HC Deb 20 June 1968 vol 766 cc1314-28
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

As the House will be aware, the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order, 1968 (Statutory Instrument 1968, No. 885) dated 7th June, 1968, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, which was approved by this House on Monday, 17th June, was on Tuesday rejected in another place.

I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Order, which were argued in this House at length on Monday, and accepted by this House.

What the Conservative majority in another place are arrogating to themselves is that this elected Chamber and the Government of this country, in their international relations and international commitments, can be frustrated, and their actions nullified, by another place, on one condition, namely, that a Labour Government are in office. By a simple majority in another place they, accountable to none, have now, quite deliberately, sought to assert a power to put this country in default of international obligations solemnly entered into, and particularly Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations, which binds this country and all other members of the United Nations to implement decisions, having mandatory effect, of the Security Council.

This decision was taken after the clearest warnings as to its meaning and as to its consequences. No Government could for one moment tolerate action of this kind, which was taken not in pursuance of any democratic objective, but in pursuance of calculated party advantage. This House cannot accept what has happened and cannot but treat it as a denial of democracy and a total frustration of the spirit of our Constitution.

This House will expect that the verdict of the elected Chamber will be given effect to. It is the Government's intention to advise Her Majesty to make a fresh Order in Council which both Houses will be asked to approve at the earliest possible moment.

The House will recall the terms of the Gracious Speech: Legislation will be introduced to reduce the powers of the House of Lords and to eliminate its present hereditary basis, thereby enabling it to develop within the framework of a modern parliamentary system. The House will be aware that, on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government, constructive talks have been continuing for several months about House of Lords reform, talks which have been directed both to the powers of another place and to its composition, in the confident and not unreasonable hope that an all-party consensus could be reached about the place, powers, and composition of the Second Chamber in the second half of the 20th century.

The deliberate and calculated decision of the Conservative Party to take the action it did on Tuesday was in direct contravention of the spirit in which these talks were being conducted. There is no precedent for the voting down of a Statutory Instrument by the non-elected Chamber in which, in present circumstances, most of its Members sit not by the right of creation but by the right of succession from some near or distant ancestor. Not since the Parliament Act have they deliberately set themselves out to frustrate in this way the executive ac- tions, and in this case actions to fulfil the international commitments of an elected Government.

Since this decision was clearly taken after the fullest consideration, and after every warning of the consequences, there can be no question of these all-party talks, in these new circumstances, continuing. Although the time has not been wasted, and valuable proposals have been put forward both about the powers and the composition of another place, I must tell the House that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at an early date of the Government's choosing, to introduce comprehensive and radical legislation to give effect to the intention announced in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Heath

rose—

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Shouting from neither side does any good.

Mr. Heath

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first half of his statement contained a number of so-called constitutional doctrines which would certainly not be accepted by any constituhistorian of any standing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]—and certainly should be debated? Is he aware that the House of Lords was exercising a right which was maintained by the Labour Government in 1949, a right which, it has now been made widely known in the Press, the Lords would be able to exercise under the proposed reformed powers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In these circumstances, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there can be absolutely no justification for this typical and characteristic attitude of the Prime Minister in breaking off these talks?

What we are seeing is a nasty, petulant display of tantrums and when the Prime Minister has had time to quieten down and get over them he will find that we are quite prepared to carry on the very constructive work which has been done so far.

The Prime Minister

No constitutional historian would be able to find a precedent for last Tuesday's action, which was totally opposed to the whole spirit of the talks. I will not comment on the right hon. Gentleman or on the attempts of the Press to say what has emerged so far from the talks, because all parties agreed to confidentiality. If the Leader of the Opposition wants disclosure, he can have it.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that this is likely to have happened under what has been proposed so far, because we were discussing a fundamental change in the constitution and not a House of Lords based on the hereditary principle, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The talks have been proceeding so far in reasonable agreement on all these questions, as the House will have to judge if this matter is ever put before it.

We are now taking the decision to introduce legislation in our time and of our choosing in view of the fact that last week the whole purpose of these talks was frustrated by and with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman. The whole tone of this week's apologies, in that their Lordships were only giving the Commons time to think again, is entirely different from the briefing which the right hon. Gentleman and others were putting out all last week, when they thought that they would get away with it.

I am not quite clear whether last week the right hon. Gentleman was engaged on what he thought was the assertion of a new constitutional doctrine or a squalid political manoeuvre; but it was clear that he made a poor fist of both of them.

Mr. Heath

As the purpose of the talks was to reach agreement between the three parties, which wanted to see a reformed House of Lords, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the obvious thing for the Government to do is to get over this silly petulant attitude and get on with them?

The Prime Minister

I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's sourness about what happened and the defeat of his manoeuvre, but that does not excuse the right hon. Gentleman. On an important constitutional question, we are used to his giving way in this place to right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but that does not excuse his having his party's constitutional approach run for him by the Marquess of Salisbury.

Mr. Atkinson

While welcoming the proposals implicit in the Prime Minis- ter's statement, may I ask whether the House is now to take it that when the Prime Minister referred to the Second Chamber throughout the second half of the 20th century this now means that the Labour Government are guaranteeing the existence of a Second Chamber? Will the Prime Minister accept that this is contrary to Labour Party policy?

The Prime Minister

I know that a number of my hon. Friends are in favour of unicameral government, but that has not been the position of this party. Indeed, if my hon. Friend will refresh himself on the manifesto on which he was elected on the last occasion—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman cannot titter his way out of this one. My hon. Friend will find that there and in the Gracious Speech we stated specifically our intention to proceed to legislation of the kind I have mentioned.

Mr. Atkinson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I deliberately referred to Labour Party policy, which is determined by the annual conference and I was not— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is a point of argument, not a point of order.

Mr. Thorpe

Without disclosing what transpired in the conferences on the House of Lords, of which I have been a rather more regular attender than the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Heath

On a point of order—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Heath. A point of order.

Mr. Heath

On a point of order. As neither the Prime Minister nor I are members of the continuing talks on this matter, ought not the Leader of the Liberal Party to withdraw?

Mr. Thorpe

Recollecting the official arrangement whereby the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and I all agreed that we had the liberty to attend as and when we wished, and repeating to the Prime Minister the question whether he is aware that my attendance has been somewhat more numerous than that of the Leader of the Opposition, may I dissociate myself from the interpretation by the Leader of the Opposition as to what were the suggested powers put forward by this conference, which does not represent what has been suggested or is likely to be suggested? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is the Prime Minister aware—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have a lot of questions to come and I want to hear them.

Mr. Thorpe

—that 194 noble Lords, 119 of whom are hereditary Conservative Peers, were egged on by the Leader of the Opposition to frustrate the will of the House of Commons against the need for radical reform, which beyond doubt is a matter for urgent legislation? May I ask two questions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I ask three questions?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope that no one will interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, or he may ask four.

Mr. Thorpe

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.

Then may I ask two questions? First, whether we are to expect legislation this Session or later, and secondly, whether the Prime Minister, with his usual sense of priorities, will not allow the introduction of that legislation to overshadow the need for other legislation in this House on matters of the economy and the need to reform this House, which are the continuing responsibility of this House in general and of Her Majesty's Government in particular?

The Prime Minister

I do not propose to intervene as between two right hon. Gentlemen and their respective accounts of talks which I understood were confidential and which, as far as I am concerned, will remain confidential until there is a decision to the contrary.

Secondly, on the account by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) of the voting in another place on Tuesday, I am not sure that it is proper for me to comment, but it seems to be an accurate account of history.

I cannot at this stage say when the legislation will be introduced, but it will be at an early date.

With regard to the question of priorities, I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said, although, in view of the situation forced on us by last Tuesday the first priority is to retable the Order and have it accepted by both Houses.

Mr. James Griffiths

Does my right hon. Friend realise that in the statement he has made he will have the support not only of this side of the House, but of the majority of people in the country? Is he aware that since it is now becoming fairly evident that, having made the statement, and having decided that talks which have been taking place should not continue, we are likely in the course of the next few weeks to have all kinds of versions of what has happened? Would it not be better, in the interests of the House of Commons as a whole and of fair consideration of all these problems, that the proposals put forward should be published as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister

I shall, of course, consider that, although, as I said, it will have to be a matter of agreement. We shall draw on the experience of those talks, but the House will have the Government's own proposals at an early date. I think that it would be more productive to consider those than what happened in a committee whose work was deliberably sabotaged by a political manoeuvre.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

To come back to the facts of the situation, in the interests of Parliament as a whole, and in view of the high standard of debate in another place, and the narrowness of the majority and the fact that it was stated that if the Order were reintroduced in similar terms it would not be officially opposed, has not the Prime Minister got this matter completely out of perspective? Is he not being rather hysterical about it all?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. The back-tracking which went on on Monday and Tuesday about the question of leting it go through a second time and the other things that were said were a very big change from what was said when the manoeuvre was begun a week before. What happened was that the Lords were sensitive to Press criticism and about the consequences of what they were doing. The fact that the majority was as small as it was was no fault of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, beause every effort was made by a three-line Whip to get every backwoodsman there. It was a tribute not to the right hon. Gentleman's effort, but to his incompetence.

Mr. Coe

We on these benches welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend. When he introduces the comprehensive proposals, will he recognise that many of us believe that we must have total abolition of the delaying powers of the Lords and of the hereditary principle?

The Prime Minister

I cannot go beyond what was said in the Gracious Speech, which dealt with both those questions.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

If his statement means that the Prime Minister intends to set up a Second Chamber which is totally submissive to his Government, may we take it that he will start by treating this House and the electorate with very much less contempt than he does now?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Member will be aware that that is not the intention of any party in these talks about the future of another place. What we on this side of the House, and I think most people in the country, feel is that this assertion we have had from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that another place exists to stop the Government in their tracks if they are a Labour Government, is unacceptable. When the Conservative Government were extremely unpopular and were pushing through a piece of legislation—the Rent Act— which was universally disliked, and to whose repeal when we repealed it hon. Gentlemen opposite did not object, I do not remember that at any time there was any suggestion that another place should intervene to correct the decisions, however wrong, of this House.

Mr. C. Pannell

Reverting to what the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said about the fact that there was minimal interference the other day in the Lords and a general attempt to play this matter down, is it not a fact that this followed a Press campaign which hinted that this would go much further into the realms of legislation, particularly the Transport Bill? In view of what happened, can my right hon. Friend imagine anyone on these benches daring to trust the Second Chamber again?

The Prime Minister

I cannot comment on what might happen in another place—it would not be right for me to do so—about legislation which has gone through, or which may go through, this House. The motives for the actions taken by the Conservative Party in this case were not in their first presentation in any way related to a chance for the Commons to think again, but to a continuous attempt to frustrate the operation of the Government in their international relations.

Mr. Maudling

The Prime Minister was good enough to pay some tribute to the work we have been doing on the inter-party committee. Since presumably the Prime Minister proposed these inter-party discussions, not as a favour to the Opposition, but because he believed it to be in the national interest to have agreement on a revised Second Chamber, why does a perfectly constitutional action by the existing Chamber change the situation about the future?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman can have his own interpretation of the constitution. The action was unprecedented. It was the partial result of interference in another place by the Leadership in this House of Commons and it was a reflection of the attitude to Rhodesia under which the right hon. Gentleman has rushed as fast as his legs can carry him into the dictation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the Marquess of Salisbury.

Mr. Mendelson

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in contrast to what the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has just said, public opinion will be forthcoming in supporting the Government's announcement today? Will he further accept that what is needed is speedy action so that the reply should be immediate to this arrogation of power by another place? Will he accept that what is needed is complete disruption of the Lords' delaying power so that legislation should not be endangered during the remainder of this Parliament?

The Prime Minister

Even ahead of that it is important to take action to enable their Lordships to regurgitate last Tuesday's activities so far as the Order is concerned. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will ensure a speedy passage for it in this House. He might also tell the Opposition spokesman that he was quite wrong on the radio in saying that this Order had anything to do, because it had not, with the question of material assistance to other African countries. Right hon. Gentlemen must read the Order before they talk about it.

Lieut-Commander Maydon

May I ask the Prime Minister for one moment to put aside party rancour and to apply his mind seriously to this question. In a bicameral system what would he think would be the purpose of a Second Chamber—just to be a rubber stamp to the diktats of the Government in power?

The Prime Minister

My conception of the rôle and putting aside all party affections, as I was asked to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, of the Second Chamber, which I believe has an important rôle to play in the Constitution, does not include the concept that it must rubber stamp everything that comes from a Conservative Government without querying it whereas it must assert to itself unprecedently the right to veto the actions of a Labour Government.

Mr. Whitaker

Irrespective of whatever the vote had been last Tuesday, is it not a matter of elementary principle that 300 years after Cromwell it is high time we announced close of play at hereditary Lords? Can we not have legislation this Session and also have the abolition of titles? A man's reputation should be sufficient honour for him.

The Prime Minister

We are dealing with the constitutional position which was deliberately provoked last Tuesday. I have referred the House to the passage of the Gracious Speech which will be given effect to as early as possible.

Mr. Grimond

The Prime Minister has stressed the undemocratic nature of the other place. When he is considering his new proposals will he bear in mind that an appointed Second Chamber would be just as undemocratic and, indeed, could be open to certain other objections as well?

The Prime Minister

This is one of the matters which have already been considered in the talks and a great deal of useful thought has emerged. It is clear, because of this provocative action last Tuesday, that we must now follow this period of constitutional reflection and constructive proposal by firm action. This will be done.

Mr. John Lee

Bearing in mind that the legislation can be quite short and simple, would not my right hon. Friend consider the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Ben Whitaker) that the whole of the hereditary peerage should be abolished so that the Marquess of Salisbury can be reduced to Robert Cecil?

The Prime Minister

I do not think that it would make any difference if that were to happen. We are just concerned with the constitutional question of the powers and composition of the House of Lords. We are not concerned with fundamental alterations to the pages of Debrett.

Mr. Birch

Would not the Prime Minister agree that "Peers v. People". combined with the absolute assurance that "the money in your pocket has not been devalued", would make a spendid election cry?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman's continued perversion of that statement on which he will remember that I referred to "the truth you've spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools", should cease.

Mr. Heffer

Reverting to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), may I ask my right hon Friend to give the House an assurance that if we are to have a Second Chamber, as I personally think we should, it will be on the basis of an elected principle and that there will not be people appointed once and for all to a Second Chamber to hold up any business from this House?

The Prime Minister

My hon Friend had better await the legislation and then express his views on it. We shall bear in mind all that has been said in the inter-party discussions. What I do not think any democracy would support is the perpetration of a Second Chamber, which had a built-in majority for one particular party irrespective of the size of the majority in or the composition of the House of Commons.

Earl of Dalkeith

Can the Prime Minister put his hand on his heart and deny the truth that at the present time the other place reflects far more accurately the views of the population? If he really means what he says about democracy, will he give the people of the country an opportunity to reform this place?

The Prime Minister

I do not remember that argument being used by the noble Lord during the long period—13 years—which the Conservatives had to show what they could do. I do not remember anyone suggesting that the House of Lords should frustrate the actions of the Conservative Government in order to force an election. It did not suit them then, but it suits the Conservative Party to talk that way at the present time. What I think we had last Tuesday was the action of a party which has consistently on this matter supported illegality, using extra-constitutional means in another place.

Mr. John Fraser

If reforming legislation from this House is defeated in the House of Lords, it would waste a great deal of legislative time which could be spent on other projects. Therefore, would the Prime Minister consider exercising his constitutional right to advise the Queen to make up sufficient peers to give the Government a majority in the Lords?

The Prime Minister

On that point —[Interruption.] The Leader of the Conservative Party has got his history of patronage wrong. He used to reward faithful members of Parliament with honours—knighthoods, and the rest. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order.

The Prime Minister

That was one way that the right hon. Gentleman had of keeping discipline which he has since lost. I: is not unusual for ex-Ministers, at the end of their period as Ministers, to go to the Lords. The right hon. Gentle- man will recall that unprecedentedly after the last election I asked him to recommend the names of Conservative Ministers to be nominated for the Lords, which had never been done for the Opposition when the Tories were in office.

With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), I think that I will content myself with using the words of a predecessor, Mr. William Ewart Gladstone, who said: The resources of civilisation are not yet exhausted.

Mr. Hogg

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prerogative of the Crown which we would most like him to advise is a dissolution of Parliament?

Mr. Molloy

If Tory peers in another place are interested in entering the country's politics, they can follow the example of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)—chuck their coronets away, and enter the proper field.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Molloy

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision about having any further discussions with the Opposition on this important matter, because what happened the other night was redolent of all that we have considered vulgar in authoritarian States? He might well be dealing with the Opposition Front Bench, who are still under the control of those in another place; and this in itself would be flouting democracy.

The Prime Minister

I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the courage of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) who, since he came to this House, has made a most distinguished and notable contribution to the work of the House. I am only sorry that his last intervention, a few moments ago, made him sound almost as pathetic as his Leader.

Mr. Sandys

The Prime Minister said that it was customary for retiring Ministers to go to the House of Lords. Is it not time he went there himself?

The Prime Minister

We usually expect a rather more significant contribution from the right hon. Gentleman. After all, he has dragged his Leader with him on his Rhodesian policy with great success; and, if he is still not satisfied, he can have another word with his P.P.S. on the Front Bench and sort it out.

Mr. McNamara

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Opposition peers in another place took leave to take advice from the so-called Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia on their action last Tuesday. He will also be aware—

Mr. Speaker

Order; a brief question, please.

Mr. McNamara

My right hon. Friend will also be aware that many of us on this side of the House were not at all delighted with the joint talks which were taking place and, therefore, are very glad that they have been broken off.

Can my right hon. Friend give us a glimpse into the future, first, by making a clear pronouncement on whether there will be any delaying powers whatsoever in a reformed Second Chamber, and, second, by indicating clearly that there will be the complete abolition of hereditary peerages?

The Prime Minister

I could not hear the first part of my hon. Friend's ques- tion very well, because hon. Members opposite are obviously trying to talk their way out of the sense of shame that they are feeling. I think that my hon. Friend was referring to the purported instruction given to their Lordships' House by a political figure in Southern Rhodesia, which was obviously counter-productive and resented by the Conservative peers. I think that that should be said in fairness to them. No doubt Mr. Smith had felt so encouraged by his ability to give instructions to hon. Members of this House that he thought that he could get away with it in another House as well.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

On the constitutional precedents, is it not a fact that when the House of Lords rejected Government Measures in 1909 the then Prime Minister found it appropriate to have two General Elections before dealing with the composition of the House of Lords? Half a century later will not the Prime Minister be half as democratic and have one General Election?

The Prime Minister

The difference is that on this occasion we have twice sought a mandate for the legislation that we shall introduce and have been granted it.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order.