RHODESIA (Hansard, 7 October 1968)

§ LORD ALPORT
had given Notice of his intention to put the following Question:

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, will it be in order, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is not here, if I ask that his Question should be answered?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, the procedure is that unless the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has himself authorised somebody to ask the Question, no other Peer can ask it. This is a well-established custom of the House.

EARL ST. ALDWYN
My Lords, with due respect to the Leader of the House, I always thought that if a Question is down in a noble Lord's name and it is called, if he is not there himself it is up to any noble Lord to ask it on his behalf.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, when I heard that Lord Alport was not in the House I took special advice on 785 this very point, and I can assure the noble Earl that the advice I have given is in fact in accordance with the invariable custom of your Lordships' House.

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, while of course accepting that that is the custom, is it not rather unfair that a noble Lord should have put down a Question a very long time ago, thus preventing anybody else from putting the Question down, and then not be here to put it? Had the noble Lord, Lord Alport, not put the Question down I should have put it clown, but I was precluded from doing so.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I wonder whether the Leader of the House is really right about this. I have always understood that the position has been that if a noble Lord stands up and asks the Question it has to be answered. There is no obligation on the noble Lord who put down the Question originally to ask somebody to ask it for him. Anybody can, so to speak, adopt the Question. It is down on the Order Paper and therefore it should be answered.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, the noble Lord may take that view. He has been in this House longer than I have. I have always understood the position to be the opposite, and I have taken advice upon this. We are of course unable to refer this as a matter to any Speaker to give a ruling upon. I can only say that I have consulted the very best advice we have, and I think that if we pursue this matter any further we shall be in real difficulty. Clearly this is a matter which perhaps ought to be referred to the Committee for Procedure to examine. I appreciate the point the noble Lord has made, but I am sorry there is nothing I can do about it.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords. I do not want to quarrel—we have only just got back from a long holiday, and I do not want to be too contentious to begin with—but it seems to me that if the noble Lord took advice about whether this was so or not he must have known that the Question was not going to be asked, and therefore he seems very unwilling to answer it.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, rang up this House and spoke 786 to somebody and left a message. Obviously, I cannot go into details, but it was with one of the officials some time between one and two o'clock.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)
My Lords, I do not know whether I can help the House at all. Standing Order 37, paragraph 2, is as follows: If a Lord be absent at the appointed time for the House to enter upon consideration of his Motion or Question and has not authorised another Lord to take his place it shall not be proceeded with until after notice there of is renewed.

§ THE EARL OF SWINTON
My Lords, may I put two points to the Government? First, whatever may be the legalistic position, would it not be perfectly in order, if my noble friend Lord Carrington desired to put this Question, for him to put a Private Notice Question on the Order Paper? In the second place, if I may venture to phrase this as a question, would it not be the unanimous opinion of this House, whatever individual views may be, that nothing whatever should be done which could conceivably prejudice the possibility of a satisfactory settlement in Rhodesia?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I find myself, as any Leader of the House must do, in some embarrassment in a matter of this kind. I fully accept the wise words of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who has a great deal of experience. There is a procedure for putting down Private Notice Questions. They have to be put in at a certain time. It is very unusual for us to be caught procedurally in this way, but time is always another day and I would hope that we do not continue to pursue this matter any further now, otherwise we might as well have dealt with the Question.

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, while wishing to conform to what the noble Lord has said, would he take Notice that a Private Notice Question will be put down on this matter?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, the noble Lord can ask to put down a Private Notice Question. It is, of course, a matter for decision as to whether it is allowed. It depends again on custom. Here we are in difficulty. It is again 787 unfortunately the Leader of the House who has to decide within very strict precedents, in this matter. I assure the noble Lord that on these occasions I certainly do not wear my Government hat; I wear a House of Lords hat. But I take a note of what he has said.

§ LORD SORENSEN
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it may be taken therefore that the same procedure can be adopted regarding all other Questions when the questioner is not present?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord is asking. We have had the Standing Order quoted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am not quite sure what my noble friend has in mind, but I am very willing, if he has anxieties, to discuss the matter with him further afterwards.

§ LORD SORENSEN
It really comes to this, my Lords: that if we adopt the procedure proposed by the noble Lord, therefore all other Questions should be dealt with in the same way.