HL Deb 05 March 1975 vol 357 cc1250-5

3.4 p.m.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD)

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:

Standing Order No. 4

Leave out Standing Order No. 4.

Standing Order No. 22

Leave out Standing Order No. 22 and insert the following new Standing Order—

Leave of absence

22 .—(1) Lords are to attend the sittings of the House or, if they cannot do so, obtain leave of absence, which the House may grant at pleasure; but this Standing Order shall not be understood as requiring a Lord who is unable to attend regularly to apply for leave of absence if he proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can.

(2) A Lord may apply for Leave of Absence at any time during a Parliament for the remainder of that Parliament.

(3) On the issue of writs for the calling of a new Parliament the Lord Chancellor shall in writing request every Lord to whom he issues a writ, with such exceptions as the Leave of Absence and Lords Expenses Committee may direct, to answer within eight weeks whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence or not.

(4) In the case of those Lords who have not by the date specified in the Lord Chancellor's letter either—

  1. (a) indicated their wishes; or
  2. (b) attended the House (other than for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance),

(5) At the expiry of the period of two weeks the Leave of Absence and Lords Expenses Committee shall meet to consider lists of Lords who had—

  1. (a) applied for leave of absence; and
  2. (b) failed to reply to the reminder letter.

In considering the lists the Committee may, in appropriate cases, decide that no further action should be taken. The remaining Lords on the lists will be granted leave of absence by the House.

(6) A Lord who has been granted leave of absence is expected not to attend the sittings of the House until the period for which the leave was granted has expired or the leave has sooner ended, unless it be to take the Oath of Allegiance.

(7) If a Lord, having been granted leave of absence, wishes to attend during the period for which the leave was granted, he is expected to give notice to the House accordingly at least one month before the day on which he wishes to attend: and at the end of the period specified in his notice, or sooner if the House so direct, the leave shall end.

Standing Order No. 72

In paragraph (1), line 1, leave out "printed".

In paragraph (3), line 1, leave out "printed".

In paragraph (3), line 6, at end insert—

"The cost of the examination shall be borne by the claimant".

Leave out paragraph (4).—(Lord Shepherd.)

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

My Lords, the procedure that Standing Order No. 22 outlines is one which amounts roughly to this. If a Peer decides not to come to the House at all, he fails to attend, he should apply for leave of absence. He does not apply, and a letter is written to him by the Lord Chancellor asking whether he wishes to receive leave of absence and giving him two months to answer. He does not answer. He then gets a reminder giving him a fortnight to reply. He does not bother to reply to that and he then comes before the Leave of Absence and Expenses Committee who shall consider whether or not he will be given leave of absence whether or not he likes it. In certain circumstances, the Committee may in appropriate cases decide to go no further. I should like to ask what are the "appropriate" cases in which a Peer may be allowed to get away with this without anything happening at all? That is my question.

Proceeding from there, it turns out that the same Peer, who may then be given leave of absence whether or not he wants it, may (if after a period of time he decides to do so) come to the House. He would be expected not to do so without applying for leave of absence to be withdrawn. But he is "expected" to give notice to the House. There is no sanction, nothing to put any compulsion on him to ask for his indulgence; so that he can come perfectly freely. Nothing whatever has happened to him from the beginning to the end. He never asked for leave of absence, he did not want it, he got it, and he took no notice of it, he came and sat down; and nothing happens. What is the purpose of this Standing Order?

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, when I moved this Motion it was on the basis that it was consequential to a decision taken by this House last week when it approved the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, which is a Committee of Members of this House, who had undertaken a review of Standing Orders and suggested, in this particular case, some streamlining of our arrangements. My duty as Leader of the House was to move it but certainly not to defend the decision of the Procedure Committee or of this House last week. May I suggest that in future, when matters of this nature arise that perhaps it would be more appropriate to deal with it when we have the Report in front of us. It is then moved by the Chairman of Committees who is responsible to the House for answering the sort of question which has just been put.

May I say with a degree of hesitation, and I hope with some accuracy, that in regard to the word "expected", the noble Lord is expected not to attend unless he performs a function. It has to be drafted in such a way because, owing to the nature of the Writ of Summons, this House has no means to ban or prevent a noble Lord from coming here. That is my understanding as to why it is drafted in that way. In regard to "appropriate" cases, I can only say to the noble Lord that the Committee, which is made up of very experienced Members of this House, will take the normal circumstances into account in arriving at a decision.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, as one of the surviving Members of the Swinton Committee—I am not sure, but I think perhaps the only surviving Member— upon whose report this procedure was originally founded, may I confirm to my noble friend what the Leader of the House has just said. We came to the conclusion that there was no means whereby this House could legally deprive a Peer of Parliament of his right to attend; on the other hand, it was felt that a certain scandal was created by Peers who normally did not attend suddenly appearing in great numbers, if they did, without notice, thereby causing, perhaps, embarrassment to the Government of the day and to the reputation of this House by attending only on certain subjects—which is, perhaps, not desirable.

We have had two Introductions today. We bore in mind the peremptory terms of the Writ of Summons, "waiving all excuses", and we thought it was not unreasonable to ask Peers who, for reasons which may be perfectly adequate, did not wish to attend, both to ask for leave of absence and to give due notice if they wished that leave of absence to be terminated. It is certainly within my knowledge that, while I was on the Woolsack, one very distinguished noble Baroness asked to waive the month, and was advised by the Government of the day not to come unless she duly observed the provisions of the then Standing Order, which in that respect I think was identical with the Standing Order now proposed.

Lord DARWEN

My Lords, in view of what the noble and learned Lord has just said, would it not be a good idea for our House to consider whether or not the Writ of Summons is properly drawn, since, after all, there is a complete hiatus between the words requiring attendance—"waiving all excuses"— and, as has been said, not permitting Members to attend?

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I ask this question? Has it not occurred to him that this arrangement, which prevents a Member of your Lordships' House who has taken the Oath—I emphasise that, has taken the Oath—from attending the House legally or constitutionally because he has not complied with the Standing Order, plays right into the hands of the Opposition because they have a majority in the House? It also deprives the Government, who do not have a majority in the House, from advising Members who do not regularly attend to turn up on some occasion in order to offset the balance or imbalance that exists in the House. Does my noble friend recognise that that is the position? After all, is it not the case that in the other place no such rule applies, with the result that either one side or the other can, by a snap vote, either turn the Government out or keep them in? Is it not obvious that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, wants to continue the present practice, because he is afraid that on some dark night a substantial number of Life Peers, mainly on this side of the House, the Government side, will turn up unexpectedly, but legally and constitutionally, and take part in a Division, with the unexpected, almost unprecedented result that the general minority of the House—namely, those on the Government side—are able to get their way? Why should my noble friend play into the hands of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who wants to retain the present position for political motives alone?

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say that this is a totally unwarranted attack. I had no part whatever in the preparation of this new Standing Order which is proposed, and I do not carry any of the views which have been attributed to me. This was an all-Party decision many years ago, when I sat on an all-Party Committee.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I must say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that he is being a little hyper-sensitive. I should have thought he would recognise that my noble friend was doing a little bit of gentle leg-pulling. Whether or not my noble friend meant his observations that way, that is how I took them and I think that is how most of my noble friends took them. But if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, feels affronted, I would say that I felt equally affronted but I did not intend to disclose it. I thought it was a bit hard of my noble friend: when for once the noble and learned Lord agreed with me, my noble friend suggested I was playing into his hands. In regard to what my noble friend Lord Darwen has said, I will look at it, but this is very much a matter for the Procedure Committee. It is open to any Member of your Lordships' House to refer matters through the Chairman of Committees to the Procedure Committee for consideration. Despite the fact that it is perfectly proper to discuss such a matter on a Motion, this is not necessarily the appropriate place or occasion to raise it. However, I hope that with those friendly words the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will accept my thanks for his support. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.