§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Earl CATHCARTMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask the Leader of the House whether he would agree that any debate on the Statement on the Defence 761 Estimates which might be held in this House should be divided into two separate debates on the same day, each part dealing with an important aspect of defence policy.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers)My Lords, the House has in the past welcomed the opportunity of a general debate on the annual Defence Estimates as a whole. I am not sure that it would be right to alter what has become a well-established procedure unless there is agreement from all quarters of the House. While I recognise the arguments behind my noble friend's Question, the creation of two debates where one has previously sufficed would entail more speeches: your Lordships might not consider that to be a happy prospect. The second of the two debates would inevitably begin at a late hour. The House has had, and will continue to have, the opportunity to discuss the more specialised aspects of defence policy on separate occasions. For these reasons, I think that one general debate would be for the greater convenience of the House as a whole.
§ Earl CATHCARTMy Lords, I thank my noble friend the acting Leader of the House for his reply. Will he not agree that the most effective debates in your Lordships' House are those that deal with a particular aspect, rather than those debates which try to deal with the whole wide range of a particular subject, such as defence, in just a few hours?
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, I see the force of that argument, but, of course, inevitably the Defence Estimates themselves cover a whole wide range of subjects, and I do not think that it is very easy to restrict such a wide range to a relatively narrow debate, particularly if that will be a question of having two debates. I appreciate the problem of my noble friend, but I do not think that there is any reasonable way of getting round it.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, will the acting Leader of the House give this matter rather more detailed consideration? Is he aware that when discussing defence matters—and in particular the Defence 762 Estimates—we in your Lordships' House have been inclined to roam all over the ground and ignore the specific item: namely, the strategy of defence, which, after all, is the most important consideration? Is the noble Lord also aware that in another place they not only discuss the Defence Estimates in general terms, but also the Army, the Navy and the Air Force? I would not go as far as wanting us to to that. Will the noble Lord not give the matter further consideration in order to widen the range of our debates, so that we can address ourselves specifically to important items, which are crowded out when we deal with the general subject of defence?
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, I was not quite clear what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, meant when he said that he wished to widen the range of debates; I thought what he was saying was that he wished to narrow the range of debates. The noble Lord said that people roam rather wide; I think that that requires a discipline which noble Lords who take part in debates of this nature must place upon themselves. The noble Lord also said that in another place they have debates on separate subjects. Of course, under the Unstarred Question procedure we have the ability to have debates on specific subjects. I would simply draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that on 5th March the House had the opportunity of a whole day's debate on home and civil defence; we also have the annual Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline (Continuation) Order, which gives the House an opportunity to discuss matters obtaining to that.
§ Lord ALPORTMy Lords, in view of the very great importance of this subject at the present time, and the very large resources of experience which are available within this House, would it not be appropriate for us to have two days for this debate when the time comes?
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, that is a matter which could certainly be discussed through the usual channels, but at the moment I cannot see the likelihood of a two-day debate being particularly helpful, unless more than the normal number of speakers wish to take part. Were that to be the case, we should certainly consider it.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, surely the noble Earl the acting Leader of the House will agree—setting aside the point that I ventured to put to him that in view of the existing international situation, and the apprehensions of many people in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, defence subjects—particularly the strategic elements involved—deserve more than a one-day debate. Surely we can find time to give that consideration. After all, the conclusions of some debates which take place in your Lordships' House are never implemented. At least let us do something about defence.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, I would not wish to underestimate the importance of the subject of defence. Indeed, if there is the requirement to spend more than one day on defence, then we would certainly consider this. I would only put this to the noble Lord. As I understand my noble friend's Question, he wanted to concentrate people's minds on various aspects of defence. If we accepted Lord Shinwell's suggestion by having a two-day debate on defence, I fancy that that would merely diffuse the situation.
Lord INGLEWOODMy Lords, my noble friend spoke of Unstarred Questions as occasions when noble Lords might wish to raise a debate on a special question. Would he not agree that the procedure for Unstarred Questions means that the Minister speaks at the end? No noble Lord has a chance of questioning the Minister on anything he says about Government policy and he in fact has a safe escape route at the end of the Unstarred Question debate; and that is not the point of a defence debate.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, it depends of course on what my noble friend wants as a result of a debate. If he wishes to air his views, then an Unstarred Question on a particular subject is an excellent way of airing particular views. I would remind him that the particular subject under discussion is the question of the Defence Estimates. In other words, it is the Government producing an opportunity for people to discuss a Government document as a whole. I should have thought that it is very difficult to separate the contemplation of the document as a whole into small different aspects.
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, nevertheless, in the event of the Government agreeing that there should be a two-day debate, would it not be possible to say that on the first day, as indeed we say on the Queen's Speech, that the debate would be largely concentrated on matters of home defence, and the second on strategical matters connected with the operation of NATO?
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, that of course would be perfectly possible, but I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that the only purpose of a two-day debate is if there are so many speakers that you cannot accommodate them all on one day. The point I would draw to your Lordships' attention is that if you separate the debate into two different parts, on one day, you will inevitably have the problem of Peers who say they want to speak early because they have to leave early, and they will then be introducing into the first part of the debate matters which would necessarily happen in the second part. You would then have the problem of Peers who wish to make maiden speeches, when the convention is that they will come early in the debate, and they would have to make a speech possibly on a subject which would more properly be kept to the latter part of the debate. There are difficulties here. I shall certainly consider the views of the House. If the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asks, Will I consider it again?—of course I will. But I would merely remind him that the problems are not quite as easy as might appear when the Question was put down.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, may I say that noble Lords should remember that today there are two debates on defence. All I am saying is that I broadly support what the Lord Privy Seal—the acting Leader—says.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, (a) for agreeing with me, and (b) for elevating me to the level of Lord Privy Seal, which was the first I knew about it!
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEKMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that any intelligent Member of the House who has an Unstarred Question, if he does the courteous thing of letting the Minister who is to reply 765 know the general line of his questioning in the debate, will get an excellent answer—even from that side of the House?
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, I am still wondering from Lord Davies of Leek's question who are those who are not the intelligent Members of your Lordships' House.
§ Lord HANKEYMy Lords, before we leave the subject, may I make a constructive suggestion with a view to avoiding—
§ Several noble Lords: No!
§ Lord HANKEYMy Lords, I am asking a question. With a view to avoiding either diffuseness or superficiality, both of which dangers we have to avoid, would it not be possible to put down one or two amendments to the Motion on which the defence debate takes place, and for those amendments to concentrate the discussion at two points in the afternoon so that we would deal with them in detail?
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, of course that is certainly a possibility. I am bound to say that the idea of it simply horrifies me, because I can imagine no better way of muddling the whole debate than by having about three amendments to one simple question.