HL Deb 27 February 1964 vol 255 cc1224-33

3.17 p.m.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I beg to ask the Leader of the House the Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely, whether after the statement which is being made this afternoon, I believe, on behalf of the Prime Minister about the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Foreign Office, another statement will be made—or a copy given us—repeating that to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place to-day?

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON)

My Lords, I am always, as I think the noble Earl knows, most anxious to help the Opposition in any way I can, but I think that on this occasion I should find myself in a difficulty if I acceded to his request to repeat the statement. It would be against any precedent in this House that a financial statement or a statement on the bank rate should be repeated in your Lordships' House. But I will, of course, arrange for the statement to be available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, may I say that I do not know of any precedent that I am breaking in asking this Question. Often matters relating to the bank rate are not the subject of a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. It all depends upon the time and the reason for a statement, as to whether it is of special interest to your Lordships as well as to the Commons. This is not a question of financial control, of taxation, of a subject which is confined to the House of Commons; this is something which is bound in all the circumstances to affect the general national economic position; and if I were to accept a ruling now on this so-called precedent from the Leader of the House it would mean that your Lordships may well in the future find it being argued that you cannot raise economic questions in this House.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, with great respect, I think that the noble Earl is wrong. In the short time that I have had to look up this matter I have discovered a statement that he himself made on this subject in 1961. It is in column 911 of Volume 233 of Hansard. There first of all he asks the Leader of the House, who was then Lord Hailsham: Might I just ask the noble Viscount … whether he has noted the position which arises to-day in the House with regard to the financial statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I would point out that to-day this is not a financial statement; this is a statement pure and simple on bank rate; but still, even assuming it were a financial statement, he goes on to say: In accordance with such matters as a main Budget or extra Budget we do not have the statement repeated here, but for ordinary Budgets we have a full statement in the Printed Paper Office. I do not know whether that is possible on this occasion, but I should like to know whether the Leader of the House has been able to make any arrangements by which Members of this House can have the earliest possible accurate information. It seems to me that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion recognised that there were precedents against repeating statements.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

That was entirely a financial statement. This is not going to be a general financial statement involving the taxation of the community by the other place which is responsible. This is a question on which, in the current political circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is choosing to make a statement at the time of raising bank rate in order to explain why he is doing it. I think, therefore, it is as important for the statement to be made in this House as to be made in the other place.

LORD CARRINGTON

This really is not so. On other occasions when statements on raising the bank rate have been made in another place they have never been repeated here. As Leader of the House I am, in a sense, the guardian of the Rules of Order of the House, subject, of course, to what your Lordships say, and I do not think that it would be right for me, just because the noble Earl today asks for this statement, to ignore all the precedents.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House say that on every occasion on which there is a change in bank rate a statement is made in the other place?

LORD CARRINGTON

No; sometimes there is and sometimes there is not. But on no occasion has it been repeated in this House.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I am relatively a new Member of the House, and therefore I intervene with all due modesty.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Why noble Lords opposite should not accept my assertion of modesty, I do not know. I cannot follow from what the Leader of the House has been good enough to say why we should not have a repetition of the statement on this matter. It does not seem to me that there is anything sufficiently sacred or involving the special rights of the House of Commons—which rights I would not wish to destroy at all, as the House knows; but I cannot follow the reason why this statement should not be made here. It is not a matter of taxation. It is a matter of announcing a Government decision about something which I do not yet know about, but about which we have heard. I should like to know from the Leader of the House what are the practical, constitutional, Parliamentary reasons why, after the statement has been made in another place—and I think it is right it should be made first in another place—we should not have it repeated here. I have said, with all due modesty, that I am fairly new to this House; if I may also say so, without any snobbishness or superiority, the present Leader of the House is new to his job as Leader of the House, and therefore I am sure he will not be less modest than I am about these matters.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, that would be impossible. I should like courteously to remind the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that although I may be new as Leader of the House I have been a Member of this House for eighteen years, and on none of the occasions when there has been a financial statement in the Commons has it ever been repeated here—or a statement on bank rate. That seems to me, as a new Leader of the House, to be a very powerful argument for me not to depart from that precedent.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

With great respect to the noble Lord, I follow his argument that it has not been done. If he says it has not been done, then I take his word for it. But I still want to know why it cannot be done. What Parliamentary or constitutional reasons of substance are there why this House should not be informed, after a statement has been made in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially on a matter of this kind which does not go to the roots of taxation? It really is not enough for the noble Lord to say that something has never been done. Good God! there are a lot of things the Conservative Party has never done before that it is beginning to do now. Therefore, I ask him to tell us, what are the constitutional or Parliamentary practical reasons why the statement should not be repeated here? I see that the former Deputy Leader of the House is coming to the rescue.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, this seems to be rather an odd situation. It seems that, although the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was unaware that the bank rate has been raised—presumably it was announced at 11 o'clock this morning—yet he seems to know about a statement which has not yet been made in another place. I know from all my experience, both of this place and of another place, that on principle the Leader of the House is obviously right; this is the course which has been followed, both by Labour Governments and by Conservative Governments while I have been in this House. Would not the convenient course be to wait and see—as we shall see from Hansard, and on the tape—the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make in another place? Then, if we think the Leader of the House has taken a wrong decision and advised the House wrongly, we shall be able to raise the matter and discuss it, with full knowledge of what the statement is. Otherwise all this "shadowboxing" in the dark appears to me to be irrelevant.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, if I may answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth—and I am very grateful for what my noble friend has said—I do not think there are any constitutional reasons why this statement should not be repeated in this House. The custom probably grew up in order to mark the difference in the powers between the two Houses over financial matters. I imagine that was the reason for this precedent. But I still do not think that, just because the noble Earl has asked whether this statement could be repeated to-day, I should be justified in breaking all the precedents of this House this afternoon. If your Lordships feel that the time has now come to make a change, then it is for your Lordships to decide, provided that there are no constitutional objections. Certainly I should be very happy to have talks with the noble Earl through the usual channels.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord the Leader of the House, whose memory goes back eighteen years, that in the summer of 1947 I, it happens, as one of the Labour Party spokesmen for the Government, made a very long statement on the economic situation in this House, duplicating a statement made by the Prime Minister of the day, Lord Attlee, on the economic situation. The bank rate was not immediately involved, but if the noble Lord is saying that general economic statements (and this statement may well take on that character) are not duplicated in this House, then he is completely mistaken according to the precedents of this House.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Hear, hear!

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, it is all very well for the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition to make a noise, if I may say so, like that. He has given me precisely twenty minutes' warning of the Question he was going to ask. I cannot really be expected to have looked up every single occasion in the last eighteen years when somebody has made a statement on financial matters. If I am wrong, then we must look it up and think again whether I am right. But certainly, in so far as I have been able to discover, it has never happened before. It may very well be that it is a statement by the Prime Minister and therefore different.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I thought that when a noble Lord in this place, or a Member of another place, says, "Hear, hear!" to something, he was not necessarily to be rudely remarked upon as having "made a noise". It is a way of giving a proper indication of what our feelings are. In regard to the position the noble Lord is now putting forward, this is not a financial statement within the constitutional speciality of the House of Commons. This is a statement of wide national importance to the economy and trade of the country; and on that basis we have always had an arrangement, so far as I know, that when we ask for a statement to be repeated in this place we are entitled to have it. On that basis I press my case.

LORD CARRINGTON

I did not in any way wish to be rude to the noble Earl. He was making a proper Parliamentary noise, but it was nevertheless a noise. But it still remains true that on previous occasions, when there has been a statement on the bank rate, it has not been repeated in this House; and I hope that my noble friends behind me will agree with me that it would be improper for me on this occasion to depart from precedent without a great deal of talk.

THE EARL OF SANDWICH

My Lords, is it not deeply interesting the way noble Lords are trying to revise the view of their radical forbears, who saw to it that this House was wholly impotent in matters of finance? And is it not equally interesting to observe the conservatism of my noble friend the Leader of the House?

LORD TAYLOR

Impotent, but not uninformed, my Lords. May we have a ruling on one point? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a statement on something which is not a taxation matter, is it ever repeated in this House?

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I am not the guardian of the Rules of this House. I try to be, and I do what your Lordships would wish me to do. But without looking up the precedents, I really do not know the answer to that question. But I have gone as far as I possibly can. I have looked up the precedents as to whether statements on the bank rate are ever repeated, and they are not.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord, in relation to what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, that to the best of my recollection I do not think I mentioned the bank rate at all. In fact, I did not know anything about it—I still do not know anything about it—because I did not hear the radio or read the evening newspapers. I have been to the lunch of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. But, my Lords, may I, in all seriousness, put this question to the noble Lord? I am quite sure he is acting from sincere and conscientious motives, and I accept the position that, in so far as anybody deals with Rules of Order here, it is the Leader of the House—and that is all. This is a wonderful institution, in that it can get on without a presiding officer, in the old sense of the term.

But may I put it to the noble Lord that up till now we have had from him, and from his noble friend Lord Swinton, for whom I have great respect, nothing but a declaration that this has not been done before. With great respect, in this year of modernisation, in the year 1964, the mere fact that something has not been done before is not a conclusive reason why it should not be done. However, I want to help the noble Lord, because I can see he is in some difficulty, as he has admitted that he cannot come forward with Parliamentary and constitutional reasons. Would it not be a good thing if, let us say at 4 o'clock, approximately, when presumably he will know what has happened in another place, he would be good enough to make another statement as to whether or not he is willing to repeat the statement made in another place? That would give him a chance for consultation. Would that not be wise? Then we might happily be able to reach an agreement about it. I think it would be a great pity if we disagreed on this matter, when we do not know the reasons for disagreeing.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, as an old. Leader of the House, may I make an appeal to noble Lords opposite? It is quite clear from what the Leader of the House has said that this not very large but important constitutional point has not been raised previously. He has had practically no time to consider it. Why not let him consider it? Give him full time to consider it, to look at it. He can make a statement at a later date. If, in the light of those further considerations, he feels that an alteration should be made in the practice of the House, let him say so. But I think that to press him now is hardly courteous, and I appeal to noble Lords not to press the matter to-day.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

At a later time—I do not know whom I am addressing now. But may I put it to the noble Lord that I am not particular about the time. If the Leader of the House wants a longer time, that will be reasonable. I appreciate the motives of the noble Marquess. Make it 5 o'clock if that is preferable. I am speaking in all sincerity, and I am not trying to score any Party point. Make it 5 o'clock, if that is more convenient. Whilst not pretending in any way that the House should have financial power, in the old sense of the term, surely in a matter of this kind, of great economic significance to the whole of industry in this country, it is not unreasonable that the House should know about it and that noble Lords should be able to put some questions if they so desire. If the noble Lord cannot answer them then, we shall understand. But if the noble Lord has reasonable time to make his inquiries and investigations—let us say until 5 o'clock or thereabouts—would it not be better to give general contentment and happiness to the House, rather than that we should part from this matter with a sense of some grievance?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I hope the Leader of the House will stand firm. This is not a question on which there is any great urgency. It will not make a ha'porth of difference to this House whether the statement is made here to-day or at any other time. It is not like a statement on some new and urgent affair which has suddenly developed. I really think it is unreasonable of noble Lords opposite, and I hope the noble Leader will stand firm.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, may I say, first of all, that I am sorry the Leader of the House thinks he had only twenty minutes on this matter. That was certainly much shorter than the warning I gave. But I myself was not informed until 2 o'clock that the statement was to be made. Within a few minutes of that, the usual channels knew about it, and I daresay they lent themselves to research in the meantime in order to supply the Leader of the House with their views upon the matter. I am bound to say that I think it would be unreasonable, in the light of the present political circumstances and what has been said in public on sound radio and television upon certain issues, if a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place on the bank rate, affecting these very issues were not to be repeated to your Lordships this afternoon.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, may I just answer, as a lot has been going on since I was first asked this Question? Perhaps I may just say one word. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Salisbury for what he said. I do not wish in any way to be unreasonable to noble Lords opposite, but I really think, as Leader of the House, that I should stand firm on this occasion, and for this reason. The announcement about the increase in the bank rate was made public this morning at 12 o'clock, and all that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing is making a very short statement on this subject, and on this subject alone, in another place at half-past three. At such time as I have had, I have found out that on the previous occasions when there has been a statement on the bank rate in another place it has not been made in your Lordships' House; therefore, the precedent is that it should not be made. If it is your Lordships' wish that that practice should be changed, I am very happy indeed that we should initiate discussions with the usual channels to see whether or not we could change it. But I do not think we ought to do it on the spur of the moment this afternoon.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he can agree to the proposition of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth? I think my memory goes back some way in relation to procedure here. Would he not agree to refer this matter to the appropriate Committee of the House, on which all the Parties are represented—that is, the Committee on the Procedure of the House—where it can be thoroughly examined, with terms of reference such as: economic policy including statements on the bank rate? Because we have made a very clear distinction, with which noble Lords on both sides of the House agree, between narrowly financial and taxation policy, and matters of economic policy. Would the noble Lord be willing to accept this suggestion?

LORD CARRINGTON

Yes, my Lords. I should be very happy to accept that suggestion, and I think that would be an excellent way out of our difficulty.