Lords Sitting of 13 July 1965

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester

FOREIGN COUPLES AS DOMESTIC HELPS
2.35 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that foreign couples are not allowed to work as domestic helps in this country if they have a child, even if the latter does not accompany them; and whether, given the present great scarcity of good domestic help and the consequent desirability in the national interest of encouraging it as much as possible, they will at least permit such couples to work here, provided prima facie evidence is supplied, by a reputable agency or otherwise, that satisfactory arrangements have been made to maintain such a child or children in the couple's country of origin.]
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, permits are not issued for foreign married couples to be employed in domestic work if they have a dependent child even if the child does not accompany them. This rule was introduced as a result of the difficulties of obtaining fresh employment and accommodation which arose when, not infrequently, the employment terminated for one reason or another. The rule has been reviewed on a number of occasions since its inception over ten years ago and we do not propose to make any changes. Past experience has shown that, despite assurances to the contrary, arrangements made for the care of such children in the country of origin frequently broke down and requests were made for the child to join the parents.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I quite see that there is a case, indeed a strong case, for refusing to allow foreign couples seeking domestic employment here to come in accompanied by a child, but I really cannot see—
NOBLE LORDS: Ask a question.
LORD GLADWYN: I beg your Lordships' pardon. Would the Government say what is their real reason for preventing these couples from coming in if they have a child at home—I repeat, their real reason? Is it the attitude of the Government that this is simply altruism on their part and concern for the welfare of these couples and a desire not to break up their families? If not, why should it not be left to the discretion of the couples whether they leave their child at home; for a period during which they would probably get enough money to provide for its education?
LORD SORENSEN: It is for a variety of reasons, but obviously this has some relevance to the very vexed and serious question of immigration; apart from which, it has been found from actual experience that many difficulties arise. The fact that this restriction was first imposed in 1953 indicates that even at that time there were difficulties. Since then consciousness of the difficulties has grown in the light of experience. May I add, further, that even if the employer accepted responsibility for keeping the child in the country of origin, it would hardly be feasible in practice to compel the couple to leave this country if the employment terminated. Fresh employment would be difficult to find because of the presence of the child, and even if it were found it would be extremely difficult to obtain similar assurances from another employer. That is but one aspect. One could develop this matter at greater length. I assure the noble Lord again that, in fact, it is not for any inhumane reason, but out of very dire experience, that it has been decided, in the best interests of all concerned, that this restriction should continue.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it has any connection with the fact that, under the new Finance Bill, tax is levied on the employer's contribution for domestic help?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I should not think so.

CENTRES FOR UNEMPLOYED SCHOOL-LEAVERS
2.37 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would be prepared to contribute a sum not exceeding £1,000 to the cost of running centres, such as the Trafalgar Street one in Newcastle, which provide temporary work for the unemployed school-leavers until they can obtain permanent posts.]
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while I am aware of the good work done at the Trafalgar Street Centre, there are many competing claims on national resources and the Government would not feel justified in subsidising this or other such centres from public funds.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for answering the Question. May I ask, does he not feel that it is rather short-sighted not to encourage movements of this sort, which have the backing of local trade unions, local businesses and local authorities, and have collected money in order to give the school-leavers a chance of doing something useful instead of going straight on to the dole? Could this matter not be reviewed?
LORD SORENSEN: One appreciates entirely the concern of the noble Lord, but I would point out that if this particular claim were admitted, a large number of other claims might also have to be admitted. In these circumstances it is felt by the Government that the inherent possibilities are, financially, too serious for them to accept this proposal. May I add further that, in fact, of the 483 boys who left school in Newcastle at Easter, fourteen are registered as unemployed—only fourteen—so there is obviously no difficulty in placing these boys.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that that was a typical Government answer which could have been given by any Government. This is a matter of finding something like £1,000 for one centre, just
98
as a contribution, to provide someone to run it permanently. It may be that only fourteen boys are registered as unemployed, but are not fourteen school-leavers important to the community—for the sake of £1,000? Is the noble Lord aware that there would be a considerable saving in money which otherwise would go out in National Assistance?
LORD SORENSEN: Of course it is a typical reply and, I suppose, it is a typical Minister giving the typical reply. I assure the noble Lord again that it is not for any lack of concern for the boys. The fact remains that only a very small number are at the moment registered as unemployed, and no doubt they will be employed very soon. Although this is a very worthy effort, which secures substantial funds from voluntary concerns, the principle involved, if financial assistance is given by the Government, might mean that many others would make equally powerful claims. In these circumstances nothing else can be done.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if the number goes up to 50, he will provide £2,500?
LORD SORENSEN: I personally will not, but I can assure the noble Lord that I will draw the matter to the attention of the Minister.
LORD MOLSON: Is it not the case that there are a great many more vacant places than there are unemployed school-leavers?
LORD SORENSEN: Yes, as a matter of fact about ten times more.

COMMON MARKET DIFFICULTIES AND THE KENNEDY ROUND
2.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the refusal of the French Government to implement further stages of the Treaty of Rome will have the effect of taking away the right of the other five members of the Community to decide their tariff policy by

99
a majority vote after 1st January, 1966, and whether the present discussions on the Kennedy Round proposals for liberating international trade will be affected.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, recent developments in Brussels are a matter for the European Economic Community. It is, of course, for the Community to decide what effect the French action will have on the right of the other five members to decide their tariff policy. We sincerely hope that the Community will find it possible to overcome their difficulties in time to avoid delay and damage to the Kennedy Round.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, does this new difficulty in Europe not make it all the more desirable that we should clarify our own aims? Could we not now say to all the members of the Community, without any loss of dignity, that we want to help them to solve their difficulties and that we could help very much better from inside than from outside the Community?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I do not think that there is any need for Her Majesty's Government further to clarify their aims. We have made them abundantly clear in the past. We are anxious to have closer contact with Europe, consistent with our other responsibilities. We have said that on many occasions and repeated it on many occasions recently. We are still anxious for EFTA and the Community to get closer together, and I hope that that will be pursued as quickly as possible. But we still do not feel that it is any part of the role of Her Majesty's Government to interfere in what, at the moment at least, is a purely domestic matter between members of the Six.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, could we not say that we would be willing to come into the Common Market in order to help? Is it enough to talk about building bridges, when the bank on the other side of the river we want to bridge seems to be crumbling? Are there not other ways of crossing the river and helping?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, we have always made clear the conditions under which we would join the Common Market.
100
These conditions are not altered by the fact that one member of the Community has now taken certain actions which we regret. Our conditions remain exactly the same as they always have been, and our desire to be associated with Europe remains exactly as it always has been.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, could Her Majesty's Government not at least say that they sincerely hope that the Community will continue to make progress in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Rome? Further, would the Government, for their part, say they still hope to be able to sign the Treaty and thus achieve the unity of Western Europe?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, the Government can say that. I myself did say that last week, and I am perfectly prepared to repeat it at this stage. With regard to signing the Treaty of Rome and entering the Community, we have already said under what conditions we would do so and I will not detain your Lordships by repeating them in extenso. We have expressed our desire to become as closely associated with Europe as possible and we have asked that there shall not be political talks without our being present, and other things of that kind. The fact that there are certain serious and regrettable disagreements within the Community does not in any way alter Her Majesty's Government's position.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us hope that the Government will not be susceptible to the brandishments of the Liberal and Conservative Parties on the Common Market? Does he not think that it is unfair to use a disagreement between General de Gaulle and the Common Market to get in by the back door? Have we not, as the Labour Party, made our position clear in the conditions that we have laid down, while the other two Parties are prepared to accept any conditions to get in?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, we certainly have no wish to enter by the back door or as a result of any internal disagreement. Our wish to enter and our conditions for doing so, which I need not repeat, have been made clear.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, in view of the debate which

101
is coming on later, may I ask the Government whether they have a view to express on when a question ceases to be a question and becomes a speech?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, my general feeling is that it ceases to be a question about five minutes before we move on.

LORD STONHAM'S SPEECH AND GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.47 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in his speech at Swaffham on July 10, 1965, was expressing the views of Her Majesty's Government.]
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am very glad that this Question has been asked about the speech of my noble and greatly esteemed friend Lord Stonham. My noble friend outlined the steps which have been, and are being, taken to solve the economic problems we inherited; the support which "sound, efficient businesses" have given to these proposals; and condemned the actions of a few people which, in his view, are inimical to the country's interests.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for that Answer and ask him supplementary questions on two points in the speech? The first is: Is he aware that the noble Lord spoke of "saboteurs in the City" delaying the receipt of foreign currency due to them? Is the noble Earl also aware that, if they had done that in fact, the Treasury could have taken action against them under the Exchange Control Act, 1947? Did the Treasury in fact take any such action? Perhaps the noble Lord would like to answer that before I put the next supplementary.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I rather side with the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, who implied that certain questions usually continue after the House wants to move on. So far as this one is concerned, may
102
I make it plain that my noble friend was clearly referring not to the City as a whole but to a minority who put their political views before the national interest. It will be within the recollection of the House that I spoke on this whole subject at some length in our recent economic debate, and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer also spoke about this. Neither my noble friend nor any of us have said that the City as a whole had not been patriotic.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, that was not the question I asked. I asked whether the Treasury had taken any action, as they could have done. But I can put that question down for another day. May I ask a second supplementary? Is the noble Earl aware that the noble Lord is reported as saying:
"Tories do not shrink from any tactic, however squalid, if it will weaken the pound"?
Did the noble Lord in fact say that, and is that the view of Her Majesty's Government?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am ready to believe that the noble Lord used some vivid phrases in the course of his speech; but if you take the speech as a whole—and I do not suppose any member of the House, with one or two exceptions, can have read the speech as a whole—and do not pick out unrepresentative phrases, it fairly represents the view of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord will withdraw that particular phrase now?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I have a profound respect for the noble Marquess, but he cannot dictate to me to withdraw anything now or at any time.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, while making every allowance for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was speaking at a Party political meeting, and the fact that he is a well-respected and well-liked Member of the House, I would ask: would not the noble Lord agree that, in the present serious economic situation, it is essential that there should be co-operation and trust between the Government and the

103
City, and that speeches of this kind from a Minister really do not help?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the last point is a matter of opinion. I venture to wonder whether the noble Lord read the speech as a whole. In my opinion, one should read the speech as a whole before passing comment on the speech as a whole. If the views of the Government about cooperation are required, they can be obtained by consulting our last debate or the many statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has testified more than once to the excellent co-operation received on the whole from business and commerce.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am afraid I do not understand the answer. If you make a long speech on matters of public interest, and in the course of it you call a man a swindler, does it take away from the epithet that you have put on to this man to talk about the general effect of the speech? I do not really understand his dis-culpation. Perhaps the noble Lord would explain.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord did not call any individual human being a swindler. He used rather strong language, such as is often used by noble Lords opposite, and by noble Lords in all parts of the House, in weekend speeches—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: —and I am surprised that noble Lords should be so sensitive about it.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, would the noble Earl the Leader of the House say whether his noble friend is prepared to make available the authentic text of the speech, so that it can be studied by noble Lords who wish to do so?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords. I have here the Press release, which I shall be pleased to hand to the noble Lord forthwith.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does my noble friend not recognise that the Conservative Party, both here and in another place, are very thin-skinned? Does he appreciate that my noble friend Lord Stonham's words this weekend are not incomparable with what Sir Winston
104
Churchill said about the Conservative Party? He said:
"The Conservative Party is not a party but a conspiracy … the great vested interests handed together in a formidable federation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad, the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine, sentiment by the bucketful, patriotism by the imperial pint, the open hand at the public
Exchequer"—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech, speech!
LORD BLYTON:—
"the open door at the public house, dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire … the Conservative Party is nothing less than a deliberate attempt on the part of important sections of the propertied classes to transfer their burdens to the shoulders of the masses of the people and to claim greater profits for the investment of their capital by charging higher prices."
My noble friend's words are no worse than the words of Sir Winston Churchill, whom we all revered.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to mention—I do not see why the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, should get away with this—that when Sir Winston Churchill said that he was a Liberal.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, is the noble Earl aware that I am certainly not in the least thin-skinned and I greatly welcome this speech? All I desire to discover is whether it represented the views of Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the answer is that if you take the speech as a whole, and understand the general argument—well, you have the answer.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, am I to understand that taking the speech as a whole means taking all the individual parts of it, and therefore that particular part was expressing the Government's view?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I lack the legal training of the noble and learned Viscount, and I am not sorry on this occasion that I lack it.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is asking us to believe that if we take the speech as a whole (as he likes to call it) the

105
words to which my noble friend Lord Conesford has called our attention will change their meaning?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think they can be seen in better perspective.

MEMORIAL TO THE LATE SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on a Memorial to Sir Winston Churchill.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
ROCHESTER BRIDGE BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (MELTON MOWBRAY) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWTON-LE- WILLOWS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (ROTHERHAM) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third and Fourth Reports from the Select Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be now considered. In rising to move this Motion, may I inform the House that I am not moving that the Third Report be now considered because I have been led to understand that several noble Lords wish to speak upon the Motion that the Third Report be agreed to; and in view of the state of your Lordships' Business to-day, I understand, further, that it would be convenient for such Motion to be taken on Thursday next. If, therefore, the House concurs, I beg to move only that the Fourth Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee reported as follows:
1. PROCEDURE
The Committee have considered current proposals for changes in the procedure of the House, including those made in the course of the debate on Lord Alport's motion on 29th April, 1965, and have referred certain of them to a Sub-Committee which has been appointed to study the proposals and to report back to the Committee with recommendations.
2. PRINTING OF BILLS BROUGHT UP FROM THE COMMONS (STANDING ORDER 44A)
Standing Order 44A provides for the printing and circulation (in advance of First Reading) of Bills that are brought up from the Commons at a time when the House is not sitting. The Committee have considered whether the terms of the Standing Order should be widened in order to allow for the advance printing not only of Commons Bills, but also of Commons amendments to Lords Bills, and of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendments etc. The Committee recommend that the Standing Order be amended by the addition of the following new paragraph:—
"Likewise, if a Public Bill is returned from the Commons with amendments, or Reasons, at a time when this House is not sitting, the Clerk of the Parliaments may, pursuant to this Standing Order, arrange for the printing and circulation of any such amendments and Reasons."
3. ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS
(i) Ceremonial Addresses to the Crown
The Committee recommend that ceremonial Addresses to the Crown should be accorded the same precedence for the purposes of the arrangement of the Order Paper as Addresses of congratulations or sympathy to the Crown.
(ii) "Business of the House" Motions
The Committee recommend that motions of the kind moved by the Leader of the

107
House on 2nd June last "That the Lord Chancellor do represent this House … in St. Paul's Cathedral …"shall be treated as "Business of the House" Motions and be given precedence on the Order Paper accordingly.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)

SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. There are five Amendments. The first one is pure drafting; the second two are purely grammatical; the last two substitute fourteen days for eight days as the period in which certain proceedings may be taken. In the interests of that brevity which all your Lordships are so ardently seeking, may I ask the leave of the House to move the Amendments en bloc?
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Tangley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [108] as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 14, page 10, line 45, after ("the") insert ("principal").
Schedule 1, page 18, line 37, leave out ("personally") and insert ("by personal service")
Schedule 1, page 18, line 37, leave out ("forwarding it") and insert ("being forwarded")
Schedule 1, page 18, line 37, line 41, after ("Schedule,") insert ("or within a further six days thereafter,")
Schedule 1, page 20, line 4, leave out ("eight") and insert ("fourteen").
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Tangley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMPULSORY PURCHASE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD BILL
3.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the Title of the Bill that I am asking your Lordships to read a second time is perhaps a little misleading as to the importance and scope of the Bill itself. In fact, you have to turn to the Long Title, which explains that it is to give effect in this country to the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, and to enable us to accede to that Convention. To begin with, the Bill has no effect at all on the internal carriage of goods in this country, or on international haulage on anyone's own account. It affects only international contract haulage, and your Lordships may wonder why, since it came into effect in 1961, we have not adhered to this Convention before. The answer is that the volume of this kind of trade has not been so great to and from this country, for obvious reasons, but is something which is now growing in importance and in volume, and the time has now come for us to accede to it.
I may say that our own road haulage industry accepts the requirements of the Convention and supports our accession to it. As a matter of fact, most of the countries in Europe, and in particular our immediate neighbours, Belgium, France and the Netherlands, have already acceded, and so really the Bill does not do a great deal more than preserve what is virtually the status quo. But, as I said, goods vehicles are being carried in increasing numbers between this country and the Continent, by sea, and to some extent by air. The total traffic is likely to grow, particularly if we have a Channel Tunnel, and it would be a good thing that the Civil Law rights and obligations of those engaged in it should be defined

109
on an internationally accepted basis. This the Convention sets out to do, and it is on the same lines as The Hague Rules for Transport by Sea, the Warsaw Convention for Air Transport, and the Berne Convention on Rail Transport, to all of which we are already a party.
So the Bill itself is in a form commonly adopted for putting international Conventions of this kind into effect, and the essential part of it is to be found in the Schedule, while the clauses in the body of the Bill are chiefly concerned with ancillary matters. Dealing, as it does, with matters of international contract, the Bill is of necessity rather technical and certainly legalistic in character, and therefore complex. I do not propose, therefore, to take your Lordships through it in detail, because if I did so I should have to speak at considerable length, which I hope to spare your Lordships, particularly in view of the Motion which is to be taken next. Instead, I will wait to see whether there are any points your Lordships wish to raise, in which case I will do my best to deal with them, and meanwhile will only remind your Lordships that the Bill is in the usual form for the circumstances. I cannot claim that it is the most important piece of legislation before Parliament at the present time, but it is a useful measure all the same, and as it is also one to which I think it is not likely that anyone will take exception, I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Chesham.)
3.9 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for the lucid manner in which he has introduced this Bill. I welcome it on behalf of the Government because it will enable the United Kingdom to honour an undertaking given by the last Government to accede to the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road. The Convention defines the obligations and liabilities of international carriers to consignors and consignees. Without internationally regulated standards the law on, for example, liability in case of loss or damage to goods in international transit
110
may vary according to the country in which an action for recovery or compensation is brought. That is inconvenient for all concerned. The United Kingdom, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has already said, is already party to similar conventions dealing with carriage by rail, by sea and by air. The Bill will complete the pattern and will make a small but useful contribution to the easier conduct of our trade with the Continent. I join the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in the hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a smooth passage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES (SMALL PAYMENTS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LENGTH OF PEERS' SPEECHES
3.10 p.m.
LORD EGREMONT LORD EGREMONT rose to move, That speeches in this House should be shorter. The noble Lord said: My Lords, although I speak from a Tory Bench, which is my natural habitat, this Motion is designed to be a non-Party Motion, and my speech, I hope, will be considered as a non-Party speech; and I can promise your Lordships that it will be brief.
Not long ago I was attending one of your Lordships' debates in this House and I was wondering when it would ever end. Then, suddenly, we had a most splendid naval demonstration. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, hoisted his flag, so to speak, sailed into action and launched a broadside. He said that if we went on at that rate we should be here until the middle watch or the morning watch, and asked whether that was not rather too long. I thought to myself, "Hurrah! Thank goodness; the Navy's here!" But what happened? The noble Lord's protest, through no fault of his own, was sunk without trace in the sea of subsequent oratory.
I will not bore your Lordships with an analysis of the length of speeches. For one thing, such figures can be misleading. For example, I could make a boring

111
twenty minute Second Reading speech and then for ever hold my peace. It could then be said, "Egremont would speak for twenty minutes". If, however, I intervened for just one minute on the Committee stage you could then say that Egremont spoke, on average, for only ten minutes. You can do anything with figures. Somebody once said "You can do anything with bayonets except sit on them." You can do anything with figures, including sitting on them. For example, a speech which I very much admired last Thursday was that of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, on the Rent Bill, and the noble Lord is down in Hansard as having risen to his feet at 4.52 p.m. and having sat down at 4.18 p.m. I am going to sit on the figures myself, but, mind you, my Lords! so far as the length of speeches is concerned, life might be very much harder to-day than it is. In 1831, one fine day, Lord Brougham addressed your Lordships in this House for six hours. That was a record. In four successive Sessions, beginning, in 1887, a Liberal Peer, Lord Denman, tried again and again to redress the balance by introducing Bills to limit speeches by legislation. One by one the Bills were thrown out. So that was a flop.
What Lord Denman proposed was that no Privy Counsellor should speak for more than one hour, and no other Member for more than a quarter of an hour, at the end of which period the Clerk was to ring a bell. I think that was a very liberal allowance of time. But, of course, one cannot legislate for the length of speeches. What we should do is try to get a general measure of agreement and understanding among ourselves for the future. For example, would it be mad to suggest that very often in our debates we should get along very well if speeches from the Back Benches and Cross Benches lasted no longer than ten minutes, and speeches from the Front Benches no longer than twenty minutes? Of course there must be exceptions; but how about that as a basic rule?
There is at least one legislative body which has rules about the length of speeches, and that is the House of Representatives of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament, in Canberra. There they have a speech-timing device which includes a coloured warning light that
112
comes on to warn a member that his time is about to expire. I understand that they find this device very handy, but I am not asking to-day for any set rules or devices. All I am moving is the Motion on the Order Paper.
Let me just make four points, and then sit down. First, the span of human attention cannot usefully be stretched beyond six hours. Second, compression improves nearly every speech. Third, the freedom which we have to speak whenever we like should impose on us an obligation to be brief. Fourth, if your Lordships will agree to this Motion, we shall have added reason to remind each other of this obligation to be brief. And we should do so, if I may so suggest, and, if need be, vociferously. Any fool can make a long speech. I beg to move.
Moved, That speeches in this House should be shorter.—(Lord Egremont.)
3.15 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I support this Motion. I do not know what it means, because the word "shorter" is a comparative adjective. One is reminded of the mathematics don, who, on being asked "And how is your wife?" replied "Compared with what?" But if this Motion means that speeches in this House should be shorter than those which are too long—which of course, is a matter of opinion—then I am in total agreement.
I dare not say much more, but as we are all "in the dock" together this afternoon, I wonder whether I may be allowed to quote in full two of the best-known speeches in the English tongue, one of which, I fear, is twice as long as the other. The first is "Guilty" and the second is "Not guilty". My Lords, if these words are relevant to-day I plead for a verdict in my own case of "not guilty", and I would say that a good speech is better when it is too short, and that a bad speech should be shorter. I suggest that in oratory modesty is the soul of brevity, and brevity is a manifestation of compassion. It is therefore with compassion, if not with modesty, that I resume my seat.
3.17 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Egremont has made a most amusing speech and introduced a Motion which I am sure has the support

113
of everybody in the House. But the trouble is—and I have said this before—that although we pay lip service to the principle of short speeches, none of us ever thinks that it applies to himself. I am afraid that, as a general rule, we are bored with other people's speeches and captivated with our own. Our own speeches are always the exception, or else the occasion is the exception.
I recall that not long ago, when we were discussing the reform of the procedure of this House, a number of speeches were made commenting on the length of speeches. On that occasion a noble friend, whom I shall not name and who I hope will forgive me for quoting this, rose to his feet and said that although he agreed, and he usually made short speeches—which he does—on this particular occasion he was going to make a long one. My Lords, I am afraid that is the trouble.
It is of course legitimate, and, I think, proper, that the mover of a Motion and the Government spokesman, and to a lesser degree the Opposition spokesman, should be allowed a certain amount of time to deploy their case. This is particulary so for the noble Lord who winds up for the Government, who usually has a large number of questions to answer, and I think that the House would be disturbed if he did not answer those questions and did not take a certain amount of time in doing so. But it is noticeable that recently—and I am afraid that I cannot separate this phenomenon from the arrival of the Life Peers—speeches in this House have got very much longer. It is now quite usual for speeches to last up to, and sometimes over, half an hour. I really do think that is very much too long; and it has two results.
First, it makes the debates much less interesting than they otherwise would be. Quite a number of your Lordships come into the House in the afternoon after whatever other activities you may have been doing and hope to hear a cross-section of opinion on whatever subject we happen to be discussing. Until fairly recently this was possible. Now, even if one sits here for a couple of hours one can hear only a handful of speakers, and I would say this is perhaps the only occasion in this Parliament on which one could guarantee we are going to hear more than four or five speeches in any
114
hour. That tends to make debates less interesting, less lively and, I think, less useful.
The second result is that a good many Peers do not wait to hear the Government's winding-up speech and therefore do not hear the answers to the points they themselves may have made. And I am afraid that quite a large number of those who have spoken in the debate do not wait until it ends. It is a habit which has grown up fairly recently, and I must say that I think it quite deplorable that this should be so.
There are only two ways of ensuring that speeches are short. First, we can make rules on the lines my noble friend outlined, such as exist in Australia, rules which may or may not be accompanied by a series of warning bells or flashing lights or whatever it may be. I must say I agree with him and I am entirely opposed to this procedure. I do not think it would work. I do not think it would add to the dignity of the House. And I think there are occasions on which notable contributions can and should be made by noble Lords with special qualifications on a particular subject which, if we had rules of this kind, would not be possible.
The other way is by disciplining ourselves. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, who has, I think, almost the longest experience of anybody in this House, made a most interesting contribution the other day when he said, and said rightly, that all the power that was necessary was in the hands of the House. I see no reason why the House should not make its impatience plain to those whose speeches are over long: I have noticed in the years I have been here that, without openly saying so, the House can make its opinion very widely and obviously felt.
In the last resort, it is the speakers who have to discipline themselves. It is very often a sign of laziness to make a long speech. I do not know which alarms me more, the noble Lord who rises with a large bundle of typescript, or one who rises with no notes at all. The one takes a long time to end and the other does not seem to know how to. To make a short speech is hard work; to make a long one is easy. If this was more widely felt, and if it was regarded as a sign of laziness when noble Lords spoke at great

115
length, perhaps we might shame some of the worst offenders into speaking more briefly.
There is another aspect, which is perhaps rather more delicate. I sometimes wonder whether all the speeches in a debate are really necessary. They are often very repetitive; it has all been said before. Ought we not perhaps sometimes, even though we may have done a great deal of work on our speech, forgo our turn? Certainly if we did our debates would not suffer. I do not know whether my noble friend's Motion will have very much success, but I, for one, hope it will, and I am grateful to him for airing this subject.
3.25 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, after Lord Carrington's observations I felt almost tempted to forgo my own right to speak because he has said a great many things I myself have said. If the remaining eighteen speakers were prepared to do the same, I would be willing to sit down myself. But it looks as if this House always enjoys an opportunity of a certain amount of introspection, and perhaps it is as well that we should hear a large number of speakers on this subject, because each one of them, I take it, will feel under an obligation to comply with the terms of the Motion and in future speak more briefly.
The Motion assumes that speeches are too long, and it also assumes that their length ought to be reduced; and I think that both assumptions are correct. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave us some of the disadvantages of long speeches. I agree with him that they are signs of laziness. They are a waste of time. Members of this House, indeed members of any other assembly, find difficulty in concentrating on what is said in a long speech; and the proof of that is that it so often happens that when a Member speaks after a long speech his comments on that speech are challenged by the person who spoke at length, indicating either that he did not make himself clear or that owing to the length of the speech it was difficult for the person who followed to understand it properly. It happens so often in debates that somebody complains that what has been replied to is not what he said
116
and the correct statement will be found in Hansard the following day.
Then there is a good deal of repetition, even on the part of the individual who makes the speech, let alone the others who follow. When you come to read Hansard you find that the same thing has been said several times by the same speaker. And, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, the House tends to be bored by long speeches. So, putting it very briefly, the long speech is not only ineffective—the short speech is far more effective—but it is a complete waste of time.
The noble Lord who introduced the Motion gave some idea as to what he had in mind, as to what was a reasonable time for a speech. I would not very much quarrel with him. But of course I have given some thought to this question. I had originally proposed to suggest a time for normal speeches, for introducers and so on. I know it is difficult. Even a quarter of an hour or ten minutes may be too long in certain circumstances; for instance, if you are dealing with an Amendment which has been fully discussed and somebody then stands up and makes a ten minute speech, it is far too long and unnecessary; whereas we often have subjects discussed in this House where the speaker is a person who is an expert on the subject and has given a great deal of thought to it, and ten minutes or a quarter of an hour would be much too short and the House would be very willing to give him ample time.
The noble Lord referred to Australia, where there has been an attempt to fix the time of speeches—that is, I take it, of normal speeches; Government speeches or people introducing a motion would speak longer. I have had considerable experience in the London County Council and there it is a rule that the normal speech is fifteen minutes. At the end of fifteen minutes the chairman draws the speaker's attention to the fact that he has been speaking for fifteen minutes and the Council can, if it wishes, extend the time by five minutes, and very often it does, if the speaker has something to say. That makes twenty minutes. If in its opinion the speech ought not to be prolonged, it does not hesitate to say so.
That system is a possibility in this House. However, it involves something

117
that I put forward in the debate on procedure—namely, having the proper channel who can take control of proceedings. I gather from my soundings that that is not a popular proposal at the present time. Therefore, it would be left to individual Members to enforce this, or to the Clerks at the Table to draw it to the attention of speakers; but it would still be left to individual Members to enforce it if the speaker insisted on going on. I can see difficulties about that.
Therefore, I feel that perhaps the best thing that we can do as a House is to take note of the various views that have been expressed. Certainly, I imagine that there will be a general desire that speeches should be curtailed; that normally a speech should last about ten to fifteen minutes and no longer; that in special cases, where a Member has a special contribution to make—and he ought not to be entirely the judge of that—there might be an exception; and of course there would be a longer time allowed for members of the Government and for Members who are opening a debate to take advantage of.
May I, in conclusion, say one thing to Members of the Government, either existing or prospective? Although it is right that they should take longer in explaining a Bill or in introducing a Motion—and everyone will accept that—it is not right that they should have an indefinite time or an unlimited time. I have known noble Lords introducing a Bill and taking over an hour to do so. I think that is unpardonable. It is an abuse of one's right. It is quite valueless, because nobody can concentrate for an hour on a technical matter, and it really does not serve its purpose. I hope, therefore, that if the consensus of opinion in the House is that speeches should be shorter it will be understood that that applies both to Government speakers and to the speakers on the Front Bench opposite. I hope that the House will accept this Motion.
3.34 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Motion. There was a bad custom in another place that Members who have held high office felt bound to speak for at least three-quarters of an hour. I disagree. I believe in the old song, Shorter
118
in Wind, and in Memory Long. I think we ought all to endeavour to be short in wind.
I should like to make one or two suggestions. The first is that members of the Government should not read speeches that have been produced by civil servants or, as they say on the other side, the Central Office. The conscientious person can put in every possible thing. A Member of Parliament, Lords or Commons, ought to be able to select the important things and reject the rest; and anyway, he should leave a few things for other people to say. I am certain of that. Secondly, there is this awful habit of repetition. It is no good, unless you are a most important person, always saying the same thing as somebody else; you have to add a bit more weight. Then it is a good idea to show a certain amount of consideration for your hearers. If I have to make an after-dinner speech, I always think of the poor fellow who is looking at his watch all the time and saying, "I hope to God he will stop, so that I can catch the 9.15 to Surbiton." I always hope that a five-minute speech, will produce the comment. "Anyway, thank God he was short".
Sometimes there are occasions when even a bore is useful. It does not often happen in this Chamber, but I can remember one occasion in another place, when I was head of the House, when there was going to be a terrible row at any moment, and the Speaker, with great tact, called on the biggest bore in the House. At once the atmosphere cleared. I always thought of him as the best "during-dinner" speaker that we had. Members could go out and would miss absolutely nothing. His sobriquet, I regret to say, was "the chambermaid", because he emptied the Chamber. Everybody tried to avoid that particular nickname. The best thing of all is that, when you sit down, you should feel "There was a lot more that I could have said. How lucky for my hearers that I did not try!"
3.37 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I am sorry that I have only just arrived. I have suffered a series of misfortunes with my motor car; I am covered in oil and quite flustered, so I hope your Lordships will excuse me. I do not know

119
whether your Lordships consider this to be a controversial subject, and therefore not suitable for a maiden speech. If so, I apologise, but I put my name down to speak when a debate in which I was particularly interested got held up, so that some time before the end nearly everyone had gone, including me, and I thought I should say something.
I have been a member of the audience here, on and off, for the last five weeks, and a regular reader of Hansard. I must say that I have been surprised at the length of some of the speeches, yet at the same time I have felt a genuine admiration that so many of your Lordships could speak for so long. It has seemed to me that some of those speeches have, by their very length, defeated the speakers' own purpose, which is getting themselves listened to. I hope that it is not being rude to say that I have found my attention wandering after a quarter of an hour or so. My Lords, I seem to have mislaid my notes. I am sorry. I will sit down.
3.37 p.m.
LORD CASEY: My Lords, this I think is likely to be a model debate, with a large number of speakers each speaking briefly, pungently and, in many cases, from a heartfelt point of view. Lord Egremont has tolled a bell, and "For whom the bell tolls?": it tolls for thee and me. In other words, this Motion is addressed to all of us and not to any individual in particular, and not perhaps very much in particular. There must, of course, be exceptions, as noble Lords have said. The Leaders of the two sides of the House and, to an extent, those moving Motions must be given reasonable time to develop their ideas, But, in general, the tempo in the world and in this country is constantly speeding up, and if Your Lordships' House is to maintain itself as a serious part of the machinery of Government, we must speed up and sharpen up our deliberations. Events are constantly moving more quickly and the way public debates are conducted must keep pace with them. Subjects must of course be developed understandably in speech, but without stupefying the listeners and without destroying the vitality of the debate. We must resist the temptation to take advantage of a captive audience, or this audience may cease to be captive.
120
This Motion is a salutary one. For myself, it has set me the task of looking over the speeches I have made in your Lordships' House since I have been a Member of it. I find that I have made fourteen speeches, of an average time of just over twenty minutes. However, in exposing this bleeding heart—and, in my own defence, a number of these speeches were introducing Motions that needed some explanation and background—I claim (and I am not, of course, alone in this) to have sought to be jealous of your Lordships' time by thought and condensation. However, every speaker tends to be a biased witness in his own defence. We know that your Lordships' House is unique in the world in that, in the absence of rules of debate, it depends solely on the good sense of its Members to conduct themselves in a way that reflects consideration for each other. In general, this is observed, but occasionally it is not—and one bad apple occasionally tends to spoil the barrel.
If I might add to the several relevant quotations which have been made, I would quote from a speech made by the late Lord Brabazon of Tara, almost exactly ten years ago, in which he said:
"… the reason why I do not turn up as much as I should is that the speeches in your Lordships' House have become interminably long"—
and that was ten years ago.
"I take the view, and always have, that if you cannot say what you are going to say in twenty minutes you ought to go away and write a book about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 193, col. 207, June 21, 1955.]
Then again there was Ingres, the painter, who a hundred or more years ago said something to the effect that if you cannot draw a figure as it falls from a ledge and before it reaches the ground, you will never be a draughtsman. The late Lord Keynes is quoted as having said that the hardest thing to get rid of is a small nuisance. I believe that the subject matter of this debate could be described as an endeavour to correct "a small nuisance"; but it is, I think many of us would agree, an exasperating one. Some of these quotations which I have made, and others which no doubt will be made in this debate to-day, reflect counsels of perfection which are not always attainable; but the general purport of them is clear, and that is to express ourselves with the greatest relevance and economy

121
of words of which we are individually capable.
It is no use complaining of an abuse if one has nothing to suggest for its cure. In the absence of some mandatory cure, might not the Whips be encouraged to place very low on any list of speakers any individual who has in the past become known for the length of his contributions? Also, might I suggest that a Motion of this sort should be introduced at decent intervals in the future to remind us all of the need for brevity and for the avoidance of cacoethes loquendi? Even perhaps the interjection of the name "Egremont" might be used to remind a speaker that he, or even perhaps she, is tending to overstep the mark, if the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, would excuse his name being used as a symbol.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I have never said to anybody that I was proposing to take part in this afternoon's debate, and I do not propose to do so, but I am indebted to some kind person for including my name on the list of speakers and thereby giving me the opportunity of claiming the record for brevity.
3.44 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, that is the shortest speech I have ever heard in your Lordships' House. I should first of all like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, for putting forward this Motion, and then to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, on his maiden speech and to say how sorry I was that he did not go on. We could have waited a moment or two until he had collected his notes, and then we should have been very glad to listen to the end of it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I stand condemned as one who in the last debate on procedure actually put forward a figure, or rather two figures, for the length of speeches. I was not quite so savage as Lord Egremont himself; I said up to fifteen minutes for Back Benchers and up to thirty-five minutes for Front Benchers. This was, of course, a fairly light-hearted suggestion, and it is obvious that speeches which have a really serious content would have to be longer on certain occasions.
122
I have often heard noble Lords complain about the length of speeches, but they have not put their complaints into practice. Complaints of that sort would appear to be entirely theoretical. However, I repeat what I said in the last debate: that the greatest privilege in this House is that any noble Lord can opt to speak, and so I support all those who want shorter speeches. I think there would be a far greater exchange, there would be more cut-and-thrust, and I have never heard it said that long-windedness is the soul of wit. We should get more dialogue and less monologue.
However, if speeches are long, listening to them is not compulsory. Noble Lords are not chained to their seats, and any exit is not taken as an insult. No one can tell when one sees a noble Lord sauntering out of the Chamber whether he is impatient, indignant, disgusted, or whatever it may be. These feelings, we hope, are not visible on his countenance. Nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said so wittily, do we have to keep our seat belts fastened at the take-off of a speech.
I personally am all for brevity. It ensures that our speeches have form as well as content. I think it will improve our image to the public, for long speeches really are very soporific. Perhaps, as I said, Lord Egremont's suggestion of ten minutes and twenty minutes is a little too short. However, in the very unlikely event that his suggestion will be taken up and acted upon, and as he is Lord Egremont and I am Lady Gaitskell of Egremont, I hope that this debate will not go down in the annals of the House of Lords as "The Egremont Axe".
3.47 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to give unqualified support to my noble friend's Motion. I do not propose to keep your Lordships long. How often have your Lordships heard noble Lords say this and then go on to make a speech of twenty minutes or more? A speech which takes twenty minutes is not short. To start by saying so is not only shown later to be manifestly untrue, but it also unnecessarily lengthens, if only by a sentence, an already long speech.
There are three cardinal sins which are all too often committed in your Lordships' House nowadays. The first is for a noble Lord to arrive in your Lordships'

123
Chamber after the beginning of the debate in which he intends to speak. It is not unusual to see a noble Lord in the Library preparing his speech while the debate is in progress in the Chamber. But if he does not listen to the speeches before his own, he has no means of knowing how many of the points he intends to make have already been made, and how often. He is therefore unable to prune his speech as the debate proceeds. The second is for a noble Lord to leave the Chamber during the speech following his own. This I have always been taught is a breach of good manners, because it denies to the following speaker the opportunity to reply to his points in his presence.
The third sin, as has already been mentioned by my noble Leader, is for a noble Lord who has spoken to go home before the end of the debate and thereby miss the winding-up speeches. There is something a little conceited in the implied suggestion that what you have to say is important enough to keep the Minister from his dinner, but not quite important enough to keep you from yours. All these sins become very much more annoying when the speech concerned is long, especially the last one. If, by a long speech, you cause the debate to be late, and the attendance at the end to be therefore small, the least you can do is to ensure that you yourself are there.
May I also put in a special plea that maiden speeches should be short? It has always been the custom in this House that noble Lords should not leave the Chamber during a maiden speech; but if the maiden speech is long it is often inconvenient, and sometimes impossible, to avoid doing it. At this point I wish to add my congratulations to those which have already been given to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan.
It is to be hoped that my noble friend's Motion and this debate will have a salutary effect on the length of speeches. But I fear it will not last long. As noble Lords have said, it is difficult to lay down any hard-and-fast rule as to how long a speech should ideally be, as there are certain of your Lordships who can speak for twenty minutes or more and sit down leaving the House wishing that they had spoken longer. There are others of us for whom half that time is ample.
124
The trouble is that it is for the noble Lord who speaks to judge how long he can interest the House, and not for his listeners.
May I suggest a remedy which would take these factors into account? It would entail only a simple addition to Standing Orders. Any noble Lord should be able to speak for, say, fifteen minutes as of right, but if, after that time, there are seen to be fewer than, say, twenty noble Lords left in your Lordships' Chamber, that particular speaker should be counted out. This would transfer to the House in general the onus of determining the length of a particular speech. If it should prove impracticable to impose this by Standing Order—and I do not see why it should—perhaps this yardstick could be exercised as a voluntary discipline by noble Lords.
Finally, may I ask the noble Earl who leads the House whether he will persuade his right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works to find room among all this decoration for there to be displayed prominently, and in letters of gold, a text from the Book of Ecclesiasticus, Chapter XXXII, the 8th verse:
"Let thy speech be short, comprehending much, in few words."
3.51 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, has moved seems to us on this side of the House to be opportune at the present time. We all have views on necessary reform, and these will be duplicated during this afternoon's discussion, but I hope that whoever is responsible for their consideration will sort them out, and that procedure in regard to speeches in your Lordships' House will benefit by its revision. The speeches will naturally be short this afternoon—mine will—and to the point, and I hope that I shall not say anything to offend anyone.
Perhaps I should not be critical, as nowadays I am unable to sit throughout all the speeches; but I have had a fair share of doing so in the past. That brings hack memories of the three-day week in which we dealt effectively with all legislation committed to us for consideration and amendment. Life in the Lords then was not so exacting. We were smaller in numbers, less speeches were delivered, and I believe they bore far more relation

125
to their subjects than many we have to listen to nowadays. What we experienced then can be enjoyed now if we have the will to mend our ways.
Newcomers naturally wish to make their mark through their own contributions. They are not the culprits who speak too often and too long. That sin can be laid at the doors of Ministers and ex-Ministers. Persistent monopoly of time in our discussions is a crime against the House and serves us ill, in trying to carry out our duties and expedite the passing of legislation. Particularly does this practice of long speeches affect the good will of the House when the list of speakers approaches the twenty mark or even more. Consideration for others is a virtue. It is a dull experience to hear too much of any one speaker. Faults of repetition lie in every quarter of the House.
Government speeches and answers to questions are tending to become too long. Full explanation is all right in its way but it can be overdone. The greater the length of replies to questions the more the number of supplementaries, applicable or not. It might be a good plan to limit the number of supplementary questions and mainly restrict them, if possible, to the original questioner. Another point of interest arises. As the list of speakers is prepared and circulated, it would seem to be fair if any noble Lord listening to the discussion wishes to speak although he has not added his name to the list, that he should limit the length of his speech perhaps to only a request for information on a point which has arisen. This brevity is important as other noble Lords may be waiting to speak on any business which may follow, and delay for them may be very inconvenient. This happened to me a few days ago, and I reached home that night at about half-past eleven. My thoughts at that time should not be recorded.
I could surprise your Lordships with figures upon the length of some speeches in many of our discussions since March. They vary from about half an hour to over 50 minutes. Often the average of four or five speakers is well over half an hour. I hope that the "usual channels" will devise some procedural rules for our guidance.

MEMORIAL TO THE LATE SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL
3.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to make a Statement which is being made by the Prime Minister in another place. It is as follows:
"As the House will know, a number of proposals have been made in the months since his death for permanent memorials to the late Member for Woodford, the Right Honourable Sir Winston Spencer Churchill. I am now able to inform the House that there have been consultations with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and with the right honourable gentlemen who lead the Parties in Parliament, about the provision of a suitable Memorial in Westminster Abbey. After ascertaining the wishes of Her Majesty The Queen, and with the full approval of my noble friend Lady Spencer-Churchill, it has been arranged that a Memorial Stone should be placed in Westminster Abbey, immediately to the West of the tomb of the Unknown Warrior. Her Majesty has graciously consented to unveil this Stone on the occasion of the Battle of Britain Service which is to take place in the Abbey on September 19, 1965.
"I am sure that the House will agree that a Memorial in the ancient Abbey of Westminster, associated with the two world wars in which he played so considerable a part, will be a fitting and worthy tribute to the memory of Sir Winston Churchill.
"But, in addition to being a great national leader, the late Sir Winston Churchill holds a very special place in the history and feelings of Parliament. This House wishes, I know, that suitable arrangements be made to perpetuate his memory within the Palace of Westminster."
My Lords, that is the first part of the Statement of the Prime Minister. The rest of his Statement concerns the House of Commons alone.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House greatly welcomes the Statement of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and that

127
all of us will agree that this is a most appropriate and worthy place for a Memorial to Sir Winston. I am sure, also, that we shall all regard it as very fitting that the noble Baroness, Lady Spencer-Churchill, is here on this occasion to listen to the Statement which has just been made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. May I ask him whether, in the arrangements which are to be made for a Memorial to Sir Winston Churchill in the House, Members of this House, or representatives of this House, will be consulted?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for his observations. The procedure, I understand, is that the House of Commons in Committee will be asked to authorise the necessary expenditure. Thereafter, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will invite a small Committee to advise on the form the Memorial should take. This Committee w ill not be technically a Parliamentary Committee but will include members of all Parties. In reply to the question about whether this House, the House of Lords, will be represented on this Committee, I am advised that the composition of the Committee will, of course, be the subject of discussions through the usual channels.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I, from these Benches, extend a most warm welcome to the Statement made by the noble Earl; and I am sure that in doing so I speak for noble Lords on all other Benches, too. It is most fittting, I am sure, that this Memorial should be in that great Abbey of ours—a Memorial, I believe, to be a flat stone on the floor between the Unknown Warrior's Grave and the Great West Door of the Abbey—so that one of the greatest warriors will be commemorated next to our own Unknown Warrior. If I may say so, I think we are indebted to the Dean and Chapter for their gracious act in suggesting this course, which naturally has our warmest approval in every possible way.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I know that we are all very grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party.

LENGTH OF PEERS' SPEECHES
4.0 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it may seem a long way back from Sir Winston Churchill to a debate on shorter speeches, but I remember the advice which that great man once gave to a certain junior Minister in his Government who had expressed himself at some length. "Come to the point, my boy", he said, "Come to the point by all means, but do not camp on it". My Lords, this, I think, is the theme which the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, has given us to-clay. The longest speech I ever heard in your Lordships' House was delivered by Maynard Keynes, the late Lord Keynes, on his return from America, when we were debating the American loan. He spoke in your Lordships' House for nearly an hour and a quarter, but it was not one minute too long. Equally, I remember the late Lord Halifax turning your Lordships' House completely round—and your Lordships' House takes some turning round—on the subject of Indian reform. He did it in only nine minutes.
The lesson to be drawn from this surely is that there is no hard and fast rule, and I hope your Lordships will make no hard and fast rule about the length of speeches in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, and other speakers have pointed out, it is an easy thing to make a long speech but a very difficult thing to make a short speech. In some respects, a speech is like a love affair: any fool can start one, but to end it requires considerable skill.
May I offer one or two practical suggestions? I do not agree with those of your Lordships who have suggested that a member of the Government developing the Second Reading of a Bill should be granted unlimited licence. I suggest that when a Bill has been through another place, has been debated in detail and has been threshed out in the councils of the nation, it does not require quite such a full development from the Front Bench as would a Bill introduced into your Lordships' House for the first time. I would also suggest that although courtesy demands that points raised by your Lordships in a long debate upon a Motion

129
should be answered from the Front Bench, there are certain occasions when time has marched on and when a courteous letter on individual points might save your Lordships much discomfiture.
But, my Lords, the verdict rests with us: the remedy is in our own hands. We have no Speaker in this House. The Lord Chancellor cannot take his revenge on lengthy speakers by calling them late in the day or calling them not at all. This, however, is something which I think the Whips might fix between themselves much more effectively, and much more vigorously, than they do. We can, of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, suggests, march out to tea noisily in the middle of a speech by the noble Lord, Lord X—who, as we know, always makes a speech which sounds as if it is going to last a fortnight but actually goes on for only ten days.
My Lords, may we not take a few lessons from the late Lord Exeter, who always maintained that your Lordships were far too polite. Well do I remember him sitting over there in his corner, with his stick between his knees—and a very considerable piece of timber it was, too. When one of your Lordships (who is incidentally in his place to-day) persisted in addressing the House at uncomfortable fulness, the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, banged the ground with his stick and, in an ear-splitting sotto voce remarked, "Thundering ass this fellow: always was—and no improvement, damn it, no improvement!" The noble Lord sat down at once and never again made a speech while Lord Exeter was there. My Lords, would that we had more Lord Exeters in this House!
I have one more suggestion to make. We have one drastic Motion in this House—that a certain noble Lord be no longer heard. It has, I think, been moved only two or three times in the 23 years I have had the honour to be a Member of your Lordships' House, and that is quite enough. May I suggest a gentler Motion, which might be moved by some attentive noble Lord at the end of a speech which had lasted a fortnight? Could we not move that the noble Lord be not heard again until next October? I say that with the comfortable assurance that I do not think, as matters now stand, I shall myself be addressing your Lordships again before next October.
4.4 p.m.
EARL BALDWIN OF BEWDLEY: My Lords, after the absolutely terrifying speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take one extra half minute to sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, in the most unpleasant experience he had when coming to make his maiden speech—to have his car break down and then to lose his notes. But I must say that what he said was said with the utmost charm, and I hope we shall hear him many times again.
Although it is probably true that we should be able to deal with our business just as well, and enjoy it more, if all speeches were shorter, I suspect that what we really want is dull speeches to be shorter and entertaining ones longer. But which of us can be relied upon to oblige in either of those two categories? However, I cordially support the Motion as it stands, in all its laconic splendour.
As a child, I used to get much of my information about the imbecilities of grown-up life from the drawings of a great but now forgotten social cartoonist named W. K. Haselden. One feature that he liked to make fun of was our elders' morbid addiction to public speeches, their distress at the length of them and their inability to control them; and he suggested a contrivance for terminating the interminable in a picture of a whitebearded preacher in his pulpit. The venerable bore was in the act of saying, "And 66thly …", when down came a domed lid and totally extinguished him.
When I grew up, I discovered it to be a fact of oratorical life that a member of an audience will often say afterwards, "Jolly good!, but the speeches were far too long"; whereas he will very seldom say, "The speeches were far too short". But in this House, of course, "How long is too long?" is the great question. We all know that one of the most famous speeches in history, Lincoln's at Gettysburg, lasted just about two minutes and made very little impression at the time. In fact, The Times reporter there wrote this:
"The inauguration of the cemetery of Gettysburg was an imposing ceremony, only rendered somewhat flat by the nature of Mr. Everett's lecture, and ludicrous by some of the luckless sallies of that poor President Lincoln, who seems determined to play in

131
this great American Union the part of the famous Governor of the Isle of Barataria."
That was all he had to say about Lincoln on that memorable day.
Lord Chandos, in his memoirs, said, on the subject of speeches, that Gladstone and Lloyd George both believed
"that the larger the audience the greater must be the dilution".
and that the author himself had put that successfully to the test. This may explain why Lincoln's undiluted words failed to move the vast American crowd. Most of us in this House are quite used to addressing a couple of dozen, or fewer, of our fellow Peers, as the evening wears on. I myself have never spoken to more than a fraction of the number that I am speaking to at this moment. But I should suppose that the converse of Lord Chandos's maxim applies here: that the smaller the audience the greater must be the concentration of language.
My Lords, a man can say some astonishing things in five minutes, even in two, and he will not make them any more astonishing—even less so—by saying them, like the unwise thrush, twice over. For repetition, as has been said already, is a speaker's commonest fault—a case, if I may invert the old Latin tag, of parvum in multo. I think we get so much of this in Parliament because speakers, especially Ministers, simply have not the time to review and compress their arguments. Like Mark Antony, they just speak right on. A telling example of this occurred not long ago in your Lordships' House, when a speaker—and I name no names—by no means the least intelligent occupant of one of the Front Benches, was talking about a piteous case of hardship. In his fifteen-minute speech, he mentioned that it was a "tragic case" or a "tragedy" seven times. We all do this kind of thing, my Lords. It is too easily done; and I cannot suggest any remedy for it. Speaking from scripts, except when obviously necessary, is discouraged, I know, but if they are good scripts they can help to keep matters within bounds.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned that one's own speeches tend to interest oneself excessively, if not exclusively. And of course, that keeps one going on and on. But I can remember a
132
signal exception to this, perpetrated years ago by one of my fellow Peers on the Cross-Benches—now, alas! no longer here. After he had spoken, he was asked, according to the custom, to lend his notes for the OFFICIAL REPORT. I shall never forget the disgusted relief with which he parted from them, nor his words, which endeared him to me from that moment. "Here you are", he muttered, "I never want to see them again." Normally, I suppose, we Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers rise to speak when there is a subject on which we feel strongly. Then, as the blood warms, the words multiply. Certain topics, such as trade unionism, the United Nations, bombs, racialism, injustices and all kinds and breeds of "under-doggery" can be counted on to lead to verbal inflation.
Although I am glad to say that I speak very seldom, and always as briefly as I can, there was an occasion, last December, in a debate on disarmament, when I seemed to find it impossible, even after hours of diligent cerebration, to expound my case against the declared policies of all three Parties in under twenty-two minutes: which was twice as long as I had intended. Had I spoken for thrice, or even half, as long, it would not have made any difference, because I convinced no one, and I broke my own semi-elastic ten-minute rule.
This Motion appeals to me because it bears upon one of my strong beliefs which I have expressed before in your Lordships' House: that there is, broadly speaking, everywhere too much of so much, and most of it very much of a muchness, too. In this howling waste of words, mere statements of intent will afford no refuge. The only thing one can exercise is self-discipline. That again has been said before; so you see, my Lords, how one has to repeat. If Parliament were merely, as its name implies, a place for talking, it might not matter how lavishly words were spent; but it is primarily a place of business, and since it is largely true that time is money, we ought to look to the economy of our sessions. If speeches were shorter, the House could hear more speakers, more points of view, and the variety would serve to hold one's attention. I myself have never actually fallen asleep when listening, although, I am, of course,

133
familiar with the fable of the noble Lord who dreamt that he was making a speech and awoke to find that he was. But I should suppose that if there were more and briefer speakers, there would be fewer and briefer sleepers.
I am not hopeful that this debate will have a stunning effect upon the length of speeches; but I think that those of us who can spare the time to collect and sift our thoughts beforehand might make an attempt to be less prolix. And if the public persist in holding the comic-opera view that the House of Peers does "nothing in particular", would it not be a noble gesture to demonstrate that it does it not only—as W. S. Gilbert admitted—"very well", but quite briskly, too.
4.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I should like in the first place to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, on bringing this Motion before the House. It looks to me, from the satisfactory way in which the debate has been proceeding, as if this Motion may indeed be carried. In this event, as most noble Lords seem to think it will be forgotten in the course of time, I have one possible suggestion to hold out. I am not suggesting that the right reverend Prelate who reads the Prayers should be responsible for carrying out this suggestion, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack might remind the House before the opening speeches each day that this Motion was passed by this House on July 13, 1965. It would not delay Business for very long in view of its brevity:
"That speeches in this House should be shorter."
It could not be much briefer.
I agree, however, that we do not want rules and regulations passed to regulate these matters. I hope that this House will so conduct its affairs as to be able to continue to enjoy its unfettered freedom. That, in my opinion, is one of the great beauties of this House. Having spent a good many years in another place, I sometimes think to myself that since 1923 I must have listened to more speeches than almost anybody else alive. I certainly had to listen to a great many during my twelve years as a Whip, and it was difficult to listen to the whole of all of them. At any rate, it was a long haul.
134
Although I am very much against rules, there is one rule which crosses my mind which might be of value, and that is a rule to enable constant repetition to be got rid of, because it is very boring and tedious for the listener. But there is always the other side of any question One must bear in mind, that in The Hunting of the Snark Lewis Carroll wrote:
"When I say it three times, it is true."
That is in favour of repetition, but I do not think that Lewis Carroll was necessarily thinking of Parliament when he wrote those words.
I should have thought that ten or twelve minutes would be ample for the ordinary Back Bench speaker and, say, twenty or twenty-five minutes for the Government spokesman or the main Opposition speaker dealing with a Second Reading or an important debate. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Baldwin of Bewdley that you cannot lay down any hard and fast rules—at any rate, I do not think so. One does not want lights of red or green flashing on and off in this Chamber like traffic lights. I hope we shall not come to that. But, as we know, in another place rules and closures and such things as the guillotine had to be resorted to in order to get the business through. I very much hope it will not be necessary in your Lordships' House.
I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Spencer-Churchill, will forgive my mentioning this, but I remember that the late Sir Winston Churchill once said to me after I had sat down in another place, having been winding-up for the Government on a housing debate, "Why do you let them interrupt you so often?" I replied, "I can answer that at once. It is because when the Labour Party opposite interrupt me I can sit down and have a little rest while I listen to them. Then I have to get up and go on again until 10 o'clock when we have the Division." I think he saw the point. I added, "You may notice that I did not sit down during the last two or three minutes. I had to get off my last two or three sentences. That was important."
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned after-dinner speakers. Some years ago I read in a book of a man who went to deliver his first important after-dinner speech. He had rehearsed it. When he

135
came home afterwards his wife said to him, "Well, dear, how did you make out?". He replied, "I think I can truthfully say that my speech was moving, soothing and satisfying." His wife asked, "What do you mean by that?". He replied, "I know that it was moving because after ten minutes half of the audience moved out; I know it was soothing because after another ten minutes the other half were asleep; and I am quite sure it was satisfying because when I sat down the man opposite woke up and said, "Well, we have had enough of that something fool, anyway!".
4.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, about the wisdom of limiting the length of speeches in your Lordships' House. One of the attractions of this House is its intimate nature and I venture to think that this would be spoilt by regimentation.
I am only "a new boy" here; this is only my third Session. I am still fascinated by the atmosphere of this House—its informality, its spontaneity, its expertise, the extreme courtesy and the occasional flashes of wit. Of course, there are difficulties with so many competent speakers, such a wealth of information and so much involvement in public affairs outside the House, international, national and local. With the increase in the number of active Peers the pressure is likely to get worse. The continual accession of new Life Peers in your Lordships House adds strength to it and is much to be welcomed. Hence, as we do not impose the discipline of a Speaker, as in another place, each must ask himself whether he has anything really valuable to contribute, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said.
Disraeli was once asked by a young member whether he should intervene in a debate, and Disraeli said, "Better that people should ask why you did not than why you did." We do not have to speak in order to show our electors that we are active in their interests. It is really a question of self-discipline which is the basis of good taste. We should speak on a subject only if we have expert knowledge, or a considerable interest, or strongly felt individual points of view or if we wish to indicate our support
136
for or feeling against a particular proposal—which should not take more than a few minutes—or Front Bench exposition of Party policy, or the views of the Church.
There are, of course, drastic methods of limitation. A Professor of Byzantine Art told me that in the Agora Museum, in Athens, there is a water-clock, used in ancient days, which was set for twenty minutes. If the clock ran out, a speaker was exiled. That, I venture to say, is too drastic. There are other methods of limitation. We could have fiscal control, a tax based on the length of the speech, steeply progressive, with a double tariff after 7 p.m. But that would not be fair because some speak slowly and others speak quickly. I would venture to say that quickness of speech is not to be encouraged. Some speak a lot and say very little, but they say it so elegantly, so disarmingly and with so much wit that we are always glad to hear them.
If I may be permitted to make a suggestion, it would be that some members seem to try to cover too wide a field at too great a length, and they speak too rapidly or too superficially. I am an old broadcaster and a trainer of broadcasters. In broadcasting, where you cannot be seen, you have to make a point three times; with visible audiences you make it twice, and when you write you make it only once because people can re-read it if they have not understood it the first time. So in this House we must for clarity sometimes repeat major points, which reduces even more the time available. Hence, in a fifteen to twenty minute speech, speaking not too fast, and with adequate development and clarity, it is impossible to make more than four to six points, devoting three or four minutes to each.
I hope, therefore, that my suggestions may be accepted—no artificial limitations; only intervene when you have a real contribution to make; only make four to six points. This should not exhaust the patience of the House. I was once blamed by the Whips for speaking short, but I venture to suggest that that is not an insult to your Lordships and should be welcomed. Some of the best contributions which I have heard in this place have been short and succinct, and I hope that no lower limit is suggested.
4.25 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as we all know, this is a debate on shorter speeches, and I certainly do not intend to trouble your Lordships for more than a few minutes any more than those other speakers who have preceded me. But I should like to say this. This, I can assure your Lordships, is no new problem. I imagine that it dates back to the days of Simon de Montfort. Certainly it has been in existence ever since I have been a Member of this House. To quote a single instance, I remember very well, during the war, when we were sitting in what is now the Queen's Robing Room, an occasion when a distinguished member of the Government had been expounding a very technical Bill with, perhaps, unnecessary detail. The noble Lord, Lord FitzAlan, who was an old Parliamentary hand, was sitting just behind the speaker, and when the speaker sat down the noble Lord was heard to remark in a stentorian aside which echoed through the House, "Could have been said in ten minutes". Since then I have often said to myself, as I have heard speakers ambling rather discursively through their speeches, "Could have been said in ten minutes".
My Lords, I suppose we should all agree—or perhaps it is a normal human feeling—that there is a tendency for some speeches to occupy more time in this House than perhaps could be justified. But, frankly, I do not believe it possible—and here I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn—in a Chamber of this kind, for us to do what I suspect that in their hearts of hearts some noble Lords would like to do: that is, pass rules and regulations to limit the length of speeches to such-and-such a time. We simply cannot do it.
This my Lords, is not a school debating society. This is a great deliberative Assembly, I suppose one of the greatest in the world, and we cannot treat the Members as if they were irresponsible children. There are, of course, some speeches the length of which clearly should not be shortened; on the contrary, every word in them tends to enrich the debate. There are some subjects which cannot be dealt with in five or ten minutes. In these circumstances, I should have thought—and probably everyone else would take the same view—that
138
limitation of speeches must clearly come not from imposing rules on the House but from the voluntary action of noble Lords themselves. It is surely not too much to ask of them that they should consider whether all the points they wish to make are really of equal importance or whether they have not already been made by someone else.
I remember a story told of the late Lord Balfour, who was for some time Leader of the House of Commons. He once said that he had never heard a speech there that had not in it one really good point. And then he added, after a pause, that he had "very seldom heard a speech which had more than one good point". My Lords, that is a sobering reflection for us all, and we ought to bear it in mind when preparing speeches.
Indeed, I myself should be inclined, with great diffidence, to echo what has been said already by the Leader of the Opposition, that what might sometimes be a fault in this House, even more than the length of speeches, is the number of speeches. The situation in your Lordships' House is, in some ways, rather different from that in another place. There the Members represent constituencies and constituents may well expect their Member to raise some special point, or intervene on some issue of special importance to them. We have no constituents, so that aspect, perhaps fortunately, does not arise.
Moreover, I think we may fairly claim to be called a body of experts. I do not believe there is any subject—I have never known one—that could be raised here on which we should not be able to find, among the Members of this House, some of the greatest experts in the country. I recall a debate in this House not so long ago, and the subject, if I remember aright, was the situation in the Northern Province of Kenya. We had contributions from several noble Lords who had spent a considerable part of their lives there and could speak with personal knowledge. I am quite certain that the same would be true of debates on, say, atomic energy, poliomyelitis, or the care of paintings by Old Masters. There is no subject, I believe, on which we cannot produce a great authority, and to such people, who speak with real authority, this House will always listen with deep interest, even if they speak

139
for quite a long time. But with people who speak merely because they wish to air their views, though it may be a subject on which they have no special knowledge—and I am afraid we have all been guilty of this at one time or another—the House quickly gets bored.
Therefore, I feel that we should ask ourselves, especially on technical subjects, rather in the manner of impending travellers during the last war, "Is my speech really necessary?". If we did that, I am sure, rather than by any rules and regulations, we should both shorten the duration and lengthen the value of your Lordships' debates.
4.30 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, if you are agreed that repetition is wrong, it would be wrong to be repetitious, even about repetition; and as most of the points I was going to make have now been made, I shall touch briefly on two things, then I shall sit down. I think that the real achievement of this debate is in recognising the problem and in the very broad degree of agreement about how it should be tackled. My father used to say, when in the House of Commons, that apart from speeches from Government speakers on the Budget and on other great questions, you can get any subject into 20 minutes, if you know what you are talking about, but that if you do not, then you are likely to talk much longer. I think that that will be broadly agreed.
Many noble Lords, I think, have in mind that Peerage is a duty and not a privilege, and they feel that they are fulfilling their duty the more fully the longer and the more often they speak—an honest but, to my mind, mistaken view. I think that there must always be long speeches. There was the famous speech of the noble Lord, Lord Keynes, which I well remember. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, here. It was the enviable reputation of the late Hugh Gaitskell that he could make a 40-minute speech sound like a 20-minute speech. But your Lordships have heard in this House a great many 30-minute speeches in the last few years which have sounded exactly like 30-minute speeches.
It was said of Pascal, the French philosopher and writer, that he once met one of his friends and said, "I wrote you
140
a very long letter to-day. Time did not allow me to compose a short one." I think that when, as a Back-Bencher in your Lordships' House, one comes down with a long speech, it is because it is not properly prepared, and thereby one confers no very great compliment on the House. Last of all, I think that if too many speeches and too long speeches are made, a kind of oratorical Gresham's Law takes hold, by which bad speeches tend to drive good speeches out of circulation. And on that note, I express my support for the mover of this Motion. I believe that it is said in philosophy that it is not the duty of the philosopher to find an answer, but to state the problem accurately. We find ourselves with a broad measure of agreement on the statement to-day.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, everything that I could have said has been better said before me, so, having just said that I wholeheartedly support my noble friend's Motion, I will resume my seat.
4.33 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, as we have heard, brevity of speech is a great quality. Since I have come into Parliament I have been in no doubt as to which sex has the greater quality of brevity. This was driven home to me by my Professor of Logic at New College, Professor Joseph. I remember that one day he threw my essay back at me and said, "This is slovenly work. Take it home; cut out every unnecessary sentence and every unnecessary word, and bring it back next week." I conscientiously carried out his instructions and my essay dwindled from four pages to one. "That," said Professor Joseph, "is quite good and worth listening to." I wonder whether, if we took Hansard home the day after we had made speeches and went through this exercise ourselves, it might not be a salutary lesson. Of course, one can err on the side of brevity, like the short-story writer who was told by his publisher to condense his stories a little more. The next story he sent in read as follows:
"Three girls set out on a tramp. The tramp died."
The proposer of a Motion and whoever has to wind up for the Government must have a little more latitude than ordinary Back Benchers, but it is sad to think of

141
all the wise words we have not heard because some noble Lords have (to use an un-Parliamentary term) "hogged" all the time. When we think of what a successful tyrant a baby is, getting everything he or she wants without uttering an intelligible word, and that the dog is a man's best friend—presumably because he cannot answer back—while I do not suggest that the noble Earl the Leader of the House should emulate the baby or the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the dog, we might remember these qualities that get their way without long speeches.
The Lord Privy Seal has assured me that your Lordships like your medicine diluted. From his point of view, if he has to administer bitter pills, he must use gentle words to dilute their bitterness. I am certain that we have some sympathy for the noble Earl, because he shared Professor Joseph with me in our younger days, though perhaps he may not have taken his lessons so assiduously to heart as I did. I do not want to diminish his pleasure in seeing me get up by taking too long in sitting down, after, I hope, having spoken for not too long.
4.36 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I find this a terrifying experience, as brevity is the essence of what we are aiming at and most of the points which I have put together have been made. But there are two points which have only just been touched on, and which I would mention to your Lordships. The first is the question of read speeches, which has been mentioned, but I should like to emphasise it. It seems to me that we could do more to limit the use of read speeches. A read speech, which must in any case savour of the midnight oil, cannot hut be repetitive, because it is impossible for the reader to pick and choose matters which have already been referred to in the debate.
The second point which I would emphasise is one which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin mentioned, the necessity for speeches of a longer length from the Front Benches on both sides. In that respect I go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. It is necessary that they should be of adequate length to cover the ground. I remember one instance, some years ago, when the House
142
was involved in lengthy exchanges because a Front Bench speech had been curtailed. But I make this point, which has not been made before: that whereas lengthy speech-making from the Front Benches early in a debate knocks the stuffing out of it and renders further deliberations in your Lordships' House largely repetitive—and I should like to see less of that, in order that there could be more expression of varied opinions—I have no objection to long speeches at the end.
I am thinking particularly of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, at the end of the Highlands and Islands Development Bill. The speech was not a minute too long, although the noble Lord apologised for its length. I believe that an alteration of the balance in these respects would go a long way to improve the whole tenor of the debates. In brief, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, on his Motion, and although I do not go all the way with him, in that I think that there must be a measure of lengthy speeches on complex matters, I feel that Front-Bench speakers early in the debate should be as brief as they can but that it does not matter if they are fairly long at the end of the debate. And let us be excessively careful about permitting read speeches. Then (and I think that this point has been touched on) I believe it is as important for speakers to be present at the beginning of a debate as it is customary and proper for them to be present at the end, otherwise they cannot have the feel of it when they come to take part.
4.40 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but there is an obvious suggestion which has not been made. I attempted to persuade two other speakers to make it, but since it has not been made, I should like to make it myself. I do not want to discipline anybody else in this House, but I should like to see a clock opposite me which starts when I get to my feet, so that I may be aware of how long I am talking, Many speeches go on simply for the reason that the speaker does not know how long he has been speaking. I see some Members pointing to the clock that is here; but it is not easy to keep looking right if you are also looking at your notes in front of you. Although many experienced speakers may be able to

143
speak and also look at the clock, personally, I cannot. I should like to see it propped up in front of me, and I think that that might help others.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is because he cannot look Right that he is unable to see the clock?
LORD BROWN: It connotes the possibility that the noble Lord cannot look Left.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, 21 speeches in 86 minutes: it must, I think, be a record.
4.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend Lord Hughes and all of us appreciate the kind remarks that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, about that magnificent effort he made the other day. In the same breath, may I, on behalf of the House, once again offer congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who battled on, against every kind of misfortune, in the spirit which we associate with all those who bear his honoured name? We shall certainly very much look forward to hearing him again.
The Lord Chancellor has brought out the essential point of this debate: 21 speeches in 86 minutes. That is undoubtedly a salutary thought. I do not consider that this is an occasion for some pronouncement from the Leader of the House, if only because everything that is said ought to be considered, and also because, following the debate on procedure initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, the Procedure Committee is considering this issue, among others. I hope, therefore, that I may be allowed to offer a little information, so to speak, not all of it perhaps statistically watertight, in the sense that it is based on some rather rapid investigations which might need qualification later.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that one cannot lay down some ideal rule for the perfect speech. He pointed out that there was that great and memorable speech by Lord Keynes, which he said took an hour and a quarter. My investigations suggest that it took rather under the hour; but still, it was a long speech by any standards. Then, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley,
144
who I thought was particularly interesting, reminded us that the Gettysburg Speech took two or three minutes. He also reminded us, and I think informed some of us for the first time, that it received this withering reception. I was aware that it was over so quickly that the cameraman had not time to take photographs before the President had sat down; but I had not realised, until the noble Earl told us, that the general impression was so poor. No doubt what the noble Earl said has great force: that if you are too precise, people do not take in anything you are saying, even if you are saying something that matters.
Everybody who has been in your Lordships' House for some time—the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, for example—has his own memory of glorious orations in this post-war period. I think that those of us who were present would place the speech of Lord Keynes among the highest. But I remember that great speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, at the time of the controversies relating to Suez. I looked up his speech, which to many of us defined the whole position in International Law as he saw it with his tremendous authority. That was a speech which took 26 minutes. I thought of it as lasting longer merely because it seemed so consequential and weighty. I see the noble Lord here to-day, and, as I say, he managed to say all that in 26 minutes. Also, at the time of Suez, my noble friend Lord Attlee, who spoke so vividly to-day, spoke for eight minutes, and in that eight minutes I think he said as much as I should have said in 80. It was a very pertinent speech.
If we come a little nearer to the present time, and take note of a debate which appeared to influence the last Government when they were in power, that on the Robbins Report, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, sneaking on his own Report, spoke for 56 minutes; the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, spoke for 25 minutes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles for 36 minutes. Those were all three significant and, I think, in their different ways, influential speeches. So I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we cannot come along and say that there is a perfect length of speech. Nevertheless, think we all feel that speeches now

145
would be better if they were shorter; and whether they would be better or not taken individually, at the moment, with the number of speakers now taking part, they add up to too long a period of debate.
I speak somewhat subject to correction, because my investigations cannot be said to be complete, but I would venture to challenge the impression given by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that speeches have been getting longer. I have not investigated them over the last year or two, but what I think has really happened in the House of Lords, whether one compares it now with the 'nineties, the 'twenties or the 'thirties, is that far more people are attending and taking part in debates. If you go back to the 'thirties, which was before I came to this House—though the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, must have been here, and one or two other noble Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—you find, for example, that in two debates on the League of Nations, there were seven and ten speakers. They were major debates which to-day would attract far more speakers.
When we study any question of the procedure of the House of Lords to-day, we are confronted with the fact that far more noble Lords are coming and are taking part in debates. Even compared to ten years ago, there are twice as many people attending the House to-day as then. Naturally, there is a disposition for a goodly proportion of them to speak in debates. When we are trying to maintain the conditions of this House, we have to adapt them to the circumstances which I believe now obtain. I do not think this can necessarily be put down to Life Peers. Taking a check on the last few months—and I think this is fairly typical of the main debates—about 60 per cent. of the speeches have been made by those who have received Peerages, whether Hereditary or Life Peerages, and 40 per cent. by Peers who have inherited Peerages. Therefore, the Hereditary Peers are still doing a good portion of the talking. The House is changing, and in deciding what our practice should be, and the atmosphere we desire here, we have to bear those facts in mind.
146
If we make a comparison between to-day and the 'forties, when some of us first took an active part in this House, we can take as an example the annual summer debate on the economic situation which the late Lord Cherwell used to initiate after the war and to which I used to reply. Lord Cherwell averaged 56 minutes for his speeches—and I do not think they were thought long, though they were certainly described as witty—and I am sorry to find that I, in replying for the Government, averaged 44 minutes.
That I spoke too long was perhaps implied particularly in the remarks of the noble Baroness. Lady Emmet of Amberley. I would yield to any criticism that the noble Baroness might make of me, but not necessarily to a criticism on a matter of this kind by the late Professor Joseph, wonderful though he was. I think very few Members of this House, with the possible exception of the noble Lady would have ever understood a speech from Professor Joseph. I cannot consider the standards of his stringent and intelligent philosophy as those which should be adopted in this Chamber. So I am not entirely rebuked by the reprimand of Professor Joseph, although I stand open to correction by the noble Lady. Others have, perhaps, suffered under that great philosopher also.
Therefore, may I tell the noble Lady that I have not increased my average, because 44 minutes was the time I took in the Economics debate the other day to which she referred. But, by and large, I think one can say that the Economics debates have always been slightly lengthy affairs and, generally speaking, I would think that the average length of speech has come down in the last twenty years, and come down quite a lot.
To-day, in taking a very quick check over the Wednesday debates, I find that the average for all speeches since October is 19 minutes: that is, 29 minutes average for the Front Bench, and 16 minutes average for the Back Benches. I offer those figures for the moment without comment, but simply for the consideration of the House. Checking that against the House of Commons, I find there does not appear to be much difference. Their Front Bench speakers are apparently much longer than ours—if that is any consolation to the Front Bench speakers here—and their Back Bench speakers are

147
shorter. I think one would want a closer comparison before one said that firmly, but we are roughly on the same footing. That is broadly the position—that speeches here average 19 minutes. The experts at the Table and elsewhere over the years will know that if there are eighteen speakers in a debate they will reckon on the debate taking six hours. Twenty minutes is usually reckoned by the officials as the average here on Wednesdays—I am not talking about a lot of bits of small Business. This is about how it works out. It is for the House to say whether they think that is too long.
My own average is 33 minutes. The House must not necessarily conclude that I hold the record, either on my own side or the other. I would concede to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition a great advantage here, because his average is only 22 minutes, and the Lord Chancellor's only 17. I can point to at least one noble Lord opposite who speaks for longer than I do, and possibly to one of my own colleagues who does, but that is neither here nor there. I will say to the noble Lord opposite that he is only two-thirds my figure, and the Lord Chancellor half. Those are the sort of figures involved and I thought the House might be interested to know how it all worked out. We shall consider that in the Procedure Committee and elsewhere where we are trying to reflect the opinion of the House, and we shall be expected to bring back a Report to the House. The number of speeches is at least as important and I think this was in the mind of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others.
I shrink back a little from the thought that Peers should be expected, so to speak, to scrutinise themselves on every occasion as to whether they think they have something valuable to say. I think the more self-critical, diffident and, it may be, the more valuable Peers, would succumb to this scrutiny, and would
148
refrain from speaking, while the bolder and brasher Peers—if such exist in this House—would speak without interruption, happy in the thought that there were not many speakers on that day and they could speak twice as long as they would otherwise have done. I think if we leave it to individual Peers we may be in trouble. But that can all be looked at by the Procedure Committee.
I consider that this has been a very valuable debate and we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Egremont. There is a great deal to be said for the view that we should keep returning to this theme. I do not think it is up to me, in advance of the discussions of the Procedure Committee, to make any pronouncement, but I should like to assure everybody that to us in the Government—and I am sure this is true of leading people in the House elsewhere—this is a matter of first-class importance and certainly will not be neglected.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are accepting this Motion? He has left us in the dark.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Yes, I should like to accept it.
LORD EGREMONT: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for what he has just said, as I am to all other noble Lords who have taken part in such a large but rapid survey of this subject. Having said that, in view of the terms of my Motion and the tenor which this debate has taken, I do not propose to exercise my right of reply.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION (MERSEY TUNNEL APPROACHES) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before five o'clock.