HL Deb 14 November 1956 vol 200 cc300-10

2.44 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT rose to ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the need to remind noble Lords who contribute to debates in this House of the inconvenience caused to those who follow them if they do not remain in their places for a time in order to give the immediately following speakers fair opportunity of commenting on their speeches; and also to impress on noble Lords who have spoken the desirability of being in their places during the ministerial reply. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to make one or two quite short remarks. I must apologise to your Lordships because this Question has been on the Order Paper, taken off the Order Paper and put on again, for reasons that could not be helped. I felt always that it was a Question that should be asked of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. As we all know, he has been fully occupied lately and, so far as I know, has had no holiday, or only a very little one, so that this is really the first opportunity that I have had of bringing up this, what I will term, purely domestic question amongst us all.

I have put down this Question because quite a number of noble Lords, including Ministers who have to reply to debates, have spoken to me on this subject. I ask it with great trepidation. I do not wish your Lordships to think in any way that I am setting myself up as a sort of schoolmaster to your Lordships on how we should behave here, but I feel there is something that we can do in the direction of my Question which can help debates and also, on certain occasions. relieve much unnecessary work.

The idea behind it is to help to get our debates spread more over the House. Of course. in major debates where there are, say, twenty speakers. it is difficult to carry out what the Question suggests. Many of your Lordships have engagements towards the end of the day, and it seems to me there might be something in a suggestion which I am now going to make to my noble friend. When there is a major debate in which there are a great many speakers and where a question of great importance is involved. I am wondering whether, instead of just one Minister answering the whole debate, it would not relieve the situation a good deal if two Ministers were to reply. Let us assume that there are twenty speakers in a debate. The first Minister would intervene and reply to the debate that had already been conducted by the first ten speakers. That would enable those noble Lords who had then to get away to do so, for when they put their names down to speak they could say, "I should like to speak early because I have to get away later." It would then be all right for them to do so. So far as I can see, they would not be doing anything that was the least improper, for there would be an answer to those first speakers from the Minister who was first to reply.

We all know that many of your Lordships do not quite appreciate the importance of remaining after one has spoken, not merely to listen to whoever speaks immediately afterwards but also to try to get the general gist of the debate. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that we might, between ourselves, arrange what I would term a type of gentlemen's agreement, that as far as possible we should carry out what is suggested in my Question. We have all had the experience of rising to speak, and then, while speaking, remembering something that some other noble Lord has said, perhaps a little time before. We have then said, "Now, with regard to the noble Lord"—and we look round and are obliged to say, "I am afraid he has gone." A situation of that kind could often be overcome if noble Lords would appreciate that they may not have been interrupted in the course of their speeches because it is our custom, so far as we can, not to interrupt; it is thought better to tackle a question that any noble Lord has raised when one rises oneself to speak.

My Lords, this matter greatly affects the work of Ministers on the Front Bench and of permanent officials who are in the House to advise and to give information. One Minister told me that the other day he was replying to what had been a long debate and there was a very thin House when he rose to answer. Five noble Lords had spoken in the debate and he discovered that they had all gone. Just think what that means. It means that the Minister has been taking notes of important points raised by other noble Lords; he may even have sent a note round to the permanent officials of his Department to find out exactly whet the facts are in regard to what has been said; and then he finds that the speakers have gone. I am sure; that if noble Lords think about that, they will do everything they can to remain in their places for as long as possible.

Then I would with great respect make the following suggestion. Suppose that I for instance, wish particularly to join in a certain debate and I know that I have to catch a train at a certain hour. Instead of going to the Minister and whispering in his ear, "I am so sorry, but I have to go before you reply", I should rise and say: "I am intervening in the debate for a very short time, but I must tell the House that I am unable to remain because I have an engagement which is of particular importance", or "I have a train to catch." Then all noble Lords would know that it is no use bothering very much about a point that the speaker has made because he will not be here if one is going to speak after him. If we could do something exactly in the nature of the wording of the Motion, I believe we should improve our debates and also remove a certain amount of unnecessary work caused by noble Lords who, perhaps quite unknowingly, have gone away and have rather spoiled a debate on a particular point.

I invite your Lordships to take into consideration what has so often happened to every noble Lord here, when he has wished to say a word about something that had been said and has found that the noble Lord who raised the particular point has gone. This applies even in the case of a maiden speech, and I wonder whether the Whips, and perhaps the Office as well, have sufficiently briefed noble Lords who are going to make a maiden speech and suggested to them that they must remain for a certain time. It is no use a noble Lord just making his speech, receiving his congratulations, and then going off. He may do so quite unwittingly, not knowing that it was "up to him" to give other people who are speaking after him the chance to question some important point he may have raised.

My Lords, I think that whatever arrangements your Lordships may come to with regard to the Question that I have had the temerity to put before you. I suggest that we do not want to make them too rigid. The other day I knew that I had to catch a certain train. Quite wrongly, no doubt. I thought that I had a point that I wished to put before your Lordships, and I said to myself, "If I do that I shall not be able to wait and hear the Minister's reply"; therefore I did not speak at all. We do not want anything of that sort to happen. I am sure noble Lords want to hear as many other noble Lords speak as often as possible. What we need is a flexible arrangement—we want it to be, as I say. on the basis of a gentlemen's agreement, with the idea of giving everybody a chance and thus improving our debates. Therefore, I ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

2.58 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I should like to add one word in support of the Question of my noble friend Lord Teviot. I do so because I think it may shorten a little what I shall have to say to your Lordships afterwards. I do not want to stand before your Lordships as an authority on the House—I have been here a bare twenty-one years, and there are many noble Lords who have been here a great deal longer than I have: the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, Lord Shaftesbury, and many others. I think part of the trouble to which the noble Lord has referred is largely due to our present system of having lists of speakers. I cast my mind back to the 'thirties. When there was a debate in those days, especially an important debate, there was a list of speakers. The list contained the names of the first two or three speakers—very often speakers of great Parliamentary repute, like the late Lord Hastings—and right at the bottom there appeared the name of the noble Lord who was going to reply for the Government. In between we used to put down our names, often in pencil and where we could find a place. We might not speak in that order. We used to come into the House and listen to the debate with our friends and see when we could intervene. As a result, I think the debates were more interesting; the speeches were more in reply the one to the other. and very often they were really quite exciting.

I realise that the present system in regard to lists is largely due to the difficulties about the hour of meeting. And it may be that another point has affected it: that noble Lords opposite, who are not so strongly represented in the House, may feel they might not get a fair show if the list system was abandoned. I can assure them that if they look at the Reports of debates in the 1930's, they will find that noble Lords of their view took a very rich part in our debates; and if it was a question of competition between myself and any noble Lord opposite, I would certainly give way. In any case, the matter can easily be settled by the Rule (which is not written in Standing Orders) that should more than one noble Lord rise to speak at a time, the House will signify which noble Lord it prefers to hear; and in the event of a difference, a Motion is competent that a particular Lord be heard. I have never heard that Motion moved and I do not think it ever would be. I should be very slow to challenge any noble Lord who rose to speak at the same time as I did.

There is just one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on which I should like to differ slightly. If a noble Lord rose and said that he wanted to catch a train, I believe the form would be that he would have to ask permission of the House to retire, which is much more in accordance with our old customs and precepts.

3.2 p.m.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

My Lords, first of all, may I say how grateful I am personally to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for his patience over this Question. As I think many of your Lordships will know, the noble Lord put it down a good many months ago; but for one reason or another it has always had to be postponed. I am most grateful to him for being so pertinacious as to bring it up again, for obviously the matter to which it refers is of concern to us all. The noble Lord has drawn attention to what he believes, and I believe others believe, to he a growing practice in this House, for noble Lords to leave the Chamber, and even to leave the House, as soon as they have made their speeches and before the debate is ended.

I suppose there is not one of us who would not have to plead guilty to having done something of that kind at some time in our Parliamentary career. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has himself said, it is sometimes inevitable. A noble Lord may have some very important engagement which he simply has to fulfil; he may only have time to come to the House, intervene in a debate and then go away; or perhaps he ought never to have come at all—perhaps he has been suffering from influenza and been told by his doctor to get back to bed as soon as possible. Or, finally, he may have to catch a train home and there may be no later one. We can all think of a hundred and one perfectly good, genuine reasons which make it impossible for us, on certain occasions, to remain after we have spoken and hear the views of our fellow Members or of the Government spokesman who is winding up the debate. I am quite certain that neither the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, nor anybody else, would wish to criticise noble Lords who are put in that rather embarrassing position.

But I should equally like to stress, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has stressed, the importance of noble Lords who have taken part in a debate staying as late as they can and, if possible, until the end of that particular debate. For, after all, a debate is what its name implies—it is an exchange of views. It is not merely a series of isolated statements completely detached from each other. It might almost be called, in some sense, a contest. To many of us who have sat in another place and also here, one of the main interests of a debate is what used to be called the "cut and thrust," the riposte by speakers on one side of the House to an attack which has been made from the other side. Some speaker who is lo speak later in the debate may very easily wish to challenge something which has been said by a noble Lord who preceded him, and if that preceding noble Lord is not there to answer the point—and it might be quite an important one—the matter may never be cleared up, and, to that extent, the purpose A the debate must be impaired and, indeed, largely nullified.

Or, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said, some noble Lord may wish to ask a question of the Government of the day, possibly a very controversial question, and the Government may be at considerable pains to get a correct reply in order to afford the noble Lord the information for which he has asked—any of us who have been Ministers will have had that experience. Yet when the Government spokesman rises to give his reply, he may find that the noble Lord who has put the question is not in his place to receive the information for which he has specially asked. That cannot fail to be unsatisfactory to the Government spokesman and to the House as a whole.

Finally—and I speak as one who has wound up a great many debates in this House—there is the extraordinarily depressing effect on speakers if, at the end of a debate, they have to speak to almost empty Benches. They look around for friendly or even interested faces and see nothing but a blank expanse of red leather which is neither appreciative of nor even responsive to, their remarks. That is something to chill the enthusiasm of even the keenest politician.

What is to be done? Two suggestions have been made to-day. The noble Lord Lord Teviot, has suggested that where possible, there should be two Government speakers, one to answer the first part of the debate and the other to answer the latter part. But, my Lords, in my experience if the debate is at all a long one, that already happens. The Government of the day, whatever it may be, nearly always makes arrangements to have one Minister to speak early and another Minister to wind up at the end of the debate. While admitting that that is quite a good plan, I still think rather more is needed.

Another suggestion, made by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun was that there should be no prearranged list of speakers. The noble Lord, who has long experience of this House, said that when he first came here the names of only a few speakers were put on the list and the rest got up and spoke as and when they could. If that were the arrangement now, it might indeed in some ways make for more lively debates: but I imagine that the present comprehensive list of speakers was really adopted for the convenience of noble Lords. We all know that there are Members of this House who are not whole-time politicians but who have other work and have to come as and when they can. A list of the present type is of great value to them. But I can assure the noble Lord that we shall not forget his suggestion.

But obviously, my Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot has said the most important thing is that the largest number of Peers should come and take part in debates. That is much more important than that this or that Peer should stay until the end of a debate. We want to have the greatest number possible contributing to our discussions and no other consideration should take priority of that. At the same time, I believe that if noble Lords will take account of what has been said this afternoon and do what they can to stay as long as they can, especially in debates in which they have taken part, it will be to the advantage both of the authority of the House and of the interest of our discussions.

3.9 p.m.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, I regret the absence of my noble friend. Lord Silkin, the Deputy-Leader of my Party. We are expecting him at any time. But I thought we ought not to allow the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Salisbury, to pass without a word from this side of the House. When the noble Lord commenced his remarks I assumed that he was addressing himself mainly to noble Lords on his side of the House, for, after all, the Opposition, in numbers at any rate (I am not going to question ability or anything of that kind), are outvoted by about one to every fifteen on the other side. So I think that the onus of responsibility, in circumstances of that kind, should remain with noble Lords on the other side of the House.

To be quite serious, I entirely agree with everything which the noble Marquess has said with regard to the conduct of debates in your Lordships' House. Those of us who have had fairly long experience in another place still believe in the "cut and thrust", and we think that anything which would tend to bring that into the discussions in your Lordships' House would make them very much more interesting and perhaps would induce the attendance of many of the noble Lords who are now often absentees. In this connection, I call to mind a remark made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to the effect that this was the only legislative Chamber in the world which was able to work because of the absenteeism of its members. I wish that we could bring about a great improvement in that matter. After all, the House, so long as it retains the powers which it now has, has a function to perform, and I dislike very much to hear people who have been in the Strangers' Gallery saying afterwards that they went to the House of Lords, they saw just a few Peers assembled there, and though the debate was very interesting they wished it had been very much longer and that there had been something of the House of Commons character about the speeches. I entirely agree with that. I am sure that if improvements were made on those lines our debates would be very much better.

I shall say little more because, as I have said, I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess has said. Most of us on this side of the House, unfortunately, have to try to earn a living, and that, among others, is one of the great difficulties which arise concerning attendance at this House at the present time. Avid, of course, that does not apply only to this side of the House; it applies to every part. Then, again, one cannot always afford to take a taxicab from the House to the station. If a Member speaks and then stays and listens to the remainder of the debate, and particularly if he stays to hear the reply, he may find himself in some embarrassment. In another place the duty of staying to hear closing speeches is regarded seriously. Indeed that duty is carried out almost in its entirety there. The Whips get to work, and if a Member makes a speech and it not present at the winding-up of the debate a Whip generally sees him the following day and asks him the reason why he was not in his place. It really is important for the conduct of debate that a speaker who takes part should listen at any rate to either one side or the other in the winding-up speeches. I sincerely hope that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will not fall upon barren ground, but that Hansard will be read and that Members of your Lordships' House will take heed and note what is expected of them.

3.14 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, there are just ore or two remarks I should like to make which I think will be pertinent to this discussion. I have naturally great sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I am sure that we all welcome the reply of the noble Marquess who leads the House. But I think that this ought to be said. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has spoken about the convenience of the House. I should have thought that in this connection it was more a matter of courtesy that a noble Lord should remain in his place, at any rate during the contribution of the speaker who immediately succeeds him. In my view, that is rather more a matter of courtesy than a matter of the convenience of the House. Indeed, I think this is more a matter of courtesy than anything else.

I was very glad to note that the noble Marquess said that the main point is that Members of this House should come here and speak even though they cannot remain till the end of the debate. That seems to me to be very important. Speeches in this House, on the whole, are delivered by noble Lords who have had considerable practical experience of the particular matter which is the subject of debate. In that regard, to some extent they differ from the speeches made in another place, which are often much more purely political in content and, in a sense, more academic in character. It follows from this that noble Lords who are very much concerned in the affairs of the country, and who come here to give us and the country the advantage of the ripe experience which they have gained in carrying on great branches of industry or colonial administration, or whatever it may be, are very busy men. It is not only a question of their earning their living—a matter which is apt to weigh heavily with noble Lords on these Benches; noble Lords suet as I have mentioned have very great demands made on their time by other organizations, and while it is true that the work of Parliament ought to come first, one knows that very often engagements have been entered into by noble Lords to address really important societies before dates have peen fixed for debates in your Lordships' House.

Then, again, we know that often—as in the case of the particular Question raised by the noble Lord to-day—there are postponements, as a result of which a matter comes on for discussion at a date quite different from that which was first arranged. So it may well happen that there is a contest between a noble Lord's loyalty to an engagement which he has undertaken outside and his loyalty to your Lordships' House, and while, theoretically, the work of Parliament should come first, it is almost impossible to expect a noble Lord to cancel an engagement to speak, at a gathering of some important society on the basis that he ought to remain till the end of a debate here in your Lordships'. House. I am sure that that is not what Lord Teviot has in mind. That is why I welcome the statement of the noble Marquess. It is very important, I think, that we should have the advantage of the ripe experience and knowledge which is possessed by so many noble Lords in our debates, even if it means that they are not going to be able to stay for more than a short time after they have delivered their speeches. That seems to me to be the really essential thing. It is the fact that debates in your Lordships' House are regarded by many members of the public as of greater value than those which take place in another place. If we did not have the advantage of speeches of the kind to which I have referred, I am sure that the confidence which that section of the public has in discussions which take place here would be lost.