§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.
As the House knows, the Government introduced this Bill, following consultations in the all-party conference on Lords reform, as the measure best calculated in our view to modernise Parliament on a comprehensive basis, dealing with the powers of another place and its composition.
Following the Government's decision to introduce early legislation for the purpose of giving statutory effect to some of the salient proposals in the White Paper "In Place of Strife", Cmnd. No. 3888, it is now clear that the legislative priorities governing the Parliamentary timetable for the rest of this Session must be recast in order to give right of way to the Industrial Relations Bill, and—as soon as this can be made ready—the Merchant Shipping Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House recently indicated that the Government wished to bring forward this Session.
The Government have, therefore, decided not to proceed further at this time with the Parliament (No. 2) Bill in order to ensure that the necessary Parliamentary time is available for priority Government legislation, including the two Measures to which I have just referred.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will, at the appropriate time, keep the House informed about the Government's further intentions on the matter of the Bill.
§ Mr. HeathDoes not the fact of the Prime Minister making this statement make it clear that, he having personally 1339 broken off all the inter-party consultations in a fit of pique and petulance and having then proclaimed his intention of introducing the Government's own Bill for the reform of the House of Lords, the Prime Minister and the Government have now completely failed to carry it through this House?
§ The Prime MinisterI thank the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. No Government would have continued amicable discussions on the future of the House of Lords when that House was being used by the direction of the right hon. Gentleman to wreck an important piece of legislation. Nevertheless, he has put his finger on a very important fact. This Bill started as a consensus Measure, which meant, predictably, that it was regarded in a spirit falling far short of enthusiasm by a considerable number of hon. Members on my side as well as some hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite. That would not have been the case had we introduced a one-party Measure, not seeking to get an agreed solution. In fact, the idea of a consensus Measure fell through when it became clear that we had no support whatsoever from right hon. Gentlemen opposite in making reasonable progress with the Bill.
§ Mr. SheldonIf my right hon. Friend is perfectly right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we did not receive support from the Front Bench opposite on this Measure which was agreed by them—[Interruption.]—would he now ensure he introduces a one-party Measure to remove the delaying power of the Lords.
§ The Prime MinisterOn the point made by my hon. Friend, it is a fact that we did not deviate in the preparation of the Bill from the conclusions that were reached in the all-party talks at the point when they were suspended. It is a fact that the Bill was welcomed on Second Reading by spokesmen of Her Majesty's Opposition. Unlike my hon. Friend, I would have liked to see the Bill go through, but unlike my hon. Friend, whose position I well understand—and I have had plenty of time to understand it anyway—I feel it would have been highly agreeable to have got an 1340 agreed solution in this House on this problem which has been left alone for too many years. I regret that this is the situation, but I recognise that the Opposition, who obviously were very far committed in these matters, could not deliver support from behind—this is a problem not confined to one Front Bench, for we have been in the same position. But the fact that the 16 leading Front Benchers opposite, members of the Shadow Cabinet, registered between them 62 Divisions against the Government, most of them not on substance but on matters affecting the reasonable forward progress of the Bill—[Interruption.]—does suggest that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were not concerned to make progress with the Bill but to exploit the Parliamentary situation which had been created. The right hon. Gentleman, out of 59 Divisions, voted in only one—just one more than the right hon. Gentleman for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod)—and that was against a Government Motion which would have helped us to make progress towards getting what we all want, an agreed solution on another place. That is a new situation which has been created.
§ Mr. HeathWill the Prime Minister state quite clearly that there was absolutely no agreement whatever about this Bill? It was never put to the Opposition as such. We did not see the Bill beforehand. There has been no agreement of any kind. Secondly, will the Prime Minister also state quite clearly that there is absolutely no obligation on the Opposition to join the Government in closuring a debate in this House? It was entirely due to the management of the Government Chief Whip who could not even get enough people to closure in the interests of his own Government.
§ The Prime MinisterIf that is the right hon. Gentleman's obituary notice on this Bill, which started on the basis of inter-party agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am sorry; which started on the basis of inter-party consultations and which faithfully recorded the position reached in those consultations, which was sent to the right hon. Gentleman and which he never rejected as failing to reflect those inter-party consultations—if that is all he can say about this Measure these are the 1341 same weasel words as he used on immigration.
§ Mr. SpeakerIn case hon. Gentlemen have forgotten, there is a Budget debate ahead.
§ Mr. C. PannellMay I ask my right hon. Friend whether the lesson of this fiasco is not that in future, rather than striving for all-party agreement, we should seek to impose a proper settlement based on the promises which we made at the last General Election? And when any Ministers from this side or hon. Members opposite go into deliberations with the House of Lords, will he call their attention to the fact that when people, whatever their political affiliations, go along that corridor they go into another political reincarnation to defend another establishment?
§ The Prime MinisterI would regret drawing from this episode of constitutional history the same conclusions as my right hon. Friend. In a major constitutional Measure—and even if more than half of the House was bored, as it was indicated on Second Reading that they were, it was nevertheless a very major constitutional Measure—it is desirable, if possible, to proceed by agreement not only between the parties but between the two Houses. I believe our Measure represented that. I believe it still represents the best way forward for any House of Commons now or at any future time which want not only to fulfil the points made by my hon. Friend about powers but also to modernise Parliament; because it is difficult to try to improve other democratic institutions and leave Parliament untouched. Therefore, I would regret joining my right hon. Friend in the conclusions that he has, perhaps too hurriedly, drawn.
§ Mr. ThorpeReverting to the question of imposing settlements, can I ask the Prime Minister about the Industrial Relations Bill? Is he aware that the House is always anxious to help the Government with its timetable. If when this Bill is introduced the Prime Minister hopes to avoid the strife which he has faced on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, is he satisfied that enough time is being left for its consideration by opponents and critics of the Bill?
§ The Prime MinisterI think there has already been a lot of time for consideration by opponents and critics, and supporters, of the Bill. There will be enough time for consideration. I can assure the right hon. Member of that. But it was necessary to make the announcement I have made this afternoon to make sure that the House has the time required for consideration of what is an important Parliamentary Bill, a Bill which to my way of thinking, however desirable the Parliament (No. 2) Bill may have been, is more important and relative to what we have to do.
§ Mr. William HamiltonIs my right hon. Friend aware that many on this side will regard this episode of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill as an extremely healthy Parliamentary exercise, but will he give an assurance now that the Government will introduce a very short, sharp Measure quite simply to take away the powers of the House of Lords and let them get on with whatever they like?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will keep the House informed. But my hon. Friend, having had what was obviously not only a healthy but enjoyable exercise, will wish to concentrate now on giving the Government his full support on the somewhat shorter, less controversial Bill that we shall be introducing.
§ Sir A. V. HarveyFor the sake of the record, does not the Prime Minister agree that the White Paper on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill differed fundamentally from the Bill—[Interruption.]—and will he now say——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are not debating the Parliament (No. 2) Bill this afternoon.
§ Sir A. V. HarveyWould not the Prime Minister agree that the right way to approach this problem would be to include it in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission which is to sit on the Constitution and to go into the whole thing properly? Does he not think it most regrettable that in the state of the country today 10 days of Parliamentary time should have been wasted on a Bill of this type?
§ The Prime MinisterI regret that it took an obviously reasonable Bill 10 days to get as far as it did. On the first 1343 part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, I do not at all accept his dictum that the Bill was fundamentally different from the White Paper. It was not. Indeed, this was the whole basis of what we put before the House. With regard to the Constitutional Commission, that has certain duties in relation to the Constitution, but when it was announced in the debate on the Gracious Speech last year that that Commission would be set up, we made clear that its establishment would not be a bar to any legislation that might be necessary, whether in relation to Lords reform, local government reform or any other matter which might come within the terms of reference of the Commission.
§ Mr. WoodburnHas my right hon. Friend any comments to make on the curious coalition that has succeeded in preserving the powers of the hereditary system in the House of Lords?
§ The Prime MinisterI find it an interesting Parliamentary and historic phenomenon of great interest to all students of Parliament. The difference is, I think, if one looks across the two sides of the House, that whereas the leader of this coalition on the Conservative side is in a position to dictate to his own Front Bench, the leaders of the coalition on our side are not.
§ Sir D. RentonAs the Government were unable to carry out their own declared programme, even with a majority of 70, and can therefore no longer be said to be governing effectively, would it not be better to make a fresh start and hold a General Election as soon as possible?
§ The Prime MinisterOn that argument there would have been 27 General Elections between 1951 and 1964, in addition to those which took place, because during that particular period of our history no fewer than 27 Government Bills, either introduced in the House of Commons and dropped or introduced in another place and then not introduced here, were in fact dropped before the end of the Session 1344 in question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, himself a distinguished member of that Government for a short period, will recall that, so far from having 27 elections which his doctrine would require, the last election was, as I said earlier this afternoon, postponed to the very last statutory minute.
§ Mr. Michael FootSince the Prime Minister has rightly put his finger on the dangers of introducing legislation into this House which has the explicit or the implicit agreement of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and since that was the origin of these troubles, will he take note that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has expressed himself as an enthusiastic supporter of the Industrial Relations Bill, which may very well suffer the same fate as the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend, I am sure through inadvertence, has, first, misconstrued what I said about the lessons to be drawn from the Parliament (No. 2) Bill and, second, drawn a totally illogical conclusion from his own misconstruction. On the first point, I said—and I think it is right—that on a major constitutional Measure it is better, and it is preferable, to be able to get inter-party agreement on it. I indicated some of the facts which have occurred since in this House—not only the opposition of a substantial number and, indeed, quality of Members on both sides of the House during this period, but also the fact that there was no co-operation at all from the Conservative Front Bench, but rather, quite the opposite. That is the construction I put on it. Certainly I do not draw from what my hon. Friend says any conclusion at all because of the ability of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod)—a past master at this—to attempt to play upon divisions he thinks he sees on this side of the House and the regrettable ability sometimes of some of my hon. Friends to rise to him.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I must now lead the House back to the Budget.