§ 2.44 p.m.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask the Leader of the House whether the privilege confined to Front Bench Members of the Opposition of making speeches arising from questions put by themselves or by Back-Benchers is based on membership of the previous Administration; and when the practice originated.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM)My Lords, the general principle is that all Peers are equal in this House and there are no privileges such as the noble Lord mentions. From time to time, however, it is appropriate to remind noble Lords, irrespective of where they sit in the House, that on page 68 the Companion to the Standing Orders states:
Starred Questions…are asked for information only, and not with a view to making a speech or to raising a debate.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that I am very grateful for his Answer? But can he now explain, since he has established the principle that all Peers in your Lordships' House are equal, why the other week, when my noble friend Lord Wigg ventured to offer a few observations arising from a Question—not a Statement but a Question—the Leader of the House thought fit to curtail my noble friend's observations? Could he also explain why he did not raise any protest when my noble friend Lord Chorley actually intervened and suggested that my noble friend Lord Wigg should no longer be heard?
§ LORD CHORLEYNo, my Lords; I did not. If my noble friend will permit me to say so, I gather that one of the media (I am sorry he reads this particular newspaper; he ought not to) reported me as having said this. What I did was to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether it would be in order for me to move "Next Business".
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, I venture—but I must ask a question. Does 150 not the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree with me that that intervention was not relevant, practical, useful or even expressed in literal terms? Would he now address himself to my remark? Can he say, since we are now all equal, why, when he permits noble Lords on both Front Benches to express themselves somewhat liberally following not Statements (to which I take no exception at all) but Questions, he sought to curtail my noble friend's observations?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMNo, my Lords; we have already strayed a little out of Order in the interesting exchange between the two noble Lords opposite. The sense of the House is the decisive factor in the conduct of our business, and in the main this works well. It carries the corollary that the House is a self-governing institution, and the way in which the House regulates itself, with or without the assistance of the Leader, is a matter for noble Lords themselves. The sense of the House I detected last week —I may have been wrong—was that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in putting six supplementary questions, had stretched the point as far as it should go on that occasion.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, may we now understand from what the noble Lord is saying in reply to this question that in future he will exercise rather more discipline than has previously been experienced?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the noble Lord, I thought, was criticising me for not exercising enough discipline on an earlier occasion.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for laying down the principle that all in this House are equal, but in practice of course some are more equal than others.
§ NOBLE LORDS: Question!
§ LORD WIGGIn practice, is it not a fact that some are more equal than others? Is the noble Lord aware that since I have been here I have found it is the practice, right, left and centre, for noble Lords to read speeches? Last week 151 there were three examples of noble Lords actually reading their supplementary questions. If the noble Lord will refresh his mind on the incident of last week—
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, will the noble Lord refresh his mind on the incident of last week and recall that it is true that I asked a number of supplementary questions because I got statements from the Minister which were not true?
§ LORD WIGGI repeat, statements which were made were untrue, and there was a very good reason for their being untrue, because Lord Lambton—
§ A NOBLE LORD: Ask a question!
§ LORD WIGGI am asking a question, my Lords. Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that statements were made by Lord Lambton which were factually incorrect and that, consequently, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence was also inaccurate in his reply? I do not need protection, but is the noble Lord aware that what is required is protection so that a noble Lord is not ruled out of Order, not for asking a number of supplementaries but because he happens to hold views which are not acceptable? That is the issue.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, every noble Lord has an opportunity to put questions, even if they are critical of or embarrassing to the Government, and if the noble Lord opposite feels that he obtained an unsatisfactory reply from my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence, his correct remedy is to put down another Question. He has that opportunity and it is up to him to make use of it or not. Perhaps I might say to him, with the greatest respect, that I think it is the fact that some supplementary questions, whether they come from one part of the House or another, tend to be very long, and the House feels that if points were put more shortly and in the form of a question they would be more acceptable.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, on one point of procedure may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that it is very important that the House should 152 continue to keep its own order and that noble Lords should not resent the fact that other Members of the House say "Hear, Hear!", "Order!", and so on, because that is the only way for this Chamber to avoid having put upon it a Speaker? Demands that the Leader of the House, rather than the House itself, should conduct the order of the House, would lead inevitably to the appointment of a Speaker, which in my view would be quite wrong.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, I ask the noble Lord whether, if it is in order for the noble Lord who has just spoken to make a speech, even in an interrogative form, I have the same right? And if a Minister makes a statement which is incorrect and his attention is drawn to the fact that it is incorrect (I am being charitable) or inaccurate, is it not up to the Minister, in deference to the House, to put that right?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I have already replied to that last point, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, sets an example to all of us in the brevity with which he speaks.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House not aware that it would be to the advantage of many of us who really believe in order in debates and discussion and the asking of questions if the Standing Orders did contain the right to make a point of order, so that a person would be allowed to stand up and raise a point of order on a particular issue? As the noble Lord is aware, this practice has not so far operated in your Lordships' House, following which I must disagree entirely with the point which has been raised—
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, this is the issue: is the noble Lord the Leader of the House not aware that the rabble behind him are the ones who create trouble inside your Lordships' Chamber? And is the noble Lord not aware that I disagree entirely with the observations of a past Member of the other place in 153 the person of the noble Lord, Lord Byers?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I regret that intervention. I think all your Lordships have similar rights and obligations, irrespective of which part of the House they sit in. The case against an effective Speaker was argued at considerable length in the Report of the group on the Working of the House in 1971, and I would commend that publication to all noble Lords.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, with whose interpretation of the Rules of Order in this House I entirely agree, would consider, in view of the fact that there may be some misunderstanding, whether this might not be a subject which the Committee on Procedure should look at again and reiterate whatever it conceives to be the practice in your Lordships' House? Would he agree that from time to time the Committee on Procedure has done this very thing? I think it would help all the noble Lords if this were spelt out again, because although it is in the Companion, it is rather scattered.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, any noble Lord can raise a matter with the Procedure Committee, but if the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition would like to have a further consideration of this matter by the Procedure Committee I will certainly consider it.