§ 2.35 p.m.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON)My Lords, at the end of Question time yesterday the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, under the heading of a point of Order, asked certain questions to which I said I would reply to-day. In the first place, he asked what was the position following a ruling that had been given by Mr. Speaker in another place. I have taken advice on the matter, and this is what I am advised: that it is not proper in this House to comment on a ruling on a point of Order made by Mr. Speaker in another place. That is the concern of that House only. Each House is the custodian of the manner in which its own business is regulated, and the noble Viscount can be assured that this House will adhere to the well-known principles governing Ministerial responsibility and the relations between the two Houses.
The second question which the noble Viscount addressed to me he really answered himself, in his concluding remarks—which was very obliging of him. He asked whether, when Mr. Butler and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd had given assurances that the Acting Foreign Secretary, the noble Marquess the Leader of this House, would make statements in this House, they had authority to do so. The reply is that they had the express authority of the Acting Foreign Secretary to make the statements made in another place.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation, which is as I expected. Mr. Butler and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd would hardly have made those statements without authority—indeed, I said so. I do not wish, nor would I dare, after my life, to impugn the authority of Mr. Speaker in another place—very far from it. What I am asking is something quite 1012 different. It is: What is the view of the Leader of this House about the answering by Members of this House of attacks which are made upon them in the other House? I am not speaking about Mr. Speaker's ruling. I am asking: What is the view of this House? After all, the House here governs its own Rules of Order under the direction of its Leader. The old Rule was that we do not reply to speeches made in the other House by private Members—I am not speaking about Government statements. I asked whether that had been altered by this new observation made from the Chair of the other place. To that, the noble Viscount has, so far, made no reply.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)My Lords, the question is really addressed to me, so perhaps I had better answer it. The answer, as I see it, is this. Broadly speaking, it is quite true that no answer should be given in this House to statements made by private Members in another place, though, of course, reference may be made to points raised in debate which might equally well have been raised anywhere else. But when it comes to a violent personal attack, then I should have thought the man attacked would have the right to reply to it. I am not proposing to take that course in any strong measure to-day, but I should have thought that it was a fair and reasonable ruling by the Speaker that, where a personal attack has been made, the man attacked must be allowed the opportunity of making some reply to it.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, the reply of the noble Marquess really means that we have abandoned, in some measure, the old practice between the two Houses. That is clear from what he said, and I regret it. Further, what he did say, which disappointed me—and I am sure it will also disappoint Members in another place greatly—was that he was not going to reply to the attacks made upon him, which means that, on Foreign Office policy, as Mr. Morrison, I think, said, Members can be "fobbed off" with the statement that a speech will be made in another place; and now the noble Marquess says that he does not propose to make such a speech.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, the noble Viscount had better listen to my speech, which is very long, I am afraid, but quite detailed. I did not say that I was not going to reply to statements that had been made. I said that I was not going to reply at any length to personal attacks which have been made. That is a different thing. I think that is undesirable.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATECertainly. I do not approve of personal attacks.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI have never made a personal attack in my life, and I do not approve of them. I have never suggested that personalities should be introduced. What I asked was, whether questions put by elected Members in another place can be turned aside by Ministers saying that they will be answered in this House, yet when the noble Marquess has the opportunity to do so, he says he does not propose to answer them.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I do propose to answer the points that remain. Let me make this clear. Suppose that somebody in another place were to say of a noble Lord here," This noble Lord is a traitor." It is a privileged place in which he makes that statement, if it is made in another place. It would be absurd for the noble Lord in this House not to be able to make any reply to that at all. I am sure that would be the general good sense of both Houses.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, surely the Rule to which the noble Viscount refers is, primarily, a Rule that we should not conduct controversy by long-distance exchanges between a private Member of this House and a private Member of the other House. What has that to do with the conduct of Ministers? What happened here, I gather, was that in the debate in another place there was an attack made upon the noble Marquess. As I gather, the attack was replied to by his colleagues in the Commons, who went on to say that there was to be a debate in the House of Lords, and they had no doubt that the noble Marquess would then deal with the matter. What is wrong with that? The Rule, as a Rule, is a very good Rule—that you should not have exchanges between private Members of the two Houses. But that has nothing to do with Ministers. Suppose 1014 the case were the other way round. Suppose that somebody in this House in a debate made an attack upon the Prime Minister, who is a Member of the Commons. Are not his colleagues here entitled to reply to the attack, and to say that there is going to be a debate in the Commons and that the Prime Minister will no doubt say what he is going to say? That is exactly the same thing turned upside down. There is nothing in this point of Order at all.