RESTRICTION OF RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE LORDS

HC Deb 19 February 1969 vol 778 cc644-95

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Howie

I am grateful to you, Mr. Irving, for the kindness which you have shown to my fellow Scots, who seemed, as someone said last night, to be "over-egging the pudding".

I beg to move Amendment No. 136, in page 2, line 44, at end insert: 'The number of voting peers shall at first be 300 and they shall be so nominated as to give supporters of the Government of the day a clear majority over all others. The nominations shall be submitted to the House of Commons for approval'. This important constitutional Bill has a very good purpose, the removal of certain limitations which an unrepresentative Chamber can put on the House of Commons. However, as has become apparent during our debates, which have moved with such dispatch that the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) seemed to be under the impression that we had disposed of two Clauses when we had only disposed of one, the Bill has a number of deficiencies and the Committee is applying its collective mind to dealing with them.

This Amendment deals with one such. It touches on matters which were discussed more or less at the same time yesterday. It arises from the fact that the Bill gives no guidance to this Chamber as constituted at the moment or to posterity of the number of members required in a reformed second Chamber. This is quite wrong and mistaken and is an inept way to deal with important legislation.

True, in the Preamble, there are hints which would lead us to refer to the White Paper, where there are indications of what the reformed Chamber might look like, but it became plain yesterday morning that the Preamble has no real legal consequence and, further, that it cannot be binding on Front Benches on either side in future.

The White Paper and the Preamble suggest that a bargain has been made between the Government and Opposition Front Benches and one-twelfth of the Liberal Party. The other eleven-twelfths agree with the conclusions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Nevertheless, a bargain appears to have been reached. I say "appears", because I am a little uncertain about the matter.

Yesterday, I tried to get the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who, I am sad to say, has left the Chamber—he kept an eye on the points of order, but has left now that the proceedings on the Bill have started—to say whether the bargain was still on. But the Opposition Front Bench seem unwilling to make a declaration to that effect. The Opposition Front Bench should give us a hint as to their attitude towards the bargain, because it keeps reappearing in our debates. It would greatly help back benchers if they knew whether there is a bargain, and, if so, whether it is still on, and whether it is likely to be delivered to eternity.

There is no reason why the House of Commons should not determine the composition of a reformed House of Lords by legislation rather than by convention or bargain. The numbers in the House of Commons are regulated by legislation. From time to time we pass Representation of the People Measures which deal, not only with the numbers in the House of Commons, but with the method by which we get here. The number of Ministers forming the Government is determined by legislation. We pass Ministers of the Crown Acts from time to time. We had one in 1965, and a very good one it was—it paid my salary.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

That is the best argument I have heard for it yet.

Mr. Howie

We do not leave those matters to the making of bargains between the Front Benches or convention. There is no reason why the Lords should be different in that respect. We might conceivably argue about the numbers in the Lords and their distribution, but we should agree on a number and legislate to that effect.

The next deficiency in the Bill is that no hint is given about the composition of the reformed House in terms of party. That is utterly crucial, because party is the base of this reform. Apart from the removal of the hereditary principle, the central reason for the Bill is to ensure that the Government party can secure a majority in the Lords to protect its final year of office.

I realise that normally party is not recognised in our Parliamentary life. But we know that it exists. However, the situation is changing and our legislation is beginning to meet the realities of parliamentary life. For the first time the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1965, brought party into our legislation, but it did so by inference rather than by direct mention. For the first time the word "Whip" appeared in our legislation when the Assistant Whips were recognised as paid members of the Government.

Previously, Whips had been referred to in legislation by names like Treasurer of the Household—you, Mr. Irving, were Treasurer of the Household at one time—or they appeared under the guise of Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. Presumably they were theoretically able to call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to account immediately before his budget—not that they did so. They were managerial functionaries of the House of Commons and a great deal of their work was party work. By including Assistant Whips in the legislation we recognised the existence of party.

Mr. Powell

I am a little puzzled as to how the inclusion in the Ministers of the Crown Act of assistants to officials who have always featured on the Government payroll brings party any more into our legislation. Ever since the early 18th century the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury have exercised party functions I am not clear how the inclusion of their assistants brings party any more into our legislation.

Mr. Howie

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Party has been there, but we have been very British about it because we have given our party functionaries sinecures and they have been paid, not as party functionaries, but in virtue of their office. The reality of party was there, but on the surface the situation was slightly different.

Mr. Powell

There cannot be anything more British nor a more British camouflage than to insert into legislation a term derived from fox hunting.

Mr. Howie

That may be so. The right hon. Gentleman probably prefers camouflage more than I do. I prefer things to be straight forward and open.

The Chairman

I am having a little difficulty in understanding how the hon. Gentleman is relating his remarks to the Amendment. Perhaps he would help me.

Mr. Howie

I am about to do that, Mr. Irving. I allowed myself to be lured away by reminiscence more than anything else.

We have recognised party, and we recognised it in the recent Representation of the People Measure concerning, not the House of Commons, but our electoral arrangements. In this Bill we recognise party in the composition of the House of Lords where the majority will be of one party or the other.

I suggest in my Amendment that, rather than implement the kind of proposal which the Government make in the White Paper and which is part of the bargain about which we hear, the Government should have a clear majority over all others. I suggest that so that the Bill can secure the predominance of the House of Commons, which cannot be done unless the Government party has a majority. I admit that if the Government nominate a member to the House of Lords specifically to represent one party, there can be no absolute guarantee that that person will always represent that party. He will be appointed for his general views, just as we are elected for our general views, and, in the fullness of time, his views may change. He may become less strictly adherent to his party or may even change it. Nevertheless, the Government should have a clear nominal majority.

10.30 a.m.

I am open to suggestion on the size of that majority. Majorities in the House of Commons vary in size and usefulness. There was for a time a majority of three in the last Parliament, which was useful for some purposes, but on the whole not desirable. Since then the majority has fluctuated between 90 and 60 or so. I am not sure that a big majority is better than a small one, but the Government no doubt could consider the size of the majority to be included in the Bill. Perhaps we could have the advice of the Opposition Chief Whip, who is expert in these matters, and it may be that he will catch your eye, Mr. Irving. Perhaps a majority of 10 or 12 would be suitable.

If we accept the proposals in the White Paper that the Government should have nearly a majority but not quite, there being a sizeable number of cross-benchers the Government will be at the mercy of a blocking quarter. There are constitutional arguments in favour of a blocking quarter in Rhodesia, for example, where it is feasible that a minority might terrorise over a majority, but such arguments do not apply here.

The Amendment mentions nominations. Objections to nomination have been expressed in Committee because they extend patronage. I do not share these objections; I approve of patronage. The only thing wrong with patronage is that sometimes the wrong people get it. A sizeable number of hon. Members wish, due to proper and reasonable ambition, to be patronised from the back benches on to the Front Bench. Having got there, they are sometimes patronised back off it, but this is a fact of Parliamentary life.

The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), having been distinguished Members of the House of Commons, were patronised on to the Front Bench and then demoted to the back bench. The conclusion I draw is that ambition does not offer a guarantee of good behaviour. That the offer of patronage to the other place would make back-bench Members of the House of Commons biddable and useful would appear from our experience to be unlikely.

Mr. Heffer

Hear, hear.

Mr. Howie

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) says "Hear, hear". I recall him saying in an earlier debate that he was closely looked at with favour, but a hint to him that he might receive grace or favour did not change his attitude, nor would one expect it to do so. The argument there falls. I have sometimes heard the reverse argument. I have been asked by ambitious hon. Members, how many times they have to abstain before they become a Parliamentary Secretary. Then, as the competition becomes keener, I am asked how often they have to vote against the Government to become a Parliamentary Secretary.

Why should there be alarm about nomination to the other place? It is by no means a new idea. The noble Lords have always been nominated in the first creation, and the inheritors of nominations are nominated at second hand. The principle of nomination is built into the House of Lords.

I understand, from earlier debates and conversations with my colleagues, that there is sensitivity on this matter; consequently, the Amendment suggests that instead of nominations appearing on the Honours List, they should appear on a list of nominations made, presumably, by the Party leaders, perhaps including the Nationalists, which should be submitted to the House of Commons for approval. We might have an interesting debate on each list of nominations.

The Amendment provides, first, that the number of voting peers shall be 300. I do not mind whether the number is 300, 200, or 400; the important thing is that it should not be 1,000 as it is at the moment. But I do not die in the last ditch for 300. The Amendment provides, secondly, that the nominations should be subject to our scrutiny and our approval. For these reasons I hope that the Government will accept, not necessarily the precise terms of the Amendment, but the fundamental principle, that the numbers should be fixed by us and included in legislation and that the House of Commons should have the right of scrutiny and approval of the lists of nominees.

Mr. Powell

The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) has been engagingly disingenuous in confessing his past as a paid "adherent" of the Administration, but I think that we are all glad, and the more glad since the speech which he has just completed, that he has regained his freedom and is able to give his advice to the Committee without trammel. Nevertheless, some marks of his past as a Whip "adhere" to him, if I may use that word again in another context, since the Amendment would turn the other place into a veritable Whips' paradise, so contrived that nothing could ever go wrong for the Government.

Obviously, all of us on the back benches have difficulties in framing our Amendments in such a way which would pass scrutiny. I will mention briefly what seem to me to be two serious ambiguities in the Amendment. The first is that the Amendment indicates what number there are to be "at first". However, it is not clear whether the subsequent prescription as to how they are to be nominated relates to the first creation of this new Chamber or whether it means that they shall from time to time be so nominated as always to give supporters of the Government of the day a clear majority over all others.

That difficulty appears to link with another to which the hon. Gentleman referred; that is, how we are to be sure what is meant by a clear majority. Is a clear majority a majority of one, which notoriously is sufficient, or is it a majority which the Whips regard as a comfortable working majority?

Mr. Howie

Twelve.

Mr. Powell

If a clear majority of, say, 12—the Tory dozen—is lost, does the hon. Gentleman envisage that the Government of the day would top up the the other place so as automatically to neutralise any defections from their adherents? I think that the Amendment is less than clear in indicating how those difficulties would be dealt with.

Mr. Howie

I am glad that I managed only two ambiguities. Some people manage seven, I seem to remember. Is not this specific problem, which is a very real one, inherent in the scheme of the bargain in any case?

Mr. Powell

Certainly. Before I sit down I shall, at any rate, associate myself with the hon. Gentleman in that his Amendment, by its very attempt to write into the Bill what at present is concealed by the Preamble, helps to expose, or further to expose, the inherent absurdities and difficulties of the whole scheme. Indeed, I was coming to one of those difficulties.

The notion of a supporter is an extremely difficult one. I accept that, under the Representation of the People Act, we now have at elections recognised party adherence and a party label. But, after all, that is adherence on a specific occasion—as it were, for one day only. There is a world of difference between saying that a candidate stands at an election as a supporter of the Conservative or Labour Party and saying that a Member sits in either House of Parliament as a supporter of such and such a party.

All Members know that in the last resort our individual influence—indeed, the whole structure of politics in this country—depends upon the ultimate right of a Member of Parliament to detach himself, perhaps finally and irrevocably, from the party under whose banner he has entered the House. I do not believe that any of us would submit to coming into this House upon the condition that we were here only as supporters of a particular party. We get into a similar difficulty when we attempt to put Members of another place, however subordinate their function is to be, into that situation.

I feel, too, that there is great difficulty about the proposal for nominations—creations, old style—to be approved by the House of Commons. I wonder, in the first place, what validity or additional safeguard would attach to such a procedure. Would the Whips be on or off during the Motion to approve the list? Would the list be amendable? Presumably it would. In that case, we would probably have more guillotine Motions under this procedure as we exercise our right to scrutinise, name by name, the suitability of the credentials and debate at length all those proposed to be nominated to the other chamber.

If, on the other hand—and surely this would be the only practicable way, though I think it undesirable—a list is presented, take it or leave it, with the Whips on, then the approval becomes just as much an act of the Executive as the nomination in the original instance, and we have not gained by it. Therefore, I think that in the hon. Gentleman's scheme there are serious difficulties.

Mr. Paget

Surely, we would gain something if the list is made debatable. The Government may be rather anxious to include some names if there is to be a debate about the list.

10.45 a.m.

Mr. Powell

I have thought about the proposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just put to me, and I have come to the opposite conclusion. I believe that a list which the Government, even with the Whips on and on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, had to submit to the House of Commons would be likely to be a worse list in being a more blameless list, a more balanced list, a list more easily defended in this Chamber, than it might otherwise have been. I can think of a number of creations of this Government, as well as of previous Governments, which, by any standard, have been good and worthy creations which would have been less likely to take place if those names had had to feature in a list to be debated in this Chamber.

I readily concede to the hon. Member for Luton—and this is the value of his Amendment, as of so many Amendments that we have discussed—that the difficulties in it are not difficulties of his making. They are difficulties which the Government are making for themselves and attempting to make for Parliament for the future. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to do what we have throughout these debates demanded that the Government should have done if we were fairly to debate the matter, namely, to write the essentials of the Preamble into the Bill. But when we look at the part of the Preamble which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to write into the Bill, we find that the Government have not committed themselves at all.

They have not committed themselves on number. For that we have to look to a paragraph in the White Paper, and in the White Paper the figures are only offered as a specimen. The Government have not committed themselves on the question who is to have a majority and what that majority is to be. Yet that is absolutely crucial to the whole reasoning and argument for the operation on which we are engaged of reforming another place.

When we look at the Preamble, with all the majesty and splendour with which the senior Law Officer of the Crown sought to endow it yesterday, all we are told is that there is to be the preservation of a "proper balance" between members adhering to one party, to another party, or none. There is no indication even in the Preamble of what is regarded as a "proper balance". Strictly speaking, I suppose that the world "balance" is unambiguous. The word "balance" must mean, taken literally, equality. But it is absurd to talk about a balance between three categories unless they are all to be equal. Unless there is to be a precisely equal number, it is difficult to see what could properly be described as a "balance". The addition of the adjective "proper" indicates that balance is not being used in the sense of an exact balance between two opposing sides, but conveys a vague expression of opinion which is purely subjective.

So, once again, we have to get behind the Preamble and go to the White Paper, which presents us with the old absurdity which we have so often in these debates had to confront: the dilemma, or the conundrum, of a House which is so constituted that it is automatically subservient to the Government on any question, or alternatively, a House which is out of control of the Administration, but which, because it is a reformed house, is not under the pressures to conform which, in practice, operate at present on the other House so that it does not find itself able seriously to obstruct or resist the will of the House of Commons.

In other words, from yet another point of view, led by the hon. Gentleman's attempt to write this part of the Preamble into some kind of statutory terms, we have uncovered the primordial, basic absurdity of the Government's whole intention, and for that we are very much in the debt—though I do not apprehend that the Amendment in itself is one upon which he would insist—of the hon. Member for Luton.

Mr. Heffer rose—

Mr. Sheldon rose—

The Chairman

Mr. Heffer.

Mr. Michael Foot

Mr. Irving, did I hear you call my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)?

Mr. Heffer

I shall gladly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who, I know, has to go to a meeting at half-past eleven.

The Chairman

I was hoping that having called the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), he would proceed with his speech. If the hon. Member gave way I would in any case be bound to call a Member from the other side. Mr. Heffer.

Mr. Heffer

I am not very happy with the Amendment, despite my original enthusiasm for it. Having examined it, I feel that it has many faults which, if they were adopted, would not be particularly useful in relation to the future of the other place.

I believe that the Committee would be well advised not to admit the Amendment, but, with the permission of the Chair, I should like to develop my views a little later, perhaps after I have heard some of the other speeches for and against the Amendment. With the permission of the Chair I shall now resume my seat in the hope that I shall be able to speak again later in the debate.

[Mr. GRANT-FERRTS in the Chair]

Mr. Hooson

I agree with the view that the service rendered to the Committee by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) in tabling this Amendment is yet further to underline the absurdity of the Bill. I have always found the hon. Gentleman to have a practical mind, and its practicality was reinforced by his years of experience in the Whip's Office. The hon. Gentleman has brought his experience to bear on the problems that would attend any Government if the Bill went through and it came to a question of obtaining a ready majority in the other House.

Having looked at the Preamble, which has no legal effect, and not being satisfied that it would achieve what we want, the hon. Gentleman has suggested by way of this Amendment something which he hopes will guarantee a working majority for the Government of the day, and by this very process he has showed up the whole absurdity of the Bill.

Let us consider for a moment what would happen if the Amendment became part of the Bill. If the Prime Minister of the day suggested to the monarch that certain people should be nominated for membership of the other House as voting peers, and within a few weeks those voting adherents changed sides, the Prime Minister would have to go back to the monarch to ask for yet further creations. This would involve the monarch in interpreting this provision if it was argued by the Prime Minister of the day that more nominations were needed to give supporters of the Government a clear majority. What are supporters of the Government of the day"? This is an impossible thing upon which to legislate. It is an impossible thing to define, and it would be virtually impossible for a judge to interpret.

Mr. Howie

Later in our discussions we shall come to the part where it is suggested that Members of the House of Lords need not be peers at all. In that event the monarch would be absolved from this distasteful duty.

Mr. Hooson

At the moment the creation of peers, whether life peers or otherwise, depends on their being so made by the monarch, at the suggestion of the Prime Minister of the day.

I do not share the general criticism of the Preamble. I think that the Preamble was an old device. It had no legal effect, but what it did was not to crystalise constitutional conventions. It created constitutional conventions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

This was not a suggestion. This was the formal advice to the Committee by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman finds it difficult to believe this, but I assure him that that was so, and I do not believe that it was intended as a joke.

Mr. Hooson

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that it was put forward as a serious proposition, but the effect of the Preamble is really not to crystallise the convention, but virtually to crystallise the bargain in this instance. I agree that it has not crystallised it, because we are left in the air about exactly what it was. This shows the absurdity of the whole thing.

My second criticism of the Amendment relates to the suggestion that nominations shall be submitted to the House of Commons for approval. What a jamboree that would be. One can imagine the list being included in the "Whip" first, and then in the "Orders of the Day", and each one being singled out for debate. But how would we debate it? Would we debate the list as a whole, or the nominations individually?

Mr. Ridley

Perhaps we could shout "Object", as is done on a Friday.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

We would not get anybody.

Mr. Hooson

If the Amendment were accepted, the House of Commons would be prevented from having a great deal of fun, if nothing else. I agree with the hon. Member for Luton that at the moment the whole process is left in the air. The hon. Gentleman is trying to give substance to the process by which a majority is to be obtained in the Upper House, and he is trying to give this House control over it. By so doing he is showing that the whole thing is unworkable.

Mr. Howie

That is not so. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we already discuss the membership of Select Committees, some of which are quite sizeable. The problems referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman would appear with each set of nominations, in the same way as they do with Select Committees. It would be a real jamboree, and I am rather looking forward to it.

Mr. Hooson

Patronage is objectionable. Patronage which results in the creation of peers is bad enough, but patronage by 630 Members, which would be the result of accepting the Amendment, would be totally impracticable.

We have to consider what the function of the other House is to be. If it is to be a rubber stamp for this House—and that is really what the hon. Gentleman is proposing—it should not exist at all. I am against the hereditary principle, but I think that there is a good deal more in favour of having hereditary peers than of having an entirely nominated House dependent entirely on patronage. I would prefer a House with greatly reduced powers to a more able House with greater ability, shoved in by means of nominations, but dependent entirely on patronage. It is highly objectionable, but the hon. Gentleman has done the Committee a great service by further indicating how absurd the Bill is.

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Sheldon

We are used to the great problems of the Liberal Party and—speaking as one who does not on every occasion belittle the role of the Liberal Party—I think that, on reflection, perhaps in a year's time, it will admit that its performance on this Bill was less than worthy of its importance. Of course, the Liberals are faced with a great dichotomy. On the one hand, they call the Bill absurd and trivial, while, on the other, they know that this is the first piece of important patronage given to them, the first bribe they have been offered, and, having accepted the bribe, they feel ashamed. It is unworthy of them to get over this feeling of shame by calling the Bill trivial instead of doing what their forebears would have done and opposed it.

Mr. Ridley

Does not the hon. Gentleman feel sorry for the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), who has been given no part in this bargain and has no likelihood of any favours to come for her party?

Mr. Sheldon

The powers of patronage in the Bill are meant to be here for some time to come and, although we would be pleased to see the hon. Lady in another guise, or under another label, her position as a political party in the House of Commons may not last that long.

Mrs. Ewing

I am glad to have a little support from the benches opposite for the view that we shall be getting a Scottish Parliament quite quickly.

Mr. Sheldon

This may be so, but I am not sure that these powers of patronage would extend there or that even the hon. Lady would find a place there. However, she will be welcome under another label in the House of Commons for many years to come.

The Amendment is the first reference to the position of the House of Commons as having some say in the selection of Members of the House of Lords, and hon. Members are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) for bringing this aspect forward. There are a number of ways in which the Amendment would produce unworkable and silly results, but my hon. Friend has stressed the importance of the principle at stake and we should certainly consider whether it would be possible to use the principle in another shape. My hon. Friend is not opposed to that.

If 300 peers were to be submitted to the House of Commons for approval of their membership of the House of Lords, the first step taken would be to formalise the arrangements through the usual channels, so that we would have the agreement of both Parties and the House would have little say. But I accept the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that safeguards could exist in debating the total number.

But I believe this scheme to be unworkable mainly because it would be a rather humiliating process for a large number of suitable people, and if we could find a better way of increasing the influence of the House of Commons, so much the better. Involved in this is the lack of personal knowledge of so many hon. Members about the peers whose names would be put forward. It is obvious that hon. Members could not possibly know 300 peers personally or even a small proportion of them. They would not be able to make a decision from personal knowledge, which is surely one of the important bases on which the peers should be judged.

Another aspect of this scheme is that it would tend to make the Government pick rather safe men—a point made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). However, it might be possible to find a method, such as a Select Committee, of "vetting" those whose names were put forward and of making known to the House if certain limits of patronage had been exceeded. These are only ideas. They are full of obvious holes. However, the point put by my hon. Friend is valid. The House of Commons ought to have some part to play in this process.

My hon. Friend proposes the figure of 300, but says that he is not wedded to it. We want to know something more about the choice in the White Paper of 230—a fairly precise figure. Of course, we want to keep to a fairly small number and 230 was presumably thought to be a workable figure. Presumably, however, it was reached on the basis of the peers being paid. But do we want the same number in the House of Lords if the peers are not paid?

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that, for the time being, the peers would not be paid. What, therefore, is the number which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would consider as being right for an unpaid House of Lords? We have a right to ask because the basis has now changed from that put forward in the White Paper. If 230 is the right figure for a paid House, obviously, we need a different number for an unpaid House. Perhaps we may now need 400, for example.

We are going forward on the basis that possibly the Government, like the Committee, think of this as an interim Measure and that payment will come later. As a result, no changes in the White Paper, as implemented in the Bill, are envisaged at present. The figure of 230 is still there, although the Prime Minister fundamentally changed the situation. We must insist on knowing whether, as the commitment to payment has gone, the commitment to the figure of 230 has also gone.

Earl of Dalkeith

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the number of peers should bear some relationship to the number of Members here and that the number of Members here may be changed drastically as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government? We may have regional government. Is this not an argument for saying that the Bill should be dropped at present until we see what comes out of this major review?

Mr. Sheldon

If the hon. Gentleman is trying to adduce arguments to convince me that the Bill should be dropped, he is on receptive ground. I would be delighted to see the Bill withdrawn so that we could look at the many anomalies which are coming to light.

The figures must be related to the functions to be performed. Whereas we must be careful in selecting outstanding individuals for certain tasks, we need other representative types to carry out the general work that must be done. We must consider this matter in the context of the sort of work that the reformed Chamber will do. Probably the most important aspect is the revision of legislation. I do not believe that the House of Lords should exist for this purpose, since we could achieve it in a number of other ways.

In many respects, the House of Lords prevents the House of Commons from changing its procedures. We could have a more efficient legislative unit by adopting a different method of revising legislation. I accept that this work must be done, but need it be done by the House of Lords? All sorts of other structures could be created to investigate legislation.

At present, we have large Standing Committees which examine Bills. This procedure often represents an utter waste of hon. Members' time. A small investigating body appointed to look into a Bill—it could be comprised of just two or three hon. Members—could probably do a better job in a much shorter time than a large standing committee comprising 50 hon. Members.

Mr. Denis Coe (Middleton and Prestwich)

My hon. Friend's suggestion is interesting, but in view of the great weight of legislation coming forward these days it would be impossible in the foreseeable future to do this revision work without an Upper Chamber.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Sheldon

I do not agree, although I respect my hon. Friend's views on the subject. I have always held that the work done by 50 hon. Members in a Standing Committee could be done better and more quickly by a group of half-a-dozen hon. Members who feel directly responsible for examining the legislation before them. The responsibility would then be direct and not muted. This would leave many hon. Members free to do other vital work.

Granted that some form of electoral system for the Upper House is not in the offing, there is no reason why the House of Lords should not be elected by the House of Commons in a way which we have perhaps not yet considered. If this important task of revising legislation is to be undertaken by the other place, I doubt whether we shall need the illustrious names which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) mentioned in his brilliant speech yesterday. There are many more ordinary and workaday names who could make a big contribution in this sphere.

If we could find a means of asserting the dominance of the House of Commons—a factor which would be involved in an elected House of Lords—there would be some sort of restraint on patronage. It is the question of patronage that many hon. Members regard as one of the least pleasant parts of the Measure. At least if the Government agreed to the election of Members to the other place in the way I have described, they would be making a concession to hon. Members who hold strong views on the subject.

Having pointed out the peculiarity of the figures that have been given, it seems that they do not add up. It is as though two groups of people began to decide how many peers there should be, that one group suggested 200 and the other a different number and that the figure of 230 was arrived at as a compromise. The Home Secretary said that there would be 42 Conservative peers of succession, to be chosen from 274. What was the basis for this decision? Did the Government go through the names and say, "These people will be fiercely angry if we do not include them, so we had better add a few more as well?"

My right hon. Friend also said that there would be 24 Labour peers. There are only 21 Labour peers of succession, so that, if we are to have 66—the 42 Conservative and 24 Labour peers—from where will the other 11 come, since my right hon. Friend referred to 77 being appointed? How many will be life peers and how many new creations will be made? What will be the level of patronage in the first instance?

Mr. Howie

My hon. Friend will see on page 19 of the White Paper that the Government contemplate having about 80 new life peers, the great majority of whom will be drawn from existing peers by succession.

Mr. Sheldon

This is not the situation. I have mentioned those drawn from the peers of succession amounting to 66. With the 77, there are a further 153. Most of the 80 are accounted for by those whom we have mentioned. It looks as though someone started off with a magical figure, they did some hard bargaining to justify it, and in their justification the arithmetic has gone wrong. We need proper and full disclosure on how these figures were worked out, who they include and the reasons for them.

One of the results of yesterday morning's debate is that we are without the Preamble, and we find ourselves with the most important part of the Bill removed That which is in the Bill was less important than the way it was to be interpreted, which lay with the Preamble. That is why so many hon. Members hastened to the Preamble to see what was there and to make their Amendments to it. They knew that the meat of the Bill lay in the Preamble. Now this is nothing like the legislative device that some of us, ignorant in the law, had presumed. We find the need to have some of this written into the Bill, so that we know exactly what it is we are voting on and what will take place in what was called a gilded Chamber.

In this crucial matter of how the Lords are chosen, we are faced with another absurdity. Many hon. Gentlemen previously uncommitted are now beginning to have very serious doubts about the value of the Bill. In the last day or so Ministers have come to me to express their point of view and said that they were not happy about this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names."] I know only two Ministers who I can say are unreservedly in favour of the Measure. One cannot give names in such matters.

Mr. Hooson

Can the hon. Member tell the Committee how many Ministers he has spoken so that we know the percentage?

Mr. Sheldon

In these kind of matters one only has a feeling for it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must accept this or decline it. It has been estimated that there are only three senior Ministers in favour of the Bill. I cannot get past two, but concede there may be another.

Mr. Howie

In these figures of two and three, is my hon. Friend including such Ministers as are already in the Lords?

Mr. Sheldon

This makes it very difficult, because when one is dealing with two the identification problem is obvious. My main argument is that there has been a realisation that we have come up with a bad Measure. There is a greater realisation that we may be forced to go on with it because of the agreement between the two Front Benches. There is a need to force this change of mind in the same way as was done over Stansted. Neither of the Front Benches must be seen to be humiliated too much.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

The hon. Gentleman has told the Committee some very important news about the change of views among Ministers. Would it not be a good idea for him to suggest a secret ballot to see where they stand?

Mr. Sheldon

It is a pity that that was not a more serious contribution, because there is a serious side to this. Ministers who are obsessed with their Departments or concerned with other matters, are coming to this view. I suppose that it applies to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite too. We can see the reasons for this. There is now a realisation that what was cosily agreed, is now becoming something bitterly opposed, something which has created deep divisions even among those who strongly supported the Measure at the beginning.

When the House of Commons is so clearly expressing its will there is the strongest case for looking again at this to see if we cannot get an agreement between the two Front Benches to drop it.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

The hon. Gentleman's figures were of enormous interest to the Committee and have filled us with a great deal of mystification. I hope that they will be explained by the two Front Benches. It is a very unsatisfactory situation, when there should be rumours of bargains arrived at, actions taken, promises given and discreet conversations. Maybe even the bishops are involved in these discreet conversations. Which side will they be on? There is this promise of reward.

There is the smell behind the Bill of the sort of stock-jobbery which brings bad names and ill-repute to political parties. There is a mystery clearly emerging as to the missing hereditary peers, where they will come from, and the number of life peers who have to be created. The Bill becomes more unsatisfactory, it begins almost to have the smell of corruption even at this early stage.

Noble Lords in another place seem to have united in their own self-destruction as a House without taking into consideration the proper interests of the constitution as a whole. Some of the votes recorded in another place bring shame to that House. I hope, before the Bill is concluded, that there will be statements and disavowals of bargains which seem to have been reached with certain individuals. I am sorry that our own Front Bench is empty. As a Privy Councillor it would be improper for me to occupy that Bench, but perhaps one of my hon. Friends below the Gangway would think it fit to do so.

This is a serious matter which must be cleared up. There must be clear declarations by both sides. The discussion here will go on for a long time, during which I hope that some persons in the other place will begin to realise that they are not merely there because of their own importance, but because they play a vital part in our constitution, and they should defend their position rather than look after their own interests

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Heffer

I was much attracted by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), particularly his suggestion that the nominations should be submitted to the House of Commons. Although I agree with the principle that, if there is to be this sort of House of Lords, the House of Commons should be the approving body, we should nevertheless examine the difficulties which could arise from 300 names coming before the House of Commons.

If we are trying to get representative opinion in the other place, obviously trade unionists would have to be included in the 300 names. We should have to determine how the trade union nominations were to be made. Would they be made by the T.U.C. General Council, or would we ask the Liaison Committee of the London dockers to submit nominations? Could the House of Commons then argue about whether it should be Lord George Woodcock or Lord Jack Dash. Coming to the arts—

Mr. Hugh Fraser

Lord Jack Dash, who is a very good artist, could sit on the Arts Council, too. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has seen any of Jack Dash's pictures.

Mr. Heffer

Jack Dash would probably make a very good representative of the arts, although his nomination might clash with the opinions of some of us who might support Arthur Dooley, the Liverpool sculptor, who would be able to make a very powerful contribution to any discussions on the arts. Great debates would take place about each name on the list. We all have our prejudices about the arts and about who should represent the trade unions. Some hon. Members opposite would have their prejudices about who should represent industry. There might well be a debate lasting five or six hours on each name on the list. Difficulties would arise as to the churches which would be represented. So, although the idea has its attractions, it would involve great difficulties.

Then the Amendment provides that the Government of the day

should have a clear majority over all others.

We would have a list of 300 names before us. If there were a majority of only three here, as occured from 1964 to 1966, imagine the problems. If an hon. Member slipped out to go to the toilet, a name could be put on to the list which he did not approve of. Would the Whips be on or off? A situation could arise such as that which obtained when I was in the Communist Party: a list was presented to us by the National Executive and one either voted for the lot or rejected the list in its entirety; there was no chance to amend anything. We could not agree to such an anti-democratic system here. One of the reasons why I was thrown out of the Communist Party was that I did not agree with that system.

The White Paper mentions 230 voting peers. The Bill states no number. We do not know what the thinking of the Front Benches is. I see that there is no one present on the Opposition Front Bench this morning. Right hon. Members opposite are worse than the Liberals, about whom complaints were made the other day. The Conservative Front Bench has apparently lost interest in the Bill rather rapidly. What will be the precise number? Will it be 230 or 300 as the Amendment proposes. We are entitled to know what the precise number will be in the deformed Upper Chamber.

I object to the Clause, too, because it would perpetuate the whole principle of nomination. It has been rightly said that the House of Lords is nominated at present. In the sense that there are peers of first creation and there are also those who are there because of heredity. The principle involved in the Clause and in the Amendment is an extension of the principle of nomination. I find this much more distasteful. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that there were 21 hereditary peers who were members of the Labour Party. It does not follow that their successors will be members of the Labour Party—or, indeed, of the Conservative Party or of the Liberal Party or of anything.

Mr. Russell Kerr

They might be members of Black Dwarf.

Mr. Heffer

Exactly. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and I know something about that organisation.

Mr. Ridsdale

Was there not a Socialist peer—Lord Baldwin—sitting in the Upper House during the time of a Conservative Prime Minister?

Mr. Heffer

Yes. Although we are not certain what the future for hereditary peers will be, the proposals in the Bill and in the Amendment involve some certainty, and that certainty would be based upon the principle of patronage. It is precisely this which I find very objectionable.

Yesterday, an hon. Member opposite asked, "If you are opposed to this, what do you want to put in its place?" That is a very fair question. My view is that either we should abolish the other place or take away its powers, or we should have a second Chamber directly elected democratically. But the Bill is neither one thing or the other. My father used to have a very good expression, which I could not repeat in the House, to describe such a thing. It was a very good way to describe the sort of dog's breakfast we have in the Bill.

The Amendment will not help, despite my hon. Friend's valiant efforts. He has made the proposal with the clear object of assisting to get some clarity, but I object to it because it continues or extends the principle of nomination, which I find most objectionable. Therefore, I shall not support my hon. Friend.

The first part of the Clause says that the voting peers shall consist only of those of first creation, so the whole idea of a nominated peerage, with the two Front Benches and the Liberal leader deciding who will be nominated, is underlined.

The idea of the list coming before the House of Commons to be debated has some attractions for me, but I agree with the hon. Member who said that it would be a jamboree. We can imagine how long we should go on, and what fun we could have in discussing the names on the list. The Amendment is impractical, and we could not support it.

We should be very careful about putting forward Amendments which can make the position worse. If the Bill goes through unamended it will be a pretty poor document, but we could amend it in such a way as to help to make it even worse. I could not support my hon. Friend, because the Amendment does make it worse than it is.

Mr. Ridley

I apologise for having had to leave for 10 minutes to attend a Standing Committee. If I repeat any argument as a result, I am sure that that will be brought to my attention.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was a little harsh on his hon. Friend the member for Luton (Mr. Howie), who should be encouraged verbally, though not with votes, for trying to clarify how the suggestion that the Government should have a workable majority in another place is to be achieved. This has made me look at the figures in the White Paper, which says that in a total House of 230 the appropriate number of Government supporters in the present Parliament would be 105. The main opposition party, the Conservatives, would have 80, the other opposition parties 15, making 95 against the Government, and there would be 30 cross-benchers. That would be 125 who do not necessarily adhere to the Government and 105 who do. Therefore, the Government's working majority would not be secured even by the proposals in their White Paper, because if the cross-benchers voted against them they would bring about the Government's defeat. This is extraordinary, because the whole point of the Measure is to secure a working majority for the Government in another place. If, even on their own published figures, that majority will not exist if the cross-benchers vote against the Government, their proposals do not achieve what is claimed to be their main recommendation.

Clearly, the cross-benchers must be allowed the independence of political attitude attributed to them in the Preamble. Therefore, it cannot be expected that the Government will carry the Divisions if the cross-benchers vote against them. Accordingly, the whole object of the Bill seems to be denied by the curious suggestion in the White Paper. I hope that the Minister who replies will deal with this point, because, if there is not a working majority, the advantage claimed by the Home Secretary last night that another place would not frustrate a Labour Government in the same way that all Labour Governments have been threatened by frustration is no longer valid, because the majority is not there.

I join with hon. Members who have questioned the whole concept of appointing members of a party on the basis of their political affiliations. The word "adhering", which has been so often quoted, is nauseous. Would the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), the representative of the Liberal Party in these debates, feel that he adheres to the Liberal Party or not?

Mr. Russell Kerr

Shall I go and get him?

Mr. Ridley

It would be very helpful if he could be asked his view of adherence or adhesion, which I believe is the word used within the Liberal Party. He has told us that his leader is the only one who subscribes to the proposals in the Bill. It is difficult to understand how a party can have any adhesion when 11 of its members disagree with the leader.

Mr. Russell Kerr

It is the same proportion in our party.

Mr. Ridley

We should explore further what happens if there are changes in political attitude. All members of political parties occasionally have a relapse and vote against their party, or abstain on a Whip because they have a deep feeling of conscience and cannot agree with what has been proposed. As the Prime Minister has said, every dog is allowed one bite, but when the dogs do not stop biting action must be taken. So at some stage it will have to be declared that a certain supporter of the Government can no longer be regarded as such, or that a certain member of the Opposition can no longer be regarded as one of the nominees of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. In this case, when it is no longer just an odd example of disloyalty but a continued change of heart, will there be a procedure for changing that nominee in order to get support for the Government's policy? Will he be asked to resign?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Would he forfeit his dog licence?

Mr. Ridley

My right hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We are coming to an important Amendment dealing with dog licences.

Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)

Would it not possibly come under Clause 7—"Disqualification on account of mental illness?"

Mr. Ridley

We are, as always, extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his great knowledge of the Bill and its legal implications. That is clearly a way out, but would it be honour bound upon a peer who changed his political allegiance to resign? The Government, who are leaving a lot to chance, should make it clear whether a peer who decides to cross the Floor, to give up his Conservative policies and become a Socialist or Liberal, will be required to resign his nominated seat so that it can be filled by someone who still adheres to the party which nominated him. Otherwise, the system will not make sense—

Mr. Orme

The hon. Member is known for his own independence. Could he enlighten the Committee on this question of nomination, which the Amendment says shall be submitted to the House of Commons for approval? I assume that these nominations will be cogitated behind the scenes by the Whips of all parties and then submitted for the approval of the House, as Committee membership and other things are submitted. Where does this democratic process start and end and what basic rights, in the end, will hon. Members have in this selection?

Mr. Ridley

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here when I suggested that the names of the peers should be read out before Questions so that hon. Members could shout, "Object!" just as when Private Bills are brought forward. A system like that would be the only way to despatch the vast amount of business, since if each name had to be debated, we could not get on.

I agree that there are difficulties and that it will be difficult to get the balance right. I can imagine arguments between the leaders of the parties. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition might have a dispute as to whether a certain peer had changed his allegiance and whether he was part of the Government majority which the Amendment calls for. This raises thoroughly unsatisfactory ideas. If we are to have such a system, all these points must be cleared up and the question of whether an erring nominee is to be disciplined at all should be answered by the Government. Otherwise, we shall be in the dark on an important aspect of the Bill.

Finally, the arithmetic needs to be cleared up. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who told us in advance that he would have to leave by 11.30 and, as usual, was accurate to the minute in his timing, entered upon this subject. To add to the confusion a little, he said that there would be 44 conversions, as the Home Secretary is pleased to call them, of Conservatives. A total of 44 hereditary peers would be made into voting peers, converted. On top of that, there are the existing Conservative life peers, who will bring the number well above the 80 allowed in the White Paper to form the Conservative phalanx. I am not talking about non-voting peers, but only about attending peers who vote. I do not see how, by converting or "castling" 44 peers, and adding the peers of first creation and the life peers who will have the vote, we get the figure of 80, but perhaps I am muddled and the Under-Secretary can put us right.

Then there are these further 77 peers who will be hereditary peers with the right to attend but not to vote. This is the greatest trouble for the Committee, because, out of the 730 odd, we shall be left with this 77. I do not understand how anyone can tell how many of the 77 will opt to remain peers. Unless they have each been asked and canvassed, I do not see how it is possible to know. I have asked my own brother, who tells me that he has not been canvassed, so he feels rather aggrieved—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Perhaps he has been "ploughed".

Mr. Ridley

But he has not been told that, either. He has been kept on tenterhooks. He is longing to know whether he will be a voting peer or a non-voting peer or become plain "Mr." again and be equal with me, which I think is very important too.

So I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will tell us what are the plans for the Conservative side of the new House. We must make certain in advance that, whatever is done, the Government of the day will still have a nominal majority in the House of Lords. If the confusion is not bad enough, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will add to it by answering these questions.

Several Hon. Members rose—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

Not in any sense to limit discussion, I thought that it might be useful to come in after these two hours. I would deal, first, with two personal points. It seems that the "second son syndrome" rears its ugly head in the most curious places. I am sure that the words of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will be noted. Among the other factors which will be taken into account, I am sure that the psychological factors in families will also be considered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) had this worry which affects so many on this side, that, if they ever reach the day when they get into the Lords, their children will be of a different political persuasion. This is the whole point of the Bill. If his children, now or to be, were to change ther minds, there would be no problem in the Lords, because they would not be there. I hope that that sets his mind at rest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) will not be surprised, even if he had not heard this discussion, to hear that I would recommend that his Amendment be rejected. I should make it clear, in view of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Why does my hon. Friend assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) would not be surprised? I noticed a surprised look on his face.

Mr. Rees

The real reason is that I know the hon. Member better than my hon. Friend does. He has a perpetual look of surprise.

In view of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I should make it clear that I speak on behalf of the Government in support of the Bill now and on all other occasions.

The Amendment seeks to secure three dissimilar objects. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend meant them to be logically connected, but I do not think that they are. The first is that there should be, initially, 300 voting peers instead of 230. The White Paper says that the initial size of the voting House should be about 230, excluding the Law Lords and the bishops, but that a larger number might be found necessary as the work of the House developed and expanded in future. But a larger number might be found necessary as the work of the House developed and expanded, and much would also depend on the number of nonvoting peers who attended debates in the House or served on committees and on the frequency with which they did so.

The figure of 230 is considered sufficient, provided that the non-voting peers were prepared to attend and work in reasonable numbers, at least for the remainder of this Parliament. It might well be increased in subsequent Parliaments if the amount of work grows in the House. We shall have to see. But, to preserve continuity, the number of new life peers to be created at the outset should be no larger than the work to be performed and the party balance require.

12 noon.

It is impossible in advance of reform to be sure what number of peers will be required. Size is one of the matters which it is considered in paragraph 31 of the White Paper should be referred to the Committee mentioned in that paragraph, which reads: The Government does however see attraction in the possibility of a committee which, while possessing no power of nomination, would review periodically the composition of the reformed House and report, either to the Prime Minister or to Parliament, on any deficiencies in the balance and range of the membership of the House.

Rather than put a fixed figure in the Bill, it is much better to see what is required. There may be a case for 300 members For working purposes, but, in the Government's view, it is undesirable to write it into the Bill.

A number of hon. Members have re-referred to the figure of 230 and what it means and the number of peers that will be appointed from existing peers. I am advised that the figure of 230 was chosen as being about the number who attended more than one-third of the sittings of the House of Lords during 1966–67, the last complete year before the Inter-Party Conference. This was thought, from experience, to be about the right number for the efficient conduct of business. The number who attended one-third of the sittings in 1967–68 was higher, as will be seen from the table on page 5 of the White Paper, which is the starting point of any discussion.

The choice of the figure of 230 was based on experience in an unpaid House. To answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, do not consider that this depends on pay or otherwise because the analysis was made in an unpaid House. Therefore, it is considered that about 230 Members would be required in another place to work the reformed House with the sort of duties that they will have. The White Paper deals with this subject at length in paragraphs 46 and 47 and makes it clear that the figures might have to be changed in the light of future events. The figure of 230 does not include the Law Lords and bishops.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Mr. Russell Kerr

Was the figure of 230 established by reference to the attendance register, which I understand their Lordships sign, or to the number of people in the Chamber? I ask that because there have been disturbing rumours that some of their Lordships, resident in Chelsea, have been in the habit of dropping in for a drink on the way home.

Mr. Rees

One hears the most curious things. I cannot comment on that. I am sure that those who were engaged in the discussions were aware of matters of that nature, if they happen. They considered the number of Members who could work the reformed House of Lords.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

I realise that the bishops occasionally render to Caesar what is Caesar's, but they have political views. Obviously, the political colouring of bishops is of importance in such a delicately balanced mechanism. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us something about that.

Mr. Rees

Perhaps I can deal with that when we consider the second part of the Amendment, which concerns the overall majority.

The principle is—and it appears from the table on page 5 of the White Paper—that 230 would comprise basically those created peers, who would be likely to be voting peers, probably those who attend one-third of the sessions already of whom there are 153. In addition, there would be sufficient new creations to give a total of 230 and this is the 77 to which reference has been made which is one-tenth of the approximately 770 hereditary peers and which would give those who wanted it a job to do in the House of Lords. The distribution of the 77 between the parties would be such as to give the right party balance—the Labour Party about 105, the Conservative Party about 80, the Liberal and other parties 15 and the cross-benchers 30.

The Government's view about the first part of the Amendment, concerning numbers, is that it would be inappropriate to write the number of peers into the Bill. The matter is best left to develop and we should see what number is required.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley)

Does my hon. Friend realise that, in view of the representation proposed, the opposition which might be created against the Government could make certain that their legislation would not be allowed to go through? Is that why the Government are arguing about the figure of 230, and are we to understand that they can suddenly bring forward another 30 or 40 life peers?

Mr. Rees

I have been dealing with the total number of 300. I shall deal later with the second part of the Amendment, concerning an overall Government majority. My hon. Friend has anticipated what I am about to say.

The Amendment suggests that there should be an overall Government majority. There are two, if not three, principal objections to that. First, the number of new creations at the change of Government would have to be unmanageably large. I know that, in the face of the practical problems which arise, and by the nature of both Houses, the objection may not seem to be important. But it is a factor which must be taken into account. On a change of Government from one party to another, the number of new creations at the changeover would have to be unmanageably large if the previous Government had an overall majority. I do not suggest that that is an overwhelming argument, but it is one of the problems.

Mr. Russell Kerr

What arrangements have the Government in mind for a coalition situation?

Mr. Rees

I have enough on my plate without thinking about disasters.

Mr. Orme

Is not nomination by the House of Commons moving away from the basic principle of the constitution of one man, one vote? The electors on a universal franchise decide who is to sit in the House of Commons. What right have hon. Members, whether it be the Prime Minister or anyone else, to say what is good for the country?

Mr. Rees

With respect to my hon. Friend, I grant that there is the problem of the overall majority to which I will come in a moment, but the underlying argument behind the Bill is that the House of Commons is the prime House and the Government of the day, who are elected every so often, is responsible. Nothing in my argument is saying that this power should go to the House of Lords.

If I may come back to the overall majority, first, there would be the difficulty of creations on a change of Government; secondly, if there were an automatic majority in both Houses, there would be a tendency for voting patterns in the second Chamber to reproduce those of the House of Commons, and for it to act in regard to legislation as no more than a rubber stamp.

Mr. Paget

Surely this is the whole object; this is what the Home Secretary said that he wanted to do, and he is so clever that he has achieved it.

Mr. Rees

We have recently discussed the Preamble. The Preamble, which I know my hon. and learned Friend will have read, does not suggest that it is the intention that the House of Lords should be a rubber stamp in the sense in which he used the word.

Mr. Paget

This is exactly the point which I put to the Home Secretary yesterday. He told me I was quite wrong about it, and that the so-called neutral peers were neutral because they split half and half, but there would still be a Government majority, and that is what it is all about.

Mr. Rees

In terms of the figures that I have given on the second part of the Amendment, there is not an overall majority for the Government in the reformed House of Lords.

Three things are stated in paragraph 25 of the White Paper: the fact that a peer, having once become a peer, cannot be deprived of his seat—and this refers to a point which the hon. Gentleman raised—I see that he is no longer here, so he could not have been so interested in the point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—

Mr. Rees

I am referring to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and not to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke rose—

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Order. Perhaps the Minister will indicate to whom he is giving way?

Mr. Rees

I am giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

Mr. Arthur Lewis

The Minister has said that the hon. Member is not here and, therefore, he is not interested. He should bear in mind that that remark might reflect upon several hon. Members. I was upstairs in Committee. I wanted to be here, but I could not be upstairs and down here at the same time.

Mr. Rees

I read some of the proceedings of the Standing Committees and I notice with interest that the hon. Gentleman said upstairs that the Bill was so important, but only once this morning has he decided this was so important that he ought to be down here.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

I am sure that the Minister will withdraw the remark. My hon. Friend has gone back to his Standing Committee with reluctance.

Mr. Rees

I withdraw my remark. I simply looked up and saw that he was not there.

Mr. Roebuck

The Horserace Betting Levy Bill has now passed Committee and that accounts for my hon. Friend's presence.

Mr. Rees

I thank the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) for that remark.

To get back to paragraph 5 of the White Paper, there are three matters which ought to come before the Committee. The first is the fact that a peer, having once become a peer, cannot be deprived of his seat—to take up the point which the hon. Gentleman made before he left. Of course, there will be people who will change their minds politically; it would be odd if that did not happen, but this will have to be looked at by the Committee as a principle. The figures which I have given do not give an overall majority in a precise party sense. Obviously, that balance will have to be maintained by the creation of further peers, but I would not have thought that it would happen on a large number of occasions. Nobody is betting that people will not change their minds; this will happen just as much as before.

Secondly, the Government intend the House to possess a degree of genuine independence based on that fact, and on the presence of a number of cross-benchers who do not owe allegiance to any party. The evidence shows that cross-benchers do not speak, vote or adhere regularly to any party, nor do they possess a sense of corporate identity, nor do they act in any way as organised members.

12.15 p.m.

Sir L. Heald

Will (he Minister say where cross-benchers appear in the body of the document or in the Preamble?

Mr. Rees

In the paragraph to which I am referring, the evidence of the presence of a number of cross-benchers who do not owe allegiance to any party.

Sir L. Heald

They are mentioned in the White Paper, but nowhere else.

Mr. Rees

I am sorry, I misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

To come back to the point we were discussing yesterday, in terms of the meaning of the Preamble as it affected the future, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a learned lawyer, and all I stand by is the remark made by my right hon. and learned Friend which he took from Maxwell on the Interpretation of the Statutes. The Preamble of a Statute has been said to be a good way of finding out its meaning and a key to the understanding of it. I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I do not think the meaning of Preambles arises under the Amendment which we are discussing.

The third part of my hon. Friend's Amendment is the suggestion that the names of the nominees should be submitted to the House of Commons for approval, and that the House of Commons should be a vetting body. I do not think that it would be appropriate for this to be done, not only party-wise but for it to be done at all. It would be embarrassing to discuss the respective merits and demerits of individuals. The third part of my hon. Friend's Amendment is the one with the least merit.

I have dealt with the three parts of the Amendment and we have had a wide-ranging debate, but my recommendation to the Committee is that the Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

May I, first, take up the point which the Under-Secretary of State made in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend: he cannot rely on the Preamble to the Bill in support of the suggestion that, however remotely, the cross-bench peers were in the Bill. There is no mention in the Preamble of the cross-bench peers, and perhaps therefore, the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to withdraw that argument so that no further time is wasted on it.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping to clear up one mystery. He made the remarkable statement for an Under-Secretary replying to an Amendment that he was in favour of the Bill. This takes us back, Mr. Gourlay, as, if you had been in the Chair you would have recalled, to the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who said that only three Ministers were in favour of the Bill. We now know that the Under-Secretary of State is in favour of it, so this narrows the field of inquiry to two, unless the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, in a kind of official snobbery, was not treating Under-Secretaries of State as Ministers at all.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

That, too, was at 12 midday. The right hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that it is now twenty minutes past noon.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am obliged for that helpful contribution. I agree that things are moving fast.

Mr. Rees

I apologise for not getting up straight away. I had mislaid the Bill. I was referring to the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2, where it states: …members adhering to other parties and members adhering to no party. That is what I had in mind.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I do not intend to pursue it further. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that merely to say members adhering to no party is more a statement of the obvious than a statement of an important feature of the scheme under which a definite element was to be created with a balance in the House. The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly read that into the obvious and platitudinous statement that peers can adhere to no party. He cannot read into that the whole elaborate structure of a phalanx of cross-bench peers controlling the balance in the Upper House. The hon. Gentleman has a good reputation, but he will not improve it if he seeks to rely on that sort of argument.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

Surely these Lords are Lords spiritual in the true sense of the word, because they have no views, no presence in law and no legal existence.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

As a grandson of a former Lord spiritual, I am not prepared to accept that, even from my right hon. Friend, even if I did not suspect just a nuance of sectarian animosity in his intervention. I have the highest regard for peers spiritual, present and past.

I beg the Under-Secretary, though he withdrew it under pressure, not to make reference at these morning sittings to hon. Members who have spoken and are not here. The Under-Secretary is a member of a Government who have put hon. Members to the extreme inconvenience, after a decision announced at 11.30 last night, of continuing the proceedings on the Bill this morning. The Under-Secretary should know, if he does not, that most of us have obligations for the following morning which are not easy to shed when the Government suddenly take a decision at half past eleven at night. Therefore, it would be more graceful if he desisted from that practice.

Mr. Rees

I had, in fact, withdrawn that. There is all the difference between somebody who, the night before, finds it difficult to attend and someone who does attend and goes. I have apologised to the hon. Gentleman in question. I did not realise that he had gone to a Standing Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I do not accept the distinction, but I accept the apology.

Mr. Russell Kerr

The right hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I do not think that I am making heavy weather of it. A fair distinction is not made by criticising those who come and then go. That is a difficulty imposed upon an hon. Member by the action of the Government in altering the business as late as half past eleven the night before, thereby putting hon. Members in the position of having to do their honest best to do simultaneously two jobs in two different places. I do not think that the Under-Secretary will facilitate these morning sittings, if they persist in future, if he takes this line.

I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's dismissal of his hon. Friend's argument that the Prime Minister's apparent abandonment of payment of Members of the Upper House had no effect upon numbers. This simply cannot be so. The number of whole-time paid professionals required to run a second Chamber must be smaller than the number of unpaid amateurs. If Members of another place are not to be paid—and we have the Prime Minister's statement that that is so—it is plain that, unless the Government are to appoint as voting peers only rich men, those appointed to another place will have to earn their living in other ways.

That means that they will not be able to attend as frequently as those whose main means of livelihood is membership of another place. That must be self-evident. If Members cannot attend to the same extent, because they are engaged in earning their living, it is common sense, if the work of another place is to be done properly, that the membership will have to be larger. I do not think that the Under-Secretary apprehended the argument, which came first, I think rightly, from behind him, that the change made by the Prime Minister on Second Reading must have a very significant bearing on what would be the workable size of another place.

Mr. Rees

The analysis that was made to get to the figure of 230 was based on another place with unpaid Members, except in the sense which we know. Therefore, on any mathematical analysis, without expecting to get certainty, if we make a deduction based on fact, as of now, we will achieve a certain amount of accuracy—not more than general—about the number who will attend in future. There has been no change.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If the matter stopped there, it would be an acceptable and, indeed, logical argument. But it does not. It was inherent in the White Paper scheme—and if the Under-Secretary wants his memory refreshing, it is set out in paragraph 52—that these Members should be paid.

Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I will give way in a moment.

The White Paper clearly states: The Government considers that Members without private means should not thereby be prevented from playing a full part, and therefore proposes that voting peers should in future receive some remuneration … The Government's scheme—we have heard the expression used before—was a "package". The Prime Minister, for reasons which he did not state, but which most of us found little difficulty in guessing, withdrew one item from the package. He withdrew remuneration from the package. Therefore, if it was the Government's view that a paid and, therefore, presumably pretty well full-time House of 230 was required, it must inescapably follow that when that House becomes unpaid—its Members bound to earn their living elsewhere unless only rich men are to be appointed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or Ministers."]—to do the same amount of work it must have a larger membership. Surely the Under-Secretary can appreciate that proposition.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, amongst the innumerable official and semi-official leaks which we had and have to the Press, there was an officially inspired leak that there was to be a £2,000 payment until, rightly, a number of right hon. Gentlemen said that that would be unfair and it was then withdrawn?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I was aware of the leaks to the Press. But, under the present Administration, these are on such a scale that it is difficult for the ordinary Member, without excessive secretarial assistance, to keep track of all of them.

I must not anticipate what I think will be the next Amendment that you, Mr. Gourlay, will call, but a figure of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would probably be the lowest that would be put forward.

Mr. Paget

Is not the right hon. Gentleman's argument based on an assumption which has been demonstrated to be false, namely, that the Bill was the result of a logical process? Quite obviously, it was not. The calculation of 230 is based on a figure drawn from unpaid peers, and nobody was logical enough to see that it did not apply to paid peers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. and learned Gentleman must not mistake my habitual courtesy for an impression that I am taken in by the Government's so-called logic. It is courteous and usual to assume that the occupants of the Treasury Bench are not certifiably insane, although there are sometimes circumstances when it becomes a little difficult to maintain that view. However, I am, on the whole, of a courteous nature. Therefore, I have been proceeding and founding my argument on that. If the Under-Secretary will get up and say now that he admits there is no logic at all in these numbers or in the Bill, I will abandon the argument.

Mr. Rees

All that I am prepared to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that the analysis which gave the figure of 230 was based on unpaid membership in the terms which the Prime Minister stated. Therefore, the 230 is based on the original analysis, which still stands.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If it is based on the original analysis, it follows, from the hon. Gentleman's statement, that it never occurred to anybody in the Government that if 230 was based on unpaid membership, it must be wrong on the basis of paid membership. Surely the Under Secretary of State is capable of appreciating the different amount of attendance to be expected from, and indeed provided by, those who are receiving a respectable salary, and those who are bound to earn their living elsewhere? All the hon. Gentleman is now saying is that his argument of 230 is based on the fact that in considering this matter the Government were so slapdash that they did not realise the difference in the number required on a paid and an unpaid basis.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Howie

We keep reminding ourselves that there has been some kind of package deal, a bargain, or agreement, between the two Front Benches. The Front Bench opposite should be present to tell us about its part in the drafting of the Bill. We cannot lump the whole of this on to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, of whom I am extremely fond. The Front Bench opposite must bear its share of the responsibility.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I go with the hon. Gentleman on this, that the paternity of the Bill, like that of certain other undesirable creatures, is a mixture of law and fact. But the fact remains that the Government are presenting the Bill, and it is, therefore, for them to satisfy the House of Commons that it—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I am sliding away from anything. I hope that I have succeeded at least in indicating to him that I am against the Bill.

This is now a Government Bill, and it is the duty of Ministers to satisfy the House of Commons that the proposals in it are right. To do the Under-Secretary of State justice, I do not think that he is trying to slide away from that. He is providing an argument which demonstrates the extremely slapdash manner in which the Bill has been constructed. This was confirmed—I think that it was the day before yesterday—by the Secretary of State for Social Services, when, in a moment of engaging candour, he said that the Government had had great difficulty in drafting the Bill.

As the Under-Secretary of State is so anxious to tell us how these numbers were arrived at, perhaps we might probe further into this famous figure of 77. It has an air of somewhat bogus precision. If the hon. Gentleman had said "about 80", that might have been thought to be an estimate. Nobody, not even in Whitehall, gets down to an approximate estimate of 77. This figure must be based on a compilation of names. Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to tell the Committee that names have not been looked at in this connection, and that this number is not based simply on adding up a list of names which have been regarded as probables?

Mr. Rees

I can speak only for the Labour Party. There are a large number of hereditary peers in the other place. Any selection on that aspect would be for the right hon. Gentleman's side, and no doubt somebody from that side will eventually turn up who can tell him about that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. Gentleman says that he can speak only for the Labour Party. Is he saying that the Labour Party's constituent figures in this total are not based on a consideration of individual names?

Mr. Rees

All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the analysis was based on the number who have turned up. I know of no list, and no names.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. Gentleman knows of no list, and he is, therefore, asking the Committee to accept that this figure of 77, with its air of spurious precision, is based simply on a mathematical exercise based on prior attendance.

Mr. Rees

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at she figures which I gave, he will see that in terms of about 230 members my right hon. Friend last night talked of "about 77", and I used that figure this morning. There is no mathematical certainty about it. It is not one-tenth of 770, but about the number required in addition to the life peers to bring the total to about 230.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. Gentleman gives the impression of being less precise than his right hon. Friend was yesterday. The Committee is now to understand that 77 is not necessarily the actual figure; that it may be appreciably different. It is very useful to have elicited that information, because it is only by taking a certain amount of trouble that one can find out what is happening in connection with this matter.

I join the Under-Secretary of State in rather regretfully indicating that I, too, cannot support the Amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) has done the Committee a good service by causing us to consider this question of numbers, and by giving us the opportunity, however slowly and painfully, to extract from the Under-Secretary of State some information as to their significance, and as to the processes by which they were arrived at.

When one looks at the terms of the Amendment, one sees that it would be unworkable. What about the expression, supporters of the Government of the day."? What would a court have to take into account in deciding whether a member of another place was, or was not, a supporter of the Government of the day? Would, for example, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) so qualify? Would the hon. Member for Luton so qualify? What percentage, or proportion, of deviations from the Whip would be permitted without forfeting the qualification of being a supporter of the Government of the day? Perhaps this is an even more optimistic question—would the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) so qualify?

Mr. Howie

I leave the measurement of deviations to the mathematicians. Deciding this would be a simple matter. Presumably the matter would have to be decided by the possession of a fully paid up party card.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I dislike taking a drafting point against the hon. Gentleman, but if that were to be the definition he should have tabled as an Amendment an additional Schedule scheduling a party membership card of the Labour Party as a qualification. In all seriousness, this shows the proposal to be unworkable. There is the further point that those so appointed might not follow the definition which I believe is given in certain parts of the United States of an honest politician, "When you have been squared you stay squared".

Mr. Orme

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us his view about some cross-benchers now in the House of Lords—the noble Lords Wigg, Butler, Hill, and Aylestone? How will they fit into this situation? This is an extremely important matter. Will they be drafted into one of the parties, will they be dropped, or will they sit on the cross-benches and become "Don't knows"?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. Gentleman poses to me a point so difficult to answer that if I were in charge of the Bill my only response would be to offer to withdraw the Measure.

This is an extremely serious point. The gaiety, the life, and the brilliance of another place would be enormously diminished if the noble Lords mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were to withdraw from the counsels of another place, but their precise political categorisation at any time is an intellectual exercise which I would find it extremely difficult to achieve. Yet this is inherent in the proposals—and the hon. Gentleman was right to introduce this—not so much in the Amendment, though it is related to it, or it would not have been selected for debate, but more conspicuously in the Government's scheme. Yet this is precisely the kind of situation which the Government have not foreseen.

It is clear that the 30 cross-bench peers—I trust we shall have no dispute about that figure—who will be voting will not be selected from the able and brilliant people who now sit on the cross-benches because, apart from anything else, such people have so much to do that they could not meet the clock punching one-out-of-three qualification for voting. One of my reasons for disliking the Government's scheme is that it would take out of the main stream of another place many of those who, with their knowledge and experience and ability, are contributing so splendidly to it.

The fact that I cannot support the Amendment in the Lobby must not be deemed an indication that I am satisfied by the wholly inadequate reply given by the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Michael Foot

The Amendment has not been received with universal acclaim. I hope that this will not deter my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) from proceeding with other Amendments. We all like to see those who have graduated from the Whips Office to higher quarters. They rise on stepping stones of their dead selves to higher things. My hon. Friend has done an essential service in enabling this debate to take place.

Mr. Howie

I already have an Amendment in the next group for discussion.

Mr. Foot

I will be glad to be here, if we ever reach it.

The great merit of the Amendment before us now is that it enables us to discuss the size of the proposed new Chamber in a way we were unable to do before, at any rate in such detail. One would think that, in setting up a new Chamber, the question of size would be almost the first to be decided. I do not claim special priority for it, but it is obviously of great importance.

I have listened to most of the discussion. But even now we do not know who is to decide the size of the new Chamber. It is not in the Bill. It is not in the Preamble. It is not in the White Paper. It may be buried in the package agreement between the two Front Benches, but we have not been told exactly what that was.

If the Bill goes through in this form, none of us will be able to say what the size of the second Chamber is to be. No one will be able to tell us, and we will not be able to tell anyone else, how it is to be varied from the figure of 230. Who is to do it? Is it to be the House of Commons? Is there to be an amending Bill to deal with the situation? As far as I can see, there would have to be an amending Bill to establish the size. It is astonishing that we should be asked to pass a Bill setting up a new Chamber when we cannot even discover what the likely size is to be nor how it is to be decided in the end.

In these permutations, we have the further difficulty that we do not know how the figure of 77 was arrived at and what are to be the numbers at the beginning of each new Parliament. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, that this is not one of the main objections to the Amendment, since it would involve the appointment of peers for a single Parliament. But if we were to fix a figure of 300 and then had to ensure a Government majority, then each time there was a General Election it would mean that the numbers in the other place would have to be increased. What would be the figure in the geometrical progression by the end of the century after successive general elections?

12.45 p.m.

But it is much more important to talk about the Government's proposals. What we want to discover, as we are entitled to do, is the figure which the Government have in mind as the total of the new Chamber and how the peers are to be divided up. As a House of Commons, we are entitled rightly and properly to put these questions to the Government and to those who are parties to the bargain In one sense, as I shall illustrate, we are even more entitled to put these questions to the Opposition Front Bench than to the Government. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is not here, since this largely arises from what he has said.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary defends these propositions in the skilful manner that we expect. He does not say that this is a magnificent Bill, or anything of the sort. He says, "This is what I am landed with and I bring it to the House of Commons". He does not defend the whole Bill. When he finds any part of it under attack, he has the skillful method of saying, "This happens to be part of the package that I did not like". As we move from Clause to Clause—and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is not here—we shall no doubt find other parts of the package which he dislikes.

My right hon. Friend is an old, confirmed politician. He says, "A member of the Government has to look after his friends and cannot betray his Cabinet colleagues on the Floor of the House, whatever we say elsewhere. We have to proceed with the Bill, so look at it in that sense and do not press me about these points. I do not know much more about it than you do". Thus, no one will be more surprised than my right hon. Friend to find what a good defence can be made of his proposals, as has been demonstrated today by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. My hon. Friend has found the best form of defence for this proposal that could be devised.

The Opposition Front Bench has put itself in a peculiar position, because the right hon. Member for Barnet says two things at the same time. I invite hon. Members to draw their deductions. I do not know whether those sitting on the Front Bench opposite at the moment are authorised to speak as well as to be present, although I know that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) is not entitled to speak. First, the right hon. Member for Barnet says that there is no bargain. Then he says that he is in favour of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Barnet is, therefore, in the unique position of supporting the Bill on its merits.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Asbton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that there are two members of the Government who also support it?

Mr. Foot

I thought that that figure was rather high when my hon. Friend gave it.

To be fair, my remarks should perhaps not apply only to the right hon. Member for Barnet. Other right hon. Gentlemen opposite have strayed in from time to time. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) appeared for at least five minutes yesterday and on one occasion the Leader of the Opposition was here for about seven minutes. Each of them came in to see that things were going all right, since they had agreed to the package, and as everything appeared to be fine, they left, leaving the right hon. Member for Barnet to defend the Measure on its merits.

The right hon. Member for Barnet does not see the Bill as an absurd, cockeyed edifice. He does not regard it as a ramshackle construction. To him, the Bill is a magnificent building and he treasures every elaborate obtrusion and fantastic gargoyle. He thinks that it is an achitectural masterpiece. If the Opposition really feel that way, they should be here to give the Government more assistance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Perhaps it is because the Opposition have been giving the Government assistance behind the scenes that the Government are in such a mess over the Bill.

Mr. Foot

If the Government are in a mess I am not sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite are in a position to help. [Laughter.]

We must consider this matter seriously. It is not something to laugh about, because we are in a serious position. We are trying, by the Amendment, to discover some elementary facts about the size and composition of the new Chamber. Despite the eagerness of the Government spokesman to assist us today, at the end of this morning's sitting we are in greater confusion about what is to occur than we were three hours ago. Certain figures have been suggested, hinted at or vaguely described. Are these figures part of the bargain, or has the bargain been drastically altered? Not only the House of Commons, but Members of the other place are entitled to a considered statement from the Opposition Front Bench on their attitude to the Bill.

Nobody can deny that the Bill has been very heavily knocked about in all quarters since our deliberations began some days ago. We are serious people and we would not be giving our time to the matter if it were not a serious one. The spokesman for the Liberal Party suggested that there was something wrong in our giving time to it. We do not want to do this. We are giving our time because we believe that the Measure, as drafted, will inflict serious injury to Parliament. Part of our duty is not merely to think about the popular mood of the moment, but about the long-term consequences that may be involved.

Mr. Hooson

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman appreciated what I said. I did not say that it was an unimportant Measure. I said that if the Government had a proper sense of priorities they would not have wasted so much Parliamentary time on this Measure, but would have been doing something about the many important issues that are outstanding.

Mr. Foot

I know what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.

Many of us regard this as an important Bill. Many of us have been fighting for years against the establishment of what we think will be the sort of second Chamber that will be the outcome of this bargain. Some of us oppose the Measure on this ground. Others, notably on the benches opposite, oppose it on different grounds. Nevertheless, we are all concerned about the long-term welfare of the country. For this reason, important questions arise, such as how Parliament is to operate in the next century. This is a serious matter on which hon. Members probably have wiser ideas than people outside Parliament. It is a matter on which, as has been shown, back benchers may have had more time to reflect than some Members of the Government.

Not only is it wrong for the Bill to be pressed through in this manner; it is equally wrong that one Clause after another should be disposed of without any verdict being offered by right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. Whether or not they like it, they are supporters of the Bill. They are the enthusiastic backers of it. That being so, they must, at any rate as a matter of courtesy, answer their back benchers.

At least, Government spokesmen have answered the questions posed by my hon. Friends. They have explained why, in their view, certain Amendments should not be accepted, and I do not even complain about the presence of the Home Secretary from time to time, or of the answers given by the Secretary of State for the Social Services. They have at least been here to answer us, which is more than can be said of the Opposition Front Bench.

During the short time that the right hon. Member for Barnet was here he raised a point with the Attorney-General but did not attempt to answer any of the questions put by his hon. Friends. Do the members of the Opposition Front Bench regard the arguments being adduced by their hon. Friends as derisory? Do they wish to treat them with contempt? I do not think so. They are serious men and appreciate that they are faced with serious arguments.

I hope that I have said enough to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should convey to the leaders of the Conservative Party the view, which must be shared by all hon. Members, that it is their duty to answer arguments adduced on matters of major constitutional importance, matters which will shape the future conduct of Parliament for generations to come. It is not merely the duty of the Government to subject themselves to examination in the House of Commons. It is also the duty, particularly on a matter of this kind, of the leaders of the Conservative Party. Parliament is today asking whether the leaders of the Conservative Party intend to discharge their obligations to the House of Commons in this matter.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mrs. Ewing

No. On a point of order.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Order. I must put the Question.

Mrs. Ewing

On a point of order.

The Deputy Chairman

Order. There can be no point of order at this stage.

Mrs. Ewing (seated and covered)

On a point of order. I thought that I was being particularly careful in getting to my feet before the Whip claimed the Question, Mr. Gourlay.

My point of order stems from the fact that I have been trying to speak throughout the morning, as you will be aware. I was present throughout the Second Reading debate, from 3.30 p.m. till 9 p.m., and following a short break, until 10 p.m. without being called.

I have a contribution to make to the debate. I have a particular point of view which is becoming more and more relevant to the discussion which we have been having on this subject. I ask you, Mr. Gourlay, to reopen the matter so that I may have an opportunity to speak, particularly as I thought that I was on my feet to raise a point of order before the Whip rose to claim the Question.

The Deputy Chairman

When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) resumed his seat the Chair listened to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley). It is not for the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) to determine which should be taken first. I have no doubt that many other hon. Members have been disappointed because they have not been called, but the debate on the Bill will continue for some time.

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mrs. Ewing (seated and covered)

On a point of order. It may be that I have not put my point sufficiently clearly. It would be fair to say that I have made genuine attempts to raise my voice on this matter. I was the only hon. Member to sit through Second Reading, and today I have not had the opportunity to express my point of view on behalf of a large interest.

The Deputy Chairman

Order. Many hon. Members sit through Second Reading Committee stage debates, but the hon. Lady must take her chance with other members of the Committee. I am sure that the opportunity will be presented to her in future.

The Committee having divided:— Ayes 142, Noes 64.

Division No. 85.]	AYES	[12.58 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Dunn, James A.	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Archer, Peter	Dunnett, Jack	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Eadle, Alex	Hoy, James
Bence, Cyril	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. cledwyn (Anglesey)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Ellis, John	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Bishop, E. S.	English, Michael	Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hil)
Blackburn, F.	Ensor, David	Janner, Sir Barnett
Boston, Terence	Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Faulds, Andrew	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Finch, Harold	Kelley, Richard
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Foley, Maurice	Lawson, George
Carmichael, Neil	Ford, Ben	Leadbitter, Ted
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Fowler, Gerry	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Coe, Denis	Freeson, Reginald	Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Concannon, J. D.	Garrett, W. E.	Lipton, Marcus
Conlan, Bernard	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Loughlin, Charles
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Luard, Evan
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Grey, Charles (Durham)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Dalyell, Tam	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	McBride, Neil
Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	McCann, John
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Hamling, William	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Roes&Crom'ty)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Hannan, William	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Davies, Ifor (Cower)	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Mackie, John
Dempsey, James	Haseldine, Norman	Maclennan, Robert
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Hazell, Bert	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Dobson, Ray	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	McNamara, J. Kevin
Doig, Peter	Hobden, Dennis	MacPherson, Malcolm
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Pentland, Norman	Taverne, Dick
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Mikardo, Ian	Probert, Arthur	Tinn, James
Millan, Bruce	Rees, Merlyn	Urwin, T. W.
Miller, Dr. M. S.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Moonman, Eric	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy	Wallace, George
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)	Watkins, David (Consett)
Morris, Alfred (Wytherrshawe)	Rodgers, William (Stockton)	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Moyle, Roland	Ross, Rt. Hn. William	Wilkins, W. A.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
O'Malley, Brian	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	Williams, Clifford, (Abertillery)
Oram, Albert E.	Short. Rt. Hn. Edwand (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Orbach, Maurice	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Woof, Robert
Oswald, Thomas	Silverman, Julius
Owen, Will (Morpeth)	Skeffington, Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Small, William	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Spriggs, Leslie	Mr. Walter Harrison.
Pavitt, Laurence	Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
NOES
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Heffer, Eric S.	Roebuck, Roy
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hill, J. E. B.	Royle, Anthony
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Hooson, Emlyn	Russell, Sir Ronald
Brewis, John	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Sheldon, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)	Hunt, John	Silvester, Frederick
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Taylor, Edward M.(G, gow, Cathcart)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Temple, John M,
Channon, H. P. G.	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Cooke, Robert	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Tilney, John
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenehire, W.)	MacArthur, Ian	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Driberg, Tom	Maude, Angus	Ward, Dame Irene
Emery, Peter	Monro, Hector	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred	Montgomery, Fergus	Wright, Esmond
Eyre, Reginald	Orme, Stanley	Younger, Hn. George
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Paget, R. T.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Sir Douglas Glover and
Gresham Cooke, R.	Prior, J. M. L.	Mr. Victor Goodhew.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Pym, Francis

Question, That the Amendment be made, put accordingly and negatived.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Peart.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.