HL Deb 17 December 1963 vol 254 cc101-2

2.35 p.m.


My Lords, may I ask for your Lordships' indulgence while I make a brief personal statement in correction of the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday? When I rose to intervene in the debate on the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, I had intended to say, and thought I had said: My Lords, this is a situation which has occurred more than once in my experience and the matter has always been held to be settled, the House never going back: but in the case of a genuine misunderstanding of this kind I think the House might agree to go back provided no single noble Lord objects. I have no objection myself. In making this statement, I want to say that I very much regret that I spoke so indistinctly as to make it difficult for what I said to be recorded. I should like also to add that I am not making this statement for my own sake, but because I should not wish your Lordships' House to be misled by me on a point of some importance.


My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will note the statement made by my noble friend Lord Saltoun. I found it rather difficult myself to hear precisely what he said. May I add just this? I am by no means certain that the course I took yesterday was the right course, and I do not think that what happened yesterday should be regarded as in any way a precedent for the future. I took the course I did yesterday, with your Lordships' leave, because there seemed to be to be a genuine misunderstanding or perhaps inaudibility of what I said.


My Lords, may I say that I agree with the general view expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but I think that what was done yesterday in correcting the situation was very acceptable to all Members of the House of Lords present. I should also like to say to Lord Saltoun that, so far as my memory goes, what he said just now was word for word what he said.

Back to