HL Deb 20 June 1956 vol 197 cc1122-4

2.56 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recent decision to evict Lady Garbett from her farm in Sussex, they will review the existing legislation to determine whether amendment of it would be feasible in order to avoid the recurrence of such hardships in the future.]

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the question of amending the existing legislation raises wide issues. I can assure the noble Earl that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has these issues very much in mind at the present time.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the courtesy of this reply and I trust that the Minister will hold these points very close to him in the course of the next month or so.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, arising out of the last part of the noble Lord's Answer, when he said that the question of this amending legislation is very much in the Minister's mind at the present time, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will take great care, before denying their public pledges to the electorate that they would carry out the terms of the Act of 1947, that they will first consult the people of the country?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I do not think the noble Viscount would wish me to endeavour to anticipate what reaction consideration of these issues might have on my right honourable friend's mind.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, surely if the noble Lord tells the House that amending legislation is already being considered, we, as the Opposition, have a right to point to the promises of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the 1947 Act and to ask them to pledge themselves not to an-tend it until they have been to the electorate.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I did not think I had stated that my right I honourable friend proposed to amend any legislation whatsoever. My words were that he has these issues very much in mind at the present time. I do not think I can anticipate. The best thing I can do is to convey the noble Viscount's words to my right honourable friend.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that by the terms of his Answer he most distinctly gave the House the impression that the Minister had in mind the alteration of the Act? And is he aware that a number of noble Lords take an exactly opposite view to that of the noble Lord who asked the question? Surely he can give an undertaking—he can at least give that, even though he is only a Junior Minister—that there will be appropriate consultations between the Minister and authoritative bodies in agriculture—the Central Land Owners' Organisation, the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers—many of whom regard this matter as a very grave issue.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, as the noble Earl, has said, I am in a junior position myself and consequently not in a position personally to give any undertaking. What I will say is that I think it would be quite inconceivable that any such action should be taken without appropriate consultation with all concerned.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

And with the electorate?

LORD REA

My Lords, before we go on to the next business, with your Lordships' permission may I ask the noble Earl the Acting Leader of the House whether he would not agree that it is right that when any Member of your Lordships' House rises to ask what he considers to be a supplementary question, he should be allowed to do so without being ruled out of order before the question has been put?

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I am not aware to what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is referring. I do not think questions are ruled out of order in this House. I do not think supplementary questions arising out of Questions are ever ruled out of order, but anyone can judge whether a supplementary question is within the ambit of the original Question which was asked. That was all that I drew attention to just now. The supplementary question did not seem to me to be within the ambit of the original Question.

LORD REA

I agree with what the noble Earl has just said. I was not asking this in any critical sense. But I was referring to what happened in the last few minutes, when it was not possible to hear the supplementary question which was sought to be put because of the opposition which came from other quarters.

LORD MOYNE

I think there was a misunderstanding, because I understood the Minister to say that he had full knowledge of the Convention. Then I think Lord Stansgate, who must have missed that statement, desired to read the details of the Convention of which the Minister had already said he had full knowledge.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

I am sure there is no wish to contravene the recognised practice of the House. But where a Member is straying from the Question—I do not think my noble friend was straying—the procedure for stopping him should not be by a sort of loudly expressed opposition from the Government Front Bench.

THE EARL OF HOME

It depends on how supplementary questions are phrased what opposition they raise and what form it takes. No one would wish to prevent supplementary questions from being raised, but what we do not want—and I think everyone agrees in this—is to turn Question Time into a speechmaking time. A supplementary question should be limited and should be within the ambit of the original Question.