HC Deb 21 January 1964 vol 687 cc917-9

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish certain titles in Great Britain. I hope that this Motion will be found to be non-controversial and will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I propose to take titles completely out of politics. Following the exchanges last week, may I say that I hope that this is a bipartisan approach, and that I am prepared to enter into consultations with the Prime Minister so that he may put my Bill into his programme for the Conservative Party at the next General Election.

My Bill would apply to all titles created by all Governments. I raised this question at the time of Sir Anthony Eden's Premiership, but then it was not regarded as a popular proposition. However, we move with the times and there is now a new attitude towards titles. The Prime Minister has said that we must modernise ourselves—and my Bill is an attempt to modernise some of our ancient institutions, some of them dating back many centuries.

Last night the Prime Minister reproached the Labour Party for being Victorian in its outlook. The previous Prime Minister was reproached for being Edwardian, but the present Prime Minister's connection with titles, I understand, goes back to 1635. If I may be allowed to borrow an adjective from the former Leader of the House, he is a right of centre Jacobite. He will certainly go down in history as the first Prime Minister to renounce an earldom. My only complaint with him is that he did not go far enough.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

He will soon.

Mr. Hughes

There is, I believe, a new outlook towards titles. This has been expressed in several organs of public opinion, particularly in newspapers owned by titled people. I have in mind for example, the Observer, the proprietors of which, I understand, have been peers. The Observer said in an editorial on 27th October: It would be far better for this nation, including its upper-class families, if titles were to be abolished. They encourage unrealistic thinking and living. And they add needlessly to confusion. Although the House of Lords has had its value over the centuries there is no sense in an hereditary Second Chamber today. And the Monarchy—which still has a genuine political value in limiting political ambitions and acting as a symbol of communal unity—can get along perfectly well without an aristocracy, as is shown in Scandinavia and the Netherlands". Another organ of public opinion—although I do not quite know how to classify it—is the Sunday Express which, in a leading article by its columnist, Mr. John Gordon, stated, on 5th January: Another Hood of' honours' pours over the nation. Coronets are set on new heads, baubles hang around new necks. If you can justify most of the selections as the cream of the nation, then you're a better man than I am Gunga Din. Is it not time we either put more imagination into this biannual fiesta, or abolished it altogether? I will not take up the time of the House by asking hon. Members to exercise their imagination as to how it can be improved I am in favour of a scrap-the-lot policy. I do not wish to do this vindictively, but painlessly. For compassionate reasons I do not propose to abolish the titles of ladies and gentlemen who now hold them, but there is no excuse these days for the hereditary principle.

On this, the Observer is right. The hereditary principle is not in favour in selecting Prime Ministers, because no one suggested, when the former Prime Minister gave up his appointment, that it should be transferred to his son. No hon. Member opposite would agree with the working of the hereditary system in such a way that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) would automatically have become Prime Minister. Indeed, if that principle was accepted, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)—whom we are all glad to see in his place this afternoon—gave up his Premiership we would have had at the Dispatch Box, instead of the present Prime Minister, Mr. Randolph Churchill; but I will not comment on that.

I suggest that the time has come when we should look at the whole question of honours and that we should abolish the Honours List. We should rationalise and modernise this whole business of titles.

Naturally, the office of the Patronage Secretary would go. [Laughter.] I notice from the laughter that this would be welcomed on both sides of the House. I am sure that the Patronage Secretary would be glad to be relieved of this honours business, because when we look around at hon. Members opposite, and realise that some have been given honours for political service while others have not, we are bound to think that there is apt to be jealousy. Indeed, I cannot understand the discrimination.

I hope that I have said enough to convince hon. Members that my Bill should come before the House for consideration. I shall be very ready to consider all Amendments in Committee in the hope that the Bill will mark a step towards making this country a real democracy.

Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr)

Before the hon. Member sits down—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Our practice does not permit interventions in a speech in proceedings under this Standing Order.

Sir T. Moore

On a point of order. I wish only to ask the hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker

Which is exactly what our practice does not permit.

Sir T. Moore

While not seeking to oppose the request by the hon. Gentleman, may I still ask him a question? [Hon. Members: "No."] Well, may I ask—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman can speak to the Question if he desires.

Sir T. Moore

Yes, Sir. What I sought to inquire was whether, if these proposals were carried into effect, it would not prove somewhat embarrassing when we next had the pleasure of welcoming Hero of the Soviet Union Khrushchev to our shores.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Emrys Hughes, Mr. Manuel, Mr. Ellis Smith, Mr. Loughlin, Mr. S. Silverman, Mr. W. Hamilton, and Mr. Baxter.