HL Deb 20 June 1963 vol 250 cc1371-81

3.8 p.m.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of the House to make a personal statement?

Last Thursday, in the course of a television interview, I stated that a Party Whip was not a direction as to how to vote, but a summons to attend. I have been a Member of one House of Parliament or another now for 25 years and this has not only been my own understanding of the position but has accorded with my actual practice. A direction how to vote would be, I conceive, a direct contempt of either House, and certainly the Party I belong to has always taken that view. Monday's vote in another place confirmed my opinion since it is reported in the Press that a number of my own Party who attended did not vote. However that may be, I am not concerned to justify my opinion as correct so much as to vindicate it as sincere.

I have always understood that it was the accepted practice in each House, as a matter of reciprocal comity, to accord to the Members of another place the same protection from abuse, un-Parliamentary expressions and imputations of motive as they accorded to their own Members. May I say I regard this as a right and proper practice? But its value and validity depend largely upon its reciprocity.

I noticed therefore with distress in the reports of the debate in another place on Monday that it appeared that an individual Member of the Commons House was reported as describing myself in terms which, if they had been used in relation to a Member of that House, would, I think, without doubt, have been considered a gross breach of Parliamentary order, and that he said that he proposed to make use of these words whether they were in order or not. This particular phrase was merely the culmination of a sustained personal attack in which several similar phrases were used, and the phrase together with other and even more offensive matter was again employed by another Member later in the debate. It will be noticed that these attacks were not attacks upon my broadcast, but upon me personally. To use of a man the language applied to me is not to attack a particular utterance, but an attack upon the man himself in all his capacities, and to traduce his personal integrity in all of them, as a man, a Minister, or a Member of Parliament.

My Lords, I would not complain only for myself, although I frankly resent this unjustifiable attack, but I consider that the implications to the comity of both Houses of Parliament are so serious that I feel I must draw it to the attention of your Lordships. Accordingly I have thought it was my duty to make this protest to your Lordships against a breach of what I have always felt to be a long-standing Parliamentary tradition.

My Lords, I would be the last to seek to do anything which might impair the relationship between the two Houses. Despite my own feelings in the matter, therefore, I do not propose to take it further. I think, however, that your Lordships would consider it in this House proper to intervene if such an expression were used here in relation to a Member of another place.

3.10 p.m.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I want to say in the first place, as we are dealing with the Rules of debate and Rules of Order, that it might have been quite within my competence at the outset to have quoted the Rules of Order of this House, because under paragraph 2 of the Rules of Order in debate it is not in order to quote from the speech of an honourable Member in another place in the same session.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

He did not.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I did not interrupt the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House when he was making his statement, and perhaps I might have the same courtesy. However, his statement was made by courtesy of the House, and we felt in all the circumstances that we should have no objection to his making it. But, with regard to the Rules of Order, I do not think that this should be regarded as a precedent.

In the second place, as was indicated at the outset of the noble and learned Viscount's statement, this matter arose from criticisms which were concerned with a broadcast last Thursday in which the noble and learned Viscount was associated. This afternoon he has stated his position, reiterating the view he expressed and which was complained of, saying that this was his sincere view. When he says that to the House of Lords we accept it. But that does not mean that there are not many views other than his. The fact is that some of us on these Benches have even longer Parliamentary experience than the noble and learned Viscount has. Moreover, we have made a study of past usage over a long period, and I myself would say that, while it would probably be easy to give a ruling that it would be a breach of privilege for Members of Parliament to be summoned on a three-line Whip as if it were an order to vote—directed to vote, I think was the term used by the noble Viscount—nevertheless, a breach of the desires of a Government in relation to a three-line Whip sometimes leads to strange circumstances and happenings. They work out in different ways perhaps.

We noticed that last Monday in the important debate in another place there were 27 abstentions, and from one point of view that supports the noble and learned Viscount's view. But none of the 27 voted against. Evidently a three-line Whip had some effect in that direction. And there is always the system of Whips of areas and places within the general direction of a Chief Whip, in which inquiries are made as to why a vote is not given on a three-line Whip; and if there were repetition of some of these circumstances no doubt any Party in the representative House would say, "We shall have to report the facts to your constituency Party". In fact they are carrying out the kind of thing which was indicated years ago in one of his novels by the famous Conservative leader Disraeli, when he made one of his characters ask the question, "An Independent? What is an Independent? An Independent is one upon whom no dependence can be placed". That is very often the manner in which action has to be taken by Parties for discipline. I am not going to say it is only one, or some other, Party in the State that knows how to exercise discipline over its members; I would say the practice is quite common.

The other point I have to make is this. We on these Benches are concerned above everything else that good relations should be maintained between the two Houses. That is what is fundamental. That is why I raised the first point. The statement that was made by the noble and learned Viscount in the broadcast was made outside the House; but the other statement complained of was made inside another place; and even in the very last sentence the noble and learned Viscount used, when he said what would have been our action, there was an implication against the manner in which the Rules of Order were conducted in another place. It is a very serious position for us to be in. I regret, therefore, that perhaps some other means could not have been obtained by the noble and learned Viscount, as Leader of the House, in maintaining the good relations between the two Houses. I wish some other means had been found to make his views known, and perhaps, with their permission, those of many of his colleagues, to make a repetition of the kind of thing that he complains of not likely to happen.

I do not wish to say any more. This is the first time I have said a word in public since the matter about which it all arose and which is still the subject of legal inquiries has been under discussion. I think some things have been said that might well have been left unsaid. Some things perhaps have not yet been said which ought to be said, but from my point of view I do not wish, and I am sure my colleagues do not wish, this to become a continuing battledore and shuttlecock affair. We must get it cleared up. I hope we shall all do our best to see that the proper thing, and only the proper thing, is done.

3.16 p.m.

LORD REA

My Lords, I think your Lordships will all have heard with interest and sympathy, and without surprise, the statement the noble and learned Viscount has made in respect of his own position. It seems to me that the matter on which he touched divides itself quite distinctly into two separate parts. In the first place he wished to explain his views on the meaning and import of the three-line Whip. He had given those views on television. Those views have not been queried or debated or discussed in your Lordships' House, and, with great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, I am not quite sure whom he is answering when he addresses your Lordships in reply to an unexpressed criticism of his views.

The second point concerns the behaviour of the two Houses and their relationship to each other. There is no actual written law, but we can call Erskine May a very sound and useful guidance to both Houses about their relations to each other. I am quite sure that if in this House those guidances for good behaviour were ignored by any Member of this House, the matter would be taken up in this House, and, no doubt, under the leadership of the noble and learned Viscount. It is only convention. If something should go wrong, or appear to go wrong, or be said to have gone wrong, in another place, it does not seem to me quite appropriate that we in this House should draw attention to this matter. We should let it go. I am not convinced that we have advanced further in this small debate, but I hope that the matter may now be dropped.

3.18 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, may I say, first of all, that I entirely agree with what my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has said. If I rise now to make some short observations, it is really on the point raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party; namely, the question of precedent, which I think is a little dangerous from the point of view of good relationships between the two Houses. It must be remembered that the argument started consequentially on the television broadcast given by the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House. I saw it, so I know about it. But then the comment which was made in another place was made by a private Member, and the question now arises whether somebody in this House, even the Leader of the House, should publicly comment here in this House on the observations made in the other House of Parliament. And I think that is rather doubtful, especially as the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has thereby set a precedent.

I remember that a few weeks ago a noble Lord opposite was about to quote a speech made by a private Member in another place. I lifted my eyebrows, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was also quick, and promptly rose and advised the noble Lord not to pursue that, because it was not in accordance with practice—and I thought he was right. So the doctrine is established. Moreover, it will be necessary for me to quote a certain number of things—they will not take a long time, but it is important that they should be quoted for the purposes of the Record. Let me say right away that one or two of the quotations may, on the face of them be helpful to the Leader of the House rather than to the argument that I am putting basically before noble Lords.

On June 18 of this year the Lord Chancellor said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 250, (No. 95); col. 1177]: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make the following statement. My noble friend Lord Hailsham was referred to in the House of Commons yesterday and had wished to make a statement on that to-day. Unfortunately, he has had to go into hospital for some treatment; but he has asked me to say that he will make a statement at the earliest possible moment. It would have been possible for us to raise the question of Order at that time, but as the noble Viscount was going to hospital for minor treatment it was thought better to wait until he was here. Now I come to the series of quotations, which are fairly short—I am sorry that they are so long and as numerous as they are, but it is important to get all this on the Record, because here is the way in which history is made on these matters of procedure.

It is perfectly true that there is no Standing Order about it, but, as I shall show, there is well established practice. Erskine May is accepted by all of us as a high authority that cannot be questioned on these matters of Parliamentary procedure. It is, I suppose, the nearest thing we have to a written Constitution, if I may put it that way. Dealing with personal statements, Erskine May says, at page 343: A personal statement may be made by the leave of the House, which is granted as a matter of courtesy, and may give rise to a debate. Such statements may be explanatory of passages in a previous speech which have given rise to misconception, or may be in justification of conduct which has been criticised or, if made by a Minister who has resigned his office, may be a means of enabling him to set forth the motives which prompted his resignation. At page 458 Erskine May says: The same right to claim courteous treatment in debate is due alike between both Houses of Parliament; and abusive language, and imputations of falsehood, uttered by members of the House of Commons against members of the House of Lords have been met by the immediate intervention of the Chair to compel the withdrawal of the offensive words, or in default by the punishment of suspension. Then, at page 454, Erskine May has this to say about allusions between the two Houses to each other: The rule that allusions to debates in the other House of the current Session are out of order "— and that, of course, applies to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has done; because he has referred to a Parliamentary debate, whereas his original observations were on television— prevents fruitless argument's 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 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. Therefore, the rule is clearly established that statements by Ministers in another place may be referred to and quoted here, and statements of Ministers in this place may be referred to and quoted in the House of Commons. But statements of private Members cannot be quoted in either House in the current Session of Parliament.

There is a useful publication in regard to the practice of your Lordships' House entitled The Companion to Standing Orders. It is a valuable book. The existing edition is out of date, but a new one is in course of being printed, which will say, under the heading, "Questions of speeches made in the House of Commons": There is a restriction on the quotation by Lords of speeches made in the House of Commons. The restriction applies only to the current Session, and is as follows:

  1. (a) It is out of order to quote from a speech of a Member of the House of Commons unless it be the speech of a Minister in relation to Government policy;
  2. (b) The content of a speech of 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."
That all applies, I think, to the previous Session; that is my impression: This practice has been established for the purpose of avoiding anything which might bring the two Houses into conflict, and for preventing a debate in the House of Lords becoming a continuation of a debate in the House of Commons. That is a quotation from the Report of the Procedure Committee on July 15, 1959.

There was another fairly modern statement made by the then Leader of the House of Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Home, who is now Foreign Secretary. This was on May 5, 1959, when he was asked by my noble friend Lord Silkin to give some guidance on this particular point. He kindly did so, at some length, but I will quote only part of what he said. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 216, col. 66]: 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. It is said that this is by way of convenience and practice.

I agree that the Leader of the House this afternoon did not refer to anybody by name; but all of us know the names—there were two of them. It is rather evasive to have made the statement he has made, on the assumption that it will be a complete mystery as to which honourable Members of another place made these statements. Therefore, I think it is an evasion of the Rule. What I am concerned about is that, somehow or other, these two Houses of Parliament, which could be persistently quarrelling and having cross-debates with each other continue, as in recent years they have done, to live at peace together. In earlier years it was another matter, especially in the days of the Liberal Government of 1906.

I think it is a matter of national and constitutional importance that the relations between the two Houses should be good. And I come back again to the point that the original statement of the Leader of the House—which he had a perfect right td make—was on television; that these other observations, which I personally would not have made, were made in the House of Commons. It seems to me that at that point, in order to keep up tradition, it would have been wise for the Leader of the House not to follow the example of the two honourable Members in another place, but instead—a course in regard to which he would have got, equally effectively the publicity to which he is entitled—he could have issued a Press statement. That would have met the case without breaking the traditions of the two Houses in this respect, which I think it is a pity the Leader of the House of Lords should do. For those reasons I share entirely the views that have been expressed by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough; and I hope that an undesirable precedent will not have been set by what has happened.

3.31 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, perhaps as a former Leader of the House I might say a word or two on the particular point that has been raised by the statement of the Leader of the House. The point arises, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said, from a definition of the purpose and function of a Whip sent out to Members of either House by their Party. The Leader of the House has described it as a summons to attend and not as a direction as to how to vote. Well, I have always understood it to be a summons to attend. Of course, we all know that when the Leader of a Party sends out a summons to attend he hopes very much that those who do attend will support the Government, but it does not always happen. That occurred very often during the period when I was leading the House. I hopefully sent out a Whip, and Members of my Party came down and voted the opposite way, and I had no complaint at all.

I think that it would be a thousand pities if it were allowed to go out from either House of Parliament that a Whip was a direction as to how to vote. The vote under our Parliamentary system is a matter for the conscience of each individual Member of either House. But, in any case, I realise that a different view can be held. Of course different views can be held on all these questions, and I think that the cause for complaint, if there is any, was not as to what was said, but the manner in which the view was expressed—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

—"It wasn't what he says; it was the nasty way he says it". That was the essence of the difficulty in this case.

The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has quoted from Erskine May and other great authorities. I did not find him entirely convincing. It is perfectly true that members of the Government can be quoted verbatim in either House, Ministers in either House can be quoted in the other House, and private Members cannot be quoted. But I have never heard that speeches by private Members cannot be referred to, and I do not believe that to be the case. I think I have often heard it done in this House.

The Leader of the House very carefully did not mention the name of the Member in question, nor did he quote his words, and I am certainly not going to do so myself; but I think there is no doubt that words were probably used which he would not have been allowed to use if he had been referring to a Member of his own House.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If that is true, I do not say that it is constitutionally impossible or anything of that kind, but I think that is a very undesirable precedent. If we once all of us began to use language about Members of another place which we should not be able with any propriety to use of Members in our own House, I think that it would exacerbate the relationship between the two Houses. I do not care if the whole of this thing arises from something that was said originally outside. The point is that something was said in one of the Houses about a Member of the other House which he would not have been allowed to say about a Member of his own House. I think that is a great pity, and I think we should all agree that the less that happens in this respect the better for Parliament.

3.33 p.m.

LORD AILWYN

My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow a humble but very ancient Back-Bencher to register his profound regret and real dismay that certain intemperate and really outrageous remarks by two Members of another place, in virulent criticism of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, were allowed to pass last Monday unchallenged. The grossness of the language used constituted, in my view, a flagrant impropriety, and I can recall no more deplorable episode touching the decencies of relations between the two Houses in all the twenty-seven years that I have been privileged to sit in your Lordships' House.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD BOOTHBY

My Lords, there is one word I should like to say arising out of the speech of the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition. He quoted with apparent approval a particularly ridiculous assertion of Disraeli's that no Member of Parliament could be relied upon who did not take the orders of a Party Whip and acted according to his own convictions. I should like to express my strong dissent from that view, and I think I shall carry the House with me.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am still entitled to my opinion.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I do not propose to reply to the remarks that have been made, except to thank both my noble friend Lord Salisbury for what he said, and my noble friend Lord Ailwyn for what he said. The only precedent, so far as I know, that has been created has been that which was made in another place, and I think it was a bad one. If the noble Lord will look at Hansard of this House for 19th July, 1922, he will find ample precedent for what I did.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

It was a long time ago.