to certain matters of fact, or whether he is expected to take part, as sometimes happens, in an extended debate upon the whole subject of the Question, and perhaps a number of others connected with them well. It will also be for the convenience of the House that when your Lordships see the Notice Paper you should know whether a particular Question is intended to elicit information as to matters of fact, or whether it is the desire of the questioner and his friends to raise a general discussion. Upon the whole I must say these proposals are perfectly justifiable, and they scarcely deserve the extremely severe condemnation which my noble friend showers upon them.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I think the noble Marquess is quite right in raising no objection to the suggestion of the noble Lord that the debate should be adjourned. It is clear that we ought not to proceed with this matter in the absence of the noble Earl the Lord President. I have no doubt he would have desired to be here and is prevented by some imperative duties elsewhere. In those circumstances I do not think it would be worth my while to say anything of the subject-matter of the proposals. The noble Marquess has stated, and I entirely agree with him, that the strictures of Lord Balfour of Burleigh were somewhat unduly severe. The propositions are, no doubt, small, and. in some cases I doubt whether they would be very effective; but I am sure the noble Earl the Leader of the House will be able to show that in no sense are they damaging to the conduct of debate in your Lordships' House or do they derogate from the privileges of private members. These, after all, are two important principles, and if the noble Earl is able to sustain them I think the proposals may well be accepted.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, I do not wish to intervene except to ask whether, before the discussion is resumed, the noble Earl will have special regard to the proposal for "starred" Questions which should be incapable of debate at all. I happen to approach this subject from a different standpoint from any of my noble friends who have spoken, as I have sat in the House of Commons. I think it would be of the greatest advantage to this House, in regard to time and information, if we could have a certain number of Questions "starred," upon which there would only be the question and the answer. Any noble Lord who desired to develop a debate would have an opportunity on a subsequent occasion of putting down a more general Motion. Many Questions are not asked by noble Lords because they are afraid of creating a discussion which may be inconvenient to the Government. I should be very glad if we could have a free discussion of the practice of this House in that respect.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)

My Lords, I do not desire to develop my views upon the point mentioned by my noble friend as to starred Questions, but I will observe that in paragraph 7 of the Report it is specifically laid down that there shall be no derogation of existing rights of members of the House. Bearing in mind that declaration, which I take it is in accord with the general desire of the House, you have to consider how far it would be possible for a Peer to put down a starred Question and by starring it prevent any other member of your Lordships' House from taking part in any debate, or any reply to a Minister's statement which might be thought desirable. However, I do not desire to develop my views upon that interesting and really very important subject.

I merely rise to say that I readily consent to postpone further discussion on this point, probably until after Easter; at any rate, I will put it down nominally for one day next week, and it can be taken again at a date convenient to your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Curzon desired to hear your Lordships' views and to reply to the debate. He has been here twice, if not three times, from the Foreign Office this afternoon already, and I believe he is on his way here from the Foreign Office again. It so happens that he has had to go to and from the Foreign Office to keep a succession of engagements, and it appears that his last engagement has prevented his getting here ten minutes or a quarter of an hour earlier and hearing your Lordship's observations. On these grounds I agree to the Motion of Lord Balfour and I suggest that the matter be put down again for Tuesday next.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

Forward to