Lords Sitting of 22 January 1953

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Glenconner—Took the Oath.

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY ACT AND LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) ACT EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to extend for a further period the operation of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951, and the Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1951; and to move that this Bill be read a first time. Before I put the Question to the House, it will perhaps be convenient if I state that copies of the Government White Paper explaining their policy on leasehold reform are now available in the Printed Paper Office. Perhaps I may add, for the further information of the House, that I understand that it has been arranged through the usual channels that a debate on the White Paper and on the Motion for the Second Reading shall be held on Wednesday, February 18, next.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Consolidation Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of saying that I cordially agree that the Bill should be read a second time. I congratulate
1196
the noble Lord on the Woolsack for the very convenient way in which this matter is presented for our consideration in the White Paper, so that we can see at a glance what is proposed to be done, by setting out all the small Amendments which are authorised, as it seems to me, under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. Without that Act it would not have been possible to do what is now contemplated.
May I just record the fact that that Act was entirely the work of Sir Granville Ram, whose loss we all mourn, and it is a useful indication of the extreme value of the work which that eminent gentleman did that we are able, thanks to his labours in drafting that Act, to introduce this comprehensive measure in the form which the Lord Chancellor proposes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for what he has said, and would join with him in recording the thanks which we all owe to Sir Granville Ram and the great loss that we have suffered by his untimely death.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

PROCEDURE: NOTICES OF MOTION
4.10 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to move to resolve, That it is desirable, on the ground both of the general convenience and of the provision of adequate opportunities for debate, that, except in circumstances of urgency, notice of the date of any Motion should be given to the Table of the House not later than the rising of the House on the Thursday immediately preceding the date proposed, and that notices of Motions or unstarred Questions should not be changed, either in character or in substance, without adequate warning. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was with some diffidence that I set down this Resolution on the Order Paper, but I feel that it may well meet the wishes of perhaps the majority of your Lordships. No doubt many of your Lordships (and I myself must certainly plead guilty) have put down Motions perhaps only the day before they were due for debate, and in other cases have

1197
changed your Motions at short notice, although the matter was such that longer notice could well have been given.
As the House is well aware, many of your Lordships are engaged on important local government work, away from London, and, of course, in many other important capacities, and it is bound to he difficult for some noble Lords to make arrangements to attend the House unless adequate notice of a debate is given. This applies particularly to Peers who travel from Scotland—and it applies also in the reverse way, of course, in that they may come down and find that a Motion has been withdrawn. I am sure that we are all anxious to keep the attendance in the House as high as possible, and I submit that if inadequate notice of a debate is given not only will the House lose attendances but it may well lose the advantage of hearing experts on the particular subject under debate. Inevitably, there will arise occasions when it is apparent that a particular subject should be debated as soon as possible. My Resolution makes provision for such an occasion. I would suggest that the decision as to the urgency of the matter must he one for the Peer himself.
Your Lordships will have noticed that I have included unstarred Questions, because, of course, these can be debated, whereas a starred Question cannot be so treated—although even in this matter your Lordships will have noticed certain lapses from the established practice of the House. I hope that the House will appreciate that this Resolution is not intended in any way to restrict the rights and privileges of your Lordships, nor does it, in fact, do so; it merely calls attention to what I submit is a desirable practice. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable, on the ground both of the general convenience and of the provision of adequate opportunities for debate, that, except in circumstances of urgency, notice of the date of any Motion should be given to the Table of the House not later than the rising of the House on the Thursday immediately preceding the date proposed, and that notices of Motions or unstarred Questions should not be changed, either in character or in substance, without adequate warning.—(Lord Teynham.)
4.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should have been glad to hear what the Government think about this Motion. If it means merely that a notice should be given as long as possible before a debate, obviously it is a harmless and, I should have thought, an unnecessary Motion. If that gives time to experts to come, then that certainly is a desirable thing to do. We do have debates where people read their speeches and give us a debate which is of a high quality, like the meeting of a learned society. But that is only one side of the debates in this House: there is another side. This House does not attempt to parallel the work of the House of Commons in its examination of legislation, but in one matter it has a very important function, and that is that any member of this House can bring to the notice of your Lordships something which he considers of importance, and can ask for your Lordships' judgment. That is a right of the minority, and this House is essentially a place where the minority has a special right. I realise that because I have never had anything like wholehearted support from anyone, probably, except myself. But it is a fact, and it is a precious thing, that any member of your Lordships' House should be able to come forward from any quarter and put some matter before you urgently.
If this suggested rule is observed, just see what would happen. Suppose, for example, I want to call attention to the fact—I do not want to be controversial, but this is a controversial question—that the Africa Conference has been going on for a fortnight and not one word has been vouchsafed to the public, and that many people are anxious lest a conclusion should be arrived at without either this or the other House having had a proper opportunity of considering the issues. If I came to that conclusion after tea-time to-day, by this rule the first opportunity I should have to bring the matter forward would be on Tuesday week. That seems to me to limit the opportunities for usefulness of individual members of this House to a very considerable degree.
LORD TEYNHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I have provided for that contingency in my Resolution. If any noble Lord considers

1199
a matter urgent he has a perfect right to bring that matter up at the earliest possible moment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I had not overlooked that. I was about to come to that point in a minute. The noble Lord's Resolution would establish a totally new principle—namely, that one individual Peer can declare that his business is urgent. I suggest that cannot be so. We have no Mr. Speaker here as they have in another place; there is no one to decide what is a matter of public urgency. If any individual Peer, being in a minority, espousing some cause that is very unpopular, comes forward trying to explain to your Lordships that it is urgent, or goes to the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition and tries to explain to them that it is urgent, he will have a very uphill task indeed. I have tried it myself, and I know. That the business of this House is admirably organised as between the two Front Benches, I readily admit, but in the end it is the Leaders who have the say; and to suggest that any individual Peer can declare that a matter is urgent is asking too much. I am sure that it would never be agreed to by the Leaders. If that is so—and I think it is—then in my view it would be a very good thing to let the Motion go or to have it withdrawn, as an expression of view that people should have as much notice as possible that important topics are to be brought forward. If, however, it is going to infringe on the right of individual Peers to introduce matters without invoking some private right of their own to declare that they are urgent, I say that it is weakening the power of private members.
I think what is required is something quite different—namely, that unstarred Questions should be more freely used; and it should be possible to give a certain precedence to unstarred Questions, if a certain number of Peers think it necessary. That is an outline of what I think would be a much better plan. If the noble Lord really means that no one is to be allowed to raise a matter without ten or twelve days' notice, unless he is able to convince the whole House that it is urgent, then I do not think that the Motion will add to the value of the work of the House.
1200
On the contrary, it will do a good deal to damnify the private rights of individual members.
4.18 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the Resolution which has been proposed my noble friend Lord Teynham. I have not sat in your Lordships' House long enough to have the temerity to suggest what are our customs. At the same time, I think I am a regular enough attendant to be able to express an opinion on what it might be desirable for our customs to be. In the outcome, it may well be that by some coincidence what ought to be may prove to be what is. I think we must remember carefully to distinguish our functions from those of another place. There the Members are the elected representatives of the people, and they are paid. Their duty is to take up daily, if necessary, any matters that arise in the field of public affairs as matters of great speed and urgency. In this House we are in a different category. We are, by creation or heredity, the advisers of Her Majesty. We could not fulfil these duties unless we were engaged in other duties as well—some of us in important public duties, others, as my noble friend has suggested, in private duties, even private duties to earn one's living. Without such other activities, our value as advisers would definitely diminish. Therefore, for those who take their duties seriously there must perpetually come a clash of interests, a clash of duty, and it is our aim to resolve that clash of duty in such a way that we can perform all our duties. And one of the first necessities, or helps, in resolving this clash is that we should have adequate notice of the matters on which we are to be called upon to deliberate.
The notice which my noble friend suggests seems to me to be about the minimum possible to serve that purpose, to enable us not only to resolve any clash of duties in deciding where to be at a given moment but also to make up our minds on what advice we should give upon any question. I may mention also, in parenthesis, the mere physical difficulties that ensue if notice is not at least so long as my noble friend suggests. Many noble Lords live at great distances away. Even those who live nearer frequently live in one place at the end of

1201
the week and nearer Westminster in the middle of the week. With such a double existence, it requires a certain amount of planning to make sure that notices can always arrive at the right place at the right time.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has referred to questions that arise suddenly from time to time. I submit that there is always the machinery of the Private Notice Question, followed possibly by a supplementary question and that, possibly, followed by a debate at any time during the next week. We must recognise that in this House we have the privilege of no rigid timetable. Any noble Lord is able to put down a Motion or an unstarred Question about almost anything under the sun, to be discussed on any day he likes. The only consideration that would arise is how long he is prepared to sit in the House and keep the Government spokesman here to reply to him. Any noble Lord can have any number of Motions or unstarred Questions on the same day, or even on the same night, for that matter. I know of no limit to the length of time that any one of your Lordships can keep the House sitting, unless his fellow Peers choose to vote for an adjournment. It can be argued that matters of great moment arise so quickly that even that procedure is too slow for dealing with them. I cannot say that such a question never will arise, because my experience is not long enough. All I can say is that I have never yet seen a question of that sort arise. For all these reasons, I support the Resolution moved by my noble friend.
4.23 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to add a word to make two points clear. First, I take it for granted that the Motion which has been moved from the Benches opposite does not propose to institute a new Standing Order. It is merely an expression of opinion, that members of the House who propose to bring business before the House should give as much notice as possible. The other point, in which my noble friend Lord Stansgate is very much interested, and in which I think we are all interested, is that when a matter of emergency arises there should be some means of enabling that matter to be dealt with in this House. I suggest that, as a
1202
general rule, that can be accomplished by consultation through the usual channels. I think it is generally right that members of your Lordships' House possess a good many privileges not possessed by Members of another place. But members of this House have not absolute rights. They are subject to certain qualifications. For example, it is not an absolute right that a member can raise any question he wishes at any time he wishes. He can do that only by consent of the House, and, although generally given, the consent of the House might conceivably be refused.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I correct a mistake I made? I should have said, "after the existing business on the Order Paper."
LORD SHEPHERD: But even then, suppose the House had been through the normal business on the Order Paper and someone rose to debate a given issue, it would be within the authority of the House to decide whether it would continue to sit. I mention that because I am generally favourable to the points made by the noble Lord and I think it advisable that the House should not be led astray by talking of an absolute freedom one could not give in a public assembly.
4.26 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I am glad this matter has been raised. I was anxious to hear what members on all sides of the House had to say before expressing an opinion. I think in the opening speech by my noble friend Lord Teynham and in other speeches, including the closing one of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, much of what has been said is very reasonable and very much in tune with the temper and practice of the House. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, leading the Opposition, has said, and as noble Lords who have sat in both places know, that one's powers here, certainly in Opposition, are incomparably greater and the opportunities immeasurably larger and more frequent than they ever were in another place. In some ways we are rather an odd assembly—none the worse for that. We have few rules; and we have few rules because in practice we find we need few rules. And where we have rules,

1203
we find we have little machinery for enforcing them. They are really enforced by the good sense and good temper of the House. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whom we all greatly respect, has a position of great dignity, but, so far as controlling the House is concerned, one of little power. He cannot rise, as I have often seen Mr. Speaker rise in another place, and say to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate: "Order, order!" Not a bit of it. He has no such power. And he has no power to rule anything in order. That is why my noble friend Lord Teynham has been so wise in not asking in his Motion for anything in the nature of an order, but merely for an expression of opinion from the House.
Take this question of urgency. The procedure in another place is cut and dried and very specific. If a Member wishes to raise a matter of urgency in another place, Mr. Speaker has to rule whether, in his opinion, it is a matter of urgency; and if Mr. Speaker rules that it is not, then nothing can be done about it and the House accepts that decision. But in your Lordships' House, the Lord Chancellor cannot rule that any question is a matter of urgency. It has to be left to the common sense of the House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The point the noble Viscount is on is most important. I should be glad if he would deal with the point about judgment as to urgency. That is the crux of the whole matter. The noble Lord who spoke first said that the Peer raising the matter was the judge.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Viscount makes so many speeches that he makes those of other people, as well as his own. I was proposing to make my own speech, and if he will give me the opportunity I propose to deal with the point which he made. Perhaps he will let me do it in my own way.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Certainly.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Thank you very much. The Lord Chancellor certainly could not rule. Therefore, it is left—the noble Lord is quite right—as a matter of judgment to the Peer himself. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said some rather odd things, but one thing he
1204
said which was not odd was that it was important that any Peer should be able to raise any subject in this House, however small a minority he might represent, even though it might be a minority of one. I fully agree with that—and that can be done. In that respect Peers have a unique opportunity which is certainly not enjoyed in the other place.
Then the noble Viscount said a most odd thing. He said that he had tried sometimes to get something raised as a matter of urgency; that it might be so urgent that he could not give twenty-four hours' notice of it. There is nothing to stop any Peer from putting down anything on the Order Paper, handing it in, and its being taken at the next Sitting of the House. It would, of course, be taken after any other business on the Order Paper. But the noble Viscount said that he could not get the opportunity of getting in unless he, to put it colloquially, squared both Front Benches.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I did not use the word "squared." I will let the noble Viscount make his own speech in his own way, but I beg him not to attribute illiteracy to me.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the phrase the noble Viscount used was "the accommodation of both Front Benches." I do not know what the noble Viscount's relations are with his own Front Bench.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: They are very good.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have never noticed that he was ever unduly inhibited by any sense of Party discipline. So far as we are concerned, we certainly have no control over the noble Viscount, and have frequently benefited by having to answer him on matters relevant and irrelevant. But if the noble Viscount meant that he thought something was important but that, because there was a lot of other business down before the House, he was unable to get his particular Motion or idiosyncracy put before the House in front of everything else, then that, of course, is quite right. But we all suffer under that disadvantage, and it would be inconvenient to the House if we did not. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, rightly said, where something is a matter of urgency, and it is desired to have a special debate—and this is quite apart from the

1205
Private Notice Question, which is always a possibility—that debate can always be arranged through the usual channels. I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that we always accommodate one another. Not only do we on the Front Benches accommodate one another, but I have always found that the House, where every member has an equal right, is extraordinarily accommodating to the good sense and the general wish of the House. For instance, sometimes noble Lords have given notice of Motions on the Order Paper, but something of general importance comes up which the whole House feels ought to be discussed. I have always found that Peers are only too ready to say: "I am sure the House would like to debate this subject, and I fully agree that it should be debated. Postpone my Motion and let this particular matter go down as first Order on the Paper. I will stand over to another day, or come on after the debate is over." I am sure that all noble Lords will bear me out that the existing arrangement works very well in practice.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, raised another point, which I did not know he was going to raise—namely, that he would like much more use to be made of unstarred Questions. It is within the discretion of any member of the House what use he makes of unstarred Questions, and there is nothing to stop anybody putting down an unstarred Question. But I gather that the noble Viscount wants to alter the rules as to unstarred Questions. I am certainly not going to discuss that matter to-day; that is a much more serious proposition. If the noble Viscount wished to alter the rules of the House, the Standing Orders, which, wisely, are few, then no doubt he would put down whatever proposal he had in mind. It may be that it is merely an idea thrown out for consideration, and that he wishes the House to consider some alteration of its Standing Orders in relation to unstarred Questions. In that case, certainly we, and probably his own Front Bench, should like to see his proposal upon the Order Paper; and if the House considered that there was any sort of prima facie case for consideration, then the proper course would be to refer it to the Committee on Procedure of the House to make a Report.
I now come back to the Motion before the House. What does it say? It really
1206
says what I think is plain common sense, that noble Lords should try to give as much notice as possible. The noble Viscount has said it is important that matters should be discussed. That is so, of course. One of the great values of this House is that it is not merely a legislating Chamber; it is a Parliamentary Chamber in the primary sense of Parliament—namely, a place where you talk, and where, if I may say so, a great deal of good sense is talked. The Motion raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, yesterday was most valuable; but he would not have been able to introduce it anywhere else. Throughout the Session matters come up here on which discussion is of great value. If I may say so, with great respect to the noble Viscount, discussion and debate do not mean just a monologue by the noble Viscount, and still less a monologue without notice. If a subject is worth discussing, then there ought to be sufficient notice given of the debate so that those who can express useful opinions upon the subject should have an opportunity of knowing when it is coming forward. That appears to me to be common sense and, if I may say so, common courtesy.
The present Motion—and I think it is a very sensible Motion—is not binding on any of us, except that in many matters in this House we find it a convenient course mutually to follow an agreed practice. The Motion merely asks that reasonable notice shall, wherever possible, be given of a subject which is to be raised. I must say that I think that is extraordinarily reasonable. As the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has framed his Resolution, if a Motion is to come up in the following week, notice should be given before the House rises on the Thursday. Many Peers live long distances away. Take the case of Scottish Peers. It is most inconvenient for Scottish Peers to have to make a night journey to London at short notice. Quite frankly, I hope that the House, if it thinks this is good sense, will accept the noble Lord's Motion. As I say, it is not binding on any of us. If there is a matter of urgency, it can be put down at twenty-four hours' notice, and again the Peer himself must be the judge of that. He would have the right to be heard in any event.

1207
I remember that we had a good deal of discussion (the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will remember it, and also, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Rea) about what should be done in regard to noble Lords who were members of national boards taking part in debates in this House. Various people had a shot at drafting rules which would bind us, but we all came to the conclusion that the common-sense thing was to produce a sort of formula which appealed to the House as general good sense, but to leave it to the individual judgment and responsibility of each individual Peer to apply that or not as he feels right. I have not been in this House as long as some of your Lordships, but I have been here a good long time. I am bound to say that the longer I am here the more I am impressed by the sort of, if you like, illogical common sense of this House which makes it work so well. There is very little planning about it, I know, and it must be a frightful shock to the planners to have such absence of planning.
If it is agreeable to the House, after having heard what has been said to-day, I suggest that we might accept this Motion and take it as the general sort of practice which, in ordinary circumstance, we should all wish to follow. It would be for our own judgment. I will add only one thing. I think there is a corollary to it, though I do not want to alter the Motion. Just as it is useful to have a little notice when something is going to be debated, it is equally con-
1208
venient that we should have notice if something is going to be struck off. I am not asking for this as a Minister, where one perhaps has a large brief prepared and then finds it is not necessary to use it. It does not matter a bit to us, because we have to be here all the time. But when a Motion is on the Order Paper, Peers make arrangements to come up from all over the country to take part in it, and it is very inconvenient if, probably even before they have started to come up from the country in the morning, they find that the debate is not going to take place. Therefore, without in any way asking that there should be any alteration of this Motion, I suggest that, if noble Lords think this is general good sense and good practice, we might also try to give reasonable notice if we wish to remove something from the Order Paper, as well as if we wish to put something upon it.
4.42 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords. I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for accepting my Resolution, and I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, feels a little happier now about the question of urgency, which I think has been adequately covered by my noble friend. I do not think that I will add anything more, and I feel that I must leave the Resolution to the judgment of the House.
On Question, Resolution agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before five o'clock