HL Deb 02 November 1920 vol 42 cc127-33

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON rose to move to resolve—

That whenever during the present session of Parliament the House stands adjourned for more than two days, and it appears to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor (or if the Lord Chancellor is absent, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chairman of Committees after consultation with His Majesty's Government), that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during such adjournment, the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, may give notice to the Peers that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Motion both in its substance and for the most part in its wording, is no new thing. It is one with which during the last few years we have become to a certain extent familiar. There have been three occasions during the last six years in which a Motion similar to, indeed almost identical with, this has been put before your lordships and unanimously accepted by this House. The first occasion was in the beginning of August, 1914, at the outbreak of the war, when your Lordships' House was about to adjourn for a fortnight. On August 8 the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who was then the Leader of the House, proposed to move a sessional Order of this nature, the object of course being to enable your Lordships' House to meet in the event of any statement of importance having to be made with regard to the war. When lie actually made the Motion it was confined to the then session of Parliament. On August 10 the proposal was debated at some length, and speeches of importance were made by noble Lords who speak with authority in your Lordships' House. It was universally agreed that the power thus conceded should only be put in motion in the case of urgent political necessity. Further it was agreed that the power should only be exercised after consultation between the two Front Benches.

The second occasion was on March 30 of the present year. The House of Commons had adjourned until April 12, but your Lordships' House, not having any business before you, did not propose to meet until April 20. I thought it quite likely that in the interval a statement of importance might have to be made on behalf of the Government in Parliament, and I did not wish to deprive your Lordships of the opportunity which the House of Commons, still sitting, would have enjoyed. Accordingly I made a Motion similar to this, which was agreed to by this House.

The third occasion was on August 16 of the present year when both Houses of Parliament were about to adjourn for the Autumn Recess till October 19, and when it seemed not unlikely that the Government might have to come to both Houses of Parliament with some statement of importance with regard to the crisis which at that time existed in Polish affairs. A similar Motion was made in the House of Commons and accepted by that body, and your Lordships' House again accepted, without dissent, the proposal that I made.

Now, my Lords, the matter has been again brought before us in a rather more urgent form by an incident that happened only the other day. Your Lordships had adjourned from October 20 to October 27 because there appeared to be no business which you were likely to have to take in hand. Meanwhile an emergency arose in connection with the threatened strike which might have compelled the Government, and which, indeed, did compel the Government, to consider the passage of emergency legislation without delay. But the action could not be taken in another place because, owing to the suspension of business to which I have referred, your Lordships' House was not sitting, and under the forms of our Constitution could not be summoned except after a delay of several days. This placed the Government in a difficult, and it might, indeed, have been a perilous position. It also put your Lordships in a position which I am sure you would not wish to occupy, because it placed you, quite without any deliberation or forethought on your part, in a situation where you appeared to stand in the way of necessary legislation being introduced. It has occurred to many of us, therefore, I think on both sides of the House, that we want some machinery to deal with this class of case. It is no longer a question of principle, if indeed it ever was. It is a question really of convenience.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Hear, hear.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

It is often convenient for this House to adjourn for a few days while waiting for Bills to come up from the House of Commons. The adjournment is useful, because it saves unnecessary meetings of this House, and it saves an attendance which is purely formal on the part of official Peers and the officials and attendants of the House. On the other hand, without some means of calling this House together during such an adjournment, either for the purpose of meeting some such emergency as arose last week or for the purpose of dealing with Bills that come up from the House of Commons before the expected time, these adjournments must either be curtailed in future or considerable risks must be run of putting the House in a false position similar to that which I just now described.

The Motion which I propose might, I think, not unfairly be proposed as a Standing Order of your Lordships' House, but reluctant as we are to move in these matters except with great caution I do not make that proposal on the present occasion. I think it would be better if you agree to pass the Motion for the rest of this session and then renew it, if it is thought desirable, for subsequent sessions. At a later date when we have more experience it will be for the House to say whether it desires to include it in its Standing Orders. It must rest with the Government, of course, to decide when the special occasion has arisen, but I think I may speak not only for myself but for all future Leaders of this House when I say that no Leader of the House would dream of taking action of this nature without full consultation with those who sit upon the Bench opposite; and again I think I might say, as I have said on all the previous occasions when I have submitted a Motion like this, that advantage would only be taken of the power thus given in cases of extreme political urgency.

The only respect in which this Motion differs from those that we have previously passed arises from the necessity of making provision for the absence of the Lord Chancellor. It is to meet that case that the Resolution in its present form provides that in the absence of the Lord Chancellor the power of calling the House together shall be exercised by the Lord Chairman of Committees after consultation with His Majesty's Government. It is, I think, right that the power of acting for the Lord Chancellor in his absence should be exercised by the Chairman of Committees rather than by those persons who are placed in charge of the Great Seal during His absence, because the power of which I spoke is one that is exercised by the Lord Chancellor in his capacity as Speaker of your Lordships' House and not as an officer of the State.

We have, however, provided in the Resolution for consultation between the Chairman of Committees and His Majesty's Government. This follows the analogy of the Resolution passed in another place a little time ago, where it was provided that the Speaker should exercise this power after consultation with His Majesty's Government; and the reason for differentiation as between the case of action by the Lord Chancellor and action by the Lord Chairman is this, that the Lord Chancellor is, necessarily, a member of His Majesty's Government and can speak for them, while the Lord Chairman is not. With these words, my Lords, I commend this proposal to your Lordships, and I hope that it may meet with the universal acceptance of this House.

Moved to resolve, That whenever during the present session of Parliament the House stands adjourned for more than two days, and it appears to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor (or if the Lord Chancellor is absent, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chairman of Committees after consultation with His Majesty's Government), that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during such adjournment, the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, may give notice to the Peers that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such Notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.—(Earl Curzon, of Kedleston.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, the noble Earl opposite has given a full and accurate account of the previous conversations that have taken place in your Lordships' House on this question, and I need hardly say that I have no opposition to offer to his Motion. I think that the noble Earl is quite right in introducing it in a somewhat tentative form rather than in making it part of the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. So far as occasions of national urgency are concerned, I imagine there will be no difference of opinion that our former practice was inconvenient. Clearly it could not be in the public interest that at some unexpected crisis there was no means of summoning your Lordships' House if it was adjourned until a further date. I think the noble Earl may have somewhat alarmed members of your Lordships' House when he intimated that the occasion might occur when a Bill was coming up from the House of Commons somewhat sooner than was expected. I do not think it was the noble Earl's meaning, but the phrase might lead people to suppose that the power would be exercised as a matter of Parliamentary convenience, and not in consequence of some urgent public interest. From what the noble Earl said later in his speech I gathered that such was by no means his meaning, and that it is intended that this power should be confined solely to cases of public necessity, apart from the convenience of getting a particular Bill through the House in a particular time, and of a Royal Commission being held on a particular day for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent.

So far as concerns consultation with those on this side of the House, the noble Earl will remember that on the first occasion when this proposition was mooted noble Lords on this Bench expressed themselves strongly—and that was even in the difficult days of the war—that no such Motion should be made without full consultation with them, and it was agreed on that first occasion that no such Motion should be made without previous consultation with those who sit on this Bench. That safeguard, if safeguard it be, is not formally stated on this occasion, but the noble Earl has said that as a matter of fact the Leader of the House always would undoubtedly apprise us of the intention of His Majesty's Government, and consult us beforehand. Personally I am quite contented, at any rate so far as the noble Earl is concerned, with that assurance.

It simply means, of course, that the House will be summoned at the instance of His Majesty's Government, because the Lord Chancellor, as the noble Earl has pointed out, is a member of the Cabinet, and will summon the House in consultation with his colleagues and as a member of the Government. So far as there is any outside safe-guard, that will practically exist only when the Lord Chancellor happens to be absent and the Lord Chairman is taking his place. But I do not know that that is a matter of material importance, and I am myself content to accept the Motion as it stands.

LORD FARRER

My Lords, may I ask one question as regards the summoning? Will this be done by post in the ordinary way, and what is the length of time that is necessary? At present the post is so irregular that persons who live just outside the London postal area very often do not get your Lordships' summons until the day after the meeting. Is it possible to accelerate the summons? We are often laughed at in the Press for being "backwoodsmen" and not attending, but if you do not get a summons it is practically impossible to come to the House. Would it be possible to have a telegraphic summons to those who live outside the area and who are accustomed to attend this House.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I see the point made by the noble Lord, and, as far as I remember, on one of the previous occasions when the Motion was carried we contemplated, in the event of sudden action requiring to be taken upon it, putting a statement of the Lord Chancellor's intention in the Press. That, I think, would meet the point raised by the noble Lord and avoid the difficulties arising from delays of postage.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE)

My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to me, and as far as I am concerned I am entirely at your Lordships' disposal and the disposal of His Majesty's Government, but I would like to enter one small caveat.

I was very glad to hear the noble Earl say that for the moment he was content to make this a Sessional Order and not a Standing Order. If the Standing Orders are to be amended great care should be taken with the drafting. For instance, the drafting of this Resolution seems to me to go rather beyond what I believe is the noble Earl's intention. I think the noble Earl made it quite clear that he only desires this power to be used in exceptional cases and for exceptional business, but as the resolution is drafted—I am now not referring to this Resolution as applied to this session but am pre-supposing that it became a regular part of our proceedings—it would be possible to call the House together at very short notice, let us say, during an Easter or Whitsuntide or even a summer adjournment, and the House would then go on with its business—not the exceptional business for which it was called together, but the business which might come before it.

That leads me to say this in connection with what Lord Farrer has just said. Many of us regret the small attendance at your Lordships' House except on occasions of exceptional importance. I am not now going to enter into what we all believe to be the many causes of that bad attendance, but undoubtedly one of the causes which, in my opinion, is much more important than is generally believed, is the uncertainty as to when proceedings will come on in your Lordships' House. Except, perhaps, Christmas Day and Good Friday, I do not think the Leader of the House could name a single day between now and next August when he is quite certain that the House will sit for some business of some kind. I am not referring to my own case, because it is my duty to be present when your Lordships meet, and I am glad to be here, but the majority of your Lordships are busy men with many interests outside your Lordships' House. I hope I am not depreciating the conduct of any of your Lordships when I say that, less and less, people are inclined to sacrifice their engagements elsewhere in order to be present in your Lordships' House. And the reason for that, I am sure, is simply that there is no certainty as to when important things will come on. There is certainty as to when important things will come on elsewhere, and noble Lords have got into the habit of keeping their engagements elsewhere more often than they keep them in your Lordships' House. I am sure the noble Earl the Leader of the House will bear this point in mind. If there could be more certainty as to when things are coming on, and if longer notice could possibly be given, I am sure the attendance here would be better. A Resolution such as this will not increase the certainty, it will decrease the certainty, and for that reason I am rather anxious in case we adopt it next session as an amendment of the Standing Orders or as a more permanent addition to the proceedings of your Lordships' House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.