Oral Answers to Questions — Scotland – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 17 June 1964.
Mr Eustace Willis
, Edinburgh East
12:00,
17 June 1964
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average time taken to bring a legally-aided case for appeal from the Scottish courts to the House of Lords; and what is the average time taken for a decision in such cases.
Mr Michael Noble
, Argyll
On average, nine-and-a-half months and eight weeks, respectively, but actual times vary widely.
Mr Eustace Willis
, Edinburgh East
Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard this as scandalous? Is he aware that the overall average length of time between cases leaving the Court of Session and being heard in the House of Lords is 10½ months and that recently it has been between three and four months after a case has been heard before a decision has been given? Will the Secretary of State take steps to try to speed up this process? This is far too long.
Mr Michael Noble
, Argyll
With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the longest period which occurred in a recent case was just over three months, but the average, as I have said, is eight weeks.
Mr Eustace Willis
, Edinburgh East
That is too long.
Mr Michael Noble
, Argyll
That may be the hon. Member's feeling, but he will, I think, agree that it is not for me to comment on the conduct of business in Another place. The length of time taken in getting these cases to the House of Lords is not unreasonable in view of the great deal of work which has to be done.
Mr David Anderson
, Dumfriesshire
Can my right hon. Friend say how many cases have been brought since the scheme began and what the total cost so far has been?
Mr Michael Noble
, Argyll
Ten cases have been brought and the total cost is just over £1,200.
Mr Arthur Woodburn
, Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire
Would not a great deal of time in the House of Lords be saved if Scots people would accept the decisions of their own courts and not bring cases to the House of Lords unless they are matters which concern the whole of Britain?
Mr Michael Noble
, Argyll
I do not think that the House would like me to comment on that suggestion. Scotsmen should avail themselves of whatever rights they have if they so wish.
The house of Lords is the upper chamber of the Houses of Parliament. It is filled with Lords (I.E. Lords, Dukes, Baron/esses, Earls, Marquis/esses, Viscounts, Count/esses, etc.) The Lords consider proposals from the EU or from the commons. They can then reject a bill, accept it, or make amendments. If a bill is rejected, the commons can send it back to the lords for re-discussion. The Lords cannot stop a bill for longer than one parliamentary session. If a bill is accepted, it is forwarded to the Queen, who will then sign it and make it law. If a bill is amended, the amended bill is sent back to the House of Commons for discussion.
The Lords are not elected; they are appointed. Lords can take a "whip", that is to say, they can choose a party to represent. Currently, most Peers are Conservative.
Secretary of State was originally the title given to the two officials who conducted the Royal Correspondence under Elizabeth I. Now it is the title held by some of the more important Government Ministers, for example the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
During a debate members of the House of Commons traditionally refer to the House of Lords as 'another place' or 'the other place'.
Peers return the gesture when they speak of the Commons in the same way.
This arcane form of address is something the Labour Government has been reviewing as part of its programme to modernise the Houses of Parliament.
