HL Deb 28 July 1953 vol 183 cc948-50

2.40 p.m.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, this seems a convenient moment to ask a question about the Business, which also involves a point of Order of this House. My noble friend Lord Shepherd has been good enough to tell me about the arrangements for to-morrow's debate, when I understand that the Leader of the House is to open the discussion. I observe that something unusual has been taking place owing to the division of offices between this House and another place, and on two or three occasions the Minister, speaking for the Government—in one case, Mr. Butler, and in the other case, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd—has given assurances that statements on information will be given in this House which were withheld from, or were not available to, the other House. I am now asking the head of Government Business, the Chief Whip, how those undertakings will be fulfilled, because it is quite clear that it would not be competent for Mr. Selwyn Lloyd to give assurances that statements would be made in this House unless he had already informed the Acting Foreign Secretary that he was intending to give such a pledge on his behalf, and the Acting Foreign Secretary had agreed to do so.

The second point, which is a point of Order and touching one of the oldest unwritten Rules of this House, is the ruling by Mr. Speaker yesterday on this question. One of the Members of the other place was asking material points and asking how far the Ministers in the other place ought to answer questions for their Departments.

EARL FORTESCUE

Has the noble Viscount given notice of this question?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I have never heard that it was necessary to give notice of a point of Order. In regard to the first question, I say that no Minister could give an assurance on behalf of the Leader of the House—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Order, Order!

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

—in another place, unless he had the permission of the Leader of the House to give that assurance. It is perfectly clear you cannot say that the Leader of the House of Lords will make a certain statement unless you have asked him whether he is prepared to do so. As regards the second question, which concerns the ruling given yesterday, it is my bounden duty to ask what the position is, because it appears to infringe one of the oldest unwritten Rules between the two Houses. As we know, it is a very old Rule that there shall be no controversy between private Members of the two Houses. Statements are made in another place and statements are made in this House—those are statements of policy; but controversy between Members of the two Houses is regarded as improper and has been strictly forbidden by the Rules of the two Houses. This is what Mr. Speaker said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 518 (No. 149), Col. 892): Ministers do answer for Government policy on matters of this character"— this is apart from Government statements— but where the conduct of a Minister is particularly attacked"— and the conduct of the noble Marquess has been vigorously attacked in debate in the other House— and that Minister happens to be in another place there seems to me to be no impropriety whatsoever in him giving an explanation in his own House. That means to say, that if a Member of the other House attacks the noble Marquess, in the view of Mr. Speaker the noble Marquess could reply in this House to that private Member. In that case, are we in this House entitled to reply to speeches made in the other House? If so, the old and decent rule forbidding this sort of controversy between the two Houses has disappeared. Therefore, as is my duty, immediately this comes to my notice I bring it to the notice of the Leader of the House. If he asks for an hour or two to consider it, of course, naturally that would be a very right and proper thing. But as regards the other undertakings, no notice was required, I think, because the noble Marquess must have known that they were given on his behalf.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON)

My Lords, I apologise to the House for the fact that I was not here when the noble Viscount started to speak. I believe that he is in order in what he has said, but I think it would be for general convenience if he would be good enough to give me notice now, in order that I may deal with the problem after a little consideration. I hope that that will be convenient to the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Of course I respond immediately to what the noble Viscount asks. I suggest that it would be convenient if a statement could be made in this matter at the beginning of the debate to-morrow. If that is convenient to him, I think it is the most appropriate arrangement.

VISCOUNT WOOLTON

Thank you. I will do that.