QUOTATIONS FROM COMMONS SPEECHES (Hansard, 5 May 1959)

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

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)
My Lords, there is no Standing Order or written Rule about this matter, though there seems to be a fairly definite practice. The question of quoting speeches made in the House of Commons was debated in this House twenty years ago, on a Motion by the late Lord Cecil of Chelwood. On that occasion the Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, stated as follows: I agree that we had much better leave this matter where it is. By that, I mean that we should be entitled to quote from speeches made in another place when it is necessary for an argument but where there can be no question of acrimony or of somebody in either House having to get up to make a personal explanation. Your Lordships will see that very little limit was put on quoting, but I think that the true practice is rather more restricted than that; and in support of what I believe to be the more exact definition of the practice to-day, I quote again, from a letter, which is on record, that was sent by the late Lord Badeley to the late Lord Salisbury in 1942. This is what Lord Badeley said: The matter is one of custom and not of rule and, no doubt, has its origin in the fact 66 that it is unfair to quote with a view to criticising words of a speaker, who, in his absence, cannot reply. … The custom has always been that while the purport of a speech can be quoted in debate, the actual text should not. The exceptions are: first, that the custom does not apply to what has passed in a former Session, and second, that a statement of a Minister can be quoted verbatim in view of the necessity of accuracy in quotation. This raises the question of the extent to which the speech of a Minister, as apart from an actual statement of policy, may be quoted. This can, I think, be judged only on the individual occasion, as in some cases the speech may amount to a Government statement and on other occasions be simply a debating speech which should not be accepted as an announcement of policy. Perhaps, if the House agrees, I might summarise the present practice as follows. The limit on quoting applies only to the current Session, and, as to this, it is out of order to quote from a speech of a Member of the House of Commons unless it be a ministerial statement of Government policy; and the content of a speech in the House of Commons may be summarised, but no private Member of the House of Commons may be mentioned by name by way of criticism. This practice has been established for the purpose of avoiding words which might bring the two Houses into conflict and for preventing a debate in the House of Lords from becoming a continuation of a debate in the House of Commons.
Although, as I have said, we have no Rule such as I believe there is in another place on these matters, I have little doubt that our practice arises from the same considerations as have led so the practice elsewhere, and I will, if I may, read from the relevant passage from Erskine May. The heading is "Allusions to Debates in the Other House of the Current Session". And it then says: The rule that allusions to debates in the other House"— that is, this House— of the current session are out of order, prevents fruitless arguments between members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the party assailed: but it is mainly founded upon the understanding that the debates of the other House are not known, and that the House can take no notice of them. The daily publication of debates in Parliament offers a strong temptation to disregard this rule. The 67 same questions are discussed by persons belonging to the same Parties in both Houses, and speeches are constantly referred to by Members, which this rule would exclude from their notice. In view of the fact that the Government often find it convenient for Ministers to make in the House of Lords official statements of their policy, it is now permissible for members to refer to and criticise such Government announcements. My Lords, I do not suggest that this statement I have made in answer to the noble Lord's Question is the final word on the matter, and I think that in an appropriate way we might consider it together, and, in particular, try to put something in a permanent form into our Standing Orders or into the Companion to Standing Orders. But this Answer to the Question to-day will, I hope, enable noble Lords to understand the precedents and the reason for the practice which we have adopted in this House.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I should like to thank sincerely the noble Earl the Leader of the House for the trouble he has taken in providing this Answer. I hope he will agree that some of the controversy we have had recently as to what is in order and what is not in quoting from another place was rather unseemly, and that it is desirable that we should clear this matter once and for all, so that there can be no doubt as to what we are entitled to do and what we are not. Perhaps, therefore, I can put this in the form of an interrogatory: Does he not agree that the proposal he makes of having an opportunity of looking at this matter, and possibly agreeing something, and then having it put in some permanent form, is the best way of dealing with the matter?

LORD SALTOUN
My Lords, before my noble friend the Leader of the House answers, may I, first of all, thank him for so clearly stating what I believe to be our custom, and, secondly, ask him whether the statement should not be expanded in one particular. We quote from statements of policy made by Ministers in another place; but I think we are also allowed to quote statements of fact by Ministers in another place. I 68 remember on one occasion that the Minister in another place made a statement of fact which I had occasion strongly to traverse in connection with a Bill. If a Minister in this House had not made that same statement of fact it would be very difficult to deal adequately with the subject.

LORD REA
My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and express our gratitude to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. What it comes to is that we are very much back where we were, so that the whole affair becomes a matter of custom and courtesy rather than a Standing Order. I think your Lordships will agree with me that we are very jealous of the rather loose way in which the proceedings of this House are held and the fact that we are not bound by rigid Orders. I hope the fact that this matter has been ventilated will help us to revert to the old custom of courtesy, and not rule.

THE EARL OF HOME
My Lords, of course we have in this House the Procedure Committee, and I should think that that would be the right body to have a look at this problem. It is a matter for the House. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, as I think the House has, because we work by custom and do not want anything too rigid. Nevertheless, this question of quotation from speeches from another place is apt to get us into trouble on all sides of the House, and therefore a little more definition might be to our advantage, particularly on the point which my noble friend Lord Saltoun has mentioned as to how far we may quote matters raised in speeches by Ministers in another place as opposed to statements of Government policy. I should think that if we consider this together we can find a reasonable solution to this problem and attach it in some permanent way to our Standing Orders or to the Companion to them.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, I should be very happy if the noble Earl the Leader of the House, after all the care he has taken, would agree to refer it to the Procedure Committee.