§ 4.18 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF HOME had given Notice of his intention to move to resolve, That the Standing Orders of the House for the conduct of public business be amended by leaving out Standing Order 21 and inserting the following Standing Order:
§ Leave of Absence
§ 21. (1) Lords are to attend the sittings of the House or, if they cannot do so, obtain leave of absence, which the House may grant at pleasure; but this Standing Order shall not be understood as requiring a Lord who is unable to attend regularly to apply for leave of absence if he proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can.
§ (2) A Lord may apply for leave of absence at any time during a Parliament either for a session or the remainder of the session in which the application is made or for the remainder of the Parliament.
§
(3) On the issue of Writs for the calling of a new Parliament the Lord Chancellor shall in writing request every Lord to whom he issues a Writ to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence or no.
The Lord Chancellor shall, before the beginning of any session of Parliament other than the first, in writing request
to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence or no.A Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being requested to do so may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament.
§ (4) A Lord who has been granted leave of absence is expected not to attend the sittings of the House until the period for which the leave was granted has expired or the leave has sooner ended unless it be to take the Oath of Allegiance.
§ (5) If a Lord, having been granted leave of absence, wishes to attend during the period for which the leave was granted, he is expected to give notice to the House accordingly at least one month before the day on which he wishes to attend; and at the end of the period specified in his notice, or sooner if the House so direct, the leave shall end.
§ The noble Earl said: I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Business on the Paper.
§ Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee on the said Business.—(The Earl of Home.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
892§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, in the proposed new Paragraph (1), after the first word "Lords" to insert, "both Spiritual and Temporal." The noble Viscount said: I have put a number of Amendments on the Paper because the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when this matter was raised the other day, said that it would be most inconvenient if matters were raised without notice; so by the courtesy of the Clerks I put the Amendments down on Friday and they were circulated. The first one I shall deal with in detail in a moment, but I want to make this general remark. These Amendments are framed in a sort of chain, a catena; they all relate to one another. The general effect of them is to show that the plan which is proposed by the Swinton Committee is totally incompatible with the Writ of Summons which we all receive. That is the general purpose of the Amendments. The Amendments themselves I can deal with in sequence.
§
As a journeyman working in your Lordships' House, I should like to thank the noble Earl for reviving Rule 55 for the purposes of this debate. It is a very ancient rule of this House which dates back to 1620. I will just read the operative words:
To have more freedom of debate, and that arguments may be used (pro and contra), Committees of the Whole House are appointed, sometimes for Bills, sometimes to discuss matters of great moment.
I believe that that will very much assist debate, and the noble Earl can be well assured that I shall not attempt to prolong the debate, because the art of opposition is not to make long speeches in attack but to promote long speeches in defence.
§ The first Amendment I have to move is about the Lords Spiritual. I ask the Government, is it intended that whatever practice we set up for dealing with the absence of Lords Temporal shall apply in exactly the same way to the Lords Spiritual? The reason I ask the question is that if you read the Report of the Merthyr Committee you will find that the Report all the way through deals with Peers—Peers are to do this and Peers are to do that. A Lord Spiritual is not a Peer; he is a Lord of Parliament; and 893 therefore I became a little suspicious—or rather not suspicious, but inquiring—when I observed that in the Merthyr Committee Report no mention was made of Lords Spiritual but merely of Peers. On the other hand, the Standing Order which is proposed to your Lordships to-day speaks of "Lords", and "Lords" undoubtedly do include the Lords Spiritual. Therefore, my Amendment can be easily disposed of if the Lord Chancellor, or whoever is going to reply for the Government, can say that the Lords Spiritual will be treated in exactly the same way and be required to give exactly the same explanation of their absence as Lords Temporal.
§ There is nothing new about this, and there is nothing disrespectful. Moreover, I should be the last person to suggest that the Lords Spiritual are not fully engaged in their diocesan work; I know that that is the explanation of their absences. But, at the same time, there is a very long history of struggle, of the Crown in the first place, to enforce attendance in your Lordships' House, and it would be a very great pity if a large and very important section of this House were omitted from the scheme. Therefore, I would ask the noble Earl or the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether he can clear up this matter. The last time this matter was seriously tackled, I believe, was in 1841, in the trial of Lord Cardigan, but I do not know much about that. The real case worth reading is the trial of Caroline, the Bill for the degradation of the Queen in 1820. There is no doubt that in that case the Lord Chancellor was determined to enforce the Writ of Summons, and the gist of all my Amendments is to show—I will come to that later in the debate when we have the "Second Reading" discussion—that the effect of this scheme is to degrade the Writ of Summons in favour of some private arrangement which we make among ourselves. That is not the way in which the matter was treated in the past.
THE EARL OF HOMEThe noble Viscount pleaded with me to make this a Committee stage. The noble Viscount is now, as I understand it, himself making a speech which he says he is going to make on "Second Reading" later. I hope he will stick to the Committee stage on individual Amendments.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI certainly will reserve what I have to say. I have no desire to diverge. I thought it extremely relevant that it should be made clear that the Lords Spiritual have always been included in these arrangements. I shall therefore merely content myself, in order to put myself strictly in order, because I must refer later to this matter again, with saying that this is what the House resolved in 1820:
Resolved, That the Lord Chancellor do write a letter to the several Peers and Prelates of the House in the following termsand then was set out the Resolution; I shall read it when it is in order—and that a copy of the said Resolution do accompany the same.It maybe that the Amendment can be withdrawn at once, so long as I am assured that the position of the Bishops is going to be exactly the same as the position of the Temporal Lords in this matter. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Paragraph (1), line 1, after ("Lords") insert ("both Spiritual and Temporal").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
THE EARL OF HOMEI should always desire to give the noble Viscount immediate and absolute satisfaction. In this case I can. There is no need for this Amendment, as the word "Lords" in Standing Orders undoubtedly covers both Temporal and Spiritual Lords.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThen the noble Earl can assure me that the same procedure in the way of communication and reply and publication of names, and so on, will be adopted for the Lords Spiritual as for the Lords Temporal?
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThen I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 4.28 p.m.
§
VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved in paragraph (1) to leave out "at pleasure" and insert "upon cause shown". The noble Viscount said: There seems to be a peculiar weakening in this paragraph from the position previously taken up by the House. The date given to the Standing Order is 1889, but nobody seems to know how it got there. However,
895
Standing Order No. 21, as it is to-day, states that
Lords may obtain leave of absence at the pleasure of the House upon cause shown "—
that is to say, the House could not just do as it pleased but had to be satisfied that there was cause shown. Therefore, the purpose of my Amendment is as follows: I leave out "at pleasure", but I do not mind whether it comes in or not, because it has no particular meaning, or no restrictive meaning, so long as the words "upon cause shown" are inserted. If the Government are willing to insert that Amendment, then I can at once cease speaking.
§
Amendment moved—
Paragraph (1), line 2, leave out ("at pleasure") and insert ("upon cause shown").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am afraid that I cannot give the noble Viscount the immediate satisfaction that he got on the last Amendment, and I hope he will bear with me if I follow him into one or two of the historical researches which obviously have occupied his leisure so profitably. It is quite true that the words which he wishes to add occurred in the older Standing Orders, and in the proceedings that Queen Caroline took in 1820 the House, as I think he was beginning to tell us, resolved
that no excuse be admitted save liability from age "—that is, being of the age of 70 years and upwards, a provision which would be a great depriver to this House in the case of the noble Viscount this afternoon—or from sickness, or from having been out of the Realm in foreign parts or on account of the death of a parent, wife or child, and that every Peer absenting himself from age or sickness do address a letter to the Lord Chancellor stating upon his honour that he is so disabled.But in the proceedings in the time of Lord Cardigan, in 1841, the Lord Chancellor was requested to write letters to all Lords to acquaint them that the House expected their attendance on certain dates, and certain Lords sent in excuses. I think I ought briefly to condole with my noble friends on the various indispositions of their ancestors. At that time the Earl of Home said that hecannot in his state of health travel from Scotland at this time of year.896 In relation to my noble friend Lord Perth, the Lord Strathallan said:He is in Scotland and cannot take so long a journey in this inclement season without endangering his health.The predecessor of the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, just said "Illness". The noble Lord, Lord Stourton, just said "Gout"; and the predecessor of the then Lord Seaton, with the military terseness and discipline that one would expect, just said, "Unable to attend", as did a number of other noble Lords. That is the background of the historical position.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATENot the full background. The Lord Chancellor has omitted the other column in the return. There are three or four pages of this return in the Journals of the House saying what penalties were inflicted when the excuse was not accepted.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYes, but I thought that at the moment we were considering the excuses. I assure the noble Viscount that I am charged with that information as well, but I will leave it to him to make that point. But I must proceed to the present position.
The Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Merthyr considered whether it was any longer necessary or expedient that Peers should give reasons in their applications for leave of absence, and they came to the conclusion that the normal reasons for which, in modern times, a number of Peers did not attend the House, were set out in paragraph 20 of the Swinton Report. Perhaps I may trouble your Lordships with just a sentence of that paragraph, because I think it is most relevant—the noble Viscount will find the paragraph in question at page (viii) of the Report. After setting out the change in the number of Peers—and, if I may take the relevant years, in 1800 there were 150, in 1830 363, and in 1955, 846, which shows the difference in the size of the House—the Swinton Committee went on to say:
The Committee have felt obliged to recognise that at present, out of so large a number, there must be many who are unable to attend, either because they are fully occupied with other important duties, or because they feel themselves unfitted for parliamentary work, or for reasons of age, health or expense. Recognition of the undoubted fact that many Peers are thus debarred or prevented from attending the House is not, in the view of the Committee, to be taken as a criticism of such Peers.897 These are the reasons which commended themselves to the Merthyr Committee, and, in view of those reasons, I consider, and I ask the House to accept, that it would really be embarrassing and undesirable for those reasons to be stated.I put this in all seriousness to the noble Viscount, because he knows, and I know, of cases where it has been expense. I do not think one ought to dwell on that. We are living in very changed conditions from the times that the noble Viscount has been considering, and I think it would be batter if that were not demanded and that we should proceed to accept the recommendation of the Merthyr Committee, that reasons be not disclosed.
There is just one other point I should like to make with regard to that matter. The Merthyr Committee say at paragraph 3 (8), at page 4:
That while leave of absence would normally be granted automatically on application, it requires to be formally granted by the House.The paragraph then goes on to say that the action should be recorded. Then it was suggested that the next paragraph of their Report should be quoted in the Lord Chancellor's letter to the Lords of Parliament. I will read that paragraph to your Lordships because it will be a matter that we shall have to refer to in this discussion. It says:The Committee have given much consideration to the question of whether there should be a closer definition of. 'regular attendance'. The Committee considered that this was neither possible nor desirable. They recognise that this must be a matter for individual interpretation. But in framing the Standing Order the Committee have taken account of the position of Peers who are engaged whole time in the professions and in industry and of others who have extensive commitments in local government or in other voluntary work. They realise that these are unable to devote more than a partial service to the House. They recall that such Peers have in the past made valuable contributions, based on their own knowledge and experience, to the work of the House in Debates, it the revision of the Bills and in Private Bill and other Select Committees. They believe that the House would be reluctant to lose the services of such Peers and that Peers in this position need not feel themselves under any obligation, in consequence of their inability to attend regularly, to apply for leave of absenceI fully agree, and I should be willing to include that paragraph, which I think would be most helpful, in the letter which I send off if the Standing Order is approved.898 On the general point, the Swinton Committee have given the reasons very fully—I need not go through them again—why this House is entitled to adapt its procedure for giving leave, which is excusing absence and which it has exercised certainly for 333 years, to modern conditions; and it is entitled, in my view, to grant leave without cause shown, as was the intention of the two Committees which this House set up. Therefore, in view largely of the quotation from paragraph 20 and what I have said on it, I would ask the noble Viscount not to press this Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI think the Lord Chancellor has completely made the case that I am trying to advance before the House. He has shown us that the Writ of Summons is nothing at all—that we may get it in the most insistent, terms and that, because somebody has written a paragraph saying that people are engaged in business, or that there are so many Lords you cannot expect them to do their duty, or 800 cannot do their duty in the way that 300 may do it—here I am being driven into the Second Reading speech that the noble Earl, Lord Home, complained of, because I am following the Lord Chancellor—the whole basis of the House should be altered.
I am riot in favour of the rigid enforcement of the Writ of Summons, because it has broken down. I would not support the House of Lords as it is, for one moment. I want to clear the site; but that is not the point. The point is that this is an attempt to substitute for the Writ of Summons a number of reasons which I find are really quite unworthy and are, in fact, revolutionary. If no reasons are given, but the list is simply presented, I do not know what will happen. I believe there is to be a list published, but no one will know why the Members are absent or for how long. The words: "If he proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can", but there is no definition of "reasonably can". If a man is in business and he says, "I have to go to China for two years, but I shall come as often as I reasonably can", how is that to be considered? The House retains no sort of control. With great respect, I could not possibly accept the Lord Chancellor's appeal. I do not, naturally, intend to ask Members to go into the Lobby, 899 although I hope that we shall have an opportunity of voting on some Amendments which will be moved under more reasonable auspices, but I shall insist on this Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONI intervene for only one moment to remind noble Lords that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was a member of the Swinton Committee. He was a most helpful member of that Committee and was deeply interested in it, but he never took any exception to the Report which the Swinton Committee made and which, as this House knows, was a unanimous Report which has been approved. We went into this matter very carefully in the Swinton Committee, as indeed it was carefully gone into by the Merthyr Committee. That Committee included learned Law Lords as well as perhaps the greatest authority on Parliamentary procedure of our time, the late Lord Campion. We had not the slightest doubt that it was clearly competent for the House to grant leave of absence; that it was the duty of those who could not attend to apply for leave of absence; and that it was well within our powers and would be a satisfactory compliance with the Writ of Summons in the circumstances of to-day if people who could not attend regularly attended as often as they reasonably could. We deliberately set out in paragraph 20, to which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor referred, the reasons for which Members of the House would be likely to, and could reasonably apply for, leave of absence.
Surely nobody can doubt for a moment, that the House has a right to make a Standing Order about leave of absence. In fact, we have had one for years in the Standing Orders. Equally, nobody can have any doubt that we can vary the form of that Standing Order about whether people should state in terms their reasons, or that reasons can be stated for them, as they are in the Standing Order. I remind the House of that only because I think that noble Lords can be satisfied that it is well within their competence.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThe noble Earl has repeated the Report in interesting terms, and he is quite right when he says that I was a member of his Committee. I admit that in the early days of the 900 Committee I had hoped, for certain family reasons of my own, that there might be an escape for my own heir; but I did not attend the concluding sessions of the Committee. I was abroad. Therefore, when the vote was taken that this be the Report, I was not there, and I will take up the position of one who has fallen from grace. However, it is quite irrelevant.
What the noble Earl is saying is that we have the right to grant leave of absence; but I wish we could have more information regarding Standing Order 21. It has been claimed that we have a right to grant leave of absence upon cause shown. What does this mean? It means that if there is the right to grant a leave of absence, by and large, which overrides the demand of the Writ, surely it strikes at the very root, the foundation, of this House. Therefore, to say that we have always had the right to grant leave of absence is doubtful. This Amendment seeks to clarify what is the root objection to this Committee's Report. It is that it is substituting for a feudal House of Lords, which I do not support, something which is a Committee House of Lords; a closed corporation in which Members among themselves meet and decide who is entitled to come and who is not. That is revolutionary. I am afraid that this is a Second Reading speech again, but it will crop up on every one of these Amendments. Therefore, on this Amendment, with great respect, I shall raise my voice in support.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE had given notice of his intention to move, in paragraph (1), after "proposes" to insert: "bearing in mind the terms of his Writ of Summons". The noble Viscount said: I cannot see how this sort of business can be reconciled. It is being mixed up with solemn assurances which are demanded in the Writ of Summons. The words are given to us, and it is possible simply to say: "I am sorry; I have a board meeting and I cannot attend this morning." I have put this Amendment down, but I do not insist on it.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATENo.
§ 4.50 p.m.
§
VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved to add to paragraph (3):
the terms of this letter shall follow precedent and be reported to the House".
The noble Viscount said: The Lord Chancellor anticipated what I was going to say on this Amendment by reading Lord Eldon's letter. It was a pretty stiff letter, but he read it. No excuse, disability of age, and so on; but we have had it. He demanded a reply, and the replies to him, and to previous letters of the same kind, were recorded in the Journals of the House. Some excuses were accepted, and some were not. It may be a good reason to do away with all this, but it cannot be done simply by a decision of the Committee of the House. It must be based either upon legislation or upon some alteration of the Royal Prerogative. That is the reason why in my Amendment I include the terms of the letter. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor would favour us with a copy of the intimation that he intends to send out. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Paragraph (3), line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD SALTOUNI think the noble Viscount has proved too much. He has emphasised the terms of the Writ, and they are very extreme. The noble Viscount, although he is here very often, is not here every day, and I think that he must himself take the terms of the Writ with a certain grain of salt. In fact, we all find it quite impossible, under conditions of modern life, to be here every day. Yet the terms of the Writ are very extreme. I suggest, as I say, that he has preyed too much, and that if the terms of the Writ were meant to be taken literally they would long ago have been modified.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATECould the noble Lord find a minute or two to address himself to the Amendment which I have moved, which is that the terms of the Lord Chancellor's letter should be published?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORPerhaps it would be convenient if I were to say to the noble Viscount that I think that he has raised an important point, and I am prepared to accept his Amendment in this form—to add to paragraph (3):
The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House902 May I just say why I put it that way—because the Amendment implies that such letters from the Lord Chancellor have always been reported. This is not in accordance with my researches, and therefore I do not like the words "in accordance with precedent" when they are not strictly accurate. I want to be absolutely fair to the argument of the noble Viscount. At certain times, as he has pointed out, the form of the letter has been laid down in detail beforehand, and if the House would bear with me I should just like to give the result of my researches into this matter.The most usual form of entry was:
Ordered that letters be written by the Lord Keeper to the absent Lords.That wording I have actually taken from 1705, but the terms of the letter were not reported. Occasionally the Order was more detailed. I read this because it is interesting to show how the House did attach conditions to the Order. I take one entry of March 11, 1678:Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled that the Lord Chancellor do forthwith write letters to all the Peers and Prelates and Members of the House who have not attended the House of Peers since the beginning of this Parliament requiring the said Lords to come and attend His Majesty's service in the House of Peers intimating in the said letters that such of the said Lords as are within 50 miles of this place do give their said attendance within one week after the receipt of the letters to them respectively sent; and that those Lords who are at a greater distance from this place give their attendance here within a fortnight.Then it goes on to deal with age and sickness.So far as I can find out, on ten occasions an Order was made for a letter to be written in specific terms—for example, the letter about Queen Caroline's Bill in 1820. These are the only letters of which the terms are recorded. In all the other numerous cases they were not, and no letter was subsequently recorded. The letter which I propose to write, if the House decides in favour of this Standing Order for the purpose of bringing leave of absence into effect during this Parliament was submitted to, and examined by, the Merthyr Committee, and secured their approval. It is all conditional, of course, on the Standing Order being approved. I shall, if I am directed to send it, gladly report this first letter—that as the letter which is dealt with in the next Motion on the Paper—and, for the future, my 903 directions are clear in the Standing Order. I shall write the letter in accordance with them. I shall, in accordance with my Amendment to the noble Viscount's Amendment, if he is prepared to accept it, report it to the House; and then, if anyone does not like the form of my letter, that matter can be raised.
That is with regard to the future, after the Standing Order has been approved. I should also undertake—and I hope your Lordships will find it reasonable—to submit to the Supervisory Committee, a draft of the letter which I propose to write at the beginning of each new Parliament, and I am sure that my successors will be equally glad to do so. The first letter, therefore, has been before the Merthyr Committee; I shall submit any other letter to the Supervisory Committee, and I shall report to the House the letter I have sent, so that the House may have both anticipatory and subsequent method of seeing what I have done.
I hope that the noble Viscount will take the view that I have tried to meet his point, because, even with the noble Viscount in the House and delighting us with every speech, the idea that we should have perhaps a two-day debate, making this House a drafting Committee, on the letter which I send out, is a prospect which appalls me, and I am sure appalls the House. I hope the noble Viscount will think that I have met him fairly. I suggest that we agree on this variation of his Amendment:
The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI did not quite understand what the Lord Chancellor said. Did he say that the Merthyr Committee had published the terms of his letter?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORNo. I said that I had shown a draft to the Merthyr Committee, so that they would see the sort of letter I had in mind. But I pointed out that it was entirely conditional, because, of course, this House has not yet approved the Standing Order. But I wanted the Committee to know what sort of letter I had it in mind to send out; and they think that it is the right sort of letter. As I said, that letter has been before the Merthyr Committee, and 904 I propose that in the future the letters should be submitted to the new Supervisory Committee, so I think I am meeting the spirit of the noble Viscount.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI am very grateful. I accept the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor to my Amendment, but why is this matter so secret? Why should the letter be submitted to the Merthyr Committee and then to this other Committee? Why cannot we know what the Lord Chancellor is going to say to Members of this House? Surely we can be told the terms of the letter? Are they lengthy?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI do not know if the noble Viscount heard what I said. I said that I thought it would be undesirable, and intensely boring, for this House to form itself into a drafting Committee—
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR—in order to occupy perhaps two days in debating word for word the letter I am to send out. There are certain things which it is convenient to do through a Committee of the House, and if noble Lords have any observations to make on my draft letters they know me well enough to know that I shall be pleased to make any improvements in those letters.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI do not want to pursue this aspect, but on this business of working through a Committee, we had an example the other day of someone saying that because a Statutory Order had passed through a committee, your Lordships need not debate it. That idea is a mistake. Power resides in this House, and inasmuch as I attach enormous importance to the terms of the letter and the replies made to it, and the action taken on those replies, I consider that it is a constitutional point of the first order. I should therefore like the terms of the letter to be disclosed. If that is not possible, I will say "No".
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWill the noble Viscount accept my variation of his Amendment, which goes some way to meet him?
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMay I ask the Lord Chancellor to read it again?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe words are:
The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThen presumably the letter can be discussed in the House, in which case I accept the Amendment to my Amendment. I believe that it meets my point and I gratefully thank the noble and learned Viscount.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONBefore we leave this Amendment and the paragraph to which it refers there is a point that I should like to raise with the noble and learned Viscount, although it is rather awkward because I do not know if I am in order. The noble and learned Viscount is going to write a letter to every Peer asking each whether or not he wishes to apply for leave of absence
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEWe do not know what he is going to say.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONIt says that much on this Paper. Apparently the noble and learned Viscount takes the initiative. He does not wait for a noble Lord to say that he is occupied and cannot perform the duties of the Peerage. Taking the initiative, he asks each noble Lord: "Do you want to have leave of absence?" And the terms of this letter—although the noble and learned Viscount has undertaken to submit it to the House, presumably before he sends it—
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThe noble and learned Viscount did not say so.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONIt seems to me that if the noble and learned Viscount proposes to submit the letter after he has sent it there is not much point in it. Can he answer that now, because if we are not to see the letter before it is sent, I suggest that there is no point at all in seeing it.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI have submitted to the Merthyr Committee—
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONIs it in the Report?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIt is not. I have submitted a form of letter to the Merthyr Committee, and they have approved it; and that seems to cover us 906 for the first occasion, which is really the one concerned in the next Motion. I feel that it is more convenient that what is really a matter of drafting should be dealt with by a Committee; but the terms of the letter will be reported to your Lordships' House, and it will then be possible for any noble Lord to raise a point if I have gone wrong. But, of course, it will also be possible (and this is a point which your Lordships have to bear in mind) for anyone to answer my letter saying, "I do not apply for leave of absence," in which case the whole scheme will not apply to him. That is why I say that it is, in fact, a voluntary scheme.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEIf I may interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for a moment, surely the Peer has simply to say "I do not apply for leave." He need not say that he has some reason for not applying.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORNo.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThen what has become of the Writ? What happens if, having received a Writ from Her Majesty the Queen, I inform the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that I do not intend to obey?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORObviously I am speaking indistinctly: a noble Lord can say, "I do not apply for leave of absence", and then the scheme does not apply to him at all.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEBut he has to attend.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONI am very much indebted to the noble and learned Viscount. I agree that this is not something to draft in this House. I am on the question of principle—what, in principle, the letter is going to say: and I am surprised that an initiative is taken under this scheme. Here are Members of Parliament, Peers who have the duty to attend Parliament, and it seems odd that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, of all people, should say, before they have a chance to come to the House, "Would you like leave of absence?" That is an odd thing to do. It is odd that if a Member of Parliament seeks to escape from his constitutional obligations, perhaps because he cannot carry them out for some reason, the initiative craving leave of absence should not be on him. He should rot be, as it were, invited— 907 and perhaps incited—by the Lord Chancellor to ask for leave of absence.
What happens if a Peer feels slightly affronted by receiving this letter—as I believe I should feel—and does not answer it? This document says:
A Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being requested to do so may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament.Who decides whether he "may be granted" leave? It seems to me that nobody has the right to give him leave of absence against any intimation from him that he wishes to receive it. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will say that this is a Second Reading speech, but it comes immediately upon the question of the text of the invitation to apply for leave of absence, and I thought that perhaps the noble and learned Viscount might care to develop the matter a little here.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMay I add a word? This again is a matter which the House has already twice debated and decided. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is not arrogating to himself some special right without the authority of the House to communicate. I do not know whether the noble Lord attended all the earlier debates—
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONI do not know whether he attended the debate in which your Lordships' House carried a Resolution adopting the ten paragraphs of what is called the Swinton Report and directed the Standing Order to be made—which was all that the Merthyr Committee did. Paragraph 33 (b) which the House has already approved in terms says:
That a communication be addressed to all Members of the House at the beginning of every Parliament, stating that if they desire to be relieved of the obligation of attendance they should apply for leave of absence, either for the duration of the Parliament or for any shorter period, and further that they should state in reply to such communication whether they do or do not desire to apply for leave of absence.That has already been approved by this House and all the new Standing Order does is what the House resolved some months ago to do—that is, to say to the Committee: "Will you please draft a 908 Standing Order in terms carrying out what we have now instructed you to do." The noble Lord is really starting a complete mare's nest, because in writing this letter the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will only be doing in writing what your Lordships have already instructed should be done.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThe noble Earl has forgotten already the first words of his own Report, that
It is not our business to say what ought to be done but what can be done.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONOf course I have not at all forgotten that, and I am not referring to what was merely said in the Report. I am referring to the decision taken by this House, which passed a Resolution saying: "We approve of the Swinton Report and we instruct the Merthyr Committee, and we decide that that should be carried into effect by a Standing Order; and we instruct the Merthyr Committee to present us with such a Standing Order." Of course our Committee do not decide what the House should do. Our Committee told the House what it could do, and then the House considered the Report and said, "We think this is a good and practical Report; we wish it carried out, and we so instruct you.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI am surprised that a former Member of another place can make such a speech. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that a Report cannot be approved "globally" in that way. We must have put before us something to which we can move Amendments and examine clause by clause. Of course the House approved it in general.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONThe House did not in the least approve it in general. Really, the noble Viscount must not mislead the House, either wilfully or by accident. The Motion before the House was quite specific: "That this House approves certain sections of the Swinton Report "—naming those sections—" and directs that that be carried out by Standing Order."
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONIt may allay the noble Earl's heat if I remind him that my question was asked, in all sincerity, of the Lord Chancellor, and it is the Lord Chancellor who has been courteous enough to answer it. The second point is that the noble Earl was 909 a Member of another place long enough, as I was, to learn that on the Committee stage on any business one is fully entitled to seek certain assurances.
LORD GIFFORDMay I raise one point for clarification? As I recollect it, the original wording was:
A Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days … shall be deemed to have asked for leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament.Is that not so?
§ 5.11 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am very anxious that there should be not the slightest doubt on this point. My noble friend Lord Swinton is correct as to procedure, and if the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, will look at the next Motion on the Paper (I am anticipating it. but I want to keep the matter in order) he will see that my noble friend Lord Home is to move:
That, for the purpose of giving effect to the above Standing Order during the present Parliament, the Lord Chancellor shall forthwith send a copy of the Standing Order to every Lord to whom he has issued a Writ of Summons to this Parliament and who has not during this session attended a sitting of the House (except for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance) … and shall request every such Lord to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence for the next session of this Parliament or for the remainder of this Parliament or whether he does not wish so to apply. If a Lord fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being required to do so he may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of this Parliament.We shall be considering that Motion in a moment. If the House passes it, I shall send out accordingly the letter I have undertaken to send, because that is the first procedure. That letter, which is the letter that has been considered by the Merthyr Committee, will be reported to the House. The last thing I want to do is to keep any letter from the House; but I think, as I have said (I am sorry to repeat it), that in all quarters of the House noble Lords would be intensely bored if we got into a drafting session on the Amendment. I hope I have made the position clear.
§ Lotto WILMOT OF SELMESTONIt was clear, and I am the last to want to deal with a draft. The point raised by the noble Earl was completely wrong. The important point has been altered since we received the Committee's Report, and it is that point on which I wish to speak. 910 The Report from the Select Committee, Paragraph (c), states:
that any Member of the House who fails to reply to such a communication should be regarded as having applied for leave of absence".That is very different from the present wording which is put forward: that a Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days "may be granted" leave of absence. Does that mean that the Lord Chancellor has discretion? If he has not got discretion, who has it? And what does "may be" mean, if not "may be"?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIt is at the House's discretion. That was put in to answer a point raised in one of our earlier debates. It was suggested that it was bouleversement, on giving leave of absence, to say, "If you do not apply for leave of absence, or do not say you do not want it, then you get it." So the form was altered into a permissive form, so that the House could, despite the fact that the noble Lord had not answered, not deem him to have applied for leave of absence and not put him on the leave of absence list. It means that if he communicated to the House and said, "I have not answered because my letters have gone astray," or, "I have been pressed. Would you communicate my desire?" the House has the discretion not to put him on the list.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONThat is very important. I am indebted to the Lord Chancellor. It means that if someone does not answer he will not have leave of absence imposed upon him.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORNo. It is at the discretion of the House to grant leave of absence, but the House can decide either way.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEDoes it mean that we are going to revert to the old practice of the seventeenth century, when individual cases were dealt with? There may be a case of recalcitrance: someone is angry and says, "I am not going, and I am not answering your letter." What do you do then? The Lord Chancellor says that it will be for the House to decide. Will an individual case be brought forward that Lord X, not having replied to the Lord Chancellor's letter, shall be excluded from attendance for the remainder of the Parliament? Is it individual, and is it in effect mandatory?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIt is not mandatory. Would the noble Viscount look at paragraph 3 (2) of the Merthyr Report. That paragraph reads:
That the communication mentioned in paragraph (b) should be issued by the Lord Chancellor and that Peers should be requested to reply to it within twenty-eight days of its issue; and that a further letter be sent by the Lord Chancellor to any Peer who fails to reply within this period, stating that unless within a further period of seven days he notifies his desire to the contrary he will be considered to have applied for leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament.On that, the original Standing Order was framed. The point was developed that we did not want him to be automatically deemed to have applied for leave of absence, but we wanted it left to the discretion of the House, so that if he raised the point, or if someone else did, the House could say, dealing with the individual case, that he would not be considered to have applied for leave of absence and would not get it. It was to give more flexibility and to protect the individual all the more.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThis is a very interesting prospect. It means that people who do not apply may get leave automatically, and then you go on to say that if a man complains that he has leave of absence without asking for it, then the House has to decide. I do not know how long it is since this House took the case of Lord "So-and-So" and decided whether he should have leave of absence. It must be a long time ago. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor would tell us something about that historically.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWe shall have a full opportunity of discussing the position on a subsequent Amendment. On this Amendment I have gone far towards meeting the noble Viscount, and he has said he will accept my form, so we will deal with this point and consider the others later on.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEIn that case I will not insist on my original form.
§
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to—namely, to add to Paragraph (3):
The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRMay I ask one question on the proposed Standing Order 21 (1)? It says:
… proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can.This is my second visit to the House this year, and I should like to know—
THE EARL OF HOMEWould the noble Marquess mind raising this point at a later stage? I do not think this is quite the place at which to raise this particular point.
§ 5.20 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, in Paragraph (4), to omit expected". The noble Viscount said: This word "expected" is a very interesting word. I have read Standing Orders very often and I read them through specially to find out whether the word "expected" occurred, and from start to finish it does not—because they are Standing Orders. "Expected" would be a suitable word for a Companion to the Standing Orders, advising noble Lords on what to do and what not to do; but what sort of Order is it that says that a noble Lord is "expected" to do something and provides no sanctions if he does not do it? Therefore, I should like to know whether the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has any objection to the omission of the word "expected," which appears to be entirely alien to the character of Standing Orders and to be taking away with one hand what it professes to give with the other. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Paragraph (4), line 1, leave out ("expected").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
THE EARL OF HOMEThere was a choice of words before us at an earlier stage of these proceedings. The House has no power to prescribe that a Peer should not attend. Therefore, the Standing Order deliberately uses the words "is expected", so as to avoid any implication that we want to order a Peer. The idea is to establish a convention. The question at the earlier stage was whether the word used should be "should". My noble friend Lord Saltoun objected to "should" as being too mandatory. I have never been sure myself, possibly like the noble Viscount, of what is the difference between "should" 913 and "is expected." It so happened that a number of my colleagues and I were talking about this, when the Prime Minister reminded me of an extract from the old Army Manual, which will probably be familiar to your Lordships, and which reads:
Officers of field rank on entering balloons are not expected to wear spurs.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThere is another quotation:
England expects every man to do his duty.
THE EARL OF HOMEI am bound to say that I wobbled between the word "should" and "is expected." On the previous occasion the majority of your Lordships felt that we should use the term which was less mandatory, and I hope that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment. I "should expect" that he would not press his Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONDSMy Lords, this discussion is very relevant to the Amendment which I propose to move later. I do not think that it would be convenient for me now to say anything about the use of the single word "expected". If I say nothing, it is because I reserve what I have to say on that point until we come to my Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEOn the advice of an ex-Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 5.23 pan.
§ LORD WRENBURY had given Notice of several Amendments to paragraphs (4) and (5), the first being in paragraph (4), after "House" to insert "for the purpose of voting and speaking". The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, as all my Amendments deal with much the same point I will speak on them altogether. I cannot see any reason why a Peer should be prevented from sitting in your Lordships' House; so long as he is prevented from speaking and voting unless he is a regular attender. It is obvious, I should have thought, that it is very much in the interests of the House that a great many Peers should not either speak or vote, for various reasons. I have always taken the view that younger Peers would do much better to bide their time until they had experience which would be of some use to the House, and I cannot help feeling that many people have 914 come to the same conclusion. I think that they would be wise to wait for a number of years. How much more palatable their advice will be with ripe age and a few grey hairs!
§ I think that if Peers are not allowed to sit in this House, certain anomalies follow. Peeresses will be permitted to sit and listen to debates; the eldest sons will presumably be able to sit on the steps of the Throne; and visitors will be allowed to sit in the Strangers' Gallery. It would be an extraordinary position, I think, if a Peer were not allowed to attend the House. Furthermore, I think—and this is the whole point of my Amendments—it would benefit the House if younger Peers were to become familiar with what goes on in the House so that they can be of use later.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONI wonder if I may reassure the noble Lord …
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONI beg the noble Lord's pardon.
§ LORD WRENBURYI am very anxious that no difference should be made between working and non-working Peers. It seem to me that, if this scheme goes through, that will be the result, although it does not specifically say so.
I feel that tradition is capable of springing up more quickly in these surroundings than anywhere else, and the danger is that it will become taken for granted that there are certain professional Peers, who do their duty and turn up regularly, and certain Peers who do not do so. It is perfectly true that the remedy lies with a Peer himself, but my own view is that for some of them there is more virtue in staying away than in attending. I am still thinking particularly of those who are either in professions or in business, where often it is not possible, especially if a noble Lord is in the position of an employee, to make arrangements for attending, certainly not for attending regularly, unless "regularly" means something very different from what we all take it to mean. It is not good enough to say that the Peers to whom I refer are not going to be in a position to make some useful contribution to the work of the House. They 915 may well be able to do so in future. All credit to them if they now say that they are not in a position to make a contribution of much value, because they are either in training or not in a position to do so; because in a few years' time they may be in that position.
So far as I can see, the Merthyr Committee's recommendations take account of the fact that valuable contributions have been made by Peers who are not elevated from another place or professional politicians in some other way. I believe that people drawn from all walks of life can usefully attend, and I feel that they should not be debarred from the educational, and I should say pleasurable, opportunities of attending debates in this House until they reach a particular stage in their careers. Certainly I gain a great deal of pleasure from listening to speakers here, and I think it would be a mistake to stop that process of education. I once attended a party in this House and at the end of it a Peer came to me and said: "Do you often attend the House?" I said: "As a matter of fact, it is very difficult for me to attend, because my office closes at quarter to six." He then said: "You are exactly the sort of person we want. The Benches in the House become so empty round about that time, the more people we can get to attend then, the better." If that view is seriously held, then it is illogical to say that noble Lords may not attend debates. That is the point I have in mind.
I think it might go even further. Once there is this dichotomy between working and non-working Peers, I think there will rather to devolve on those who attend be a temptation for Peers' privileges regularly, as opposed to those who do not. I admit that it does not say so, but I can see tickets for the Trooping the Colour and various other ceremonies going to those who attend regularly. I should have thought that that point was worth considering, because the whole essence of this scheme takes it for granted that it is a virtue to attend the House as regularly as possible. The purpose of my Amendments is to recognise that in many cases it may be a virtue to stay away, not because a Peer is old or infirm, but because he takes his job seriously and does not feel in a position to make a worthwhile contribution until he knows 916 it properly. I beg to move the first Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Paragraph (4), line 2, after ("House") insert the said words.—(Lord Wren bury.)
THE EARL or HOMEI am sure your Lordships will hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, having taken his courage in his hands and made such an excellent maiden speech, will come and address us often, and that we shall see and hear him as often as he can reasonably get here. I rather think that I agree with most of the noble Lord's objectives. He wants the young Peers to come here and be able to make a contribution to our proceedings; and I think all your Lordships would wish to see that. He does not want the House to become hardened into a hard core of regular attenders, without any dilution from outside of those who have experience of outside interests and outside work. We should certainly agree with that, too. But I do not know whether the noble Lord has realised what would be the effect of his Amendment. What he is really asking is a special form of leave of absence for a Peer who in fact he wishes to be present. He really wants this young Peer to be present and to be able to sit here and learn wisdom from all he hears round about him.
I am bound to confess that for a long time I was attracted by the theory of the two Writs: that there might be a Writ which enabled a Peer to sit and speak, and another Writ which enabled a Peer to sit and speak and also to vote. I think that only one other noble Lord was attracted by the idea, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and therefore I dropped it. I do not really think it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, as he would do by his Amendment, to create a type of Peer, a creature unknown in Parliament before, who would simply sit here and never speak or vote. I do not believe—and I have given the matter further examination—that we can really divorce sitting and speaking and voting. Therefore, I cannot encourage the noble Lord to think that I can accept the series of Amendments he has put on the Paper—and I take it that he is discussing them altogether.
I would say, however, that I am perfectly certain that the words of the Standing Order need not discourage any 917 young Peer in business from coming to this House. The interpretation of as often as he reasonably can" in such a case would possibly be no more than once or twice a Session if the young Peer was exceptionally busy. I should like to make it clear at this point that I feel there is nothing in this Standing Order which would prevent such a young Peer from coming, and that "as often as he reasonably can" would be interpreted by the rest of his Peers as "as often as he can fit it into his career outside the House".
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThis would seem to be a convenient moment to ask the noble Earl what happens to a man who gets leave of absence and turns up. Where does he sit? Is he entitled to go about the House? Can he come into the House? What is "inside the House"? Is it below the Bar, or above the Bar?
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATECan we have some explanation about the position of the disinherited Peer?
THE EARL OF HOMEThe joke of the noble Lord behind me was so good that I could not hear what the noble Viscount said.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI was making a practical point. In the other place, when a man who has not taken the Oath appears (it happened to me once, by accident), he can be told that he is subject, under information, to a forfeit of £100 a day. What happens to a Peer who has been told that, willy-nilly, he is on leave of absence and who says: "I should like to go down to the House"—perhaps because he has friends there? Does he sit in the Gallery? Does he sit on the steps of the Throne? I only ask this for information.
THE EARL OF HOMEI think a question is to be asked on this point later. I believe the answer is that the Merthyr Committee considered the point and felt that such a Peer should have all the facilities of the House; but if he attempts to go into the Chamber, then he has to take the Oath before he can sit.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI do not see how you can take the Oath without attending a Sitting. A noble Lord takes the Oath, but he has a leave of absence, being in possession of the Oath. He then sits on the steps of the Throne. Is he 918 allowed to do that? I do not know. I do not believe that anyone has given thought to this matter at all; they have put the whole thing into a basket and shaken it up, because they wanted to get the scandal of the absent Peers dealt with, and I think they have made the case worse.
THE EARL OF HOMESome thought has been given to this matter, and I feel quite certain that a Peer who takes the Oath will not be able to sit in the Chamber although he will be able to sit on the steps of the Throne. I speak subject to corroboration, but I feel reasonably certain that that is correct.
§ LORD WRENBURYI cannot quite see why. Quite clearly, the object is not to save space. These seats are so much more comfortable than the steps of the Throne, and I cannot see why one should not sit in them.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONPerhaps I can answer that question—and I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, on his speech. We on the main Committee did consider this point carefully—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, will, I think, confirm it. It really arose on whether "speech" and "vote" could be treated as separate things. That was really the proposal of the late Lord Exeter, which was debated in this House some years ago. We came to the conclusion, advised by Lord Morton of Henryton and others, that it was not possible to make a distinction between the speech and the vote. Therefore I think the short answer to the noble Lord is that it would not be possible by a Standing Order—it would require an Act of Parliament—to create the two new kinds of Peers which my noble friend the Leader of the House has suggested, the non-vocal Peer and the vocal voting Peer. That certainly could not be done by the House by its own Standing Order. But the whole object of the Report of the Committee was that those who could attend occasionally—and I hope everybody who attends this House will not think he has got to make a speech whenever he attends—of course would not apply for leave of absence, and that would apply to the noble Lord, who, when he receives the Lord Chancellor's letter, will say, "I am going to go as often as I can "—and I hope that it will be fairly often.
§ LORD WRENBURYI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 5.42 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONDS rose to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Standing Order, to leave out paragraph (4). The noble and learned Viscount said: I should like, if I may, though I do not immediately follow the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, to add my congratulations to those of speakers who have spoken, and I do so because I remember as a young counsel more than fifty years ago trembling before his grandfather and receiving much kindness from him.
§ I move the Amendment which stands in my name. I am encouraged to do it by the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, looking at me, said that he hoped to take part in a Division moved under more respectable auspices. I shall give him that opportunity. The Amendment that I move is to omit paragraph (4) of the proposed Order.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI wonder if the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to ask whether it would be convenient for him that we should discuss his two Amendments together, and then he can decide whether to move them.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONDSIf the House accepts my view of paragraph (4) probably little discussion will be necessary on paragraph (5). On the other hand, if it rejects my view of paragraph (4) I do not think I shall bother to move paragraph (5).
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEWould the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, permit some of his camp followers to vote against paragraph (5) if they like?
§ VISCOUNT SIMONDSI will give the noble Viscount the opportunity of taking part in two Divisions. My Amendment proceeds on the footing that paragraph (1) of the Standing Order is accepted, and there has been no Motion to delete it. Therefore, I am dealing in paragraph (4) with a Lord who under that Order has to attend the sittings of the House or, if he cannot do so, obtain leave of absence. That is, of course, mandatory. I am omitting the people who, for one reason or another, do not come within that because they are within the proviso and 920 do not require to get leave; I am dealing only with people who have obtained leave.
Before I come to what I have to say myself, I want to say this. My noble friend Lord Salisbury has been prevented, quite unavoidably, from coming here today. He regrets it very much because he wished to put his views upon this Amendment before the House. He called me out of the House the other day. We had a long discussion and he asked me to put his views before the House. I think your Lordships would all desire to have the views of the noble Marquess who, I suppose, more than anybody in this House is imbued with its ancient traditions and anxious for its future, and whose wisdom and counsel has guided us through so many years.
What the noble Marquess wished me to say was this. First, that his views broadly—and I use his very words—coincide with mine. Let me say that I hope I am pretty well word perfect in this, because I am anxious not to misrepresent in any way what falls from a noble Lord whose influence is so great. I asked him to commit it to writing; and although I cannot make his speech in this House I can tell you as accurately as possible what are his views. His views are, first of all, these: that leave of absence given by this House on the authority, the delegation, of the Sovereign, cannot override in importance the peremptory terms of the Writ. Therefore, if any Peer, notwithstanding that he has leave of absence, yet finds unexpectedly that he can take his place in this House—it may be that for some strong reasons of conscience he feels impelled, whatever his other obligations, to come here and take his seat—he should, notwithstanding that the period of absence has not expired, be entitled to do it without any moral stigma (these, again, are the noble Marquess's words) attaching to him.
The words in paragraph (4), "a Lord who has been granted leave of absence is expected not …", convey to him, as they do to me, a moral flavour, and he feels most strongly that those words ought to find no place in the Standing Order. They do, of course, to some people, apparently, not convey any moral flavour, and to those persons the words are not objectionable; but if they suggest in any way a moral stigma, the flavour that the Peer who comes is doing something that 921 he ought not to do, then to the noble Marquess, as to me, they ought to find no place in the Standing Order of this House.
It is only right that I should go on to say, and this again is what the noble Marquess told me, that in view of the concessions which the noble Earl who leads the House had made in attempting to meet the objections of the noble Marquess and many of his friends, though he could not vote for the new Standing Order he did not propose to take any part, if he had been here, in the Division. That is out of friendship and loyalty to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. But his last words were these. He said, "I hope you will make it absolutely clear that a Peer who has received a Writ of Summons has a right to attend which is not to be qualified or nullified by any action of the House." Those are his words as near as I can recollect. I think they must have great weight with all your Lordships, even though, as it appears, contrary to what I understood was to be the position, a Government Whip has been issued in this matter. That is nothing to do with me, except to say that I sit on the Cross-Benches and am unmoved by Whips from one side or the other.
THE EARL OF HOMEI think we have had three debates in this House deliberately without a Government Whip, but there must come a point where a Government must make up its mind.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONDSI quite agree. I understood—and this is relevant to something the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said more than once—that this matter was down for consideration on Committee in order that we might have the opportunity of moving Amendments, and it seems to me to be worth nothing that on previous occasions noble Lords have made speeches or, indeed, committees hive reported. We are here to consider now whether this should be the Standing Order of the House. If we are told "It is no use saying that", I really do not know why we have a debate at all.
I believe that if I were a good advocate I should leave the matter with the indication of the noble Marquess's views to the House. But I do not think that he would wish me to do that, and so I will, with your Lordships' permission, somewhat elaborate (though it is nothing more) what the noble Marquess has said. 922 I think that all your Lordships would at once see how the last words that I used—that the right of a Peer to attend and speak and vote, should not be qualified or nullified by any action of this House—in effect repeat what the Swinton Committee itself said. I thought the most salient point in the whole of that Report was where it said that it is not legitimate for the House, under the guise of granting leave of absence to a Peer, in effect to deprive him of his right to sit and vote. What else do you do when you say to a Peer, "You have got to get leave of absence. You can get leave of absence only for a term, which may be the rest of the Session or the rest of this Parliament; and when you have got that leave you are not to come back except upon three "(now one) "months' notice."
I use the words "are not to come back." The words in the Standing Order, as amended, are "is expected not to come back." That is an Amendment to the original form of the Order" should not come back." I have not heard from anybody—I suppose I have not had the opportunity of hearing from anybody—what the difference is between those two things. It is quite clear that to many people there is a significant difference. There is not to me, although, of course, there may be to others. There is not to me any more than there was, and I suppose still is, to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton—
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONNot merely to me, but the whole of my Committee.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONDSI am choosing the noble Earl because I attach so much weight to what he says. What the noble Earl said was—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208, col. 1063:
There is not the least doubt that the word ' should ' has, in fact, the same legal interpretation as ' is expected '.I am happy to agree with him. I am the more happy to agree with him because I am not agreeing with him in a good deal, and he has been rather sharp with me at times, although I hope that sixty years of friendship will stand the strain. But whether the words are "is expected" or "should," it is quite clear, I would suppose to anybody, that those words are put in with some intention. What is the intention? Are they 923 not intended to deter the Peer who, during the period of his leave of absence, finds he can come back? Why else is he told that he is "not expected"? As I say, it is possible for a different view to be taken; but that that view is taken will appear very clearly.Now I venture to cite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I do so not only because his speeches on their merit carry so much weight, but because I know that he speaks for a representative and respectable body of Peers. What the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said was this—I quote from column 1020:
It was precisely for this reason that the proposed Standing Orders have been drafted, so that a Peer who had obtained leave of absence would be unable to attend the House and vote without giving three months' notice.I think, if I may say so, that Lord Teynham is quite right. But that is not the view accepted by everybody, because consider what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr said.
LORD TEYNHAMMay I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? What I intended to indicate was—and I think the noble Viscount will agree—that the whole question is entirely one of a voluntary basis, and therefore a noble Lord is not in any way prevented from coming back to the House.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONDSI will deal with the question of a voluntary basis later. As the noble Lord has challenged me on that, I must point out that he goes on to say that it becomes a Standing Order. What he said was:
As your Lordships know, in the past, for many years now, we have never had any trouble about the breaking of Standing Orders. On the other hand,"—observe how military the noble Lord is—I suggest we should remember that it would in fact be possible for a Resolution to be moved in the House for ' contempt' should a Peer break a Standing Order".Then he refers to a Report of the Select Committee.I cannot doubt that many noble Lords, on being told that they are not expected to attend the House, would regard themselves as under a moral obligation. I cannot help reminding the noble Lord who sits on my left that he has immortalised himself by saying that he would rather commit any offence against the law 924 than break a Standing Order. What is the position of the Peer who is told that if he comes to this House before his period of absence has expired he is breaking a Standing Order, and, in the view of Lord Teynham, a Resolution may be moved to commit him for "contempt"? Who can doubt but that that has the same force as has summoning Black Rod and telling him to exclude a Peer who is breaking a Standing Order?
In view of that, how very unreal it is for the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who takes quite a different view, of course, of the meaning of the words "is expected", to say what he said in the House. What Lord Merthyr said will be found at column 1048 [Vol. 208] of the OFFICIAL REPORT. There he said:
If there is one thing that I particularly want to say this afternoon, with considerable emphasis, it is that there is not a word in this Report which will in any way, if it is adopted, take away the rights of your Lordships' House or the Members thereof.He goes on to say that he wants to emphasise that point particularly because he is differing from me. Then he says:I believe that this question is vital, and if I thought for one moment that this Standing Order did take away a right which has been enjoyed by your Lordships' House for centuries I should not be standing here supporting it or proposing it. But in fact I have no doubt whatever that it does nothing of the kind.How can that be said? In the one case, if there is not this Standing Order, a noble Lord is as free as air to come into the House. Pass this Standing Order and he is under the menace that he may be committed for contempt. At any rate, if he is not committed for contempt he comes under the severe condemnation of this House because he is breaking a Standing Order, and then the noble Lord may find his rights are taken away. In one case he is a free man; in the other he is in bondage.Which is the right view? I do not think it much matters which is the right view, if there is such a thing as a right view when you are construing words of this kind. What matters is that to many people it must appear plain that these words do restrict their right to come into this House. If they take that view—and it is a reasonable view to take—it cannot matter that other people take a different view. Therefore, such words as these 925 ought not to find any place in a Standing Order of this House. If one person can sensibly say, "I have my Writ. It is true that I have leave of absence and that might affect my duty, but it does not affect my right and I propose to come", and he is told: "No, you are not expected surely that cannot be a constitutional exercise of the rights of this House.
When I spoke on the last occasion it was somewhat early in the debate, and I said then, with all sincerity, that I had not seen any effective answer to the constitutional point which I then raised and indeed, raised on a previous occasion, many years before I occupied the Woolsack. I said, with all sincerity, that if the Lord Chancellor, who I presumed would answer me, could convince me, I would willingly withdraw. My Lords, I can only say, with great respect and perhaps sorrow, that I was never less convinced by anything than by the speech of the Lord Chancellor on that occasion. Apart from frequent citation of authorities, which, I venture to suggest, was not what the House wanted as much as reason, the noble and learned Viscount made two material contributions to our debate. The first is contained in Hansard, Vol. 208, col. 1073, when the noble and learned Viscount was answering a point that I had made. He was good enough to say that the point which I had made really did "not become any the stronger however often it was repeated". I am sorry if I trespassed too much upon his patience. He said:
That is the view of the noble and learned Viscount. My view is that it does not deprive anyone of the right to sit and vote but lays down the manner in which that right shall be exercised. That is the difference between us.Then Hansard reports that several noble Lords cried "No, No." That does not surprise me. It is said that a noble Lord can come to the House and be told: "You are not expected; you cannot come and sit and vote," and the noble and learned Viscount says that that is a way of directing the method in which he shall vote! It is a curious way of directing the method in which he shall vote during the next three months. The method of directing that Peer how he is to vote is, apparently, to tell him to get out. With great respect, I cannot help feeling that if the noble and learned Viscount reflects upon that argument, he 926 will think that it is hardly worth while putting before the House. To tell a Peer that he cannot come and that he is not expected to come is equivalent to excluding him and depriving him of his vote.The other contribution which the noble and learned Viscount made is prefaced by reminding Members that the Lord who has obtained leave of absence has done so under the direction of the House. That is the Order which I read at the opening of my speech. A Peer having obtained leave of absence, it is suggested that some sort of scheme is entered into as a result of which he is bound by any other conditions, lawful or unlawful, which the House chooses to impose. The noble Viscount is reported at column 1076 of Hansard as saying:
… if a Peer voluntarily comes into a scheme like this, then he should not be able to give up and return to the House without some period being involved, and that that period should be of some length of time. That is a condition on which one gets into a scheme.Those noble Lords who were present may remember that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, intervened and said to his noble and learned friend that his conception was slightly different. A Peer comes into the scheme because under the Standing Order of this House he does what he is told to do. He has asked for leave of absence. He is told that he must get leave; he gets leave and then he is told, "You have entered into a scheme and you must stay away for as long as we want you to stay away." That is an argument which ought not and cannot, in my submission, weigh anywhere.I simply want to emphasise what to me seems so clear, namely, that when such words as "are not expected", "should not", "ought not", or whatever they may be, are used, it is in effect placing a grave obstacle in the way of a Peer who wishes to do his duty. I do not see how it can be done. When we say that a Peer is not expected, let us be more vivid about it. He comes with his Writ prepared to do his duty and anxious to exercise his right, but the Lord Chancellor says, "You may be anxious and willing, but I do not expect you." It will not hold water. Therefore, I venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name, which will exclude 927 this threat and leave the House in the position in which it ought to be of seeing that noble Lords obtain leave of absence when they apply and, having obtained it, stay away just as long as they feel they cannot do their duty and exercise their right.
I have found frequently in this debate the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton occurring. The noble and learned Lord is most anxious at the earliest possible moment to make clear what he intended when he took part in the Committee proceedings of this House, and I hope that he may be allowed to do so at an early stage.
§ 6.8 p.m.
§ LORD MORTON OF HENRYTONThis proposed Standing Order is, of course, founded on the leave of absence scheme which appears in the Swinton Report. I was a member of the Swinton Committee but I have not taken part in the previous debates which have dealt with this subject because I did not wish to speak either for or against the leave of absence scheme. But I feel that I ought to say something in this debate, because, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, says, my name was referred to frequently on the last occasion when the Standing Order in its original form—it has of course undergone a change—was debated.
I should like to start by reminding the House of one paragraph in the Swinton Report. It is paragraph 21 and reads as follows:
The Committee gave most careful consideration to a number of proposals all of which, in the view of the Committee, would have had the effect of derogating, in greater or less degree, from the right conferred upon a Peer by his Writ to attend and take part in the proceedings of Parliament."—Then other proposals were mentioned, and the paragraph continues:All these proposals would, in the view of the Committee, contravene the principle laid down in the Earl of Bristol's case and would therefore be ultra vires.After mentioning certain other proposals the paragraph concludes:It was further suggested that the House might make use of its power to regulate its own procedure and to order what might be called its domestic arrangements, in such a manner as to exclude Peers who did not regularly attend All those expedients, in the view 928 of the Committee, would amount to the exclusion, or partial exclusion, of a Peer from the House, and would not be within the power of the House to enforce.May I couple with that, just to emphasise it, a short portion of paragraph 29, to which the noble Viscount. Lord Simonds, also referred:the Committee came to the conclusion that it would not be legitimate for the House, under the guise of granting leave of absence to a Peer, in effect to deprive him of his right to sit, speak and vote.Now, my Lords, in view of these passages, when I read and considered the scheme set out in paragraph 33 of the Report, containing the words:Members of the House are expected, if they have been granted leave of absence, not to attend,I felt no doubt that it could not have been intended by this scheme to impose any bar or restriction whatsoever on a Peer who was on leave of absence if he felt that he ought to come back to the House while he was on leave of absence. There was no restriction on him whatsoever. I interpreted the words "is not expected" somewhat in this way. Let me picture a Peer who is on leave of absence coming back. A Member of the House says to him, "We did not expect to see you here" but he replies, "Well, I felt that I should like to take part in this debate, and so I have come." Now that, to my mind, is a perfect answer. If the words are that he "is expected not to attend", they are words of expectation, and I interpreted them as a natural expectation which might or might not be fulfilled.But when the Standing Orders were drafted I found that the words "expected not to attend" were altered to "should not attend." I ventured, with some hesitation, to approach the Leader of the House on that subject and express the hope that possibly the words might be altered back to the words of the Swinton Committee—" is expected not to attend." To my mind, the two phrases are different, and I ventured to observe that, if there is no difference in meaning between the two of them, why alter the words of the Swinton Report? I do not say that it was because of this request of mine in the least, but it is a fact that the present Standing Orders go back to the words "is expected not to attend". Now, to me these words still mean, as they meant when I concurred in the Report of the Swinton Committee, merely a matter of 929 expectation. The view that I take, and have always taken, is that any Peer on leave of absence is perfectly free to come and sit and speak and vote at any time, and I gather from what the Leader of the House has already said this afternoon that that is the view of the Government.
In these circumstances, and having made the proposal which was ultimately accepted, I do not feel that I can possibly vote for the Amendment which is being proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, but I do feel that if there are other Members of the House to whom the words "is expected not to attend" have a different meaning or a different flavour, then this suggested Amendment raises a very serious question for consideration.
LORD TEYNHAMI would say that in spite of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, it was quite clear that the Select Committee were anxious that Peers granted leave of absence should give reasonable notice before returning to the business of the House, and this view has already been accepted by the House in previous debates on the matter. As I have pointed out already in a reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, the whole scheme is on a voluntary basis, and all the House is being asked to do is to regulate its procedure. I personally do not think it would be right that a Peer who is on leave of absence should be able to come back to the House at a moment's notice because he might see something on the Order Paper that interested him. I suggest that it would be quite contrary to the whole spirit of the wishes of the House which have already been expressed in previous debates and also by the Report of the Select Committee.
I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, considers that although a Peer might be on leave of absence and might never have even attended the House, he should in fact still be able to attend as soon as lie sees some particular matter on the Order Paper. Now, I do not think that that can be right. I personally am still of the opinion that the period before which a Peer should come back after he has asked for revocation of his leave of absence should be not less than three months, because if the period is much shorter a Peer might come back and debate the last stages of a Bill in which he has not taken an earlier 930 part. I feel that this would be against the general wishes of the House.
On the other hand, I am prepared to accept the compromise of one month's notice that has been set down in the Amendment to be moved later by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and I hope it will work out all right and not produce any of the unfortunate occurrences that I have mentioned. I would repeat, in order to emphasise it, that this House is the High Court of Parliament and is quite within its right to lay down its procedure. I would also remind your Lordships that the whole of this scheme is on a voluntary basis.
§ 6.18 p.m.
§ LORD HANKEYI shall speak for only a few minutes, because I make no pretence of being an expert on this question: I brought almost a virgin mind to it. But when I heard my noble friend's speech the other day I was tremendously impressed by it. Perhaps I may quote another extract, from the beginning of the speech, instead of the one at the end of the speech which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, quoted. It is in these words:
Whatever the expediency of these Standing Orders may be, they violate in a most flagrant way the principles of our Constitution so far as they relate to the right and duty of a Peer to attend and speak and vote.Like the noble Viscount himself, I heard all the remaining speeches, and I have been over them most carefully to try to discover if that was completely countered; and the conclusion I reached was the same as his own, though I never had a word with the noble Viscount about it. It is not for me to say what the facts are. I am an old Clerk of the Privy Council, though I do not think that this particular problem ever came my way. But I do feel this: that if there is a doubt about a great principle—and I do not say which side is right—it would he wrong to found a Standing Order on it, and I think that is what the noble Viscount believes has been done.So much for the question of law. Then there is the great question of expediency—whether or not the House might not lose valuable advice at a critical moment. My memories go back a long way, but even in comparatively recent times I can remember the late Lord Wavell—not the first Earl, but the second—coming home from Kenya and taking part in a debate, 931 and impressing the House tremendously. Had this rule been in force, the noble Earl, being out there in the Army, might well have asked for leave of absence, so that he would have been unable to attend; or it might have been very difficult for him to do so.
I remember another case—and there is one other noble Lord in the House who should also remember it—where a noble Lord came into a debate of less general interest than that. It was a debate on the quality of bread. The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, came home at equally short notice. Nobody knew that he was to take part in the debate, but he jumped up and made a most decisive speech on the subject. I believe that there are cases when that might happen. For about twelve years I had to go to Egypt every year, which involved absences from the House of from five weeks up to some three months. There was no question of asking for leave, of course—perhaps it would not have been necessary: I do not know. I used to tell the Clerk of the Parliaments that I was going to be absent and leave an address, and that seems to me much simpler than all this "red tape" and procedure. From the legal side and from the side of expediency, therefore, I support strongly the deletion of paragraphs (4) and (5).
§ 6.23 p.m.
LORD SOERSPerhaps I may intervene just for a moment, as a very junior Member of your Lordships' House. There seems to have been a good deal of difference of opinion as to whether or not the words in these two paragraphs really impose a moral obligation not to attend. I must admit that when I first read them that was my impression. I felt that one would have to be very careful in asking for leave of absence, because thereafter one would be banned from attending the House for a certain period. I may have misinterpreted the position, but I do not suppose I am the only one who has done so. And if that is not intended to be the meaning of the paragraphs, what then is the purpose of including them? Otherwise, they seem to have no significance at all.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREI had proposed to make my maiden speech at a later stage this afternoon; and I still 932 hope, with the leave of the House, to be allowed to speak then. But I am probably the only person present who is seriously considering applying for leave of absence. I have come some hundreds of miles to listen to this debate in order to clear my mind—though I must say that it is not very much clearer. I have heard one eminent legal Member of your Lordships' House say that here the word "expected" means that one must not come; and I have heard another say that it means one can come whenever one likes. I hope that we may have a little enlightenment upon that matter.
LORD SALTOUNI should like to congratulate the son of a very old friend, and one who is himself an old friend, on his very brief maiden speech. It was of a kind which will naturally make us anxious to hear him again. We had some spirited exchanges the last time we debated this matter on precisely the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton; and at that time we were told that "should" and "expected" meant the same thing. Since that time the Standing Order has been amended to include the word "expected", and if that means what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, suggests it means, then I am perfectly happy with that word. If not, I am bound to say that I shall not be happy.
I do not feel there was very much weight in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, about a Peer who has not attended the earlier stages of a Bill suddenly deciding to come and speak on the last stages. I remember a case in the 1930s where a Peer who had not attended the earlier stages of a debate intervened on the Third Reading; and, although he did not get his way, he did in the end get alterations made to the Bill which made it acceptable in Scotland—which otherwise it would not have been. An intervention on Third Reading may be very effective and very useful to your Lordships. My feeling on this matter is reinforced by what my noble friend Lord Hankey has just said. The example he gave of the late Lord Wavell is one which I feel sure will have a strong effect upon us because of the affection we always had for that noble Earl. I hope that we are going to get a proper interpretation of this word "expected" this afternoon.
§ 6.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLEI have not taken part in all these debates so far, and I should not have intervened to-day but for the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton. I would begin by saying, in the absence of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, that he, a very learned and profound lawyer, has made the point that we are doing some vital damage to our Constitution. But I have always noticed that in the proceedings of our Parliaments we do not normally pay great attention to profound principles, which are generally observed by their omission.
I cannot believe that there will appear at the Bar of this House a queue of learned, profound, wise and witty noble Lords, all with a tremendous message to deliver, which a hard-hearted Lord Chancellor, representing the House, will not permit them to deliver. In practice, the position is that there are in this House a number of Peers—we may know some of them—who never attend and never intend to do so. There are a number of Peers who come occasionally, when they can, and who do not intend to give up their right. I believe it might be made plain from the Government Benches that if a noble Lord intends to attend the House, perhaps only once a year, or even more rarely, he should not apply for leave of absence. I feel that if that were done it would be a great help.
I cannot quite follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, because, with great respect, in the Report of the Select Committee it is stated, in paragraph 33 (c), on page 12:
that any Member of the House who fails to reply to such a communication should be regarded as having applied for leave of absence, unless he attends to take the Oath within one month of the beginning of a Parliament.Having already said that they should attend regularly or apply for leave of absence, the Report says, in paragraph 33 (d):that Members of the House are expected, if they have been granted leave of absence, not to attend until their leave of absence has been terminated by their giving such notice as may be prescribed by Standing Order.Here I agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds: I consider that a moral duty is placed on a noble Lord who has applied for leave of absence not to come within one month. But looking 934 at it within the context of the practice of this House over many year, the size, as well as the duties of the House, and the way in which some noble Lords, for reasons which are perfectly good, never attend and never intend to attend, I do not think we are making a great breach in the Constitution. I do not believe we shall deprive ourselves of the counsel of noble Lords who have and will come because they have something to deliver. Taking the context as a reasonable practical man who has profound respect for the working of our practical Constitution, I must say that I cannot follow the noble Viscount into the Lobby.
§ 6.30 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, said that this matter had been discussed on several occasions, and I do not want merely to repeat arguments that I have put before. The noble and learned Viscount gave his evidence to the Swinton Committee, who heard other witnesses and decided against his evidence. The House then considered the Report of the Swinton Committee, and approved it on December 12. They then welcomed the Merthyr Report on April 24. The matter has been so fully threshed out that I do not want to go over again matters which I have developed before, or, simply from the point of view of justifying my own position, to continue the argument on points which have now become of less importance. But I ask your Lordships to consider this matter dispassionately, forgetting what view has been taken of one's own views, and objectively, with only the interests of the House in mind.
I think that what we have been apt to forget is that, basically, this scheme does not purport, nor can it purport, to affect the legal right of a Peer to sit and speak and vote in your Lordships' House. He can do that. Whatever the scheme says, he can come in. If the occasion arose where he came in and said, "I have not given notice, but this is the reason why I came—" I am sure that he would be listened to by the House.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEWould his vote be valid?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORCertainly. That is the fundamental misconception which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has had throughout this debate. 935 You cannot affect the validity of his entry or his vote. Even the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, has never put his argument on that basis, I believe—I give him the opportunity of interrupting me again if I am wrong, but I understand he has never put his argument on that basis.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONDSI hope that the noble and learned Viscount is clear that there is no question of a legal point. I think that matter was carried a bit too far. I did not say that Black Rod could be summoned to exclude; but what I did say was that the methods which had been used were as forcible a deterrent as would be the threat of physical expulsion.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEWhat the noble and learned Viscount says covers the case. I did not say there was a legal bar; what I said was that there is a moral bar.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI understand that the noble and learned Viscount is saying substantially the same. Let us take the first point and make sure that everyone including the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is now convinced that there is no legal bar.
Then we have to consider the next point: whether there is a moral bar. I listened with great care to what my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton said in his intervention, and I hope that I am putting it rightly. I have tried to consider the words used, but when one is listening to a number of speeches in the course of debate one has not got the best opportunity to think out words. However, this is what I believe is the position: that the words on the Order Paper express how the House would expect its Business to be conducted. I do not think there is any difference between what I say and what Lord Morton of Henryton has said. It is very difficult to eliminate, or to say whether one ought entirely to eliminate, the element of volition in the word "expect", because there is always an element of wishful thinking about every one of us. But I think I have put it correctly and that it is what my noble friend said.
The question is, how the House would expect its Business to be conducted. In 936 that sense, you would not expect to see the person there. And when the House expresses how it would expect its Business to be conducted, it cannot avoid entirely (and I hope I am being completely frank with Lord Morton of Henryton) the element of what it would like to see. I do not think it is possible in these circumstances and in this context. That is the position which we have to face. I am quite sure, for reasons which I have given over and over again, that the House is entitled to say how it would expect its Business to be conducted; and I should have thought, again, that to endeavour to elevate that to a moral stigma is making a debating and not a real point. It is perfectly proper for the House corporately to announce its expectations. If someone does not fit in and fall in with those expectations, then it is a matter for him to consider what view he takes of his own conduct. That is the position and. as I say, I think that it has been unduly magnified, perhaps in order to get it under the admirable umbrella of Lord Salisbury's words.
The next point I want to make clear is a point that was raised by my noble and gallant friend Lord De L'Isle a moment ago. That was on what I may call the practical aspect of this matter—namely, when can a Member say that he proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can? I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord De L'Isle, that if a Peer says, "I hope I shall attend once, twice or three times in a Session," and that this is his view of how he can act with regard to what he has to do, then that comes within the words of the Standing Order. In case anyone thinks I am saying that merely in answer to what Lord De L'Isle has said, I would remind him that my noble friend Lord Home said exactly the same thing half an hour ago, in answer to Lord Wrenbury. That is a considered opinion, and I hope that my noble and gallant friend will take it as such, as we have both said it on independent occasions this afternoon.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, complained of my speech on the previous occasion, because I had made too many references to the Committee—as he said, consulting authority and not dealing with argument. It is only fair to remind your Lordships that one of the 937 many accusations made by the noble and learned Viscount was that he had not had any of his submissions to the Swinton Committee adequately considered, or adequately considered to his own satisfaction. I felt it only right, since he had made that charge, that I should refer to the various sections of the Report of the Swinton Committee which dealt with the points which the noble and learned Viscount raised in the debate. The points were dealt with in the eleven paragraphs of the Report which has been specifically approved by your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Viscount has not returned to, but he has not abandoned—and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has taken it up—the suggestion that this matter is unconstitutional and contrary to the law and custom of the Constitution. Apparently equally as the noble and learned Viscount did not convince the Swinton Committee, I, in turn, have not convinced him. That is a fate that befalls everyone who advances a legal argument in every circumstance.
I still consider that the view which I venture to put forward has substance. It falls into these two parts: that there is an undoubted right of this House to regulate not only its procedure but also its method of functioning. As early certainly as 1621 this House exercised the right to excuse Peers for non-attendance. In the 1620s it exercised the right to allow leave of absence, and it has been exercising these rights every since. I was taken up for raising the question of proxies. I cannot see the relevance. The right of voting by proxy was considered to be an inalienable privilege of peerage, and was so stated; and this House proceeded on that basis. The time came when the House wanted to dispense with the habit of voting by proxy. While accepting that it was an inalienable privilege of peerage which could be taken away only by Act of Parliament, the House decided that it would suspend voting by proxy, and although there is a method by which that suspension could be abrogated, we have kept the suspension going for a hundred years, and voting by proxy has ceased to be part of the mechanism of this House.
I still say—and I put forward my views with great diffidence, in view of the contempt which they have earned from the noble and learned Viscount—that everything points to the fact that we have a 938 power to regulate how Members of the House shall sit, vote and speak, subject only to this: that we cannot deprive them of their right. Nobody suggests that we are depriving them of their right, in the sense of law. I suggest that by saying how we expect the Business of the House to be conducted we are not indirectly trying to do what we cannot do directly, and therefore I feel of the same opinion that I have always expressed—that we are within our constitutional rights.
It was said that I was wrong to suggest that there could be some sort of bargain. When one criticises, however vehemently, it is important that one should quote the whole of what has been said. What I said was that there are two elements: first, no legal deprivation and, secondly, a voluntary scheme into which any Member of your Lordships' House can come if he chooses. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, if a noble Lord does not want leave of absence at all, he is not in the scheme; but if he wants to come into the scheme, then it seems to me sense, and it does not seem to me to have any immoral element, that he should abide by the expectation of the House as to how its Business should be carried on. I will not take this matter any further. Those are my views. They are—exactly like those of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds—unshaken by the argument that I have heard. I would ask your Lordships to consider that we have now, I think, given a full answer on a very important matter. I do not regret any of it. I only apologise if I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONBefore the noble and learned Viscount leaves the point he made to me, I would ask him this. He says that if a noble Lord does not come into the scheme, then he is not part of it: but what happens if he does not answer the letter and is deemed to have come into the scheme?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIf he does not answer the letter and is deemed to come into the scheme, a Peer has three choices of conduct in front of him. The first is to say that his legal right is to come to the House and that he asserts his legal right. He can come and give an explanation of the matter according to his temper. 939 The second is to say that he asks the Supervisory Committee who, I assume, would have a right—
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONWould they?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWhatever Committee the House appoints, I should have said, assuming that the Supervisory Committee is the Committee the House will appoint to deal with it. I am not avoiding the noble Lord's point at all. A Peer can apply to the Committee and say that he wants to come back in a lesser period than that of one month and give his reasons. His third choice is to give a month's notice under the Standing Order. So he does not do so badly, from a practical point of view.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, but I should like to add something to the debate on the Amendment now before the House and I shall limit myself to that. I was a member of both Committees that have sat and I supported the general scheme, and I support it still, but I confess that I have some doubts about the paragraphs which have been challenged by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds. As regards the word "expected", I well remember the long discussions we had in Committee on the possibility of finding some sanction for this proposal other than a legal sanction which would deprive Peers of their hereditary or other rights, and the word "expected" was taken, I think by all of us, to imply a moral obligation. It was practically equivalent to saying: "We shall not have a legal contract with these Peers, but there shall be a gentlemen's agreement. and one of the non-attenders who has signed a letter asking for leave of absence will not treat it lightly and nevertheless come to the House just as he might have come if he had not signed such a letter." We want to get rid, if possible, of the regular non-attenders, if only to improve the constitutional appearance of the House.
I hope that this experiment will be made, and that it will succeed. But whether it will succeed or not, to my mind, will depend largely on the answer which the House gives to-day on this very point: what is a Peer "letting himself in for" if he signs this self-abnegation document? What I want to 940 do, in the few observations I shall address to your Lordships, is to ask the Government how they think the scheme will work in practice in certain eventualities; and the eventuality I have in mind is that one of the crises in politics that occur in the course of every generation may suddenly burst upon the country—it may be international politics; it may be that suddenly there is a danger of war. Suppose there are 100 Members who have signed an undertaking of nonattendance, what is to happen to them, in those circumstances? Are they to say: "We are sorry, but we feel deeply upon this as a matter of conscience and mean to come"?
Then the question arises: would this Standing Select Committee which is to be appointed to supervise the general arrangements with regard to leave of absence be empowered to act in such a case? Would they be able to recommend to the House that the whole of these leave of absence undertakings should be suspended in view of the urgency of the situation? Suppose it is not a question of international politics, but of domestic politics, and there is an unforeseen crisis, some economic or financial situation of the greatest importance; are we to leave it to this Supervising Committee—which, by the way, is to consist of the Whips of the three Parties—a body which is to decide perhaps on releasing or not releasing 100 votes in an imminent Party Division, to decide whether the House should be recommended to suspend these votes of abstention? It may be said: "The Member who has signed this has brought it upon himself. He need not have signed it, and he ought to realise what might happen." If this Resolution is passed, and the Standing Order is made, and next week or next month the letters go out, what will be the attitude or the demeanour of individual Members who are hesitating with their pen in their hand to say whether or not they are going to ask for leave of absence? A great many would say: "In ordinary circumstances, I have no intention of attending—I never have attended; I am not a House of Lords' man and do not mean to attend—but I certainly do not mean to deny myself the right of exercising the privileges of my Peerage"—in 941 circumstances such as those that I have sketched out.
I want to encourage Peers to sign these letters if they are in doubt; and want this experiment to succeed. But in those circumstances, I do not want the signatories to feel that they would be accepting too great a disability. In an earlier stage I think the recommendation was that a Peer should have to give three months' notice of his desire to terminate his leave of absence; and now it is to be one month. I should like to ask the Government to answer my specific point of how this is expected to work out in the given circumstances of crisis—I have not come to any conclusion in my own mind; there may be advantages on both sides—and, if it is not satisfactory, whether it might not be better to make the period much shorter than one month, or perhaps to leave it to the Peer to take action immediately without any preliminary period at all.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHI had not intended to intervene at this stage, but I must say I am rather concerned, having listened to the debate, as to the direction in which we are going this evening. The reply which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, made to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, was very persuasive, but in the course of his speech it seemed to me to stand out that we were dealing with the question of the amendment of, and the future observance of, Standing Orders of this House; and it left the impression upon me that he, at any rate, would agree that the question of the Standing Orders of this House is one for this House and for this House as a whole. All the steps which have led up to the present position, from the moment of the presentation of the general principle to the House by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, up to the present time, have not seen any attempts in the various sections of the House to throw a spanner into the works in general in its consideration. Members of all Parties have taken part in the various stages, and especially in the two Committees which dealt with the matter, but in the whole of that procedure it seems to me to have been desired to retain within ordinary recommendations made to the House the principle that all sections of the House have the right to have a completely free opinion and to 942 present it in the House even to the point of a vote.
I understand that to-night, while I was out in the tea room, it was made perfectly clear that at certain stages in this debate, at any rate, it is intended to use the Government Whip to carry the Motion on the Paper. In view of the case submitted by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, and, in particular, the wise presentation just made to us by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, out of his great experience, it would be most undesirable to come to a decision on this matter tonight on a Party Whip vote. I am not thinking merely of trying to make—as I seem to understand from one or two phrases in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the Front Bench opposite—a sort of more respectable constitutional appearance of an action of this kind. The only real merit in coming to an amendment of this kind of Standing Orders must be to ensure more efficient management of the general business of your Lordships' House. I am not sure if one could say that you make a House more efficient by particularly excluding some people that you do not want to come. I do not think that that is the way to deal with an Assembly of this kind.
I am particularly concerned about the vote that is going to be taken now upon this Amendment, for it will largely affect the vote upon the main proposition to be put later, because of its influence upon future, and perhaps very near future, impending political changes. Whatever is decided, I want, if possible, this matter to be decided by a free vote of your Lordships' House. If this is going to be carried by a Party vote, then we must have some guidance given concerning the propositions put by the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel, and the kind of crises that may arise. After I have listened to that very able and experienced Parliamentarian, I can begin to visualise all sorts of things arising, and we shall have to consider very carefully indeed if we are going to have this kind of camouflage amendment to the Standing Orders of the House of Peers by means of Government Party Whip vote. It is pretty good guidance, in one direction at any rate, on the things I have in mind.
I rise at this stage in the debate to put these questions to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House. Do you insist upon 943 using the Party vote? If you do, then we shall want a great deal more debate on it before we vote. That is the first proposition. Secondly, how do we view the future progress for to-day's Business set down on the Order Paper? Because if we make, it may be, a decision against the view of the Simonds Amendment, if I may so call it that in the presence of the noble and learned Viscount, then the debate upon the main question is obviously going to be much more protracted, much more detailed in argument: it must be so. Therefore I should like to know, first, are you going to put the Government Whip on for this vote on this Amendment? That is important. Secondly, how are you going to deal with the rest of to-day's Business, because if this discussion is going to be much more prolonged, I think I ought, on behalf of the Opposition and all those people who want more and adequate consideration of the matter, in view of the points raised in the debate, to ask for postponement of this debate to another day.
THE EARL OF HOMEThe noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, has, I think, imported probably a little unnecessary Party feeling into this matter. After three debates without any indication from anywhere as to what the House should decide, or any lead, I thought we ought to put a suggested Standing Order on the Paper. If the noble Viscount would like a copy of the Whip I sent out, I think it was to say that a very important debate would take place on this day, and therefore we suggested that a full House would be a good thing. But there is no Party vote. I do not intend to put the Party Whip on this. I thought, after all this time and after three debates, and after we have talked the subject inside out, that I should not be giving a lead to the House if I did not suggest that it was time to come to a decision on a Standing Order.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHThe last thing I would wish to do would be to misrepresent even the intention of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, but I understand that in the course of exchanges between the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, and someone else on the Government Front Bench, it was understood that the Government Whip was issued and would probably be 944 operated. If that is not so, may I withdraw what I said about the Whip?
THE EARL OF HOMEI would not ask the noble Viscount to withdraw anything. A perfectly normal Whip was sent out indicating that it was an important debate and there might be important decisions. But I do not intend to put on the Government Whip. I think it is a matter for the House.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONDSI am sure the noble Earl has forgotten but a two-line Whip was sent out and at the end of it it said:
Divisions may be challenged and your Lordships' attendance in support of the Government from 4.15 onwards is urgently requested.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEIs it not a fact that matters of Standing Orders and the interpretation of them are, by long custom, a matter for the House and not for the Government at all?
THE EARL OF HOMEThey are a matter for the House, but there must come a point when one cannot waste the time of the House any longer, and we really must put some concrete, solid proposals before the House for consideration. On these Amendments it is perfectly true I sent out a Whip indicating that it was an important debate and asking for the support of noble Lords. I hope some noble Lords of all Parties will give support to this proposed Standing Order. This particular Amendment, I think, raises a matter of principle on which Members of the House should vote as Members of the House. Therefore the Party Whip will not be on. Nevertheless, I think I must say this. I hope I am as jealous a guardian of the Constitution as anybody, and although I am a comparative newcomer in this House. nevertheless I assure your Lordships that I would never consciously do anything which would weaken or impair the right of a Peer to do his duty in this House. I should like to make that absolutely clear. It has seemed to me that we are really making a little heavy weather on this Standing Order. There is no attempt to prevent a Peer from exercising his right to Sit.
§ LORD KILLEARNMay I interrupt? I am thinking of something the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said, which was rather minatory. It has a bearing on this 945 question—in my mind, a very considerable one. Lord Teynham used what seemed to me rather threats if a Peer did use his right of coming back and voting. He is not in the House at the moment, and I am not quite sure what he did say.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMay I ask the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, to clear up one other point? I may have got it wrong. In the earlier stages of this debate I understood that the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, assented to the proposition that if a noble Lord came, not having had time to withdraw his leave of absence, he would have to sit on the steps of the Throne. Later the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said he could come and sit and we should be glad to hear what he said. If a noble Lord can give other reasons for attendance, not having given a month's notice, I cannot see the object of adopting this Standing Order.
§ LORD WINSTERMay I ask a question, further to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn? The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, has just said that nothing is being done by this Standing Order to impair the rights of a Peer. But surely, if there is a question before the House about which the Peer feels very strongly indeed and is anxious to speak and vote, if he has leave of absence he is prevented from doing so, because he may not come here without giving a month's notice that he wishes to do so.
THE EARL OF HOMEI said that there was no attempt to prevent a Peer from exercising his right to sit. We cannot do so and are not trying to do so. If a Peer feels impelled to come back and talk in debate at no notice at all, he will do so, and nobody can stop him.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHAnd sit in the House?
THE EARL OF HOMEI have no doubt that the House will accept his explanation as to why he felt impelled to come back before the normal notice.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELThe noble Earl did not say vote, but to attend and speak.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEBut someone will get up and say, "Your name is in 946 the book in the Prince's Chamber. What are you doing here?".
THE EARL OF HOMEI think noble Lords do respect the wishes of this House, and a noble Lord who felt himself compelled to come back would give an explanation in the normal way in a few sentences, and no doubt the House would accept it.
§ LORD WINSTERIn view of that, the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was unjustified and does not represent the views of the Government.
THE EARL OF HOMEI framed the Standing Order after hearing all views, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and I myself came clown against Lord Teynham's view. I think we have a right to expect that. Peers should do their best to enable this House to pursue its business in the most seemly way.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONThere is still a very important outstanding point which has not been cleared up. I am sorry, but it is vital. This situation is most likely to arise at a time of intense Party feeling in some political crisis. What happens if the House of Lords, with a large Party preponderance, declines to accept the explanation of a Member who has come back because he has an urgent feeling that he has a constitutional duty to act as a Member of Parliament?
THE EARL OF HOMEThe House could not decline to accept it in that sense, because the Peer has a perfect right to come and speak and vote.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONThen what is the use of it?
THE EARL OF HOMEI am coming to what is the use of it, because I think it is worth reminding my noble friends, and indeed all Members of this House, that there are 300 and more Peers whom no crisis, either external or internal, has ever induced to come near the place. Therefore I think perhaps this scheme is worth trying. No doubt we shall have to proceed over the months and years by trial and error, giving them a chance to regularise their position. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asks, "What would happen in the event of a national crisis?" Let us take the case of a war. Then, inevitably, I think, there would be 947 consultation between the Leaders of the Parties in the House; and the House would, I suggest, in that case, suspend the Standing Order altogether. I think that would be the way to deal with an international crisis of that kind. In the normal domestic situation a Peer would have to decide for himself.
The final point I would make is that there is nothing irrevocable about this scheme. We have proceeded through the centuries by trial and error. We have used that procedure which is useful to us and helpful to our Business, and have discarded that which is not. But I think that, after two inquiries by authoritative Committees of the House (I am, after all, only taking their advice, and commending it in the most suitable form, as I think, to your Lordships), we might try this Standing Order to see how it works; and my forecast is that it will work for the general convenience of the whole House.
§ LORD SILKINI should not have intervened in order to reply to the noble Earl but for his last remarks. He speaks of two inquiries which have been held. I want to emphasise—I was on both of them—that we did not, and we were not asked to, accept the principle that these inquiries were on the hypothesis that if the House wanted to do something this was the way to do it. The first question we considered was: what could it do, assuming that it wanted to do something? We then had a general Report. Then, on the second occasion, still on the same assumption, never accepting the principle at all—
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONWith great respect, the noble Lord is wrong—
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHIt is most rude to interrupt in a middle of a sentence.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONThis is a question of fact. On the second occasion the Merthyr Committee met after the House had passed a formal Resolution approving the Swinton Committee's proposals and directing the Merthyr Committee to prepare a Standing Order.
§ LORD SILKINWe were not committed on either occasion. I think it is quite wrong to suggest that this Committee sat with the principle settled for 948 it. We were doing a drafting job on the second occasion; on the first we were indicating how the thing should be run. I should not have intervened at all except that I felt perfectly free, and I think that every Member who served on the Committee is perfectly free at this stage to express his views about the desirability or otherwise of this Standing Order.
THE EARL OF HOMEI think that this is a Standing Order which the House should try, and then we shall see if it works. Of course, if it does not work, the House is a realistic body, and we can do away with it.
§ LORD SILKINI want to make it quite clear that I hope that we shall not regard ourselves as having been committed because we took some part in drafting the Standing Order.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHI should like to recall the Committee to the actual Amendment which is before us. We seem to be getting a long way away from it. I venture to speak, not having taken part in any of these discussions upon any occasion before. As I understand it, no serious objection has been raised to the first paragraph of this Standing Order which is the vital part of it; and I suggest to the House that the paragraph we are now considering must be interpreted in the light of paragraph (1), which says:
Lords are to attend the Sittings of the House or, if they cannot do so, obtain leave of absence …"—not ask for leave of absence, if they do not choose to attend or do not like attending"; they are to attend or, if they are unable to attend, then they are to ask for leave of absence. That is the operative part of this Standing Order.I think that Lord Morton of Henryton is correct in the interpretation he has placed upon paragraph (4): that it is merely a statement of expectation based upon the fact that the Member has already stated that he cannot attend. If he cannot attend, then surely nobody expects him to be here. If the circumstances change, it is within the power of the House to revoke the leave of absence which has been given to him—not, with all respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, a matter to be dealt with by the Supervisory Committee, which has no 949 power of any kind to deal with any matter of that sort. It is a power which resides in the House itself and in no other body, and it cannot be believed that this House would deprive somebody whose circumstances had changed, and who became able, contrary to his expectation, to attend, of the right of sitting, voting and taking part in these proceedings.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONDSI believe that it is in order for the mover of an Amendment to be allowed a few words in reply, and in accordance with the tradition of this House (this is what one always says at this late hour) I do not propose to keep the Committee for long. I have only one thing to say: that I have been left in complete doubt, both by the Leader of the House and by the Lord Chancellor, whether, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury holds, and as I, and many others, hold, there will be a moral stigma—those are the words which he used and which I have adopted—attaching to a noble Lord who, having obtained leave of absence, comes back to the House before that leave of absence has expired. On that point, I am left in absolute doubt. If there will not, then there is no reason in the world for putting in the Standing Order. On the other hand, if there will, then equally it ought not to be there, because it imposes a sort of deterrent upon a noble Lord who is willing and able to do his duty. There is no escape from that dilemma. Either it is meaningless, yet may have a meaning which it ought not to bear; or it has a
§ meaning and, if it has that meaning, it should not be there. This really is the most wanton attempt to give a person the best of both worlds. I am happy to think that it may be resolved to-night.
There is only one other thing I want to say. The noble and learned Viscount has returned to his old analogy of proxy voting, and has suggested that, because in a certain year this House required the surrender of what was described as the "inalienable right" of a Peer to vote by proxy, therefore it can deprive him of the right to vote altogether for three months, or whatever the period may be. The one is defining a method by which the vote may be given and the other is a denial of the vote altogether. It really is, in my respectful submission, a most deceptive analogy and one which I had hoped, in vain, that he would not again trail before this House. I shall press my Amendment as I think this is an important constitutional question. We have listened to what I may call the ancient wisdom of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I have listened to it with the greatest possible pleasure, because I concur in every word he said with regard to the practical difficulties which will ensue, apart from what I conceive to be the theoretical lack of constitutionality of the proposal.
§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 53.
951| CONTENTS | ||
| Albemarle, E. | Cottesloe, L. | Meston, L. |
| Howe, E. | Dowdling, L. | Milne, L. |
| Limerick, E. | Ebury, L. | Mowbray and Stourton, L. |
| Lucan, E. | Fraser of North Cape, L. | Pethick-Lawrence, L. |
| Morley, E. | Grantchester, L. | Russell of Liverpool, L. |
| Hankey, L. | Silkin, L. | |
| Alexander of Hillsborough, V. | Henderson, L. | Sinha, L. |
| Samuel, V. | Kershaw, L. | Somers, L. |
| Simonds, V. | Killearn, L. | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. |
| Stansgate, V. [Teller.] | Latham, L. | |
| Lawson, L. | Swaythling, L. | |
| Balfour of Burleigh, L. | Layton, L. | Wilmot of Selmeston, L. |
| Brocket, L. | Lloyd, L. | Winster, L. [Teller.] |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) | Bessborough, E. | Selkirk, E. |
| Hailsham, V. (L. President.) | Donoughmore, E. | Swinton, E. |
| Gosford, E. | Woolton, E. | |
| Aberdeen and Temair, M. | Home, E. | |
| Lansdowne, M. | Onslow, E. | Bridgeman, V. |
| Ormonde, M. | Perth, E. | Davidson, V. |
| Radnor, E. | De L'Isle, V. | |
| Bathurst, E. | St. Aldwyn, E. | Goschen, V. |
| Massereene and Ferrard, V. | Congleton, L. | Mancroft, L. |
| Soulbury, V. | Denham, L. | Merrivale, L. |
| Douglas of Barloch, L. | Merthyr, L. | |
| Alberdare, L. | Dovercourt, L. | Mills, L. |
| Ampthill, L. | Ebbisham, L. | Milverton, L. |
| Auckland, L. | Gifford, L. [Teller.] | Morrison, L. |
| Birdwood, L. | Hastings, L. | Romilly, L. |
| Chesham, L. | Hawke, L. | Savile, L. |
| Chorley, L. | Hemphill, L. | Strathalmond, L. |
| Cohen, L. | Howard of Glossop, L. | Strathclyde, L. |
| Conesford, L. | McCorquodale of Newton, L. | Teymham, L. [Teller.] |
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONDS had given notice of his intention to move to omit paragraph (5). The noble and learned Viscount said: I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, but I am bound to say that I do not see any point in moving to omit paragraph (5) if paragraph (4) stands. Therefore, although I fear I disappoint Viscount Stansgate, I do not propose to move that Amendment.
§ House resumed.
§ 7.31 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I ask the leave of the House to move that this debate be now adjourned. It is obvious, I think, from the general feeling in the House and the very close decisions in the vote in Committee, that there is a great deal more yet to be said about the matter in regard to the general proposition (which has still to be carried) of the Standing Order and the second Motion on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House. So far as I know, there is not much opportunity of getting any food in this House tonight, and we are already at the hour when we usually adjourn, at any rate for food. But I think it is very desirable, before we come to deal with the main proposition of the Standing Order, that we all should have the chance to read the Hansard report to-mororw. We should have the opportunity of looking very carefully indeed at the various explanations which have been given and the different views from quite learned persons as to what the particular words in a particular line in the proposed Standing Order actually mean. We can then see how far we are going to be able to rely in the future upon what is merely a Government Minister's expression of opinion at this stage of the matter in this House, as governing the future action, when it 952 comes into question, of how the Standing Orders should be interpreted. Noble and learned Lords will be able to get up and will be able to quote that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, or the Leader of the House, said this and said that; but it will be merely a sort of calling-up of support for a particular view, and it will certainly have no binding effect upon what may have been thought to be the actual meaning of the Order.
I think that, having regard to the kind of crises and situations of a Parliamentary character in which we might quite properly find ourselves, it is essential that we have the opportunity now of reading very carefully the expressions which have been made both from the Government Bench and from learned authorities in the House, and that we should consider the matter as a whole before we go on to the main vote. For that purpose, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
§ Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
THE EARL OF HOMEI hope the noble Viscount will not press this suggestion. I know he has never liked this Standing Order, or any part of it, but we have had I do not know how many debates now—it might be three or four—covering or re-covering the same ground.
THE EARL OF HOMEAfter all, we are doing something important but something which is not irrevocable. If, after experience, we find that this does not work, as practical people we can vary the Standing Order. Of course, if it is the wish of the House to adjourn we shall do so, but I do not think it really is. I think the House feels that we have had a great many discussions about this matter. Therefore, I would propose that the noble Viscount should let us get on with it and see how it works.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMay I just ask this question? Does the noble Earl intend to go through with the other two Motions? Because on the question of the constitution of this Select Committee some points may arise.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONI am going to support my noble Leader in his Motion that the House do now adjourn. It seems to me that it is a most important thing that the House should be now adjourned in order that we may consider what is, after all, a very important constitutional change which is being made in a most unorthodox and curious way. The fact of the matter is that the effect of the votes taken here on these Motions, which purport to be merely resolutions concerning Standing Orders of the House, will be to alter completely the Constitution of the House of Peers.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMRubbish!
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONThe noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says "Rubbish", but the fact is that a large number of people will feel morally bound net to exercise their constitutional rights in the time of national crises, and that is a very important constitutional change. The Government have really, throughout this business, never brought forward any cogent reasons for making this great change. They probably have their reasons, but they certainly have not publicly stated
§ them. We have had advice from some of the most distinguished lawyers available to us—conflicting advice. With conflicting advice it is all the more difficult for laymen to know exactly what is best to be done. We have not only had conflicting advice from the legal Members, but we have had really conflicting statements from members of the Government: as to the interpretation which they put upon the words of this Standing Order. It seems to me that we ought to have a little time to find out what is really being done.
§ I am not clear now whether in fact the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is going to seek to induce Peers to sign some kind of undertaking that they will not come to the House. He is going to write to everybody at the beginning of Parliament, even though they have been most regular attenders, and say: "Would you like to 'contract out' of your obligations? Would you like to stay? "If they do not reply, it is possible that they will be deemed to have replied and to have applied for leave of absence. They have then to go through a peculiar procedure, on which nobody seems able to agree, in order to have the right to do their duty as Members of this House. I suggest that in those circumstances we should have a chance to read what has been said and to consider what has been done.
§ On Question, Whether the debate shall be now adjourned?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 49.
955| CONTENTS | ||
| Lucan, E. [Teller.] | Ebury, L. | Mowbray and Stourton, L. |
| Grantchester, L. | Pethick-Lawrence, L. | |
| Alexander of Hillsborough, V. | Hankey, L. | Silkan, L. |
| Stansgate, V. | Kershaw, L. | Wilmot of Selmeston, L. [Teller.] |
| Killearn, L. | ||
| Brocket, L. | Latham, L. | Winster, L. |
| Burden, L. | Morton of Henryton, L. | Wrenbury, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor) | Home, E. | Davidson, V. |
| Morley, E. | De L'Isle, V. | |
| Haikham, V. (L. President.) | Onslow, E. [Teller.] | Goschen, V. |
| Aberdeen and Temair, M. | Perth, E. | Massereene and Ferrard, V. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Radnor, E. | Soulbury, V. |
| Ormonde, M. | St. Aldwyn, E. | |
| Selkirk, E. | Ampthill, L. | |
| Albemarle, E. | Swinton, E. | Auckland, L. |
| Bathurst, E. | Woolton, E. | Birdwood, L. |
| Donoughmore, E. | Chesham, L. [Teller.] | |
| Gosford, E. | Bridgeman, V. | Conesford, L. |
| Congleton, L. | Hemphill, L. | Saltoun, L. |
| Denham, L. | Lloyd, L. | Savile, L. |
| Derwent, L. | Merrivale, L. | Somers, L. |
| Ebbisham, L. | Merthyr, L. | Strathclyde, L. |
| Gifford, L. | Milverton, L. | Swaythling, L. |
| Hastings, L. | Romilly, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Hawke, L. | Russell of Liverpool, L. |
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 7.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I beg to move that the Standing Order, as amended, be agreed to. I think that every point on it has been considered time and again, and therefore I will leave it to your Lordships to ask any questions about it which you may wish to ask. All I can say is that I think that, after much discussion, this is the best form of Standing Order we can devise, and I hope your Lordships will agree to give it a trial.
Moved to resolve, That the Standing Orders of the House for the conduct of Public Business be amended by leaving out Standing Order 21 and inserting the proposed new Standing Order, as amended.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, I did not vote for the Government on the recent Amendment, and I shall not vote for the Government if there is a Division on this Motion. I think it is right that in a few words I should explain to your Lordships my reasons. At any time since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, if agreement could be obtained between the Parties, I think there was no Member of the House who was not perfectly ready to discuss its powers and Constitution with a completely free and open mind. For a very large part of the time that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, there was a large body of your Lordships who would have been willing, if agreement could have been obtained between the Parties, to discuss the Constitution of the House, without any reference to powers. Both those efforts failed, against the hostility of the Socialist Party generally and particularly of noble Lords opposite, who never failed to express complete and unutterable hostility to any hereditary Chamber.
So far as I am aware, outside your Lordships' House nobody is very much interested in us or in our composition. You never hear it discussed politically or anywhere in any circle of society. Yet 956 the Government, with their flair for starting hares that no one in the world wants to chase, have pressed on with unilateral modifications of your Lordships' House. We dealt with a relevant Bill the other day, and now we have this scheme. I am bound to say that if your Lordships think this will have a good effect—and the majority clearly do—I am perfectly willing to let it have a run, and I shall not vote against it. I must say, too, that the modifications I asked for when the matter was last discussed, and the explanations given in to-day's debate, have largely changed my attitude to this proposed Standing Order. The principal point is this. If these Standing Orders become simply a dead letter, then I think we must reckon that they have failed in their object. But I am bound to say that my own attitude is that all this business is not worth while. It is said that Napoleon condemned manœuvring before a fixed position. Noble Lords opposite clearly constitute a fixed position, and if I am going to be shot at dawn, I have a great deal of more useful things to do than to waste my time getting my face lifted—and that is precisely what I understand this matter to be.
§ LORD WINSTERI certainly did not feel capable of taking part in the proceedings on the Amendments, which were almost entirely occupied with legal and constitutional matters upon which I am a complete layman. I should, however, like to say one or two words on the general issue. What has been occupying my mind the whole time and puzzling me is this: what exactly is the object of the Standing Order which is now before the House? The noble Earl, Lord Home, speaking upon the proposal, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208, col. 1005]:
… we … should be seen to be an efficient and workmanlike House".From that statement I draw the inference that that has not been our appearance heretofore. But in what way does the passing of this Standing Order create that appearance? What is there in it which will make us appear to the public to be what the noble Earl called (col. 1009):a House of recognisable working Peers"?957 That is the question I should like to put to the noble Earl. What is there in this Standing Order which will give us that appearance?
THE EARL OF HOMEI used that phrase, if I may say so, not in relation to this Standing Order, but, I believe, in relation to the Life Peerages Bill, which was taken in conjunction with this matter.
§ LORD WINSTERVery well. At any rate, it is the wish of the noble Earl that we should appear to be "an efficient and workmanlike House," and that we should appear to be a "House of recognisable working Peers." That is the noble Earl's ambition, and I ask him what there is in this Standing Order to create that appearance which he is so anxious the House should present to the public.
Then the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who is not now here, said that all we do by this Standing Order is to enable those Peers who cannot discharge their duty to regularise their position—that we make honest men of them. But I think that what many of us are concerned about is the very large number of Peers who could discharge their duty if they chose to do so, but who do not choose to discharge it and have no intention of doing so. Again I ask: What does the Standing Order do to meet that situation? The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor spoke, I think, more than once about the "scheme" and about entering into this "scheme"; but what precisely is the "scheme"? What is the object of the "scheme", exactly and precisely? I am not trying to deal with the legal and constitutional points at all; what I am trying to get at is this: what is the object of the Standing Order and what purpose is it hoped that it will serve in the conduct of the work of this House?
Surely, what we want is that Peers should attend; that is what we are concerned about. Even an occasional attendance, a very rare attendance, is still a good thing from that point of view. I have noticed very often in your Lordships' House what great satisfaction there is when a noble Lord with an unfamiliar face turns up to take part in a debate. The noble Earl, Lord Home, was at pains to say to-day that there was not a Party Whip on and that the vote was not a Party matter. But I am bound to say that I saw quite a number of faces in the 958 Division Lobby which I have rarely, if ever, seen in your Lordships' House before.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, if the noble Lord had looked in the Lobby, he would have found a number of people who did not obey the Whip, if there was one.
§ LORD WINSTERAt any rate, it is a fact that a few unfamiliar faces did turn up; and their very unfamiliarity, I would say, made them all the more welcome. I imagine that what I will describe as the chronic non-attender will not care very much whether or not he has leave of absence. But is it the object of this Standing Order to save such a Peer an occasional twinge of conscience by regularising his position, or is the object to show the country at large that we are so virtuous that, rather than be shocked by the sight of Peers not doing their duty, we have decided to make it legal for them not to perform their duty? Headmasters could apply the same system to truancy by making truancy legal. We might make absenteeism legal in the same way.
May I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether any habitual nonattender has consulted him and said that he felt uncomfortable because he is not doing his duty and knows that he ought to be doing it? Has any non-attending Peer ever said that to the noble and learned Viscount? I feel that when this letter is sent out and received (and may I say here that I have considerable sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston said this afternoon?) there will be many Peers who will not greatly appreciate receiving that letter, asking them whether or not they intend to do their duty, especially when they have been doing their duty to the best of their abilities. I feel that non-attending Peers might well either not reply to that letter or reply to say that they do not want leave of absence. Because, as a matter of human nature, people are reluctant to surrender a right, even if they are not in the habit of exercising that right.
Another point occurred to me during the debate. Paragraph (1) of the Standing Order speaks of leave of absence "which the House may grant at pleasure." I take it from that that what the House "may grant at pleasure" it 959 may rescind at pleasure. The House may, decide that for a time the Standing Order is not in force. Suppose, looking into the future, we get a Bill which does not commend itself to the Conservative Party—for example, a Bill for the re-nationalisation of steel. Is the Standing Order then going to be rescinded—because what the Government give the Government can take away—in order to suit Party convenience of that sort?
If we want Peers to attend the House, why put any obstacle of any sort whatsoever in the way of attending? As a result of passing this Standing Order, what difference is there going to be in the appearance of the House, in the attendance at the House or in the working of the House? Precisely in what way will the Standing Order affect attendance or the performance of duties in the House? I am sure that many of my noble friends would be grateful if we could have a clear and precise answer to these questions, more especially to the main question—namely, what object have the Government in mind in putting forward this Standing Order?
§ 8.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREMy Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for giving me the privilege of making a pocket edition of a maiden speech, but perhaps it is a good moment for me to say something, as I should like to say a few words in direct answer to some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said. I came here with a beautifully prepared maiden speech, but having heard the debate, I think that it would be quite inappropriate for me to deliver it. I have to make up another one.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, said he wondered whether any noble Lord felt guilty about not attending. I confess that, since I read the debates last year, I have had a feeling of guilt. I did not have one before because I did not know that I had a real obligation to attend. I did not read the Writ with the care with which evidently a great many noble Lords read theirs. But since then I have had a certain feeling of guilt, and I think it is right that those, like myself, who do not attend should be told either to take leave of absence or to come to the House. I do not see how this applies 960 from the legal side, but the fact that the House voted in favour of this principle is quite enough for me. In spite of the fact that noble Lords may be reluctant to attend, I hope that they will feel, as I do, that they should either come more often or accept leave of absence. I have made up my mind to come more often. I was cheered in that decision by the comments of my noble friend Lord De L'Isle and the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that if a Peer managed to come two or three times a year, he would "make the grade". That is what I should like to try to do.
I feel that the way this Standing Order is drawn is extraordinarily fair, because it indicates to those who cannot come often—and I am one of those who cannot possibly attend regularly, unless your Lordships' House is moved to the plains of Tipperary—that they should come when they reasonably can. That puts it straight into the court of the individual Peer. I feel, and I think that probably other noble Lords will feel, that this puts them on their honour either to come to the House or to apply for leave of absence to try to make the scheme work. It may be that, from the legal point of view, this scheme seems, to use a slang phrase, singularly "half-baked"; but from the practical point of view I think it will work, and I would advise the House to give it a trial.
§ 8.9 p.m.
LORD LLOYDMy Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord on his first speech in your Lordships' House? When he says that it would be difficult to move your Lordships' House to Tipperary, I hope that the noble Lord will frequently move himself from Tipperary to here so that we may hear him speak more often. I think that what he said was both wise and sensible.
If I may turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said, mine was one of the strange faces he saw in the Lobby. He has not seen me in that Lobby for eleven years, and he is not likely to see me in that Lobby again for the next eleven years. I should like to say a word about the reason I was there, and also about why I propose to vote in favour of the Standing Order. I am one of those who believe in this House and would like to see its influence and power increased. I do not normally vote with noble Lords 961 opposite because I think they want exactly the opposite, and therefore I hesitate to accept with any great confidence their assurances as to the welfare of this House. I believe that if the power of this House is going to be increased we have to get rid of the greatest stone thrown against us, which is this miserable business of the "backwoodsmen" Peers. I am a far more radical reformer than many of your Lordships, and I should like to see the House with a number of hereditary Peers and a similar number of Life Peers. The Government would not go to that extreme. I am sorry that they did not; and, if I may say with all humility, I think that, by not doing so, they may have landed themselves in some of the legal difficulties which induced me to vote against them on the last Amendment, because I felt that legally the position was impossible.
The reason I wish to say what I am going to say is this. I voted for this scheme originally, and that is why I shall vote for this Resolution. Whilst I do not think it goes far enough, I believe that it is on the right lines. Although personally that particular bit of the Resolution seemed to me not entirely to make sense, what is trying to be done is absolutely right. What we are trying to do is to enhance the reputation of this House in the future, and therefore its influence, which believe to be one of the best things in the Constitution of this country. Therefore, although, for the first time in my political life, I voted on the last Amendment against my own Party, I propose to vote for the Resolution, and I do not regard my action as inconsistent.
§ 8.12 p.m.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONMy Lords, I think I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said: that the most cheerful thing about to-day's debate has been the appearance of the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, to grace it, and I hope that he will come here often. This debate has taken a long and somewhat curious course, and I cannot help thinking that at the end of this day nobody is very happy about it. I think that at this time, of all times, when Parliamentary Government is threatened from many sources, this country has a peculiarly important and historical mission to justify, maintain 962 and present Parliamentary institutions in all their brightness and rightness and glory, and anything which is done which causes people to feel that discreditable arrangements are being made goes right to the root of the survival of Parliamentary Government.
I think that to-day's debate and the whole consideration of this proposal is rather a miserable piece of business. Why have the Government brought it forward? Are they not satisfied with the working of the House of Peers as it is? If they are not, then presumably they do not like the feeling that there is a large number of Members who normally do not come, but who can come if they wish to. That is a charge which has been brought against the House of Lords by many people. To me, it does not seem to do a great deal of harm in the ordinary working of Parliament, but there may be inherent in it a potential menace. If that be the case, surely the proper thing to do is to reform the whole Constitution of the Second House of Parliament; and proposals to that end should have been brought forward in the proper way and legislation presented to both Houses in the constitutional manner for the alteration of the Second House of Parliament.
We have the inestimable advantage that we have no written Constitution, and I beg the Government at this time not to take any steps in the direction of a written Constitution, with all is perils and difficulties. I should hope that before this Standing Order is finally adopted the Government will have second thoughts on the whole problem. I speak for myself, perhaps, when I say that I do not think the hereditary principle in some form in the Second Chamber is inconsistent with a good Parliamentary system. I think that in some ways it is fine, and that the Government should devote themselves to finding a way in which the Virtues inherent in that part of our system can be blended into a modern Parliamentary democracy. But they have chosen to try to avoid that issue; and by a peculiar and, I think, slightly discreditable attempt to amend the Constitution by way of Standing Orders of this House, they not only have really forfeited an opportunity, but have declined a duty which I think history has put upon them. I sincerely hope that the House, upon reflection, will not approve of this Standing Order.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ LORD BROCKETMy Lords, I wish to make only two or three remarks. Rather like my noble friend Lord Lloyd, I am not in the habit of voting against my own Party, but on this issue I have always voted against my Party whenever I have had the opportunity. I have found only one really convincing argument in favour of these Standing Orders, and that is that the threat of a Writ has brought the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, from County Tipperary to your Lordships' House. I do not intend to go into the arguments, but I may say that I am unconvinced by the speeches from this side of the House. I should, however, like to make a protest that, if this change is to take place, so few Members of your Lordships' House are present. In the last Division sixty-seven Peers voted. The Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, was defeated by a majority of only sixteen. I feel that on such an important matter, with such a small proportion of less than one-twelfth of the total Members of your Lordships' House taking part in the final stages of passing this Standing Order, it would have been much better to accept the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and adjourn.
§ 8.18 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, this debate, if it has done nothing else, has proved the case that we have tried to make. Look at the history of this affair. How does it arise? It arises because about two years ago there was a great deal of public comment on the absenteeism from this House, and it was doing harm to the reputation of the House. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, then came forward with a perfectly logical scheme. I think it was his idea that a college of Peers should elect other Peers; in any case, it did preserve the hereditary principle. But it was rejected. Why was it rejected? Not primarily because of us. It was rejected because the Conservative Party will not give up the privileges of the succession. Therefore the Government thought up this extraordinary scheme, produced by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, by which there was going to be a letter sent round which would shame Peers into coming here—that is really what it amounts to. There was a great deal of humbug in 964 the whole thing. We do not force them; there is not any obligation; yet somehow, if they do not come—of course, if they do not come the whole scheme is defeated—they are under some sort of slur. That is the plan, and that is why I object to it.
I should never follow the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, into the Lobby on his constitutional view that the Writ of Summons can in the present circumstances be the proper basis for a Second Chamber. But I do follow him in his view that to attempt to substitute for the Writ of Summons this ramshackle scheme, by which you send a Peer a letter, and another letter, or write his name in a book, and when you have done so he has a perfect right, so we are told late in the debate, to turn up and vote, is quite wrong. That is where we are. And this is an effort to cure absenteeism in the House of Lords!
The House of Lords at the present moment, omitting the Peers of Royal blood, consists of 2 Archbishops, 21 Dukes, 27 Marquesses, 132 Earls, 108 Viscounts, 24 Bishops and 535 Barons. That is a grand total of 749 persons. This change, which we are warned by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, has constitutional implications, is carried by 52 votes in a House of 749 members. If ever there was a thing that could expose the weakness of the House, that people will not come under this system, it would be this vote tonight.
Then we had from the Liberal Benches something which gave me a terrific shock, from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. He said you must not consider leave of absence as a bar to attendance, because there may come a time when there is an economic crisis, and then you will want all the Peers here. That is the time when all the Peers come here. If you get an "economic crisis"—by which, of course, is always meant the advent of a Labour Government—I do not want the Peers here. Therefore the weakness of this scheme is that it does not give a presentable House, although a distinguished assembly is present now. It does not give a House of numerical strength, but it does preserve the right of a body of Peers to come at the right moment and prevent the electors from having their way. I do not know whether my noble Leader intends to have a vote. We have 965 had a lot of voting tonight, in very peculiar company.
§ 8.23 p.m.
§ LORD MILVERTONMy Lords, as I have sat here as a humble Back-Bencher of average intelligence for the last four hours, listening to speeches, perhaps I may be permitted to waste two or three minutes of your Lordships' time in following the prevalent fashion and summing up my impressions of the debate. I started this afternoon perfectly clear in my mind as to what these Standing Orders meant, and in spite of listening to every speech my mind is still clear on the subject. Perhaps that is a severe handicap. As a Back-Bencher, I have other things to do. I protest at having to listen again and again to the same request for an explanation. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, has now once more asked the noble Earl the Leader of the House to give a clear explanation of what they are trying to do. I have heard the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, give him that answer at least twice this afternoon, and nobody takes the faintest notice.
§ LORD WINSTERWould it be asking too much of the noble Lord's kindness to ask him if he would repeat what the object is?
§ LORD MILVERTONI would never dream of attempting, even at this late hour and under the confusion of mind induced by this debate, to try to usurp the privilege of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, whose patience is still apparently unexhausted; I have no doubt he will make a last forlorn attempt to get noble Lords opposite to understand what he has been saying all the afternoon. I knew quite well when I came here that if I had asked for leave for three months and some special occasion had occurred, or if I had suddenly come back from where I went, I would have no doubt of my right to come to this House. I would get up, just as I would if I had a financial interest in some subject of debate; I would declare that financial interest, or in the same way, why I had come although I was supposed to be on leave, and ask for the indulgence of the House; and I have no doubt it would be given. So we have wasted about three hours on that subject.
Now the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, says the number here now is a proof of the fact that this subject has 966 not been sufficiently debated. It is proof of the fact that Members of this House are sick and tired of it. We have had this subject again and again and again. I can only say that it will be a merciful thing if we can finish with it tonight. The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, has told us that this is an attempt to streamline, or whatever you like to call it, the procedure of the House and it does not alter the Constitution in any conceivable way. Why not try it, as he said? And if it does not work satisfactorily it will be open to noble Lords opposite or any other noble Lords to suggest Amendments.
§ 8.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOMEI think the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has really saved me the necessity of making a third despairing attempt to get understanding, but I will do my best in two minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, said that our procedure has been unorthodox. If he can think of anything more orthodox than the Reports of two Committees followed by three debates, I should like to know what it is. He seemed to suggest that there might be something discreditable about it on the grounds that if we wanted to do anything we ought to have gone for total reform of the House of Lords. We are willing to do so. I noticed some words of his which I took down, but I will study them tomorrow with greater attention and perhaps approach the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, seemed to hint that he would be content to see the hereditary clement blended into the House.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONThe noble Earl will remember that I said I was speaking for myself.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThe plan of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was rejected by his Party.
THE EARL OF HOMEIf enough people speak for themselves on the Front Bench that may make it official. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, we hope this Standing Order may help in two ways: first, in regard to the 300 Peers who have never taken the Oath and the 100 who have taken the Oath and never done anything else. That is one negative advantage. The other is that it will encourage people like the noble Earl, 967 Lord Donoughmore, to take their duties more seriously. It is "a long way to Tipperary", but it is one of those odd mathematical things that it is not so far from Tipperary when you come here. It will be very nice to know that every hereditary Peer so stimulated will receive the warmest welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Winster. I repeat what I said, that I think the House would be well advised to try this Standing Order.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
THE EARL OF HOMEI beg to move the second Resolution which stands in my name on the Order Paper and which deals with the letters which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will send out and which he has said he will report to the House.
Moved, That, for the purpose of giving effect to the above Standing Order during the present Parliament, the Lord Chancellor shall forthwith send a copy of the Standing Order to every Lord to whom he has issued a Writ of Summons to this Parliament and who has not during this session attended a sitting of the House (except for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance) or a sitting of a Committee of the House, and shall request every such Lord to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence for the next session of this Parliament or for the remainder of this Parliament or whether he does not wish so to apply. If a Lord fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being required to do so, he may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of this Parliament.—(The Earl of Home.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
THE EARL OF HOMEThe next deals with the Committee. I think it will be necessary to have a Committee of Members of all Parties, because we cannot foresee how this Standing Order will work out and what difficulties will arise. Therefore, I suggest that the appropriate form of Committee is one we have used before—that is, the three Whips of the Parties—and I shall in due course, after consideration, propose a name in place of the late noble Earl, Lord Fortescue. I hope the House will think it suitable to have a Committee in being to which we can refer various questions as they arise 968 as we experience the working of the Standing Order.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—
§ E. Lucan
§ L. Amulree.
§ —(The Earl of Home.)
§
VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, as an Amendment to the Motion, after "absence" to insert:
and shall report to the House fully as to its proceedings and in particular, following ancient precedent, the reason advanced for absence".
The noble Viscount said: What the noble Earl proposes seems a reasonable piece of machinery. What interests noble Lords more is what they are going to learn from the Committee. It was rather alarming to-day when the Lord Chancellor told us that he would not tell us the terms of a perfectly simple letter that he is going to write. He said that it was private between him and the Committee, and that until the Committee had seen it he could not let us have it. Are they going to work in secret? Are we not going to know? I do not know, but I understand that there is to be appended to the Minutes of Proceedings a list of Members who have leave of absence. Is there to be another list of Members who do not attend and have no leave of absence? Are we to have any record at all of what replies the Lord Chancellor receives? These are important questions.
§ Although I may be quite wrong, it is possible that this new arrangement may be challenged. To give an example, I myself have from time to time felt most incensed at articles in the newspapers. There are at least two Members of this House who received their Peerages originally because of their services to the Press. Clearly their duty under the Writ is to come here and expound and defend their policy. But that is not what they do. They hire a journalist to write an article and put it about and they have no responsibility for it; and they can apply for leave of absence here. Supposing. as I have often thought of doing, a Motion were put on the Order Paper requiring the presence of Lord So-and-So to explain this or that because he was a Press Lord, 969 what would be the position then? What would the Committee do? Of course, it may be said that we never have defiance. That may be so—I do not know. It is not sufficient to say "We will appoint the three Whips" and for the Lord Chancollor to say "We cannot tell you what we are doing: we will tell you later on." We want a proper report. I hope the noble Earl will accept it as a practice of the House that Members may address questions to the Chairman of the Select Committee.
§
Amendment moved—
After ("absence") insert the said words.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
§ 8.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I do not know whether the noble Viscount was speaking to his Amendment, but I think we may take it that he was. If he wishes to have a report, or that the Committee should make a Report to the House, I should be agreeable. I think perhaps to put in the word "fully" is rather superfluous. I do not know what sort of language the Whips use when they talk to each other: we probably do not want a whole record of their conversation. But if the noble Viscount will move his Amendment so that it reads "and shall report to the House from time to time" I shall be perfectly agreeable to accepting that.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. Can the noble Earl tell us whether it would be in order to put down a Parliamentary Question to the Chairman? If so then I shall be perfectly satisfied.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEYes, certainly. I thought we should get some of the robust quality of Lord Eldon into the present occupant of the Woolsack, but that is impossible.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved—
Line 2, after ("absence") to insert ("and shall report to the House from time to time").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORAs I understand the position, the noble Earl, Lord Home, has moved the Resolution and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has moved his Amendment, which is now 970 amended by the omission of the word "fully". Did the noble Earl make any other suggestion?
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThis is an interrogation, not a speech. Did the noble Earl tell me that it has been possible in the past to address a Parliamentary Question to the Chairman of a Committee of this kind?
THE EARL OF HOMEThis will be subject to the same rules as apply to all Committees of the House. There are appropriate opportunities for interrogation. Certainly I think it will be perfectly proper through some channel, whatever the appropriate channel is, to question them.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEIn that case, I am deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Home; and if the Lord Chancellor knows what the Amendment is I am prepared to accept it.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe Lord Chancellor understands that the Amendment was to add to the Motion, after the word "absence":
and shall report to the House from time to time".The Question I have to put now is that the Motion, as amended, be agreed to.
§ On Question, Whether the Motion, as amended, shall be agreed to?
§ LORD LATHAMMy Lords, I judge from a statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Home, on April 24, that one of the questions for this Committee will be the facilities to be given within these buildings to Peers who have been granted leave of absence. In those circumstances, I should hope that the noble Earl may answer the following three questions, of which I have given him private notice. The first is: Is it proposed to withdraw from Peers who are granted leave of absence certain facilities in these buildings now available to all Peers? If so, what are the buildings or parts thereof, and do they include the Library, the Dining Room and the Guest Room? Is it proposed to restrict the privileges now enjoyed by the wife of a Peer who has been granted leave of absence? If so, which and how?
THE EARL OF HOMEIs that all? The noble Lord took me by surprise. The Merthyr Committee proposed that noble Lords who had obtained leave of absence should retain the right to use the facilities of the building, and also that there should be no restriction placed on their wives, as the privilege is one which they enjoy. It is possible that some questions other than those which the noble Lord has asked might arise, and I think that they will be appropriately dealt with by the Committee I have proposed.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, will an absentee Lord and his wife be allowed to come to the Opening of Parliament?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I think that is just the sort of question which might well be referred to the Committee. But I think it was felt that people who attend the House—I rather think that Lord Silkin thought this—might have some kind of precedence and priority. However, I think that is a question for the Committee to advise on.
§ On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.