BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 20 May 1942)

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, I should like to take the opportunity of informing your Lordships that it is proposed, subject of course to the general consent of your Lordships, that at the next sitting day, there should be an adjournment for one hour after the Royal Commission and that then the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, should be resumed.

§ LORD ARNOLD
My Lords, on this Motion I desire to call attention to the arrangements which were made yesterday in regard to the postponement of the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. I did say a few words yesterday—all that were really permissible, because there was no Motion before the House—on what I think was an extraordinary announcement suddenly sprung upon your Lordships. To-day on this Motion for the adjournment, I have an opportunity, I think the first real and correct 1141 Parliamentary opportunity, of pressing the matter further. I think it ought to be pursued because the point is not a small one. It is of great importance to the procedure of your Lordships' House.
Your Lordships will remember what happened. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the Leader of the House, announced that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, would make his speech and that after that without any reply at all, without any second speech, the debate would be adjourned until the next sitting day but one. Against this I protested and I asked later whether the noble Viscount could give any precedent for what was being done. The noble Viscount conveyed the impression that what was being done had often been done before. I asked for a precedent. I asked him to give one precedent, but none was given. I will not aver positively that yesterday's procedure is without any precedent, but I believe it to be correct to say that it was quite unprecedented. Since yesterday I have had the opportunity of speaking to various noble Lords of long experience in this House and none of them can recall any precedent for what happened yesterday. I should have thought that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, for whom I have great respect, would have himself considered it to be not quite fair to allow an opening speech and then that there should be no reply at all on that day, no second speech at all, nothing further about the matter until a certain time afterwards.
Surely, if the debate had to be adjourned it should all have been adjourned. That is the point. If it was held to be too late to have a reasonable proportion of the debate—two or three or tour speeches—the debate should have been adjourned altogether. What was the position in point of time? The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, spoke at an hour that was not late. For certain reasons I will not go into the precise time, but it was not really a "late hour," to use that phrase which in your Lordships' House has become an insoluble enigma. At any rate there was time for one, two, or three more speeches. Not very long ago I had a Motion of my own on the Paper and I did not finish my speech until very much later than the time yesterday when the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, finished. I had a bad place on the Paper. I did that to suit the convenience of the Minister, and I did not complain. I did 1142 not ask for a postponement but accepted the position. The proceedings went on to a much later hour than yesterday. We all know that occasionally debates are adjourned to a second day after several speeches have been made. Again there are debates when it is known in advance that they will occupy more than one clay. I myself have had the privilege on two or three occasions of hearing a debate on foreign policy which it was known would last three days because there were so many speakers. But that was known in advance, everything was arranged on that basis, and there was no objection to that.

§ LORD TEMPLEMORE
Probably it was the first Order on the Paper.

§ LORD ARNOLD
That may be, but the noble Lord entirely misses the point. That has nothing to do with it. The real responsibility, of course, for the mess of yesterday—because it was a mess— rests upon the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, who chose to put down his Motion on a thoroughly bad day. He is a newcomer to your Lordships' House and probably he did not know better. But that is where the real responsibility and blame lie. I know quite well that debates are sometimes adjourned—I do not think it happens more than two or three times in a Session—from one day to a later day, but usually it is known in advance that that will be done. It is not sprung upon your Lordships' House without any previous knowledge, particularly when the debate is on an important matter such as this.
Yesterday, as I say, the debate was adjourned after one speech, and it was adjourned to a sitting day which has many disadvantages. For reasons which your Lordships will appreciate I cannot develop that point. I feel rather handicapped in trying to keep within the confines of proper procedure in these days, and all I can say is that it is a day which has many disadvantages. Nevertheless, I do rather quarrel with the noble Viscount who leads the House. He informed your Lordships that it was being done for general convenience. He said it again and again. I deny that. That phrase was a mere euphemism which obviously carries its own refutation with it. So far from being for the general convenience it really was precisely the reverse. Let me say again that there were various courses open, but the proper course would have 1143 been, as was suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, with his very great experience, to have allowed two or three speeches yesterday, which could have been done perfectly well. Failing that there should have been no speeches at all. But to have had one speech and one speech only, putting forward a certain point of view, and no reply, is something which ought not to have been done.
As I have said, however, the real blame, or most of it, rests on the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. I do not consider that, as he chose a bad day, he was entitled to the preferential and, as I believe, unprecedented consideration which he received. I do not think that there is any precedent for it. Where do we stand? The position is that if this is allowed to pass without protest and without being cleared up, a precedent, as I hold, has been created, and a thoroughly bad precedent. That is why I felt it my duty to bring up the matter at once at the first reasonable opportunity for the consideration and attention of your Lordships. What was done yesterday obviously was not done with the general consent of the House because two or three noble Lords of great importance and experience in your Lordships' House indicated that they did not agree with what was being done. They did it there and then on the spot, but the noble Viscount who leads the House did not defer to their views; he went on with what he had previously arranged. Of course, the result is what the noble Viscount might surely have foreseen. In the Press to-day, or at any rate in several newspapers—I have not had time to go through them all—you get fairly long reports of this speech by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and no report of any reply at all because there was none. Now that is undesirable, to use no stronger word.
The way in which the House proceeded was not the proper way to proceed in Parliamentary matters. It was not in accord with the traditions of the House or with traditions of Parliament, and I think that exception should be taken to it. Finally, I would express the hope that what happened yesterday will not be made a precedent. If the noble Viscount can give some assurance on that point I should be very much happier. I am not a perfervid admirer of your Lordships' House, but I do admire much of its procedure, which works extremely well on the whole. As I say, I 1144 speak to-day because I do not want what occurred yesterday to be made a precedent. The procedure of your Lordships' House is largely based on precedent, and if you create without sufficient cause, without sufficient consideration, and certainly without the general consent of the House, a new precedent and a bad precedent, that I hold to be a serious matter. I am sure that in bringing this question up again I am acting in the best interests of your Lordships' House.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
My Lords, I am quite certain we all realize that the noble Lord who has just spoken has brought this matter up in no personal spirit but merely out of concern for the proper conduct of the business of the House. But I really do think that he is speaking under a misapprehension. He has said that there was no indication of the personal convenience of the House being best suited by adjournment of the debate. I would remind him that it is the right of every member of the House to move the adjournment of a debate at any stage. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, moved it yesterday. It is further the right of any Peer to challenge such a Motion for adjournment. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, had a perfect right to challenge the Motion yesterday and so had any other Peer.

§ LORD ARNOLD
I wanted to consult with other Peers.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
I am making the point that the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, had the right to challenge the Motion and he did not avail himself of it. So far as the convenience of noble Lords is concerned, I may say that the job of Leader of the House is not easy in this matter. I knew perfectly well, for I have been told frequently and recently, that noble Lords did not wish to sit late yesterday. I also knew perfectly well that this debate could not be finished, however late we sat. I can assure your Lordships that from the point of view of Ministers it would have been much more convenient to have finished it, because instead of having to spend two days in attendance at this debate they would have had a third day back in their offices, where they are also needed. As I say, I think there was a strong feeling that noble Lords did not wish to sit to a very late hour. It seems to me that, as they had a perfect right of challenging the Motion for 1145 adjournment and they did not take the opportunity of doing so, I must assume that on the whole there was no strong feeling against the adjournment.
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, says that he wants an assurance that this will not i happen again. The circumstances were certainly very unusual and I, personally, do not want this to happen again. But in all these matters I am subject to the decisions of the House. I always hope that any decision which I may take personally will meet with the approval of the House, but the House is master and its decision is of course final. Lord Arnold, therefore, will not expect me to give him 1146 an assurance that in no circumstances shall this procedure be repeated. It is not my desire that a debate should be adjourned after the first speech. So far as it is in my power I should like to see the debate carried on to a proper time and until an adequate portion of the debate has been completed. Yesterday I think the situation was a very difficult one, as I am convinced other noble Lords will realize. Certainly I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, need regard this as a normal practice for adoption in the future.