§ 3.13 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Leader of the House a Question of which my noble friend Lord Carrington, who I am sorry to say is indisposed to-day, has given Private Notice—namely, whether he would care to clarify the practice of the House in regard to Private Notice Questions.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for asking this Question. May I say how sorry I am—as I know we all are—that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is indisposed. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will convey our good wishes to him.
In view of the exchanges that took place yesterday on the Private Notice Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, I think it would be helpful to the House if I attempted to clarify what I understand is the present practice in 1148 this matter. My interpretation of the relevant passage in the Companion to the Standing Orders is that when a Peer wishes to ask a Private Notice Question he must get in touch, before noon, with the Leader of the House, who then has to take a view, in his capacity as Leader, as to whether the Question is of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply.
If the Leader of the House decides that it is of sufficient urgency, the Question is asked in the usual way, immediately after the Starred Questions. If he decides that it is not of sufficient urgency, that is not necessarily the end of the matter. The Peer who wishes to question the Government can still rise at the appropriate time and seek the support of the House, which is the final authority as to whether or not a Question may be asked. All this bears, in my view, only upon the issue: is it or is it not a Question of sufficient urgency? And this is a matter for the Leader of the House to decide in the first instance. Whether the Question is then to be answered is, of course, a matter entirely for the Government.
I now come, if I may, to the events of yesterday. May I first say that if yesterday I left the House with the impression that I thought the decision on the urgency of a Private Notice Question was a matter for the Government, I wish now to correct this and to express my regret, in particular to the noble and learned Viscount, It is, of course, a matter in the first place for the Leader, as Leader, and in the final resort for the House itself. That latter point concerning the House itself I never challenged.
I would conclude, if I may, by saying that of course the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, had a perfect right to pursue the matter if he thought fit to do so—as, in the end, he did. But I venture to offer the personal opinion—and I do not want it to be treated as more than a personal opinion, but it is offered after consultation—that if a noble Lord wishes to challenge the view of the Leader of the House on the matter of urgency, he should take two steps. First of all he should give adequate notice to the Leader—which was certainly not given yesterday—that he is proposing to challenge his view in the House and, secondly, he should make clear to the 1149 House, when he rises to ask his Question, that he is appealing to the House to support him in doing so against the view of the Leader.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Earl the Leader of the House—and I am sure the whole House is grateful to him—for the clear statement he has made with regard to what is the practice of the House. He certainly left me with the impression yesterday that he was saying that the matter was one on which the Government were entitled to express a view. I do not want to revert to what happened yesterday, although I must say at the time I felt that the noble Earl's observations to me were uncalled for and unwarranted. I am grateful to him for making this statement, which is entirely in accordance with what I think is the right position.
I am sure that the failure of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, to give notice that he intended to ask the Question, after the Leader of the House had said it was not qualified, was inadvertent and due to ignorance of a practice, which I think, if it has not existed before, certainly should be regarded as existing in the future. I am grateful to the noble Earl and I think that the statement he has now made should avoid any further difficulties on these matters in the future.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, I should just like to add that notice of my Private Notice Question was given to the Party opposite, through the appropriate channels, early in the morning of yesterday.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his kind observations, and I can assure him, in the words of the old song that, "I want to be happy, but I can't be happy till I make him happy, too".