§ 3.47 p.m.
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to deprive the House of Lords of any power to delay the passage of any public bill.
This is the second time that I have sought leave to introduce such a Bill. The first occasion was on 4th May last year, when the arguments that I used were obviously so convincing that I was given the unanimous permission of the House to introduce the Bill. The general arguments I used are as valid today as they were then, and I therefore do not propose to repeat them.
The particular case I have quoted in aid, namely, the behaviour of the other place on the Burmah oil issue, is not strictly relevant today, though I am hound to say that my well-known respect for the other place received a nasty jolt as a result of that squalid episode in our Parliamentary history. The House will recall that, in the event, the Lords did not push their opposition on that occasion to extreme lengths. In their wisdom, they deeded that the Burmah oil issue was not a very good one on which to fight a General Election, and I think that they were probably right.
Since last May many things on the political scene have changed. We now have a radical, Socialist, modernizing Government—[HON, MEMBERS: "Oh."] At least, that is what I think we have got. The Government are committed to steel nationalisation, a measure of land nationalisation, leasehold reform, the establishment of new public enterprises—particularly in development areas—to dealing with public schools in a radical, Socialist way, an extension of the activities of the existing nationalised industries, some measure of public ownership of the docks, a radical change in the shipbuilding industry and its structure and last, but not quite least, a Measure to deal with the House of Lords.
By the use of its existing powers, the House of Lords can, at the moment, delay far at least a year any or all of those Measures I have enumerated but, in addition to that, the Selective Employment Payments Bill could be declared by 438 you, Mr. Speaker, to be not a Money Bill. If that were to happen, inordinate delay could be indulged in by the other place. if that Bill were not to get the Royal Assent before the Summer Recess, the tax could not be imposed in September, and the Government would then be very greatly embarrassed and the will of this House would be thwarted. That such a situation is even remotely possible I find thoroughly repugnant.
I recall the steel nationalisation Bill of 1949, for which the then Labour Government had a massive mandate from the people. The other place spent a total of 55 hours debating that Bill—stretching over the six months from 24th May to 24th November—[An HON. MEMBER: "Very conscientious."] It is true that, in the end, the other place did not vote against the Bill, but it effectively delayed the Bill's progress to the Statute Book.
When one comes forward to 1963—
§ Mr. Peter Tapsell (Horncastle)rose—
§ Mr. HamiltonThe hon. Member will learn that he should not intervene when leave is being sought under the Ten-Minute Rule Procedure.
We come now to the 1953 denationalisation Measure, introduced by another Government. On that Bill, the Lords spent, not six months but 18¾ hours, spread over five weeks—
§ Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)Jolly good Tories!
§ Mr. Hamilton—recommending a Measure on which the party opposite had a very narrow mandate; certainly a much narrower mandate than we had in 1945. The other place spent a total of 4½ hours on the Third Reading of the 1949 Bill—and 25 minutes on the Third Reading of the denationalisation Measure in 1953.
I should like to cite as another example the Tory Rent Bill of 1957—I think the most vicious class legislation that ever was passed, for which the Tory Party had no mandate whatever. There was no mention of it in the Conservative Party's 1955 manifesto. Yet the House of Lords passed that Bill in just four sittings spread over 19 hours.
It might, of course, be argued—indeed, it is—that recently the other place has undergone a transformation. In fact, it could not have been less dramatic if all 439 those sitting there had changed their sex. Almost overnight it has been transformed, we are led to believe, from a hot-bed of reaction to a crucible of revolution. The peers have voted to be televised—ear trumpets and all. For my part, I wholeheartedly approve—no one would believe it until he had seen it. They have accepted all kinds of social reforms, from homosexuality to abortion, and law reform to capital punishment—all done in the lifetime of a Labour Government.
Only on Monday of this week they had a debate on the reform of their own procedure, and there was an article in the Daily Telegraph—which is one of the most cunning, satirical pieces I have read for a long time. It quoted, with evident approval, Lord Slim's remark—incidentally, in the Burmah Oil Company debate—that the Lords was the
… last defence for some of our most cherished.. liberties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 25th March, 1965; Vol. 264, c. 768.]Nothing has sharpened the reforming zeal of the other place more than the prospect of several years of a Labour Government. In my view, it is not so much reforming zeal as the instinct of self-preservation that has jostled their Lordships into these paths.Recent debates on the matters I have just mentioned confirm my view that many of those in the other place still believe in what the Duke of Northumberland said during the Second Reading debate on the 1911 Parliament Bill. The Duke of Northumberland then said:
We represent, my Lords, in a peculiar degree the education and the intelligence of the country. I am not afraid to make that assumption …He went on:Not only that, but it"—that is to say, the other place— 440represents in a peculiar way the property, the wealth, of the country … we have no right to give up our powers … you did not seek the position which you occupy. It has been conferred upon you by Providence …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 24th May, 1911; Vol. 8, c. 810.]If it is so, that makes me an atheist.I apologise for the miserable modesty of the Bill I seek leave to introduce. I know that it does not deal with the composition or functions of the other place—that particular meat is now too strong for my party and, as the House well knows, I am a strong party loyalist. I therefore respectfully ask this House now to toe my party line.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Mr. SpeakerWho will prepare and bring in the Bill?
§ Mr. HamiltonMr. Wilson, Mr. Brown—[Laughter.] Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Shin-well, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Emrys Hughes, Mr. Paul Rose, Mr. Hamling, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Ashley, Mr. Floud and myself, Sir.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member would not be out of order if he mentioned the Christian names.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. William Wilson, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Shinwell, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Emrys Hughes, Mr. Paul B. Rose, Mr. William Hamling, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Jack Ashley, and Mr. Bernard Floud.