HOUSE OF LORDS (CONFERENCE). (Hansard, 25 June 1917)

§ Mr. DILLON
(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether the Government has decided to summon a Conference to consider the future composition of the House of Lords and the relations between the two Houses of Parliament; and, if so, whether he can state what are the terms of reference to this Conference?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The terms of reference and the constitution of the Conference will be announced as soon as possible.

§ Mr. DILLON
With reference to that answer, I should like to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is not a breach of the privileges of this House that the executive Government should summon a Conference and refer to its consideration the question of the relations between the two Houses of Parliament without announcing such intention to this House and obtaining the assent of this House to it?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is not for me to pronounce whether the particular action is or is not a breach of the privileges of the House. That is for the House itself to decide. I am only called upon to say whether, primâ facie, there is a case made out for bringing the question up as a breach of privilege. I do not see that there is any breach of privilege. I understand that the Government is taking the advice of experts or a certain number of experts, with a view to bringing into force the Preamble of the Parliament Act, 1911, which contemplated action of this character. Of course, no action can be taken except by legislation, which the Government will have to introduce in due course. It does not seem to me to be any more a breach of privilege than the setting up of the Irish Convention or the summoning of the Electoral Reform Conference. It seems to stand on the same footing.

§ Sir FRANCIS LOWE
Are we not afterwards told that we are bound, more or less, by the decisions of these Conferences? If 37 this Conference is to be summoned without the matter and the terms of reference being submitted to the House, it is rather inconvenient if we are afterwards told that we are absolutely bound by the decisions and recommendations of the Conference.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not think the hon. Member has ever been so told, or, if he has been told so, he has never accepted it. He would be carrying his imagination a great deal too far to imagine that the House of Commons would be bound by any determination arrived at, although it might indicate the line upon which such an arrangement could be made.

§ Sir F. LOWE
The Attorney-General told us the other day that we were bound by the recommendations of the Conference.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member himself has voted repeatedly against some of the recommendations.

§ Mr. DILLON
I submit that there is a very great difference between the case of the Irish Convention and the other case which you, Sir, mentioned, and the present case, because in the case of the Irish Convention the matter was submitted to the House of Commons and received general approval. Besides, this is a case in which the executive Government, which is directly responsible to this House, is not taking the advice of experts, but is doing an executive act in summoning a Conference and submitting to that Conference a question involving the powers of this House without having previously obtained the assent of this House to that action. It is entirely without precedent within my recollection. If you, Sir, decide that I cannot raise it as a question of privilege, my only resort is to put down a Motion or to move the Adjournment.

§ Mr. BILLING
May I ask the Leader of the House if he will provide an opportunity for debating the terms of reference?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
Of course, if the House shows a general desire to discuss them or anything else, I shall be bound to abide by that; but it seems to me that the Government, in seeking advice in this matter, is acting in the way that every executive Government must act.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that there is a general desire for this Conference on the part of the House?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
One would naturally think there must be a desire for it, because every party has given its pledge that it desires to see a settlement carried out.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
Is it not a fact that the two other Conferences— the Conference with regard to Electoral Reform and that with regard to Ireland— to which reference has been made as precedents were both held as the result of discussion in this House and were both announced in this House during the discussion as a means of solving the difficulties that had arisen?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
So far as I am aware, the approval of the House was never asked to either. Both were announced during discussion, as this has been. This is not the first time the matter has been mooted here. On two or three occasions we have had it mentioned here.

§ Mr. KING
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will put down a Resolution setting out the terms of reference, and so get a mandate and the authority and support of the House in advance?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
No, Sir, I see no necessity whatever for taking that course. As I have said, if there is any general indication that the House disapproves of this course, then, of course, we shall have to reconsider our position.

§ Mr. WHYTE
Will not the right hon. Gentleman get prior approval and not subsequent disapproval?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
No, Sir. In a matter of this kind it is surely right that the Government should take advice as to the course which they should take.

Mr. DUNDAS WHITE
rose—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not think we should further debate this matter now.