LOSS OF VOTING RIGHT BY NON-ATTENDANCE

HC Deb 18 March 1969 vol 780 cc229-338

Amendment proposed: In page 4, line 4, to leave out from 'than' to '(other' in line 5 and insert: 'two-thirds of the total number of days on which the House meets during the Session to debate any matter on which the House of Commons has reached a decision within the same Session and one-half of the total number of other days'.—[Mr. Sheldon.]

4.25 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

The Question is—

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)

On a point of order. Once again, I consider that the selection of Amendments has been restrictive, because precedents have been used where there is no precedent. This is not just an important public Bill but a Bill which decides the fate of all future Bills, and there are no precedents for this in a situation in which there is no official Front Bench Opposition to protect certain safeguards in a Bill of this magnitude. Therefore, the safeguards can only come through you, Mr. Gourlay, and your colleagues. I must make clear my very serious objection to the important principles which have been allowed to be over-ruled. The Bill is unique, and what we may be establishing by this kind of selection are unhappy precedents for the future.

But I have a second point of order. In some ways, it is just as serious. You may recall, Mr. Gourlay, that when we ended our previous debate on Wednesday, 26th February, a Motion to report Progress was moved shortly after a discussion about questions of secrecy and information which was due to be given to the Committee. When I asked for certain figures which underlay the whole scheme upon which the Bill has been built, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said: Certain calculations were made on our behalf and, if my hon. Friend feels interested, I will consider making them available to him, although they are long and complicated. I expressed my very deep thanks for the understanding that these matters should be brought before the Committee and that there should be no attempt at secrecy in matters fundamental to the way in which the Bill had been prepared.

This was shortly before ten o'clock, and our discussion was then interrupted by a Division. When we returned, my right hon. Friend was then able to give the figures which he had mentioned previously. He said: I thought it useful to tell the Committee what the calculation was. It was mostly concerned with the Session 1967–68. We observed that in that Session up to 1st August, 1968, 76 created peers and 85 peers by succession under 72 years of age attended over 50 per cent. of the Sittings and 99 created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over one-third of the Sittings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1837, 1844.] That was a half a dozen figures instead of the long and complicated figures which were the only basis on which we could indepndently examine the value of the model created by my right hon. Friend. Have you had representations made to you, Mr. Gourlay, that we should now receive those figures?

The Deputy Chairman

The second point of order, the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is not a matter for the Chair. On the first point of order, it is not for the Chair to discuss the selection of Amendments. I have taken note of the hon. Members points, but I cannot help him on this matter.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

Further to that point of order. On the second matter raised by my hon. Friend, is it a decision of the Chair whether documents which should be laid are to be laid? When there are questions of certain documents mentioned in debate being put before the Committee, is it the Chair's decision whether they should be laid? On the first point, some of us have been greatly assisted by the lists posted in the Lobby about the Amendments which are to be called and their grouping. Can you inform me on this point? Is it not the case that the selection of Amendments is bound to be affected by the course of the debates themselves, and that there may be events that occur in the course of the discussions which create the need to call some Amendments that are upon the Notice Paper? It may very well be, for example, that the discussion of these figures would affect the calling of some future Amendments. May we have an undertaking from the Chair that the selection and grouping, of Amendments and the decision about the Amendments upon which votes may be cast, will be reviewed by the Chair at least after each sitting of the House on these matters?

4.30 p.m.

It has been noted by some of us that the selection of Amendments in the Lobby at the present time is the same as the selection of Amendments following the end of our last debate. In my submission, it is necessary for the Chair, after each sitting when we discuss the Bill, to consider whether the course of debate regarding the Bill itself and the developments that may take place do not affect the future Amendments which may be called. I stress this in the same sense as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has done. This is a unique Bill. It is a Bill which seeks to do in the Preamble what has never been attempted before so far as we are aware. It is a Bill which is attempting to alter the whole constitutional balance between the different Houses of Parliament and is therefore also unique in that sense.

Many of us believe that it is all the more necessary that the Chair should be extremely scrupulous in ensuring that we have the fullest possible opportunity to press the Amendments which many of us think are desirable. Could I have the assurance, therefore, that, on the first point of order, there will be a review by the Chair of the selection of Amendments after each sitting so that there may be the possibility of Amendments being altered, if necessary, and extended to take account of events which may have occurred in the debates themselves?

The Deputy Chairman

I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), as a result of the long discussions in the Chamber on this Bill, that the Chair does recognise the unique character of the Bill. On the question of selection, I can give no assurance other than to say that all relevant factors are considered prior to each sitting of the Committee regarding the grouping and the selection of Amendments. In consequence, the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are naturally taken into consideration.

On the first point of order, namely, the question of placing documents before the Committee, no documents have to my knowledge ever been referred to. It is true the Secretary of State made reference to figures and numbers, but no reference to any specific document.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Further to that point of order, could we be advised, in the difficulty in which we find ouselves, to which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has drawn attention'.' When the Committee was previously seized of the Amendment now before you, an indication was given by the Secretary of State of the existence of a great mass of material—he used the words "long and complicated "—which clearly bore upon the discussion on which we were engaged. There was then an interruption and, subsequent to that interruption, some information of a very brief, though relevant, character was given by the right hon. Gentleman. We now find ourselves, after a lapse of between two or three weeks, resuming the consideration of this Amendment. This puts the Committee in a great difficulty, because we are not able easily to proceed with the consideration of this Amendment without the background material, the existence of which was indicated, and the presentation of which, initially to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, but subsequently generally, was promised by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope you will be able to help the Committee by suggesting to us how we could extricate ourselves from this problem.

The Deputy Chairman

I recognise the point that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It is not a matter for the Chair. There are ways, I am sure, in which hon. Members can elicit the information from the Minister; but this is definitely not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Powell

As you recognise the difficulty that the Committee is in and the importance to the Committee of having this information before it, would you accept a Motion "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again "?

The Deputy Chairman

I would not accept such a Motion at this stage.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

May I raise a quite different point of order, of rather less far-reaching importance, but affecting the convenience of our discussions in Committee?

On Friday, a number of new Amendments to the Bill were tabled. They duly appeared on the Notice Paper on Monday and appear today not as starred Amendments. None the less, they appear on a separate sheet, pale blue in colour—I can assure you that this has no political significance—and separate from the main Notice Paper. As they relate to a number of Clauses, Amendments to which are set out in proper order on the main Notice Paper, it is quite extraordinarily inconvenient that, for example, Amendment No. 220, which relates to Clause 8, comes after Amendment No. 78, which relates to the Preamble on the Notice Paper.

It is normal, as I understand it, for a marshalled Notice Paper to be produced every day when the House is in Committee. I agree that there are occasionally some days when the marshalling is not done on days between our sittings. On this occasion—which is a day the House was to be in Committee on this Bill according to the announcement of business last Thursday—we have a white Notice Paper dealing with Amendments submitted prior to Friday and Friday's Amendments on a separate sheet, entirely detached. This is a matter of some inconvenience.

I wonder whether you would indicate whether this is intended to be a normal practice during further deliberations on the Committee stage, or whether it is the result of that very exceptional thing—a lapse on the part of the House authorities?

The Deputy Chairman

I am somewhat surprised by the optimism of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) regarding the progress of the Committee on the Bill. Referring to the specific point of order whihch has been made, the reason for this is due to some labour troubles in the printing office. This is a matter which is out of the control of the authorities of the House.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

You yourself, Mr. Gourlay, have referred to the progress being made with the Bill. Is it not of the utmost importance that no unnecessary obstacles shall be placed in the Bill's course? If there have been some difficulties due to labour troubles on this occasion, I hope you will give the House the assurance that, as soon as matters return to normal, we will have a Notice Paper which sets out the Amendments in an intelligible form, that Notice Paper then being almost unique in virtue so far as the whole proceedings on the Bill are concerned.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to information which had been mentioned by Ministers. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State, who is a natural parent of the Bill, is temporarily absent from the Chamber, because had descretion not been the better part of valour he would have wished to respond to the obvious invitation issued to him by you, Mr. Gourlay, that perhaps he could guide the Committee, whereas it would be difficult for the Chair to do so. The right hon. Gentleman being absent, would the Under-Secretary say if it is the intention of the Government to aid the Committee along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)?

The Deputy Chairman

I cannot add to what I have said on this matter. Perhaps the Committee may now proceed to discuss the Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan)

Further to that point of order, in so far as hon. Members have suggested that a document is in existence, I put it to the Committee that the word used by the Secretary of State and by the Solicitor-General was "calculations" rather than "document". The information contained in these calculations has already been given fully to the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] It appears in column 1844 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th February.

Mr. Sheldon

Further to the point of order. It might be valuable to the Committee if I pointed out that I have been trying to obtain a list of statistics which are relevant and which are in the Library, but which have been denied to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have proof with me that the list exists. I have a letter which tells me that a request for straightforward statistical information cannot be given because of undertakings supplied to certain people. [Interruption.] May I ask for guidance from the Chair about whether a list which is in the Library should be laid before the Committee?

Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Deputy Chairman

Order. Again, the point which the hon. Member raises is not a matter on which the Chair can intervene.

Mr. Ian Gilmour (Norfolk, Central)

On a point of order. The Under-Secretary suggested that no document exists. When we last debated this matter, the Secretary of State referred to "long and complicated calculations ". Is the Under-Secretary suggesting that these complications were made in his right hon. Friend's head? If not, how were they written down? Is not the Under-Secretary fiddling with words when what we want to know is whether a document or list should be presented to us? Where is the piece of paper on which these calculations were written? Since the hon. Gentleman's first line of defence has been breached, will he proceed to the second and produce the document?

The Deputy Chairman

I have already dealt with that point of order. As far as the Chair is concerned, no such document exists.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

On a point of order, further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), but on a different basis. Is it not a fact that if any person attempts to prevent an hon. Member from carrying out his Parliamentary duties by deliberately withholding information, a prima facie case of breach of privilege might arise? Does not such a case arise in this instance?

My hon. Friend said that the Library is in possession of information which it is vital for us to have but which, at somebody's behest, has not been made available to my hon. Friend. This information is, therefore, being denied to hon. Members and may prevent us from performing our Parliamentary duties in discussing the Bill. Would you consider whether a prima facie breach of privilege exists in this instance, Mr. Gourlay?

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

On a point of order. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) suggested that the Chairman might report Progress and ask leave to sit again, we were discussing the possibility of the Minister producing some figures, to which reference had been made on 27th February. We now appear to be on a much greater constitutional question; namely, the fact that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has proved that the House of Commons, which is sovereign in these matters, is being deprived of information because of a private agreement entered into between whom we do not know. This information might alter our view about the Bill or the Clause. In view of this grave matter of constitutional propriety which has been raised. I suggest that we report progress and ask leave to sit again.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot

Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). When you ruled on this matter some minutes ago, Mr. Gourlay, you said that your statement was being based on what had been said at the conclusion of the previous sitting on the Bill. That was the statement that there was no document but merely some figures. Obviously, the Chair was bound to rule on the situation as it appeared to be presented by the Minister at that time.

Many of us have found it difficult to understand in what form these figures might have been documented. Were they written in water or on parchment? Were they preserved in some way for the use of others? My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has been able to prove that a document exists—

Mr. Elystan Morganindicated dissent.

Mr. Foot

—and although my hon. Friend dissents. we accept my hon. Friend's statement that a document, or documents, is in existence.

It would be a serious situation indeed for the Government and for others concerned if we were to proceed on the basis of the Under-Secretary shaking his head in dissent and saying that no documents exist if later documents were produced. If that occurred, it would mean that the Committee had been denied its right to documents. We have rules governing this matter precisely for the purpose of protecting hon. Members. Before dealing with subjects, we often need to be given documents which are otherwise available only to certain people. These rules exist to protect the House of Commons against Ministers who might seek to get the support of hon. Members on the basis of information which they possess but which they will not reveal.

Until a few minutes ago, we had thought that no such situation arose because there were no such documents however difficult it was to discover how those figures could be tabulated, but now my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has given absolutely clear evidence that the documents are there. Why should we be denied them? The only way in which the Committee can proceed is to move to report Progress so that a Minister may be able to make a statement on these questions. If we are not to proceed by that method, further discussion of the Bill will be even more complicated than it might otherwise be in any case. So I hope very much that you will reconsider the question of whether we are able to press this Motion at present, because it is quite evident that before the Bill goes very much further those documents will have to be produced.

We cannot have a situation in which documents of this character are apparently to be kept concealed and the House is to pass this Measure and it is to go to another place. We do not know whether another place might insist on its rights, which are similar to our rights. It may insist that it should have the documents. Then we would be in the humiliating position that the Government had passed a Measure on the basis of documents denied to us but given to the House of Lords. This is a serious matter. I urge again that the best course to deal with it is to report Progress. During that debate, which might proceed for a little time, it would be possible for the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State to make an authoritative statement on these documents. We would then put the proceedings in order, but if we proceed on the basis of saying that we can discuss these matters while these documents are still concealed, we will be heading for a Parliamentary smash-up.

The Deputy Chairman

The Chair is seized of the points of order dealing with a document. So far as the Chair is concerned, no document has been quoted in the Committee by any Minister. It is within the competence of a Minister to summarise any document without having to lay the document on the Table, as is the practice when a document is quoted.

Sir D. Glover

Further to that point of order. With the greatest respect, I do not think you have quite got the point. Not only has the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne been told that there is a document in the Library, but he has been told by some private arrangement that it is not for publication and he cannot have it. The House of Commons is supreme in these matters, but it is being told by the services that as a result of some arrangement, presumably a Ministerial diktat of some sort, this information is not available to the Committee. We are to carry on our debate deprived of the knowledge which the hon. Member, who has built up a reputation in this matter, is deprived" of the opportunity of presenting to the Committee. I canot see how we can reach a conclusion on the Amendment if the hon. Member is deprived of the information he wanted to give to the Committee. I cannot see how we can honestly and sensibly proceed with the Bill until that document is disclosed and released from the Library.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

Further to that point of order. I have not myself seen these figures, but I understand that they go over a wider range than is covered by Clause 4. After researches have been made, the only figures relevant to the decision of the Government relating to one-third attendance qualifying for voting rights, which is the matter we are discussing—are found to be those which have been given by the Secretary of State for Social Services, namely: We observed that in that Session up to 1st August, 1968, 76 created peers and 85 peers by succession under 72 years of age attended over 50 per cent. of the sittings and 99 created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over one-third of the sittings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1844.]

The Deputy Chairman

The point raised by the hon. Member for Orms-kirk (Sir D. Glover) relating to the question of a document in the Library is certainly not a matter for the Chairman of this Committee. I have already indicated the Ruling with reference to laying a document on the Table. It is only when a Minister quotes from a document that it has to be laid on the Table. The Minister is allowed to summarise without laying the document.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

On that point of order. Have you considered what the Solicitor-General said, as reported at c. 1819 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th February? When asked by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about these figures, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said: I cannot produce as an exhibit the calculations or the formulae. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Why not?'] I am asked, 'Why not?' I merely tell the Committee that the position is I cannot produce them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1819.] That surely is the clearest admission by a Law Officer of the Crown that these documents exist.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not disputing their existence, but merely saying, for a reason he was not able to disclose to the Committee as to why he could not produce them, but he accepted their existence. In those circumstances, is it not quite contrary to the customs of this House and Rulings given by your predecessor in the Chair, that a Minister should seek to persuade the Committee of a point of view by reference to calculations embodied in a document which he nonetheless declines to produce? I submit that you would be acting in accordance with the traditions of the Chair you occupy were you now to order the Minister to produce that.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine)

Arising from that point of order, I am sure the Committee would wish to see this matter as it were compendiously and have regard to what I am reported to have said in c. 1821 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate: To my knowledge, they … I am referring to the matters brought forward by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in a question he put earlier— are not in any document that I can identify or have ever referred to in the course of our considerations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1821.]

Mr. Sheldon

On a point of order. I think this question of documentation could be settled by my reading from a letter I received from the Research Division of the Library on 4th March: I obtained a list of peers' attendances in 1966 to 1967 in order to answer what was then a request for straightforward statistical information from you. I was provided with the document (which is marked 'Confidential') on the understanding that while it might be freely used for statistical purposes details of individual attendance should not be disclosed.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

This adds to the remark I made earlier to which I did not receive a reply. We now have it from my hon. Friend that there is in fact a document available, it is in the Library and someone—at this stage we do not know who, but I assume someone acting on be-half of the Executive—is preventing hon. Members from having information which is necessary for them to carry out their Parliamentary duties. My knowledge of the history of this country is that the Executive should not be allowed to carry on any activity to prevent a Member of Parliament carrying out his Parliamentary duties.

This has been proved. Someone acting on behalf of the Executive has prevented my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and every other hon. Member from obtaining from the Library information which is there available. Mr. Speaker and his predecessors, and Chairmen of Ways and Means, have ruled on numerous occasions, when other not so serious questions have been raised of this type and when it has been said that there should be papers available in the Library, "I will give orders that they are made available ". Unless someone gives that order now, we shall be precluded from carrying out our Parliamentary duties. That may well be a breach of privilege. I ask you, Mr. Gourlay, to look at this with a view to seeing whether this is not the case in this instance.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

On a point of order. This raises another point. The Library belongs to the House of Commons. The authority in charge of the Library on our behalf is Mr. Speaker. If the Library has a document which is considered to be helpful to a Member carrying out his duties, and if the Library is not prepared to provide such document to any Member, have we not the right to call for Mr. Speaker and ask him whether he, who is in charge of the Library on our behalf, has given the Library instructions not to produce this document?

Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stafford and Stone)

There is a serious point here concerning the rights of all Members as to documents in the Library. Either there should be a statement by the Government and the production of this document or the Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee should be asked to report to the House immediately. This is a direct infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons. This is a very serious matter, and the right hon. Gentleman who is the custodian of Members' rights in the Library should be sent for.

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

A reading of the document makes the position perfectly plain. It is certainly open to any hon. Member to get all this information by his own research. I understand why my hon. Friends have done it. There is no doubt that the Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir David Stephens, gave this information to the Library on the basis of confidentiality. If he did not want it to be divulged, he should not have given it. Once the information is given to the Library, Sir David Stephens is not in a position to protect it. Information cannot be given for one reason and declined for another. It cannot be given for some statistical purpose—statistics can be used to prove any argument—and then be with- held because it might be inconvenient to an individual peer.

The House of Commons is a sovereign place. I therefore take it, Mr. Gourlay, that you will raise this matter with Mr. Speaker with a view to his informing the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Library that this information should be imparted to the House of Commons. No doubt Mr. Speaker will know his duty, which is to make this information available to Members. That is crystal clear. It may well be that the Clerk of the Parliaments is rather more sensitive to his own establishment than he would be for the rights of ours. To paraphrase a famous remark which Bonar Law made to a predecessor of Mr. Speakers, "I would not attempt to tell you your duty, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure I know my own ". I am sure that we know our own duty, which is to instruct the Library, which is our servant, to give us the information.

Mr. Peyton

It seems an odd and bizarre situation that we have got into that in the Library which, at least notion-ally, belongs to the House of Commons there is a document which Members are not allowed to see because it has been issued to the Library as confidential. One is only led to assume from the fact that the Government will not give us this information that it must be embarrassing for them.

Mr. Gourlay, you are being asked in this point of order to allow a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The least perceptive of us will understand that this is somewhat embaras-sing for you in the absence of much progress this afternoon. I want particularly to ask for your guidance as to whether there is not another remedy besides a Motion to report Progress. Could we have a Motion to send for persons and papers? I accept that such a Motion is not usual. It is very odd that the House of Commons should be forced into taking the formal step of sending for a piece of paper which, at any rate nominally, is already under its control.

You will recollect, Mr. Gourlay, that on every occasion when the House of Commons appoints a Select Committee from among its membership it confers upon that Select Committee the power to send for persons and papers. Therefore, it would be of interest to the Committee if we could have a ruling now as to whether a Motion to send for persons and this particular paper would be admissible as an alternative or as an addendum to the Motion to report Progress. The Committee would be very grateful for your guidance, Mr. Gourlay.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

Further to that point of order, and to your last Ruling, Mr. Gourlay. You said that it is not necessary for a Minister to produce a document if he summarised it and did not quote from it. This is not what happened, because, according to the Under-Secretary, the Secretary of State for Social Services told the Committee the only bits of the document which were relevant to the discussion then in hand. The right hon. Gentleman patently did not summarise the document, because he left out all the rest of the document relating to other matters. As he quoted figures, he quoted from the document. Therefore, according to the ordinary rules of the House of Commons, and in accordance with your last Ruling, now that it is established that a document exists it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State to produce it.

I once had the honour to serve on the Library Sub-Committee of the House. I always received the fullest co-operation from the Library. It never occurred to me or to any other member of the Library Sub-Committee that the Library was anything but the servant of the House of Commons as a whole. It certainly never occurred to any of us that the Executive by its say-so could prohibit an hon. Member from seeing a document that was in existence. I therefore hope, Mr. Gourlay, that by whatever means are most appropriate you will see that this does not happen again and that the document is now produced for us.

The Deputy Chairman

I will deal with the two points of order which have been raised up to this stage. The point of order dealing with the document does not arise, since at no point has a Minister in the Chamber quoted from any document. Any reference has been made by way of summary or selection of figures from a document, so that the production of the document on the Table does not arise. The question of the document in the Library is not a matter for the Chair- man of this Committee. It is a matter for the Services Committee.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Will you deal with the very important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that there is clearly a document in the Library, that it relates to attendances of peers in a particular Session of Parliament, and that the only reason why Members cannot have access to it is that the figures might embarrass certain individual peers whose attendance is not what it might be? If there is a document containing that kind of information, it is clear that individual Members of the House of Commons can acquire that kind of information by long individual research themselves. Therefore, the only reason this document is not being produced is that presumably the authorities that be know that it will involve Members of the House of Commons in considerable and irrelevant research which they need not undertake if the document were made available.

The Library is our property. Everything in it is our property. My right hon. Friend asked quite reasonably that Mr. Speaker should direct the staff of the Library to disclose this information, which in any event we could obtain for ourselves by our own considerable research.

If that is not acceptable, an alternative which may be acceptable is that the House should now adjourn so that right hon. and hon. Members might do their own individual researches to obtain the information which is now denied to them but which is contained in the document. I hope, Mr. Gourlay, that you will address yourself to that solution to the problem.

Sir D. Glover

Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Surely, what was said by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) about the document in the Library is entirely valid, and I should like to have your guidance on this matter. It is now a considerable time since the point was first raised, and there is no doubt that the Committee is at one in being seized of the matter on both sides—there is no division save, possibly, between the Front Benches—and in being very angry at being deprived of services which it feels it has the right to expect and demand.

If another Motion were moved, would you now reconsider the matter, Mr. Gourlay, in order to give the Committee a chance to take the necessary action through the usual channels to see that the document is released for the service of hon. and right hon. Members? Alternatively, if you are not prepared to accept such a Motion, I should like your advice on how we could go back into the House, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, who is, I believe, the only person who can take a decision in this matter. It must be the House sitting as a House, not as a Committee, and with Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

As we are now dealing with a matter of some constitutional importance, I urge that we should proceed no further with the Bill until Mr. Speaker in the Chair has given a Ruling about the document and said whether he would take steps, he being our protector in this matter, to see that the document is immediately released from the Library. Further consideration of the Bill in Committee cannot proceed otherwise.

I ask now, Mr. Gourlay, whether the Clerk could help the Committee in seeing what sort of Motion would be necessary for that procedure to take place, so that Mr. Speaker might act, as he has done from time immemorial, as the protector of the rights and interests of individual Members.

Mr. C. Pannell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. It is out of order to invoke the assistance of the Clerk in open Chamber. He gives what advice he likes, and it is up to the House or the Committee whether it accepts it. However, there is one other person who should be here, and that is the Leader of the House. In my view, the usual channels should bring in the Leader of the House without delay. What are they waiting for? Someone must fetch the Leader of the House. Otherwise, we shall not make any progress. That is what the usual channels are there for. I hope that someone will get on his way. Otherwise, I shall speak until the Leader of the House comes.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

That would be out of order.

Mr. Pannell

All right. My hon. Friend has not been here long enough—

The Deputy Chairman

Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order.

Mr. Pannell

I am on my point of order, Mr. Gourlay. It is, in effect, the will of the House which is being expressed. If we were to move into a sitting of the House, with Mr. Speaker present, and if the Leader of the House expressed the will of the House, I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker would bow to it because he is our servant, if he is anything at all. I ask, therefore, that the Leader of the House come here. Otherwise, we shall face a procedural difficulty.

I have been in this situation before, when someone has asked that the Leader of the House be present. Whoever has been the representative of the usual channels present on the Front Bench has taken himself off to acquaint the Leader of the House with what was happening in the Chamber. I think that it is a discourtesy unless the Lord Commissioner moves to do what we wish. We shall remain in great difficulty. No one wants to filibuster or hold up the Committee. You cannot leave the Chair easily, Mr. Gourlay—we understand that—and you cannot suddenly by Resolution meet what has been said. The only one who can unblock the usual channels and tell Mr. Speaker is, I suggest, the Leader of the House, who is the leader of Government business. I ask, therefore, that he be acquanited without further ado and that he comes here. I have no doubt that he will come, because he is an agreeable man.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Deputy Chairman

Order. It is for the Chair to select hon. Members to speak. Sir Harmar Nicholls.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

There is a lot of point in the argument just submitted by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). It is within the recollection of the Committee, Mr. Gourlay, that you said that no Minister had quoted figures and, on that ground, you could not use your power as Chairman of the Committee to ask that a document be produced. You went on to say that the existence of a document and our rights as Members to have it here is not a matter within your competence and that, as Chairman of the Committee, you could do nothing to rectify the omission, if, indeed, there be an omission.

We recognise your impotence in these circumstances, Mr. Gourlay, and we have a lot of sympathy with you, but, that being the situation as you have explained it, it is unreasonable to expect the Committee to proceed until it has the matter settled or until it is satisfied that the document will not be relevant and helpful to it in the decisions which it has to take. On those new grounds, therefore, I suggest that it would be proper for the Chair favourably to consider accepting the Motion to report Progress, so that we could have the Mace back on the Table and Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Mr. Speaker has the competence and power, as the one in charge of the Library, to see that the document is put into the hands of those hon. Members who require it.

Mr. Michael Foot

Further to the point of order put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). All who have listened to these points of order during the past hour since the question of the document was first raised must recognise that the Committee is faced with a serious situation. We seek to extricate the Committee from its difficulty, within the rules of order. My right hon. Friend rightly said that the presence of the Leader of the House is essential to assist us, but, with the greatest respect, Mr. Gourlay, even if the Leader of the House were here, it would not necessarily be possible for him to assist us on a point of order. That might well be out of order. As far as I can see, the only way to deal with this matter is by acceptance of the Motion to report Progress.

If the Leader of the House were here, and if he were to make a fairly lengthy statement about the document and his view in regard to it solely on a point of order, that might be ruled out of order. If we are to deal with the matter fully, and if the Leader of the House is to address us in order to allay the anxieties felt throughout the Committee, the only way in which that can properly be done is on a Motion to report Progress.

I suggest, therefore, Mr. Gourlay, that new considerations have arisen since you last ruled on the matter. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West is of essential importance. Plainly, we must have a member of the Cabinet here to make a statement. Either the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Social Services should be here. I suggest that the best way to make it possible for one or other of them to assist the Committee would be on a Motion to report Progress. We should then be able to dispose of the question of the document, the Government would be able to state their view about it, and right hon. and hon. Members would have opportunity to comment. The discussion would then be in order. If, however, we continue trying to deal with a matter so complex as this on points of order, we shall not solve anything according to the rules of the House.

Once again, therefore, Mr. Gourlay, in order to deal with the question and have a statement from the Front Bench which is in order, I urge that you accept the Motion put originally by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).

Mr. Powell

Before you rule on the submission that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has just made to you, Mr. Gourlay, may I put to you a further point which reinforces it? Since you last ruled on this question, the Committee has had a second brief intervention from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who made an important disclosure. He referred to the statement of the Secretary of State for Social Services, reported at c. 1837 of HANSARD of 26th February, which has already been referred to several times. The right hon. Gentleman said that the calculations which he would make available to his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) were long and complicated. The Under-Secretary this afternoon, after a considerable time, disclosed, or appeared to disclose, that the only part of those long and complicated calculations which could be relevant to our debate on Clause 4 was that stated in six lines by the right hon. Gentleman in c. 1844.

In other words, not to put too fine a point upon it, on 26th February the Secretary of State for Social Services was bluffing the Committee, attempting to convey to his hon. Friend and the Committee that there was a vast series of information on the subject and bearing on the topic which could be made available. We thus have a contradiction which should be resolved, and which can only be resolved by a proper statement from the Government Front Bench on a matter which bears on the deliberations of the Committee.

On this ground also, I would ask you, Mr. Gourlay, to enable us to put ourselves in order and have the matter clarified by accepting the Motion that we should report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Deputy Chairman

Order. I have listened with considerable interest to the points raised, but, in my discretion, I am not prepared to accept the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes)

Further to that point of order, the last thing I want to do is to question your decision, Mr. Gourlay. But a constitutional question is involved. The Minister has given us enough detail of a document which is within the confines of the Palace of Westminster and which should be in the control of us as a sovereign Parliament. But someone who is not even a member of the House of Commons has decided that Members of this Committee should not have the figures it contains available to them when discussing this matter now.

I seem to remember that at the beginning of each Session we tend to suggest that actions such as this can constitute a grave misdemeanour when someone refuses to give the House information it requires. I believe that it is in order, and it ought to be in order, for us to take whatever action is necessary to make certain that that document, which is in the Library, should be available to every member of the Committee. Failing that, we should take the point made by an hon. Member opposite earlier and at least have time for each and every one of us to go to the Library to do our individual researches. Then we could individually find the figures, however long it may take us, which we could find if the document were made available.

Therefore, with all humility, I ask you, Mr. Gourlay, to reconsider your decision purely on the constitutional question of whether it is possible for the Committee to continue discussing the matter intelligently before it has had before it the document which is obviously available in the Library. I quite understand your position. If it is impossible for you to give the necessary instructions that the document should be made available, the only thing we can do is to move to report progress and to bring in Mr. Speaker, who, being in charge of the Library, could give the necessary decision.

We should not be doing the nation's business properly if we continued to discuss the Bill before having before us the document which we now have evidence is available within the Palace of Westminster and is in our control. Yet, by the action of an outside person, we are prevented from seeing it.

Mr. Sheldon

Over the past two or three weeks I have spent some time in testing the assumption of the model on which the House of Lords was to be created, and which is particularly embodied in the Amendment under consideration. As a result, I set in chain a number of projects designed to assist us in trying to find whether the model selected by the Government was a good one, or even if it was just adequate.

I have come to conclusions different from that of the Government, and I have a very strong factual background which I propose to use if I catch your eye in the debate on the Amendment, Mr. Gourlay. But the crucial document, that which is more important than any other, is a document that my right hon. Friend said he would make available, and its absence makes a really serious investigation extremely difficult. Now that he is here, I must ask him whether he will reconsider the matter and make the document available to us.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman)

I apologise to the Committee. I had a really unavoidable engagement outside, but I came back directly it was over.

At no point did I talk about a document; I talked about figures we had, which I was prepared to make available, and did make available straight away that evening. They were figures that we had in our notes. I gather that since then my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has been discussing the situation with our Librarian. He did not tell me about it. The first time I heard about it was this afternoon. It would have been easier for me if I had known. I understand that none of the figures with which we are dealing is secret.

Mr. Sheldon

Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Crossman

My hon. Friend asked me to reply to him.

Mr. Sheldon

I should just like to intervene on this point. It was not a discourtesy to him. I took this matter up with the Leader of the House of Lords, who I thought was more directly responsible.

Mr. Crossman

I was talking about our Librarian. My hon. Friend talked to the Librarian and I gather that he was told that in the Research Department of the Library there was a document which had been provided by the other place on the basis of confidence.

I said from the start that I have no earthly interest in preventing people from seeing the basis of calculation on these subjects. I think that what my hon. Friend was told by the Library Clerk was very much in order. He was told that the document was available on a confidential basis, and that he could not reveal it here. The most sensible proposal would be—

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

It was confidential to whom?

Mr. Crossman

It had been passed to the Research Department on a confidential basis. My hon. Friend will confirm that. I am explaining the situation as I have learnt it only in the course of this afternoon. My hon. Friend must not think that I am acting in bad faith here.

Mr. Mendelson

Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Crossman

I think that it will be as well if I try to make a statement.

Mr. Mendelson

Confidential to whom?

Mr. Crossman

I gather that this research from the House of Lords is in the Research Department of the House of Commons, and has been lent for research purposes. When my hon. Friend requested the use of it, he was told that he could see it on a confidential basis, but that it was not a laid document.

Mr. Mendelson

Confidential to whom?

Mr. Crossman

I am making a suggestion to the Committee. I did not know of the existence of the document. If it is the feeling of the Committee that it should be laid and that we should study it, the most courteous thing for us to do would be to send a message to the other place suggesting that it should be laid as a document on the Table here. I would be prepared to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to join me in sending the request to the House of Lords that it be made available as a document for the debate.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The right hon. Gentleman has been most helpful. It would be very useful, though the procedure he suggested is a little cumbrous, if a message were sent to another place asking for permission to use the document. I must seek your guidance, Mr. Gourlay, about what we are to do now. The contents of this document were quoted by the right hon. Gentleman himself in our debate on the Amendment which is now before us. As the right hon. Gentleman quoted them and the then occupant of the Chair did not call him to order, I must assume that they are relevant to this Amendment.

The procedure which the right hon. Gentleman adumbrated may take a little time. We are, nonetheless, told that something which is relevant to this Amendment can be made available to us at some moment in the future. But I seek your help, Mr. Gourlay, as to what the Committee are to do now. If we are to proceed with this Amendment, which we may discuss for some little time, it is unlikely that this document will be made available before the Patronage Secretary moves the Closure. Therefore, in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, would you accept a Motion to report Progress, so that we may not continue with this Amendment until information which the right hon. Gentleman himself has accepted as relevant to the Amendment is before the Committee?

Mr. Crossman

Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I have, at present, no evidence that the figures I quoted were an extract from this document which is in our research place. They came from our document which we are using as the basis for research—[Interruption.]—Let me repeat: I quoted the figures that we had available here. I now hear, for the first time, this afternoon, that there is available in the Research Department here a document from the House of Lords which almost certainly also includes the same figures as I had. Therefore, I do not know how far this document, which my right hon. Friend heard was in the Library and which was offered to him for examination, is relevant. It may be a very relevant document. I took the figures which in our view were the relevant figures, and I still maintain that they were relevant. There may be others, but I quoted in good faith—[Interruption.]

Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth)

From what?

Mr. Crossman

I had some notes here and I quoted from them. There seems to be an extraordinary desire to create mystery. In the debate some days ago, I was asked on what figures I based my statement. I then said that I would read aloud the figures that I had in my notes. I read the figures that we had and said that they were the essential extracts. My hon. Friend has gone into great research and discovered that in the Library there exists a document which I have not yet seen but which almost certainly, if it is on the same subject, has the same figures in it. There is no more mystery than that.

Mr. Powell

On a point of order. Some time ago, Mr. Gourlay, you advised the Committee that, so far as the Chair was concerned, there was no document in existence and that no document had been quoted by the Minister, that the Minister had merely put certain figures before the Committee. If I may respectfully say so, many hon. Members would not have said otherwise than you did on that occasion. Since then, the right hon. Gentleman has told the Committee two things perfectly clearly and perfectly definitely—that there was a document which he referred to in the hearing of the Committee as "our document", in contrast to a document in the Library, and that he quoted from that document—he used the word "quote"—and that he offered the House extracts. Now that it has been established, upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that a Minister has quoted extracts to this Committee from a document which exists in the possession of the Government, I ask that you should instruct that the Orders of the House in this respect are complied with.

Mr. Michael Foot

The point made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is extremely serious and returns to one of the original points of order this afternoon. I earnestly plead to you, Mr. Gourlay, that we should put our discussion in order. I submit seriously that the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services, although it has greatly assisted the Committee in more ways than one, was a statement which was barely in order, because it was not a discussion of how we should proceed immediately but a reference to the document itself and to a comparison between documents, and it was a statement that the Minister would be glad, at some future stage, to provide the Committee with certain facilities.

I suggest that such a statement as that would have been much more in order if it had been made on the basis of the Minister himself moving to report Progress. That would also give the House the opportunity, which, after all, this Motion is designed to give the House in such circumstances, to comment upon a statement of a Minister of this importance. Therefore, if we are to avoid the difficulties of false points of order and people being prevented from elaborating serious arguments, if we are to address ourselves to the immediate question which arises from the Secretary of State's statement—that is, whether it is right and proper for the Committee to proceed with the Bill until we have received this information and until it is available to all hon. Members—it would be much better for this discussion to take place on the Motion to report Progress. That is the only way in which this discussion can be put in order and the Committee can be enabled to proceed in an orderly manner.

The Deputy Chairman

Order. It is a matter for the Chair to decide the application of the rules of order and not one for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I applied the same latitude to the Minister as to all other hon. Members who have raised points of order this afternoon; otherwise, possibly, the debate would have been much shorter.

Mr. John Mendelson

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State turned round a few moments ago and said that he must not be accused of saying anything in bad faith. I do not know what gave him that idea. I simply interrupted when he used the term "confidential to them", and asked "Confidential to whom?" There was no question of bad faith, and if he came to that mistaken conclusion, I can only think that he was a little too sensitive.

The point at issue is a simple one but my right hon Friend must answer it. That is, how can it be that another place or an officer of another place supplies a document to an administrator in this House and makes it, ipso facto, confidential? That is what my right hon. Friend has said—that it was given to the members of the Library or the Research Department, a sub-department of the Library, as being confidential. Does that mean that hon. Members of this House, in matters concerning their own business, are precluded from examining this kind of evidence?

To whom is it confidential? For instance, the Library sometimes—rightly—gives scholars who are not Members of the House permission to come here and engage in research. Would it be open to the Librarian to give this document or show these facts and figures to such a research student while refusing them to others? Is it possible that it is confidential to an officer of the House, although there is no authority to any member of the administration of another place to make such a decision that it is confidential only to them? My right hon. Friend must clear up this point first before we discuss the major issue which is involved.

Mr. Crossman

I am sorry if I was hasty. I have now checked again about the situation. It is difficult for me, because it is second-hand, but I think that this is the situation. The hon. Gentleman went to the Library, and asked for the information. The Library then approached the other place and the other place said that it would make the information available on a confidential basis. This I gather is exactly what happened. That is all I know. That is the so-called document. It was not there at the time when it was asked for. It was made available. My hon. Friend said that he would rather not read it on a confidential basis and that is why we are discussing it now. If there is this document, we should suggest to the House of Lords that it should be made available to us for public discussion.

I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that, if there is a document, there is only one, for which he asked from the House of Lords. As for my reference, the document I was referring to was my notes.

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Crossman

It happens to be true. It is difficult for me not to be impatient, because it is perfectly clear that there are some people who simply want to mystify for mystifications sake. There is no mystery at all. What happened the other night was that I said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to shorten the discussion. I made no reference to a document; I have referred to figures. There is no secrecy about these figures. They are figures which anyone can obtain by studying the attendances in the Lords during the last five or six years ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1842.] I then read aloud the section of the figures I thought relevant and which I had available.

My hon. Friend now says that he has obtained from the Librarian knowledge that the other place could have made available to him, on a confidential basis, certain information which the House of Lords has. I have suggested to the Committee that, if it is the Committee's wish, this information, instead of being made available on a confidential basis, should be made available to the Committee as a whole.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. All that may or may not be so, and to a certain extent the Secretary of State has helped the Committee in that, as was pointed out some time ago, he has now offered to send to another place to see whether we can get hold of this document. That is not the point. The point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) some time ago, and you will surely not be prepared to represent to the Committee, Mr. Gourlay, that we should continue, or that we are in a position to continue, this important discussion before seeing this document? No one who has listened to these points of order would deny that on both sides of the Committee there is great interest in what it contains. I cannot see how we can continue this debate without the document We are seeking your guidance now as to how to fill in the time. How else can we do so other than move to report Progress?

The only other point of order I would seek to make is that when we were listening to the Secretary of State it seemed that he confounded confusion by producing yet another document, which he now calls his notes. It lies in the memory of most of us who were in Committee at the time that the right hon. Gentleman in referring to the figures quoted them as coming from "our document ".

Mr. Crossman

I quoted verbatim exactly what I said.

Mr. Hastings

The Secretary of State seemed to be accusing hon. Members on both sides, or some hon. Members on one or the other side of the Committee, of seeking in these points of order to mystify for the sake of mystification. That cannot go by without remark. In the last hour and a quarter I have not heard any point of order which could possibly lay itself open to the kind of accusation that has been made. In the interests of the progress of the Bill, and of the spirit in the Committee, which up to now, in spite of this very great difficulty we are in, has been remarkably temperate, the Secretary of State should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. In view of the statement made by my right hon. Friend, that he agrees that the document ought to be made available to the Committee and should be laid on the Table of the House, and since it is quite obvious that such a document is absolutely essential before we begin to discuss the Amendments, and as all hon. Members would like to look at this document closely, it seems that we have reached a position where, while you are not prepared to accept the Motion to report Progress, Mr. Gourlay, we really ought to suspend the Sitting while the document is obtained, laid before the House, duplicated and perused by all hon. Members. After a suitable period of time has elapsed, I suggest that we could proceed to discuss the Amendment.

As to the very mystifying document, the other document which my right hon. Friend suggested was only his notes, I will not raise that, but I ask that in the circumstances the Committee should be suspended forthwith pending production of the document.

5.45 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Before I make my point of order, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to put himself correct with the Committee. For him to suggest that he did not say that he referred to "our document" is wrong, and it is within the recollection of all of us. It may have been a slip of the tongue; if so, let him say so. To make that comment and then deny it when it is within the memory of all of us is not in the traditions of the Committee.

My point of order, Mr. Gourlay, is that it has been made clear that there is a document in the Library. The Library belongs to the Committee and the Committee is of the opinion that the information in that document would help it carry out its duties. At that point the situation of the Chair comes into consideration. We are very jealous of the situation of the Chair, and of the reputation of its present occupant. We do not want that to come into question. If the Chair could see its way clear to accept the Motion to report Progress, which would be the same as a suspension, and then the Committee voted upon it, if the Committee voted against seeing the document the onus would rest upon the Committee and the Parliamentary position would be safeguarded.

But as at this minute it is the Chair which is frustrating the Committee in having sight of a doument which it ought to have, I would suggest to the Chair that it could perhaps reconsider its decision, accept the Motion, and then let a vote of the Committee decide what will happen. That would put the Chair in a much clearer and more satisfactory position.

The Deputy Chairman

Order. Whoever may be frustrating the Committee, it is certainly not the Chair.

Sir John Rodgers (Sevenoaks)

I should like to ask for your judgment, Mr. Gourlay, on the remark of the Secretary of State, and whether it is in order to accuse hon. Members, in raising points of order, of mystifying for the sake of mystification. That seems to be an insult to all hon. Members. The Secretary of State has definitely said that there is a document—indeed that it is in the House of Commons—from the House of Lords, that he understands it is classified as "confidential" and that he is willing at some future date to approach the House of Lords and see whether this document can be downgraded from "confidential" and made available to members of the Committee. Arguments galore have been put forward proving that it is essential for the proper consideration of these Amendments that this document should be available. I therefore appeal to the Secretary of State to move the adjournment of the House so that he can go through the processes which he is willing to do, approach the other place to see whether the document can be declassified and then allow us two, three or four days to study the document. Then we can proceed with the Bill.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey (Macclesfield)

I apologise to the Committee for having missed the first 25 minutes of the points of order. The Secretary of State has helped the Committee to some extent, but he has put us into greater confusion by referring to his notes. Where did he get the information contained in his notes? Did he get the confidential document in the Library?

Having referred to the document, the Secretary of State did not say whether he would produce it. He said that he would ask for the document to be produced in the future. I do not see how the Committee can proceed with its business until it has the document. Requests have been made to the Patronage Secretary, in his absence, that he should send for the Leader of the House, who is the only Cabinet Minister able effectively to deal with the problem. If I may have the attention of the Patronage Secretary—is he reading the document?—[Laughter.]. The Leader of the House is a courteous Member of the House whose one desire is to oblige the Committee. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of the position we are in, but perhaps one of the Whips on duty could be asked to go for the Leader of the House, and if he were able to come along I am sure he would save a lot of time and many points of order.

Mr. Michael Foot

Further to the points of order. May I stress a further point which may not have occurred to those who have not participated so closely in the Bill? The figures refer directly to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), which at a later stage we may reach. If we proceed with that Amendment on the basis of not having obtained the figures, we shall be in the extremely invidious position of seeking to proceed with the debate upon the basis that the Minister in charge has said that he thinks it is right that such evidence should be available to us. He has tried to help the Committee in this matter.

In parenthesis, I accept what my right hon. Friend says about which documents he has had and which he has not had, but nobody can deny, and he has said it as plainly as he can, that he thinks it is desirable, if the Committee wishes it, that the document should be at the disposal of the Committee. What the Minister has said was not referring to the procedure of the Bill as a whole; it was referring directly to the procedure of this Amendment. If we proceed with the Amendment now we shall be debating a matter in the absence of a document which the Minister has said should be available to us. We shall also be proceeding to debate it on the basis that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will have to recite again the procedure of what happened when he went to the Library and why he refused, in my belief rightly, to accept the document with the limitations of confidentiality.

Mr. Gourlay, with the utmost respect to the Chair, it would be most undesirable if this controversy should involve controversy about the attitude of the Chair. I do not make the proposition that any backbencher, least of all myself. would have the right to rule on any of these questions; of course not. But I seriously suggest that the only way in which we can escape from this difficulty is to have a discussion in which we are not merely raising matters on points of order but are enabled to discuss the ramifications which arise.

If we do that, we shall put the proceedings in better order, and in such a way that points of order would not be pressed. We should then be able to discover, being fully in order, how soon the document would be available, and whether it would be available in time for us to proceed with the Amendment later today. We should be able to discover all these things according to the proper procedures of the House, procedures that have been designed precisely to deal with such emergencies as this. At certain times the House may reach a point when it cannot properly proceed with its business on the original basis and a Motion to report progress may be moved. The House is flexible, and I submit, with all respect, that the Chair must also be flexible.

I hope that we can put the matter in order, but if we do not, and if it is ruled by the Chair that we must not debate this matter on the Motion to report Progress, we shall then have to proceed to the Amendment and discuss it on the basis of the absence of information which my hon. Friend thinks it is essential for the Committee to have, and which the Minister, who has also seen the information, says it is advisable for us to have. Only my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the Secretary of State for Social Services know what is in the document. It may be that the Attorney-General knows something about it, but he has kept it very well concealed from the Committee if he does. However that may be, I earnestly plead that we should be enabled to put the matter in order, and, if nobody else will, the best thing would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to move the Motion, and we should then see whether he would have a better chance of getting it accepted than would other hon. Members.

Mr. Crossman

My hon. Friend has said that his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) knew that the document was essential and that I did. I have no idea what is in the document, or even that it is a document. I know that my hon. Friend asked for certain data from the Research Department, that he was told that it was available on a confidential basis, and that he did not want to have it revealed on a confidential basis. I have no notion of what the information is, nor am I, therefore, aware whether or not it is relevant to the Amendment. All I was saying was that when any hon. Friend of mine says that he wants information made available I am on balance in favour of doing so, not because I know it to be relevant but because I want to be courteous to my hon. Friend and make such information available.

Mr. J. C. Jennings (Burton)

On a separate point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Like many other back-benchers, I have for a long time been worried about the restriction of rights of back-benchers. There is more to this question than the availability of statistics, although that is essentially important, and that is the restriction of the right of a back-bencher to have made available to him something which is in the House of Commons Library and which becomes our property.

Mr. Gourlay, you said very rightly that you have no jurisdiction and no powers over matters affecting that document, but one person in this House has, and I refer to Mr. Speaker. He is the guardian of our rights. I think that the simplest way out of the deplorable mess into which the Committee has got itself is for you to look at the possibility of suspending this Sitting. Whether or not that is in your power, you have to decide. I think that it is within your power. If it is not and not within the rules of order, as we are ruled in this House largely by precedents I suggest that we create a precedent.

I think that we should suspend for some time, that you should report to Mr. Speaker, that we should have Mr. Speaker back in the Chair, with the Leader of the House and the appropriate Ministers present, and settle this question of the document once and for all so that the debate can proceed in the ordinary way.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson

Mr. Gourlay, I wish to support the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and ask him that we should be allowed to put ourselves in order and under proper procedure.

I notice that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has just left the Chamber—[Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reappear because his presence is relevant to this discussion. We have heard many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite proposing that the Committee should be allowed to put itself in order, but customarily such a request and such a Motion is not suggested from the back benches opposite. It carries much more weight if such a proposal is made from the Front Bench—

Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)

Why should it?

Mr. Mendelson

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) asks the relevant question, "Why should it?" There is, of course, no reason why it should. The fact remains that it does. Such a Motion carries more force if it is moved from one of the Front Benches.

In the interests of putting the Committee in order and in proper procedure, the right hon. Member for Barnet should move the Motion. There may be something hindering him from that. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend are so much involved in this matter—I hesitate to use the expression "in cahoots", though it is a time-honoured Parliamentary phrase—that he does not wish to do his proper constitutional job and move this Motion. We cannot force him to, but I suggest that in normal circumstances if such a Motion came from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, you, Mr. Gourlay, following tradition and precedent, could give that much more attention and weight to it.

If that does not happen, and if my right hon. Friend is not prepared to move such a Motion, then the only remaining course is for hon. Members to take matters more into their own hands and press such a Motion. In view of the weight behind this request and the reluctance of both Front Benches to exercise their normal function and move a Motion to report Progress, I suggest that you, Mr. Gourlay, should give serious consideration to the proposal.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

Mr. Gourlay, I wonder whether I can assist the Committee and you in particular in resolving this dilemma? I apologise for not having been present throughout the whole of the period covered by these points of order. I have been attending a steering meeting of the Parliamentary Scientific Committee which, I think, has done rather better work today than this Committee has done—

Hon. Members

Oh.

Sir D. Glover

That is a reflection on the Chair. Withdraw.

Mr. Lubbock

Mr. Gourlay, that was no reflection on the Chair. It was a remark addressed to the Committee on the basis of the speeches on points of order that I have heard since I entered the Chamber.

As I understand it, we are dealing with points of order. We are not discussing a Motion to report progress. These points of order centre on whether a particular document which is in the Library of the House of Commons should be produced before the debates on this Amendment and those which follow it are allowed to proceed.

Certain hon. Members have suggested to you that, if you wish to do so, you have the power to suspend the proceedings of the Committee. That, surely, is a matter of fact which can be settled easily—

The Deputy Chairman

Perhaps I might assist the hon. Gentleman. I have no power to suspend the sitting. However, it is within my power to accept a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Lubbock

That, at any rate, clears away one point which has been troubling the Committee. One hon. Member on this side suggested that you have the power to suspend the sitting and that you should exercise that power in order that the document might be produced. Now we know that you do not have any such power. Therefore, we can come on to the other points of order raised by hon. Members on both sides, and it would be for the convenience of the Committee if those points of order could be disposed of as they occur. I have heard several hon. Members on each side of the Committee making the same point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

The Deputy Chairman

If the hon. Gentleman would come quickly to his point of order, the Chair could give a Ruling in his case.

Mr. Lubbock

I will come to my point of order. Hon. Members have all prefaced their remarks by saying that theirs is a fresh point of order. My point of order is this, and I trust that you will be able to give a Ruling on it without allowing hon. Members opposite to leap in and pursue it under the guise of making fresh points of order—

Sir D. Glover

That is a reflection on the Chair. Withdraw.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay—

The Deputy Chairman

Order. I am already being addressed on a point of order.

Mr. Lubbock

This document has been referred to as being in the Library of the House of Commons, but the Secretary of State for Social Services assured the Committee that it was not within his knowledge that these figures existed and that he was merely quoting from his notes. Therefore, he is not compelled to produce this document, as provided by Erskine May, and no points of order arise—

Sir D. Glover

We have had all this.

Mr. Lubbock

No point of order arises as to that document—

Sir D. Glover

We had all this hours ago.

Mr. Lubbock

I am merely making a suggestion. If the Secretary of State quotes figures which he has in his notes, I do not see how he can be asked to lay those notes before the Committee in printed form. Yesterday evening, I made a very interesting speech on the number of sites provided for gipsies. I did not have time to get out all the figures, but I was not asked to lay them before the House—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. Gentleman is not a Minister, and never will be.

Mr. Lubbock

I was not—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Chairman

Order. Perhaps the Committee will allow the Chair to hear the point of order.

Mr. Lubbock

My point of order is just as much a point of order as those to which I have listened this afternoon. I suggest that we are making very heavy weather of it if every time that a Minister produces figures out of courtesy to the House and because he thinks that they will assist hon. Members in arriving at a conclusion on an Amendment, he is asked to produce some non-existent document from which he is alleged to be quoting. The fact that some other document exists in the House of Commons Library, which may or may not contain figures similar to those used by the Secretary of State, is absolutely irrelevant.

Mr. Heller

The hon. Gentleman might think so.

Mr. Lubbock

Therefore, I suggest that the debate should be allowed to proceed on the Amendment—[Interruption.] If it then appears to the Committee, in its wisdom, that sufficient information has not been provided to enable it to arrive at a conclusion, then any hon. Member is at liberty to move the Motion to report progress, and if, having listened to the debate, you, Mr. Gourlay, in your wisdom, decide that not sufficient information has been provided to enable the Committee to reach a conclusion, you could accept such a Motion and the Committee could come to a decision whether to report Progress. Would not that be a much better way to approach this problem than having to listen to endless points of order throughout the night?

The Deputy Chairman

I take it that the hon. Member is not moving to report Progress. Mr. Michael Foot.

Mr. Michael Footrose—

Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Deputy Chairman

Order. I have called Mr. Michael Foot. Other hon. Members should resume their seats.

Mr. Michael Foot

Mr. Gourlay, would you be prepared at this stage to accept a Motion to move to report progress and ask leave to sit again?

The Deputy Chairman

Having considered the points of order which have been raised during the past hour or so, I am now prepared to accept such a Motion.

Mr. Michael Foot

I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I think the Committee will be eternally grateful to you, Mr. Gourlay, for accepting the Motion. If there were any doubts about the desirability of such a Motion being accepted, the remarks of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) were conclusive. He made it clear that it would be impossible for the Committee to proceed in an orderly manner, particularly because some hon. Members who had not been present in the earlier part of these proceedings—and he has honourably admitted being one—were coming forward to tell us how we should proceed. I do not think that was a proper way for the Committee to proceed.

We have been through a period during which we have had many revelations made which need to be sorted out and cleared up in the interests of the Committee both on this occasion and on future occasions. Therefore, I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services comes to speak on the Motion, as I presume he will, he will survey the events that have occurred over the past hour or so, relate them to what occurred before, and recognise the serious concern and reasons why we believe it is necessary for the matter to be reconsidered.

As I said on an earlier point of order, I am not questioning the good faith of my right hon. Friend in the way that he has presented these matters to the Committee. I am sure that the reason why he intervened when we were reaching the end of our proceedings on 26th February was to enlighten the Committee and, as he believed, to assist the proceedings. But I am sure that he will agree that those of us who have followed the proceedings and consider this to be a very important Bill—a Bill to which we are thoroughly opposed but which we propose to examine with care—have some reason to consider that there is, at any rate, a superficial contradiction between some of the things that he said on 26th February.

My right hon. Friend said, … I will consider making them "— the figures— available to him "— my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)— although they are long and complicated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1837.] 6.15 p.m.

Later, when he gave the figures, they proved to be brief and simple. Therefore, there was a conflict. This can happen to anybody late at night, but it happened to my right hon. Friend early in the evening.

I do not wish to make anything of a slip of the tongue, which I am sure it was when my right hon. Friend referred to "our document ". We have been discussing in his absence whether there was a document. When my right hon. Friend referred to "our document ", it naturally caused a sensation on the Treasury Bench—and some of the casualties have now left. That was one difficulty.

I am sure that was an entirely innocent remark. It was not done to deceive the Committee in any sense. Indeed, I believe that when the Committee considers what was said by my right hon. Friend in his interventions—and I think that they could have been even more extensive and clear had they been made on a Motion such as I am now moving rather than on points of order, and my right hon. Friend might not have found himself in these difficulties—in fairness it must be recognised by everyone that he had indeed offered to the Committee, in the plainest possible terms, a manner by which we should deal with this matter in a proper way.

He said that he was not complaining, that he had not been able to examine all these matters, but he understood that there was a document in the Library which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had talked about with the Librarian. My right hon. Friend said that he had not examined that document in detail and was not sure whether it accorded with his own notes, but if it contained important information he was strongly in favour, if the Committee wanted it, of its being made available.

In a subsequent intervention my right hon. Friend said, "Of course, I cannot judge whether the information is relevant or not ". Some of us presume to judge that it is bound to be relevant, because this information deals with the numbers of those who have been attending the House of Lords during the period 1967–68. This information presumably elaborates that point, which is the precise point with which we shall be dealing at some time on the Amendment. Therefore, I cannot understand the part of my right hon. Friend's statement when he imagines there is any dubiety about these figures being directly relevant to the debate. I believe that the Committee will come to the conclusion that these figures must be relevant to the Amendment. If that is the case, I suggest that the argument for the Motion which I am now moving is overwhelming. It would be an extremely peculiar situation if we decided to proceed further with the Bill tonight, because, although we do not know for certain, this evidence cannot be summarised briefly. It can be summarised in the sense that my right hon. Friend summarised it on the evening of 26th February, but it is not evidence which can be dealt with in that way. There would not have been the complications if that was the case.

The document contains lists of Members of the House of Lords, the occasions on which they have attended, and whether they were created peers or life peers. Presumably these are dissected in the document. Therefore, I submit that it is not a very brief document; it must be an elaborate affair. I suggest that we should have time to consider that document now.

I hone to have the support of the Opposition Front Bench. At Question time today the Leader of the Opposition was very testy with me when I suggested that we might today have had the debate on mortgage interest rates and tomorrow and on some other occasion have a further debate about the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. The Leader of the Opposition jumped up and said that we should be interfering with the rights of hon. Members, that it would not give hon. Members time to consider the important questions that we are to debate tomorrow, and that it would be inconvenient for hon. Members. By that same test, how inconvenient is it that we should proceed tonight to discuss matters which will not have been properly assimilated by hon. Members?

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

I hope very much that, on consideration, the Government will support the Motion. I am glad that the Leader of the House has come in to assist our proceedings. Some of us wish to examine the figures involved in this Amendment. In previous discussions we have done our best to discover how these figures might have been arrived at. These figures of one-third, 72, and 230, are all interlocked and interdependent, and we have been trying to discover how they were arrived at. If one figure is altered, the others are altered.

Those three figures were involved with a fourth one, the figure of the amount of money which would be paid. Those four figures are, therefore, all dependent one on the other. The Government seem to have had a kind of four-pronged scale into which these figures were placed. One of the figures, the item dealing with salary to be paid, has been removed. Many of us argue that all the other figures are thereby altered, but in any case we have had no indication from the Government of how they arrived at these figures.

Did the Government start by saying, "We want a House of Lords of about 230 Members "? Or did they start by saying that Members of the other House must retire at 72? Or did they say that they must have attended one-third of the sittings to qualify before continuing to retain voting rights? One can start from each direction and arrive at the same result. Which was the number the Government first thought of? That is what we have to discover. These documents may reveal the answers, but for the life of me I have not been able to discover how these figures were ever devised.

I do not know whether they have such a common or garden utensil in Whitehall, but I think that it would have been much wiser to have settled all these matters with a Departmental pin. I think they would have arrived at much better results if they had done it that way. However, we are apparently advised by the Strabismical statisticians in Whitehall that this is the only way in which we can proceed. So much are we advised by them that this is the only way we can proceed that so far the Government have insisted that there shall be no Amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to Dr. Strabismus of Utrecht?

Mr. Foot

He got his name from the squint-eyed statisticians in Whitehall. What I am seeking to show is that the Government have proceeded with this Bill by saying that these are the only figures which will arrive at the results they want, and they have then proceeded further, and this is the second reason why we should not continue with the Bill today.

The Government have suggested—or, shall we say, connived at?—an arrangement whereby no Amendments shall be accepted to the Bill. I can understand the sense of shock which goes through the Committee when I say that. It would be scandalous if a matter of such constitutional importance as this were to go through the Committee on the basis that no Amendments would be accepted, purely for the reason, as we shall all understand, that if the Government can get the Bill through on that basis they might be able to avoid a Report stage.

Our suspicions are fed—I am not sure which of my right hon. Friends is responsible for this, but I imagine that the Leader of the House must take the primary responsibility, although he must share it with the Home Secretary who has been absent hurt from our debate today—by the fact that some Government Amendments were placed on the Notice Paper and then removed. We cannot understand why that occurred, unless, of course, our suspicions are justified. We cannot understand why the Government put down Amendments to the Bill and then withdrew them when they found that the Bill might be in some difficulties. Perhaps the Official Opposition could assist us on this aspect of the matter. My invitation not having been accepted, it seems that once again we are to be disappointed, and are not to receive any help from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

It might reassure the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) if I tell him that three of the Home Secretary's deepest admirers have taken it upon themselves to replace on the Notice Paper two of those three Amendments, and, therefore, if the Chair in its wisdom decides in the process of selection to give the same attention to those three right hon. Members as it would have given to the Home Secretary it will be possible to debate those Amendments.

Mr. Foot

If an association of the deepest admirers of the Home Secretary is active in the House, I am staggered and rather resentful that I was not approached. Be that as it may, I am glad that these Amendments have been put down. I trust that the Government will give us an assurance that there is no arrangement for, and no idea of, pushing the Bill through without Amendment. It would be a most extraordinary state of affairs if that were to happen, particularly when one looks at the figures we are discussing.

It is suggested that the whole of the elaborate contrivance of the size of the future House of Lords, the age level of the future House of Lords and the attendance record of the future House of Lords should be dependent on some figures which refer to only one year's analysis. That is what it comes to. The figures that lie behind the analysis have so far been denied to the House, and on that extraordinary basis, on that tiny statistical point, this extraordinary pyramid in reverse has been erected. We are asked to accept this elaborate constitutional structure almost without Amendment, solely to suit the convenience of the Report stage which the Government may have in mind. This is the basis on which we are being asked to proceed.

I think that the Committee would be best according with its dignity if it insisted that the proceedings of the Bill shall go on no longer today, certainly not until we have all had an opportunity of examining this evidence. We should not proceed until we have an undertaking from the Government that they will be prepared to accept Amendments from the Committee on this Clause and on future Clauses.

If we get all those undertakings from the Government it will not be necessary to proceed with the debate today. We can adjourn it to some future date, when many of those who have come into the discussion late will be able to acquaint themselves with the problems, and if there are merits in the case—although those who have attended these discussions most assiduously have not been able to discover them—we shall be able to discover them at some later stage.

In the meantime, I suggest that the Motion which I have moved is for the benefit of the Government, for the benefit of the Committee and for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides, and I hope that it will be received with universal acclaim.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am very glad indeed, Sir, that your predecessor in the Chair after admittedly giving the matter a certain amount of consideration did in due course decide to accept the Motion to report Progress as moved by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It was certainly an example of the happy coincidences that mark our proceedings that he did so more or less coincidently with the arrival in the Chamber of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of Commons. This is very fortunate because, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying, this afternoon he has been rather like the Duke of Plaza Toro leading his regiment from behind. Now that he is present I am sure he will be able to sort out our troubles. Does he wish to do so now?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not accusing me of being discourteous in not being here. I was involved in another important Committee, as he knows. I was also due to be at another Committee, the Services Committee, which affects all Members of the House. But when news of the proceed- ings here were conveyed to me I considered the situation and sought information and came down.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The right hon. Gentleman is always very courteous in his attendances upon the House. I was welcoming his arrival because I hoped at least that he might be more skilful than his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services or the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, or even his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in sorting out the tangles into which his colleagues have got the Committee. I very much hope that if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to listen to the proposal I am putting to him he may be successful in this, which would undoubtedly help the progress of the Bill.

As I believe neither you, Sir, nor the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will be aware, since neither of you were in the Committee at that time, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in what was, I am quite sure, an attempt to be helpful to the Committee said that he would be prepared to send a message to another place in respect of one of the documents we are discussing—the document under confidential cover in the Library—asking as I understand it to have the confidential limitation on it removed so that it could be disclosed to hon. Members. That was a helpful suggestion which carried with it the clear implication that in the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman himself it is relevant to a discussion of the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

Mr. Crossman

The suggestion carried the implication that if hon. Members felt there was a document relevant to this Bill in general which they thought should be made available, the contents of which I did not know, I saw no harm in seeking to make it available. It did not imply that it was relevant to this or any other Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He will recall that it arose from a discussion of figures which he gave in our previous Sitting in a speech which at least purported to be relevant to this particular Amendment. It may well be that the Chairman nodded for a moment and let the right hon. Gentleman go out of order. But unless the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he was out of order on the previous occasion, it is quite plain that this document in the context in which he mentioned it is a document which he accepts could be relevant to the discussion of the Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

Does not my right hon. Friend think it possible that if the House of Lords, having placed a document in the Library of the House of Commons, seeks to impose upon the House of Commons an insistence that this document should remain confidential to us, that is the best reason in the world for reforming the House of Lords and getting on with the Bill?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

That is a fascinating argument but I would hesitate to share my hon. Friend's confidence that the contents of a document which neither he nor I have seen could conceivably be relevant to sweeping constitutional reform. I lack my hon. Friend's courage. Perhaps a little I lack his confidence to proceed in the absence of evidence. We come to the fact that this document which we and the Government must accept is relevant to our proceedings on this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in his helpful suggestion did not tell us how long it would take.

Most of us who are familiar with the proceedings that take place in this building know that they proceed as a kind of stately minuet. There is no undue expedition about them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: how long will it be before the answer of another place will be available? Will it be available tonight? Will it be available tomorrow? It is really no good the right hon. Gentleman making this offer to the Committee unless he is prepared to tell us how soon he can produce results. Will it produce results tonight? If so, at what time? Will it produce results tomorrow? If so, will it be in time for our sitting tomorrow, because we cannot weigh the value of this contribution unless and until we know how soon it will produce results.

Sir C. Osborne

Surely the document would have to be printed as an official paper so that every hon. Member of the Committee could have a copy. There could not be just one copy which we could take it in turns to read, for that would take forever. Could it be printed tonight so that we might study it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am not as worried about that aspect as my hon. Friend for there are processes by which instantaneous photography can take place and if the Leader of the House seriously wants to get the document he can do so. But I want to know his intentions.

Mr. Roebuck

The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about having evidence and proceeding in the absence of evidence. What makes him so sure that this confidential document actually exists? Has he seen it or should we set up a Select Committee to investigate whether or not it exists? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) might have been given incorrect information.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I have sufficient regard for that hon. Member whom I see in another capacity, to know that when he says he has seen a document it exists. This is almost the one certain point in an otherwise uncertain state of affairs. I accept that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has seen it but has been informed by the Office of the Library that it exists.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

The right hon. Gentleman has put forward a number of eventualities on the assumption that the noble Lords will allow the document to be published. What happens if they say they will not allow it to be published, as it stands at the moment?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I want to know when the request could operate. I ask the right hon. Gentleman who has made this offer to the Committee, I am sure quite seriously—and he must have some idea of the time scale involved—whether it will produce results tonight or tomorrow. There is the further point to which his hon. Friend has referred, whether there is any possibility that another place would refuse. Personally, I do not believe for a moment that it would, for the other place always acts with the greatest courtesy to this House, as this House does to another place. But our position as to how we are going to vote on the Motion of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale must depend on what information we get from the Government as to how soon this information will be available. If it was going to be available by eight o'clock tonight we might feel that it was reasonable, despite the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, to continue with the debate on the Amendment. If it is not to be available tonight we might take another view.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

Why does my right hon. Friend suppose the document was made confidential in the first place? Surely, the reason for it being made confidential is that another place in its wisdom felt it was best that this House should not know. Why does my right hon. Friend suppose that at the request of the Leader of the House the arguments for confidentiality which were compelling in the past will cease to be compelling? Why should there be any change?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

That is a point, but I have always found two things in public administration—one, that people are far too keen to make confidential, or, indeed, secret, documents which could perfectly safely be dropped on the Kremlin, and, second, that another place is generally anxious to comply with the wishes of this House. I assume that if the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Committee, asked for information, it is extremely improbable that another place would refuse it. But I agree that this is theoretically possible, at any rate.

But what I must come back to is that our decision on what to do with this Motion is obviously closely related to how soon this information can be available. It would be outrageous to ask the Committee to proceed with the Amendment until this information, for better or worse, was available. As the lion. Member for Ebbw Vale rightly said, it is now the plain intention of the Government—whether it will be successful or not, I do not know—to avoid a Report stage. Consequently, when we part with this Amendment, we shall be parting with it, so far as this House is concerned, for good.

It would be quite wrong to ask the Committee to part with an Amendment finally and irrevocably in the absence of information which everyone concerned accepts to be relevant. This would be an abuse of the Parliamentary process and it would clearly be even worse to do this in respect of a Constitutional Bill.

Sir D. Glover

Would it not be helpful if the Government gave an assurance that they would accept one of the Amendments which was originally theirs, so that there could be a Report stage, in which conditions we would perhaps be prepared to start discussing the Amendment?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

That also is a most helpful suggestion and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has noted it. I know that my hon. Friend is trying to assist the progress of the Bill. That might be a way out, but, in the absence of one or the other of these expedients, the Committee is being asked to make a final decision on an important constitutional matter in the absence of information which is known and accepted to be relevant to its decision. That is not the right way to treat a Committee of the House of Commons.

There was a question also of another document, what the right hon. Gentleman called "our document". He told us that what he had in mind was his speech notes. It is curious that, if that was all that he had in mind, the right hon. Gentleman should have used the prefix "our". "My" notes, "my" document, might have been understandable, but not "our ". One knows that the right hon. Gentleman is very grand nowadays, but only monarchs or editors use "we"; ordinary citizens say "I". Unless he was in one of his grander moods, the use of the plural was a trifle curious.

"Our" document suggests in common parlance a Government document, "our" being the Government. Of course it is common sense and well known that complicated and difficult calculations are embodied in some form alike more formal and more permanent than even the speech notes of the right hon. Gentleman. Complicated calculations on which are based a vital provision of this Bill—the numbers, the attendances and the rest, of another place—are themselves based on something more substantial than that. It is not the way of Governments to make elaborate, difficult and complicated calculations on a spare piece of writing-paper.

There plainly is a document giving these figures in the Government's possession. I asked, as the then occupant of the Chair may recall, on a previous occasion when the learned Solicitor-General referred to this document, for it to be produced. I think that it was the general suggestion that the learned Solicitor-General's argument was so airy-fairy that it could hardly be based on any document and that was a tenable point of view. But when we come not to the Solicitor-General, of whose happy inconsequenciality the Committee is very fond, but to a senior member of the Cabinet, responsible for the Bill, we must assume, if only to show proper respect for the Government, that vital Government decisions are made on a statistical and factual basis embodied in something a little more permanent even than the speech notes of the Secretary of State.

Therefore, there are two documents which the Committee should see before being asked to come to a conclusion. It is fortunate that this Motion has been accepted: it gives the right hon. Gentleman a wonderful opportunity to come clean.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Heffer

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and this Motion. The Committee has got itself into a curious and difficult situation and we obviously need time away from this Chamber to reflect, first, upon the proceedings today and, second, upon the document when we get it.

There is also a very good reason for passing the Motion. On 26th February, when my right hon. Friend intervened or had been interrupted, he said: … I will consider making them available "— that is, the figures— … although they are long and complicated. Then there was a Division, and we came back with bated breath to hear those "long and complicated" figures.

When my right hon. Friend gave them to us, they amounted to this: I thought it useful to tell the Committee what the calculation was. It was mostly concerned with the Session 1967–68. We observed that in that Session up to 1st August, 1968, 76 created peers and 85 peers by succession under 72 years of age attended over 50 per cent. of the sittings and 99 created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over one-third of the sittings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1837, 1844.] That was all. These were the "long and complicated figures". I remember sitting here wondering when the next lot of figures would be coming to us, but we did not get any more. I thought at the time, "This is very strange. I cannot understand how my right hon. Friend can talk about long and complicated figures and yet give us so few."

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

Would the hon. Gentleman repeat his HANSARD reference?

Mr. Heffer

My quotations were from HANSARD of 26th February, c. 1837 and c. 1844.

Naturally, I had some conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is as interested in the Bill as I am. He told me that there were other figures available and that he had made some attempt to get them, but that he had been refused on the basis of confidentiality. He could have seen them himself but they were not available for the whole Committee. Obviously there were some other figures. My right hon. Friend said this afternoon he has not seen the figures; he does not know whether they are relevant or not because he has not seen them, but we do know of their existence. It becomes more mystifying as we go along. We are in a very strange and curious situation. We ought to report Progress so that we could go away, examine these documents and sets of figures, study them carefully and come back to the Committee, discussing the Amendments on the basis of the document and figures that are available.

This set of figures goes to the heart of of the Government's proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said he did not know how the Government arrived at their figures—whether it was the age of 72 or the other figures we have heard so often. Then it was whispered to me that perhaps the original figure was the payment of £2,000 and that everything revolved round that figure. That figure is eliminated altogether for the time being. We must have this set of figures. We must know what the Government's calculations were.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot really be suggesting that the proposals were based upon the figures, these "long and complicated" figures that he gave us, because if they were, what on earth are we talking about? They are what I would call "non-figures", because there is absolutely nothing in them at all. Surely there must be something else?

There is another reason why we ought to report Progress. The best reason is that we have spent two hours on points of order. I have been in the House of Commons since 1964, and I cannot remember an occasion when this has happened. We are not being frivolous. We are deeply concerned about the rights of back-benchers. If there is a document relevant to our discussions, it is obvious the Committee feels strongly about it and wants to see it in order to proceed on the basis of all the available information. The Committee can then seriously discuss this without coming to a hasty conclusion as far as the proposals are concerned. The mere fact that we have had two hours of points of order is a good enough indication that we ought to report Progress before going on to discuss any other Amendments before the Committee.

The series of Amendments before the Committee is decisive. We have had a series of important Amendments, but these Amendments in particular either make or break the Bill. On that basis, surely it is necessary for us to have all the relevant information before we vote on these Amendments or this Clause.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is very wise in moving this Motion. I hope the Government accept it without any further discussion. I do not want to stop other hon. Members from speaking, but it would be a good gesture on the part of the Government to say "We think it is a very wise and sensible Motion, and on that basis we are prepared to accept the back-bench opinion in the Committee ". This is back-bench opinion; it is certainly not Front Bench opposite opinion because they have gone again.

I appeal to the Government to assist the Committee in bringing this discussion to a rapid conclusion by accepting the Motion.

Mr. Peyton

It is not every day of the week that I have the pleasure of supporting the statesmanlike attitude of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), nor do I always have the opportunity of going on to say how much I support and respect the patient pleading of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). On this occasion I should like to do both.

A stranger visiting the Committee this afternoon could be forgiven for wondering what on earth was happening in view of the total absence of any kind of friendly gesture towards the Bill itself. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale in the couretous and cordial welcome he paid to the Leader of the House. I now have the opportunity of repeating that welcome. We would never accuse the Leader of the House of discourtesy but sometimes of an excess of discretion, which he has shown this afternoon. It is not unimportant to ask where the Leader of the House has been. He may have been at a Select Committee. He threatened us with a visit to the Services Committee. It is not every Member of the House who is an enthusiastic, 100 per cent., sincere admirer of the Services Committee. He boasted he was going off to the Services Committee as though he were going to receive a vote of admiration on the spot. My attitude is one of admiration, definitely tinged by other feelings.

We admire the way the Leader of the House has kept away, not out of discourtesy but simply because he did not want to be too closely associated with this rather nasty thing.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to what appeared to me to be the enthusiastic assent of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to his proposition that the Leader of the House wanted to have nothing to do with this horrible Bill.

Mr. Peyton

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. It might have been that if he had not said that I would have failed to notice the Pilate-like approach. Nobody would accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of wishing to be the pilot of this Bill.

7.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State was here for a brief spell while points of order were being made, but everything became too much for him and he left, sadly and in unaccustomed silence. There followed a sadder intervention from the Under-Secretary, who I am sure has a long and distinguished Parliamentary career ahead of him but who has been saddled with this unfortunate Measure. It is a plain case of bullying by senior Ministers who, though not prepared to take the responsibility for this awful Bill themselves, are determined to push it through. We sympathise with the Under-Secretary in his unpleasant rôle in attempting to see this wretched Measure become law.

We were then privileged by the return of the Secretary of State, who got himself into a worse mess by referring to "the document". I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that there is no question of the right hon. Gentleman's deliberately misleading the Committee. He simply let the cat out of the bag in that delicate way of his. Enthusiasms sometimes run away with him.

One of our regrets today is the non-participation of the Law Officers of the Crown. They have not offered any help and your precursor in the Chair, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, had a difficult time, particularly since he was asked to accept a Motion to report Progress when no progress had either been made or was in prospect.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Is my hon. Friend aware that although the Bill interferes with entrenched parts of the Act of Union, Scottish Law Officers have not been present?

Mr. Peyton

I am not particularly well versed in the esoteric subject of Scottish law, but I do not believe that they do any harm, even from Scotland's point of view, by not being present.

Sir C. Osborne

Is my hon. Friend also aware that the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the Bill and who presented it, has not come to support the Bill today?

Mr. Peyton

My hon. Friend is unreasonable in assuming that I did not intend to refer to that right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

Is my hon. Friend certain that the Treaty of Arbroath has not been withdrawn from the Library? Is he aware that that is confidential to their Lordships' House?

Mr. Peyton

That is a timely intervention, but I will leave the confidentiality of the Treaty of Arbroath to my right hon. Friend to deal with later.

Mr. Ridley

Would my hon. Friend care to press the Solicitor-General to explain how the other place can make documents in our Library confidential? Is this not a grave matter, legally if not from a privilege point of view?

Mr. Peyton

I have never seen any reason why any person should not make any document confidential. However, the document which interests me is the one which the Government plainly have in their custody, the information in which is vital to the Committee.

I return to my rôle of dishonour among Ministers, and I come to the Home Secretary. I have not until today taken an active part in discussing the Bill. I recall entering the Chamber one afternoon to hear the Home Secretary in a petulant mood unable to understand why the Committee would not let him have his way. He and his colleagues had made it clear that they intended to pass the Bill into law. They were surprised when hon. Members did not make obeisance and say, "We will make a nominal protest and then you may have your way."

Faced with this manifestation of opinion from both sides of the Committee, are the Government still prepared to force the Bill through? For two hours the Chair was faced with points of order, something I have never experienced. No voice expressed support for the Government, except when the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) emerged from another Committee and appeared to speak in support of getting on with the Bill. Whether or not that meant that he was in favour of the Measure, I was unable to detect.

Mr. Ridley

My hon. Friend does the Home Secretary an injustice. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is as much against the Bill as he is. I recall that on one occasion the Home Secretary said that he was not prepared to defend the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman has not, by his arguments, his presence or his absence, attempted to defend it.

Mr. Peyton

I am immensely obliged to my hon. Friend for that piece of very valuable information. I had already deduced from the Home Secretary's facial expression that his enthusiasm was not running away with him. Nevertheless, we are deprived of his presence today and I am very sorry.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

The hon. Member should be fair. He should not single out the Home Secretary. Is it not true that none of the Ministers is enthusiastic about the Bill?

Mr. Peyton

The hon. Member is quite right. I was in danger of being very unfair indeed. In the earlier part of my speech I commented briefly and most moderately on the parts played by the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Solicitor-General. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) pulled in the Scottish Law Officers ever so gently. The only absent Minister I dealt with was the Home Secretary because he had been in charge of the Bill on the previous occasion when I was present.

Mr. Roebuck

In the hon. Member's unaccustomed mood of benevolence, will he refer individually to right hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Front Bench, or who sometimes sit on the opposition Front Bench, and let us know whether they are in favour of this Measure?

Mr. Peyton

I am obliged for that interesting observation. Modesty being one of my characteristics, psychoanalysis of Front Benches is not something in which I freely indulge. The only reason why I have been led to delve into the mental attitudes of occupants of the Government Front Bench on this occasion is that they are sponsors of the Bill.

What the attitude of those on my Front Bench is on this subject I know not—[An HON. MEMBER: "They know not."]—but no one would accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in so far as he has been present this afternoon, of showing excessive enthusiasm for the Bill. We all know him to be a man of lively enthusiasms who would readily espouse a good cause if he recognised it. I will not dwell upon the indecencies which are represented by the Prime Minister's processes of thought, except to say that the particular dish represented by this Bill comes well from a man who boasts of his happiness in the kitchen. One can only imagine that it has been distilled among a long series of rather drab, squalid kitchen recollections. I hope that this will be the last such Measure for which the Prime Minister is responsible.

I hope that whoever is to reply to this very necessary debate will have the modesty to recognise that the House of Commons is totally against the Bill. I recognise that when the Division bells sound others will be called up and whipped through the Division Lobby to support a proposal which they have considered very little and of which they know practically nothing. I hope the Government will have the modesty and humility to admit what everyone else knows to be a fact—that they have made a mistake, misjudged the mood of the House of Commons and put forward some paltry, unnecessary and damaging proposals for reform of the House of Lords. In these uncomfortable days for them they would be better off with this load off their backs.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon

I support the Motion. My interest in this matter started on an earlier Amendment when we were discussing the maximum age of retirement for voting peers. I intended to make one of my strongest arguments against the whole model of the construction of the House of Lords based as it is on a membership of 230 with a maximum age of 72, an attendance figure of one-third, with a £2,000 salary floating and being connected with all this.

Despite a great deal of preparation in which I was engaged, I was not fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chairman, so I was unable to make those points which will now have to wait until Third Reading, if they can be made then. I considered that a number of those points were related points and could be dealt with on the Amendment to fix the attendance at one-third. It was from that that I started very considerable investigations, which are still not complete and which obviously will be best fitted in with the Amendment when we resume debate on it later.

One of the points I had to consider was whether there was any information which could guide me in deciding to my satisfaction whether the attendance figure of one-third was a good one or not. I obtained some information from the speech in the House of Lords by Lord Shackleton. He said on 21st November: There has been some reference to the mathematical studies that were carried out. He went on to show a connection between those studies and the voting age. Later he spoke of the attendance requirement and said: May I also say something about the attendance requirement? It has been suggested that the attendance requirement of 33⅓ per cent. is either too high or too low, and, furthermore, that it would be wrong to pay Peers a considerable salary (I still do not know what it will be) for attending for such a short part of the time. In a later passage he said: …it will be necessary for voting Peers to put in a great deal more time than even many of the most regular attenders today are able to do. This must be inherent in what I may call the contract, the declaration of intention, of any Peer who undertakes these duties. The 33⅓ per cent. requirement is in this scheme for one purpose only. It is to provide an automatic drop-out to the Peer who for some reason or other totally fails to turn up. We rejected the idea that the Prime Minister, or the Party managers, or anyone else, should be in a position to say to a Peer, 'You are not doing your job; you will lose your voting rights'. It might well be that a Peer who failed to perform his duties might be pressed by his colleagues to give away his voting rights and allow somebody else to take his place while he could carry on …"

The Chairman

Order. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the Motion before the Committee.

Mr. Sheldon

This is how I was led on to the action which followed. There are only another three lines, I thought it right for the convenience of the Committee to read this so that it should understand why my interest was directed in this way to the discussions we have had this afternoon. Lord Shackleton continued: But we feel it necessary to establish some criterion in order to establish the viability of the two-tier system. If we do not have this, then I would say that there is no case for a two-tier system at all. In that event it would be better to abandon it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st November, 1968; Vol. 297, c. 1085–7.] That was the starting point for my discussion of why it was necessary to go into this question of a one-third attendance figure which we must decide in subsequent Amendments.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to help me, but I still cannot see the connection between his remarks and the Motion.

Mr. Sheldon

I support the Motion, because I require that information so that I shall be able to present to the Committee in the discussions on the Amendment the central reason which I believe I can adduce for rejecting the figure of one-third.

When we last debated this matter I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make the figures which had been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, available to the Committee. At an earlier stage I had asked my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to make them available, but it was to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that I made the strongest appeal, because of his expressed desire to make as much information available for public discussion as he could. I was more than delighted when my right hon. Friend accepted this plea and said that he would make the figures available, although I confess to being disappointed when I found that, instead of being given the very full figures which had been mentioned by the Leader of the House of Lords and which I knew existed, we were given a much shorter summary which was of little value to the detailed argument I wanted to pursue.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Does my hon. Friend know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, quoted from "their" document or whether it was from "his" brief?

Mr. Sheldon

The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton will obviously have quoted from the conclusions. The work was in this document, as I understand it. There was this document to which I want to refer later, and the conclusions were what were quoted by Lord Shackleton. Indeed, other conclusions were quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Following the adjourned debate on 26th February, I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discover what further information was available. I asked my right hon. Friend if he would lay before the House the full calculations the Government had made in this connection. I went on to specify matters on which I wanted information. I received no such figures, only a general answer.

I then turned my attention to the Library, because I had asked the Library for certain statistics which I had been given in a general way. I realised that the Library could not have produced those statistics without having had a much greater background from which to obtain them. I therefore asked the Library for these figures. I received some correspondence. I quoted part of one letter earlier.

Therefore, I was in a great dilemma, because central to the argument whether the model chosen by my right hon. Friend is a correct one is the basis of past practices. To determine past practices, we needed an entire breakdown of the attendances of various peers, their ages, their party affiliations, their interests, and other factors—a much more comprehensive study. I believe that this study has been conducted by the Department concerned. I have severe criticisms to make as to the way in which the whole matter has been approached. I also realised that these figures which were being kept secret were not real secrets. They are obtainable, as I obtained them, from the Journals of the House of Lords. I have them all here. I could theoretically go through all of this and tabulate them in the required form. I thought of doing this as something which might be worth while. The matter is complicated because the names of the peers do not appear in alphabetical order in the Journals. I reckoned that, if I could get the assistance of a friend of mine in a business school and borrow a punched card system—

The Chairman

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to speak more directly to the Motion which is before the Committee.

Mr. Sheldon

I mention this only to illustrate the importance of these figures, which need a great deal of consideration. A Member cannot be told, having been presented with these figures, "Carry on with the debate now that you have these figures ". It will be necessary to consider these figures for many hours, perhaps for days, before extracting a proper meaning from them.

The Chairman

Order. The Committee is seized of the importance of the figures. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself precisely enough to the Motion.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

On a point of order. On entering the Chamber comparatively recently I was puzzled by the fact that there is a Motion to report Progress before the Committee. I could not think what progress the Committee would be asked to report. Nevertheless, as I have listened to hon. Members from both sides it has become clear to me that the whole matter has arisen out of a failure to produce a document which is essential for the proper conduct of the affairs of the Committee. The more I listen to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—

The Chairman

Order. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is entering into the debate on the Motion and is not raising a point of order with the Chair.

Mr. John Hall

My point of order is this. I find it difficult precisely to follow the real reasons why we should report Progress without having a fairly detailed background of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If by your Ruling, Mr. Irving, you prevent the hon. Gentleman from filling in the background, it will make it difficult for hon. Members to be sure that the Motion is justified.

Mr. Chairman

Order. I hope that the lion. Gentleman will allow the Chair to decide matters of order. Mr. Sheldon.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Before my hon. Friend resumes his argument, may I ask him whether he supports the Motion because it will enable him to have time to go into all these matters that he intends to mention?

Mr. Sheldon

Precisely. I think that the information should be available to all Members. The information is so central to the argument that we must have it if we are to be able to test the model presented by my right hon. Friend against views which we might possess. I have attempted to do this in a number of ways—by getting management consultants to go into the matter on a different basis; by consulting a firm which has undertaken a survey of the attitude of the House of Lords. However, these matters, crucial though I believe them to be, are not as important as this question of the document, because this is the factual background of what has happened, and it is undisputed.

Although very good arguments can be adduced for doing things in a certain way in the future, and although important facts can be presented on which Members can make decisions, what has happened in the past is probably the most important factor. This is why I gave it so much attention when I sought to discover what attitude I should take and what view I should have on the important questions of attendance and age. Unfortunately, I was not able to discuss the question of age because I was unable to catch the eye of the Chair in that debate and was thus unable to deliver the considerable contribution that I had prepared.

The importance of the figures now under consideration lies mainly in the light which they will shed on the figures which we prepare for the House of Lords. As I say, they are not secret. It is all available in the Journals of the House of Lords, but, when I began to look into it, I thought that the task would take me about 40 hours, with the assistance of a colleague at a business school. I felt that it was wrong to ask anyone to do that sort of research.

It is said that there is no such thing as bad research, that any sort of research either produces results or shows those avenues where no useful results can be obtained, thus closing them to a subsequent investigator. But there is a bad kind of research, namely, that duplicating information which is already available though hidden. I felt that I should not devote 40 hours of my time to it, plus the time of someone in a business school, because the information was not being made available to the House as it should have been. I refused to undertake the task, therefore, central though it is to the working of the Bill.

I came to the conclusion that the only course open to me was to make clear to this Committee the extreme importance of the matter, so that the documents—

7.30 p.m.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman must make clear to the Committee that he is addressing himself to the Motion before it. It is in some doubt at the moment. He is elaborating far too much.

Mr. Sheldon

I support the Motion to report Progress, Mr. Irving, because I consider that we should have opportunity to investigate all the matters about which I have been speaking. I have tried to show their extreme importance, as I see it, as an argument in support of the Motion. If I did not regard these matters as of such importance, the case for the Motion would be considerably diminished in my eyes. But so important and central do I believe them to be that I regard the case for the Motion as enormously strengthened.

The information is not secret, as I say, but it has been made secret. Those who made it secret know that there can be no possibility of an individual Member undertaking the task. I have done a great deal of work of one kind and another on the Bill, work which the Government should have done but did not do. But I did not feel able to do this piece of work, for it has been done already. That is what we should remember.

I do not believe that we need fear that the House of Lords would refuse to give us the information. I do not accept that there is a problem there. If we wish, we can direct the Library of the House of Commons to prepare these figures in any way we desire. It was not open to me as a private Member to give that instruction because it would have put far too great a burden upon the Library, but the House of Commons collectively could readily give it, and with their usual efficiency, the staff of the Library would carry it out with little delay.

Sir C. Osborne

Could the hon. Gentleman give an estimate of how long it would take the Library of the House to do the research for us? How long would it take before we could have a debate with the information in our possession?

Mr. Sheldon

The time I gave was the time which it would take me, an untutored Member in these matters. With the facilities which the House of Commons could mobilise, it might be done in a day or two. I do not know. It would not take anything like so long as it would for someone like myself with limited resources.

Sir A. V. Harvey

In order to preserve good relations between the two Houses, could the Secretary of State do a deal by supplying the Lords with information about our attendances in return for theirs?

Mr. Sheldon

I should be happy to see our attendances revealed. I see no problem there. The real reason why there has been concealment of matters which are not really secret is, as we all know, to avoid giving offence to some peers, who come along, draw their 41/2 guineas, and are not seen all that frequently for the rest of the day. That is obvious to us all. In ordinary matters, we might be tender-hearted enough not to insist. I should not be prepared to do a great deal of investigation into the work or attendance of individual peers in the ordinary way, but when it is necessary to decide how a second House of Parliament should be constituted and organised, matters of tender concern should not seem to be more important than the provision of all the facts to the House of Commons. When we are considering the view one might take, on the one hand, on the importance of protecting certain individual peers or, on the other hand, the creation of a House of Parliament, we all know where our duty lies. It is wrong that a contrary view should even be expressed on a matter of such importance.

In time to come, the way in which the whole preparation for the Parliament (No. 2) Bill was done will become a case study for how these things ought not to be done. I have had and shall have a considerable amount to say on the way that work was done; it will make the Stansted affair seem rather less bad than it really was. There is the whole ques- tion of the way in which the Civil Service operated, the way in which decisions were taken completely contrary, first, to the way in which the Fulton Committee said that they should be taken, and, second, contrary to the way in which they ought to have been taken in the light of the most elementary knowledge of such matters. The Fulton Report came out strongly against government by amateurs—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is diverging considerably from the Motion.

Mr. Sheldon

In a peroration, Mr. Irving, rather more latitude is frequently allowed, and I was tending to rely upon that. I was drawing my remarks to a conclusion in saying that the Fulton Committee came out strongly against administration by amateurs, the cult of the amateur. One could say that Fulton went too far, but the amateurs of which it spoke are experts compared with what we are speaking of here. There was no investigation of comparisons. One has only to read the speech of the Lord Chancellor to see that the international comparisons which ought to have been made were not even thought of. The whole background of investigation and survey, which I in a modest way have attempted to undertake and on which I hope to address the Committee on a subsequent occasion, was never tackled. It was not administration by amateurs. It was administration by dilettantes. That is what should be exposed and remedied.

I strongly support the Motion to report Progress, so that we may consider the whole matter once again.

Mr. Crossman

I thought that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this point and made one or two comments on the debate thus far. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), as he rightly reminded us, started off, about 10 days ago, the chain of incidents which has culminated in this Motion. I was grateful to him for telling us in such detail what it is that he needs, because he has made it easier for me to intervene and give our view. My hon. Friend's case is that we should report Progress because we need more information. There is always a temptation to say that; one can always say that one wants more information before discussing an Amendment if one is not very anxious to get on very fast. It is a good argument, which I have often heard before. Nevertheless, it is important to consider whether the case has been made, and I shall do so.

It is important to realise that, as my hon. Friend says, the essential facts on which consideration not only of the Amendment but of all the Amendments to the Clause needs to be based are all public. The daily attendances are given in the Journal of the House of Lords and published each Session. The essential breakdown for the last complete Session is given on page 5 of the White Paper. So the facts are all available.

My hon. Friend felt very strongly that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if the facts were tabulated, and said that they should be tabulated in the way he found convenient. I understand this, but the Committee is deciding whether we must report Progress in the absence of information. I understand that my hon. Friend is not saying that no information has been published but that it has not been organised in the way that is most convenient to him. I do not believe that that is a sufficient reason for reporting Progress now.

In view of my hon. Friend's valuable speech assuring us of his knowledge that all the relevant information is already published, with all the relevant—[Interruption.]—I perhaps listened more carefully than hon. Members opposite. I heard him say clearly that all the records on which these calculations are based have been published.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

On a point of order. I consulted the Library and found that the document has 15 pages.

The Chairman

Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Crossman

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was listening to my point, which is that the issue is whether essential information on which to base a judgment is not available to the Committee. It has been made clear by my hon. Friend that all the information has been made available, and therefore I oppose the Motion, and strongly advise others to do so.

Sir A. V. Harvey

If the information is public, as the right hon. Gentleman said, will he explain why the document which went to the Library was marked "confidential "?

Mr. Crossman

The hon. Gentleman has the advantage over me. I have said that if there is a document, as I am sure there is, I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons. I have since learnt from my hon. Friend, and confirmed, that there is nothing in it which has not been published previously.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 166; Noes 85.

Division No. 121.]	AYES	[7.43 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Coleman, Donald	Eadie, Alex
Alldritt, Walter	Concannon, J. D.	Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Archer, Peter	Conlan, Bernard	English, Michael
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Crawshaw, Richard	Ennals, David
Beaney, Alan	Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Bence, Cyril	Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Faulds, Andrew
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Fernyhough, E.
Bishop, E. S.	Dalyell, Tam	Finch, Harold
Blackburn, F.	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Boy den, James	Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Bradley, Tom	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Forrester, John
Brooks, Edwin	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Fowler, Gerry
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)	Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)	Fraser, John (Norwood)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Davies, lfor (Gower)	Freeson, Reginald
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F' bury)	Dell, Edmund	Ginsburg, David
Buchan, Norman	Dempsey, James	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Dewar, Donald	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Cant, R. B.	Doig, Peter	Hannan, William
Carmichael, Neil	Dunnett, Jack	Harper, Joseph
Coe, Denis	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Haseldine, Norman	Mallalieu E. L. (Brigg)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Hazell, Bert	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddedsfield, E.)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Henig, Stanley	Manuel, Archie	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	Marks, Kenneth	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Hilton, W. S.	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Rowlands, E.
Hobden, Dernnis	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Millan, Bruce	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Hoy, James	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Silverman, Julius
Hunter, Adam	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Small, William
Hynd, John	Moonman, Eric	Spriggs, Leslie
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Taverne, Dick
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Thornton, Ernest
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Tinn, James
Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Moyle, Roland	Tuck, Raphael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp (Derby, S.)	Urwin, T. W.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Norwood, Christopher	Varley, Eric G.
Kenyon, Clifford	Ogden, Eric	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Lawson, George	Orbach, Maurice	Wallace, George
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Oswald, Thomas	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Weitzman, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Owen, Will (Morpeth)	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Lipton, Marcus	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)	Whitaker, Ben
Loughlin, Charles	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Wilkins, W. A.
Luard, Evan	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J Dickson	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
McBride, Neil	Pentland, Norman	Williams, Clifford (Aberttillery)
McCann, John	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Macdonald, A. H.	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)	Winnick, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Price, William (Rugby)	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mackie, John	Probert, Arthur
Maclennan, Robert	Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Rhodes, Geoffrey	Mr. loan L. Evans and
McNamara, J. Kevin	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Mr. Charles Grey.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Murton, Oscar
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Astor, John	Glover, Sir Douglas	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Cower, Raymond	Orme, Stanley
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Gresham Cooke, R.	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Barnes, Michael	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bell, Ronald	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Peyton, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Pounder, Rafton
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Hastings, Stephen	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Bidwell, Sydney	Hay, John	Pym, Francis
Bitten, John	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Heffer, Eric S.	Robson Brown, Sir William
Black, Sir Cyril	Hirst, Geoffrey	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Hooson, Emlyn	Roebuck, Roy
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	lremonger, T. L.	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Smith, John (London & W' minster)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Chichester-Clark, R.	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Clark, Henry	Mag. nnis, John E.	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart
Costain, A. P.	Marquand, David	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Crouch, David	Maude, Angus	Waddington, David
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Dean, Paul	Mawby, Ray	Younger, Hn. George
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Driberg, Tom	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Eden, Sir John	Monro, Hector	Mr. Michael Foot and
Eyre, Reginald	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Mr. Robert Sheldon.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Morrison Charles (Devizes)

Question put accordingly, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 88, Noes 162

Division No. 122.]	AYES	[7.52 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Baker, W, H. K. (Banff)	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Barnes, Michael	Bidwell, Sydney
Astor, John	Bell, Ronald	Biff en, John
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Black, Sir Cyril	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Heffer, Eric S.	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Body, Richard	Hirst, Geoffrey	Park, Trevor
Boyd-Carpenter, Fit. Hn. John	Hooson, Emlyn	Peyton, John
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Buchanan-Smith, Alick ( Angus, N&M)	Iremonger, T. L.	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Bullus, Sir Eric	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Robson Brown, Sir William
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Kimball, Marcus	Roebuck, Roy
Costain, A. P.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Russell, Sir Ronald
Crouch, David	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)	Silvester, Frederick
Dean, Paul	Lubbock, Eric	Smith, John (London & W' minster)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Maginnis, John E.	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Driberg, Tom	Marquand, David	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Eden, Sir John	Maude, Angus	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Eyre, Reginald	Mawby, Ray	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mendelson, J. J.	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Monro, Hector	Waddington, David
Glover, Sir Douglas	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Cower, Raymond	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Younger, Hn. George
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Murton, Oscar	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Mr. Michael Foot and
Hastings, Stephen	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Mr. Robert Sheldon.
Hay, John	Norwood, Christopher
NOES
Albu, Austen	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Millan, Bruce
Alldritt, Walter	Freeson, Reginald	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Archer, Peter	Ginsburg, David	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Beaney, Alan	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Bence, Cyril	Hannan, William	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Harper, Joseph	Morris, John (Aberavon)
Bishop, E. S.	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Moyle, Roland
Blackburn, F.	Haseldine, Norman	Ogden, Eric
Boyden, James	Hazell, Bert	Orbach, Maurice
Bradley, Tom	Henig, Stanley	Oswald, Thomas
Brooks, Edwin	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	Owens, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)	Hilton, W. S.	Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Hobden, Dennis	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Buchan, Norman	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Hoy, James	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Cant, R. B.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
		Pentland Norman
Carmichael, Neil	Hunter, Adam	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hynd, John	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Coe, Denis	Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Price, William (Rugby)
Coleman, Donald	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)	Probert, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Conlan, Bernard	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Crawshaw, Richard	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Crostand, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kenyon, Clifford	Robinson. Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Dalyell, Tam	Lawson, George	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)	Rowlands, E.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Lipton, Marcus	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward ( N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)	Loughlin, Charles	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Luard, Evan	Silverman, Julius
Dell, Edmund	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Small, William
Dempsey, James	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Spriggs, Leslie
Dewar, Donald	McBride, Neil	Taverne, Dick
Doig, Peter	McCann, John	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Dunnett, Jack	Macdonald, A. H.	Thornton, Ernest
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Tinn, James
Eadie, Alex	Mackie, John	Tuck, Raphael
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Maclennan, Robert	Urwin, T. W.
English, Michael	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Varley, Eric G.
Ennals, David	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Wallace, George
Faulds, Andrew	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Fernyhough, E.	Manuel, Archie	Weitzman, David
Finch, Harold	Marks, Kenneth	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Whitaker, Ben
Forrester, John	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Wilkins, W. A.
Fowler, Gerry	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Alai Lee (Hornchurch)	Winnick, David	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Williams, Clifford ford (Abertillery)	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.	Mr. loan L. Evans and
Willis, Rt. HM. George		Mr. Charles Grey.

The Chairman

The Question is—

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hastings

On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Irving, and I believe that the Committee is in grave need of it, for we are now in much greater difficulty than would have been the case if the Patronage Secretary had not seen fit to close the debate on the last Motion as rapidly as he did. If the debate had been allowed to continue, we might have been able to elicit some of the answers which are still not forthcoming to the many points of order raised over a period of two hours when your predecessor was in the Chair. I still feel that the Committee is dissatisfied in that we are now to be called upon to debate an Amendment—

The Chairman

Order. I am afraid that, for better or worse, we have disposed of the last Motion.

Mr. Roebuck

Further to that point of order—

The Chairman

Order. I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman was not really on a point of order. The hon. Member cannot speak further to it.

Mr. Roebuck

I rise to seek your guidance and ruling on a very important matter. As a most diligent attender at these Committee proceedings I am rather surprised to find that we have an irregular visitor, who comes along just when hon. Members are getting to the kernel of the very serious and important problems that we have to discuss, who listens to none of our deliberations, who stands up and mumbles something which most of the Committee cannot hear and then the Division bells go and we all have to troop into the Lobby—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman really is not addressing the Chair on a point of order.

Mr. Roebuck

Further to that point of order—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman was not on a point of order. I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman was not addressing me on a point of order.

Mr. Roebuck

With the greatest possible respect, I had not finished. Is there no protection for back-benchers?

The Chairman

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point very quickly. He had not succeeded in doing so in his opening remarks.

Mr. Roebuck

I am greatly obliged. I entirely share the desire of the Chair for brevity. This is the point on which I wish to seek your guidance. It is generally understood in Committee, and throughout the country, that when the House of Commons is debating constitutional matters no Government ever closures those discussions. Yet constantly throughout this Committee our deliberations have been closured. I should be grateful if you could explain to us the point of principle involved here.

The Chairman

Order. I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. Nothing has happened so far that is out of order in relation to the Standing Orders of the House and this Committee.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

On a point of order. Because of the shortness of the Minister's reply the Committee is still left in the dark as to what the Government propose to do—

The Chairman

Order, I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed to debate further a Motion that the Committee has just disposed of. I hope that he will not proceed any further with it.

Mr. Fraser

Our procedures have become slightly involved this afternoon, and there was a promise made by the Minister to lay a document. We wish to know when that promise will be fulfilled.

The Chairman

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Heffer

Further to this point of order—

The Chairman

Order. I have ruled that the right hon. Gentleman had not raised a point of order at all. Unless the hon. Gentleman has another point of order—

Mr. Heffer

Further to the point of order—

The Chairman

I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman has been ruled out of order in relation to the submission that he was making. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak further to something that has been disposed of by the Chair. If he has a new point of order I will gladly hear it, but I am afraid that he has not at the moment.

Mr. Heffer

I have not even had the chance to say anything.

The Chairman

Order. May I make clear the position of the Chair? The hon. Gentleman sought to speak further on a point of order which had been ruled out of order. Unless he raises a new point of order he cannot be heard.

Mr. Heffer

On a point of order. During the course of the discussion on the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), we were given the impression that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary would lay a document before the Committee. We were told also in reply that we would not get it at this stage and that was why my right hon. Friend was opposing that Motion. May I ask at what point we are to see this document—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to continue a debate which has been disposed of.

Sir C. Osborne

On a point of order. I wish to seek your guidance on a point which I hope that you will let me put to you. Those of us who are not constitutional lawyers, just ordinary Members, find a lot of these rules difficult to follow. Having listened to the whole debate, it seemed to me that we could not go on with the next item before the Committee unless certain information was available. Can you tell the Committee how this information, that is so vital to the proper discharge of our duties, can be made available and how soon?

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a submission which was the subject of the Motion that the Committee has just disposed of. I am afraid that I cannot allow it to be continued.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

On a point of order. Could you help us in our difficulty? Some hon. Members were here for as long as two hours this afternoon without being able to raise a point of order, and for another two hours without being able to make a speech. I understand your difficulty in this matter. My point in mentioning the unexhausted points of order is that we have just been debating a Motion upon which you accepted the Closure. It would be quite wrong for me or anyone else to impugn that. I would ask you to accept a Motion which I seek to move, namely, to report Progress but not to ask leave to sit again. It was upon that addendum on the last Motion that most of the debate centred, and it caused a great deal of confusion when it came to voting.

The Chairman

Order. I cannot accept that submission.

Mr. Peyton

On a point of order. I should be very grateful for your guidance. The Committee is in very great difficulty. We spent two hours, uniquely in my experience, under the jurisdiction of your predecessor, Mr. Gourlay, listening to points of order. At the end of that, he, I think justifiably and rightly, and I say this with great respect, came to the conclusion that the only thing that he could do—belatedly—was to accept a Motion to report Progress. I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said about that part of the Motion "and ask leave to sit again"—as if anyone wished to do that ! The difficulty we all find ourselves in is that the information relevant to the discussion was not available—

The Chairman

Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is making a submission on two counts that have already been put to me and disposed of.

Sir D. Glover

On a point of order. I accept without question the Chair's decision about the recent Division. The Chair having accepted the Closure and the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, which has been defeated, the Committee is now coming on to the important Amendments to be moved by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and others. I ask the guidance of the Chair. As we have been unable to get from the Government the document that would help our deliberations, will the Chair allow the back benchers the protection of the right to elicit from the Government by question and answer during the debate the information that we need if we are to form an objective decision on the matters which we are now about to debate?

The Chairman

I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, and the Chair will take all circumstances into account.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Mr. Irving, may I raise with you a point of order to which I hope you will give favourable consideration, since it will help the Committee and the Government? The Government have admitted that the information should be made available. As it is admitted that we cannot properly discuss these Amendments without this information—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman so far appears to me to be making a submission upon which I have already ruled. Unless he has a new point of order, I clearly ought not to entertain any further submission.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I am coming to the point of order now, Sir. As it is within the power of the Chair to decide which Amendments should be called and when, would it be possible for you, Sir, not to call those Amendments which are immediately on the Order Paper and which are connected with this matter, but to postpone those until the Secretary of State for Social Services has made available this information?

The Chairman

We are on an Amendment at the moment. I cannot rule hypothetically for the future.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

On a point of order. I have observed in our Votes and Proceedings repeated reference to the House calling for certain documents to be laid on the table. I wonder, Sir, whether this procedure applies to a Committee and, if so, precisely how this should be done? I ask for your guidance, because on 26th February the Secretary of State—

The Chairman

Order. I am afraid that the Chair cannot help the hon. Gentleman. This matter has been gone into very thoroughly and I cannot help him further.

Sir A. V. Harvey

I wish, if I may, to put a different point of order. Even you, Sir, must realise, after the six or eight points of order that have been made—although you have not accepted them they were made sincerely—that everyone is in great difficulty except yourself and the Leader of the House. It is extremely difficult for us to continue our proceedings. I have been informed that the mysterious document which was supposed to be in the Library has now disappeared—

The Chairman

Order. That matter has been disposed of. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue any inquiries or make any representations, he may do so elsewhere, but I am afraid he cannot do it now.

Sir A. V. Harvey

With great respect, I agree. In the advice which you have given, you are adhering strictly to the rules, but the Committee is in a dilemma on how to approach the matter. Unless the document can be produced, the whole proceedings are a farce.

The Chairman

Order. That has been disposed of, and I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further.

Mr. Hastings

On another point of order. I hope it will be helpful for me to describe the dilemma in which the Committee is in this way. There exists, or there did exist, in the Library of the House of Commons a document of 15 pages, so we have now learnt, a compendium on which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) would have needed to work for 40 hours with the services of management consultants and a computer.

The Chairman

This matter has been gone into. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further. I cannot hear him fur-the; he is not making a new submission to me.

Mr. Hastings

I have not yet reached the kernel of my new point of order, which is that there exists in the Library of the House of Commons a document which is apparently protected by a request from the other place that it should be treated as confidential. A number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House sought earlier from your predecessors in the Chair guidance as to how we in the House of Commons can secure access to documents in our own Library. This would seem to me to be still as relevant now to our discussions as it was when it was originally raised.

The Chairman

It is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter which the Committee has dealt with very fully for some long time now.

Mr. Roebuck

Will the Chair give the Committee some guidance about the length of time that will be available for us to discuss this important Amendment?

The Chairman

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman guidance hypothetically.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Can you, Mr. Irving, help us with the difficulty in which many hon. Members feel they are placed by advising us whether, within our rules of order, there are any other dilatory Motions which have not yet been moved and which you might feel disposed to accept?

The Chairman

I admire the hon. and learned Gentleman's ingenuity, but I am afraid that he is outside the rules of order.

The Question is, That the Amendment be made.

Sir D. Glover

We have had a long debate, trying to get information from the Government. Despite spending two hours on points of order and a Motion, we have so far completely failed to get that information. The Committee is completely unable to make up its mind whether to accept the Amendment or the proposal put forward in the Bill until that information is available. I do not know who will reply for the Government, but so that the Committee can collect together the information, and no doubt use it in the Division Lobbies, I now ask the right hon. Gentleman about the voting records of the individual Members of another place.

I refer first to Aberconway, the third baron. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether this noble Lord has appeared in the other place for 33⅓ per cent., 25 per cent., 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. of the time?

Will the Government inform the Committee whether the Duke of Abercorn has appeared in the other place to carry out his duties for 25 per cent., 33⅓ per cent., 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. of the time? How can we form a judgment unless these figures are available?

Then I see that the noble baron the Lord Abordare is also a Member of another place. Has the noble baron—

The Chairman

Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that if he intends to proceed through the whole of the Parliamentary Companion, he will be getting beyond the rules of order.

Sir D. Glover

With the greatest respect, we have asked the Government to allow the Committee to adjourn so that this information can be made available. The Government have refused to give us this information. Although it may be somewhat tedious for the Committee, the only way in which this information can be obtained is by Members of the Committee asking about the individual voting records. This is the basis of the Amendment which we are now discussing, whether the really valuable Members of the House of Lords attend 25 per cent., 33⅓ per cent. or 50 per cent. of the time. If we agree with the Government's proposal of 33⅓ per cent. of the time, shall we discover that in the process of doing so we shall deprive the other place of the most influential, the most informed and the most erudite Members of the other place because we have fixed the figure too high?

Mr. Irving, I do this with a great deal of hesitation because I do not want to run through the Parliamentary Companion. That would be a very laborious job, but the Government are forcing me to take this action because, otherwise, how do I make up my mind when we come to divide on the matter? The Government have the information. They could have given it to the Committee. Each member of the Committee could have made an objective assessment. However, we have not got the information and, although it may appear to be slightly tedious, the only possible way of dealing with the matter is by asking the Government, who have the knowledge, to give the Committee the record of each individual Member of the other place. It seems to me that the only way that I can do that is by asking for that information individually, naming each Member of the other place.

The Chairman

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman would be out of order in doing that.

Sir D. Glover

Then, if I may intervene in my own speech, on a point of order. I should like the protection of the Chair. We have spent four and half hours trying to get this information. There is still a great deal of anger in the Committee that the Government moved the Closure. After four and half hours of battling against the Executive trying to get this information, we still have not got it.

The Chairman

Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's dilemma, but this is not a matter for the Chair, and I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman will be going out of order if he embarks upon this elaboration.

Sir D. Glover

Then, Mr. Irving, perhaps I may have your advice. May I choose a hundred names in order to get a cross-section? I know that this is tedious, but would it be helpful to the Committee if I were to pick out a hundred names? I am prepared to take the first two names at the beginning of each letter of the alphabet, for example, in order to get some concrete information on which to reach a conclusion.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is seeking information and attempting to press an argument on the Government. If he were to repeat this, he would be repeating the argument over and over again in a degree of elaboration which would make him out of order. I understand his dilemma, but the Chair would have to rule him out of order.

Sir D. Glover

Mr. Irving, I am sorry to press this, but it is a very important matter. The Committee is being asked to decide whether it accepts the Government's recommendation that one third of the possible attendances should be the right basis, for selecting voting peers in the other place. At the present moment, we have no knowledge, because we do not know the names or the performances.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman really is debating the decision of the Chair, and I cannot allow him to do that. To submit a series of names would be to submit the same argument over and over again. Under Standing Orders, repetition of this kind is out of order.

Sir D. Glover

With respect, Mr. Irving, I do not see how I can repeat myself since every name in the Peerage, apparently, is different.

The Chairman

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I said that the argument would be the same even though the names were different.

Sir D. Glover

But the argument is not the same. The argument is a continuing process. If I might put a hypothetical case to the Chair, supposing—

The Chairman

Order. I am anxious to help the hon. Gentleman, but I could not rule on a hypothetical case, anyway. I have sought to rule on his submissions so far, and I am afraid that he will have to accept those Rulings.

Sir D. Glover

Mr. Irving, I am not trying to be awkward. I really want this information before I come to a conclusion.

Supposing the Committee knew that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, would be deprived of his attendance as a voting peer in the other place because he had only managed to clock up 25 per cent. of attendances in the relevant period. I am sure that a great many hon. Members would be governed in that case in trying to support the Amendment to reduce it to 25 per cent.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in asking for the records of all members of the other place. I am suggesting that he would be out of order if he went on to ask for them all by name, individually.

Sir D. Glover

I accept that, Mr. Irving. As I said at the beginning, I do not wish to do this, but the difficulty which the Committee have got into is a very real one, and it has got into it as a result of the Government's mismanagement of our affairs.

It is fair to assume that, at some stage of the proceedings, we shall finish with Clause 4. If we finish it without the information that we need—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing arguments to the Chair which ought to be addressed to the Government. I understand his difficulty, but I cannot help him. I must operate the rules of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now speak to the Amendment, and not raise further points of order.

Sir D. Glover

I am in considerable difficulty in doing that because, while I support the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), largely through the discussions on this Bill, we are not only debating his Amendment but Amendment No. 28, which is to leave out "one third" and insert "two thirds", Amendment No. 119, which is to leave out "one-third" and insert "one-half", Amendment No. 148, which is to leave out "one-third" and insert "one-fifth" and Amendment No. 122, which provides for another composition of the other place. I do not see how this Committee can reach a decision unless the Government give us categorical information on the matter which, so far, they have flatly refused to do.

I will not pursue the list in Dod's Parliamentary Companion. If I did that, I would be out of favour with the Chair. However, I want information to allow me to decide for which of the five Amendments I should plump.

We back bench hon. Members now need the protection of the Chair. As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) said, it may be that an hon. Member will move the Closure on Amendment No. 120, which was moved so ably by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. We may have a debate, the Chair will accept the Closure, and we shall then take a vote.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot

The hon. Gentleman says that the Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I am sure that he would not wish to mislead anybody about the situation. My hon. Friend gave way at one point so that the Secretary of State for Social Services could make a statement. When my hon. Friend gave way it was quite clear that he would be seeking to address the Committee at a later stage because he had not then given the Committee anything like the information which he indicated he had in his possession at that time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the rest of the Committee about that.

Sir D. Glover

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for that intervention. When I rose after the points of order and you, Mr. Irving, called me, I was a little astonished, because I thought that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) still had the Floor—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) did not have the Floor. But hon. Members could help him to make another speech perhaps by proceeding as quickly as possible with their speeches.

Sir D. Glover

As the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has done so much research, I was hoping he would have made another contribution. His contributions to the Committee have been very weighty, and I was looking forward to his elucidation of this problem, with which we are now dealing in a complete vacuum because we have no knowledge, no information—information having been refused by the Government.

The Solicitor-General is sitting on the Government Front Bench. I am prepared to give way to him. Before we reach a conclusion on this group of Amendments, will he disclose to the Committee—not the position of the 1,000 Members of the House of Lords, because I understand there are only about 450 regular or semi-regular attenders—how many out of the 450 have attended 25 per cent. of the time, how many have attended 33⅓ per cent. of the time, how many have attended 50 per cent. of the time, how many have attended above that figure, how many have attended below that figure, and how many have attended 10 per cent. of the time, so that we can form a judgment?

Will the Solicitor-General also, from his researches, tell the Committee who of the outstanding statesmen of the last decade who are now Members of the other place would be deprived of their position of authority in the other place if we fixed the percentage too high? Or will he be able to show the Committee, so that we can form a proper judgment, that, because the great national figures in all parties who are now members of the other place are the best attenders, even if we fixed the figure at 75 per cent. of attendance we should not deprive it of the quality about which we who oppose the Bill are so worried in forming our conclusions?

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair.]

The Committee has not only a right but a duty to demand this information from the Government before we try to reach a conclusion on the matters we are now debating. I have offered to give way twice to the Solicitor-General, because I think that the Committee has a right to know whether he is proposing at some stage in the debate to give the information for which I am asking and which every member of the Committee is demanding that the Government should give to enable us to form a conclusion. I will willingly give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he be giving us this information? If he does not give us this information, then it appears to me—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Perhaps it might short circuit the position, as the hon. Gentleman is not getting any response from the Government Front Bench, if he would ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) whether, because of this secret agreement between the two Front Benches, he has this information and is willing to give it to the hon. Gentleman. Knowing how generous the hon. Gentleman is, he might then circulate it to the members of the Committee. I have a feeling that the Opposition Front Bench is also privy to the secret.

Sir D. Glover

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interjection. I have no doubt that there is some unholy alliance in this business. I do not know which right hon. Member disappeared from the Chamber and went to the Library, but it is worrying that this important document should have disappeared.

Mr. Reginald Maudling (Barnet)

I can reassure my hon. Friend that there are no printed documents in the place that I visited.

Sir D. Glover

I am sure that members of the Committee on both sides warmly welcome the statement just made by my right hon. Friend. We are encouraged in continuing our deliberations in the knowledge that he was not party to some nefarious plot to make this important document disappear as soon as it was realised that it might be of value to the Committee. I presume that this document, although it may have temporarily disappeared, will be produced by the other place at some stage in the future.

Mr. Arthur Lewisrose—

Sir D. Glover

I shall not give way for a moment. In due course I shall give the hon. Gentleman plenty of time.

I think one can say that this document will appear after we have reached a conclusion in the Committee, and either won or lost as the case may be, but having done it with inadequate information.

I come now to a matter of great substance—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me a little about the problem of the document to which he is referring. Would I be correct in understanding that the object of the hon. Gentleman's desire to have a sight of this document is that he feels that if a document setting out records were available to the Committee we should be better able to judge whether the figures set out in the Clause to which he is suggesting an Amendment are correct, or whether the Amendment is correct? Is that the reason behind the hon. Gentleman's request for this document?

Sir D. Glover

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I apologise for not making myself clear. That is the nub of my argument. Are the Government, or—and I give this to hon. Gentlemen opposite—the joint board, right in the assumption of 33⅓0 per cent.? Is that the right assumption, or is some other percentage or some other arrangement wiser and better in building up the new—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern)

Order. I have spent most of the afternoon in this Committee, in common with most hon. Members, and I have listened to the general debate on points of order. The hon. Member is now debating whether he could be guided by 33½ per cent. 25 per cent., 10 per cent., or by some other percentage of attendance. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, whether hon. Members have knowledge of the paper or not, the Amendments have been tabled and there must have been some good valid reasons which led hon. Members to suggest these percentages.

Sir D. Glover

With all humility, Sir Myer, I suggest that this is how a Committee works. Very often an Amendment, which is known as a probing Amendment, is put down with the object of getting information. This happens throughout our Parliamentary proceedings. The trouble here is that we have not found out anything and this is the difficulty in which the Committee finds itself. I admit that I was perhaps led a wee bit astray by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), because I was coming on to what I think is an extremely important matter on which I think those who support the Bill should go into the Lobby with those who oppose it.

Although we are debating these Amendments without the necessary knowledge to form a correct conclusion, and although the Government have said that they will try to obtain this document so that hon. Members on both sides can study it at some future date, because the Government seem determined that there shall be no Report stage of the Bill, even if, having got this information from this document, the Committee by an overwhelming majority wished to alter the basis of attendance in the other place we should have no further opportunity of altering the Bill. It would be scandalous for us to pass Clause 4, which deals with the attendance picture in the House of Lords, without a firm assurance from the Government that the Amendments which they originally tabled will be accepted by them so that the Committee knows, when it is dealing with this problem, that there will be a Report stage. Having got this further information that we are all seeking, we should be able to make a much more responsible, much more objective, much more deep-seated, and much wiser decision. I believe that that should be the reaction of everybody who is a member of this Committee, whatever his attitude to the Bill.

The Government are making protestations that they wish to help the Committee, that they wish the Committee to have this evidence which they admit exists. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Social Security was speaking from his notes. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made quite clear, this is not how Government Bills are produced. Of course there are documents with this information available and the Committee has a right—indeed, it goes further—we have a constitutional duty to fight this Clause word by word and hour by hour until we get from the Government some indication that we are not going to make an irrevocable decision on the question of attendance and so on in the House of Lords; because the Government have given us a promise that, whatever decision we make during the Committee stage, they will ensure that there is a Report stage of this Bill so that Parliament can take a second decision if the information then available makes this desirable.

It is for this reason that today has been in many ways a great historic day from the constitutional point of view. Many hon. Members in the House today who perhaps at this moment may have thought they have taken part in some form of filibuster have probably done an enormous constitutional job in trying to force the Government of the day—and I do not mind which Government it is—to give the House of Commons the information it needs on which to form a conclusion and a view. I believe we have nothing for which we need apologise, and if this debate on Clause 4 goes on all night, then again I do not believe the Committee will have anything at all for which to apologise.

We are not Lobby fodder. We are people elected by our constituents to form a view, and we cannot form a view unless the Government of the day give us the information on which to form that view. The Government have that information and they refuse to disclose it to us at a time when it is useful in debating these Amendments. Therefore, I am sure the Committee will be right to go on arguing this until the Government are much more forthcoming than they have shown any sign of being during the last six hours of our debate.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon

You will, of course, be aware, Sir Myer, of the very strong feeling in the House and in this Committee that we are discussing a matter the central part of which has not been before us. Nevertheless, I carried on with a fair amount of my own personal, detailed research while I tried to remedy some of the deficiencies in the information that was before this Committee. I need hardly say how very much I deplore having to speak once again on this Amendment without the information which I understood would be given to me when I came to go into the arguments which I had at that stage only just begun. I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that my speech up to that stage occupied just one column. At that stage I had been so strongly opposed to the secrecy surrounding these documents that the Secretary of State said that he would make them available although they are long and complicated. It was at that stage, after thanking him very strongly and expressing my very deep gratitude to him for his information which would make so much better the contribution many hon. Members would be able to make, that I resumed my seat.

When subsequently the information was not produced to the House I, like most hon. Members, was deeply upset and acquired the feeling that we had been fooled. I must say that today, after the constant changing of mind that we have seen, this dithering as to whether this document is to be put before us or not, I am not convinced that we shall get the information. In view of my right hon. Friend's last remarks. I am not sure that we shall get either the document that is in the Library of the House or any other document from which my right hon. Friend quoted. I am not even certain that, at this moment, that document is still in the House of Commons. We have our rights in dealing with our own Library, but if it has gone from there, those rights may not exist. So the Government should be open and let us know about this document, which is central to the Amendment.

You said, Sir Myer, that hon. Members had formed their own conclusions when putting down Amendments, but they were only interim conclusions. When I put down my three Amendments, I did so on the basis of the information then available: I had no other. It was only as our debates progressed that I became aware of further information and the realisation of projects which I had initiated enabled me to assess more precisely the changes that I might favour. This is not unknown in Committee. Hon. Members must put an Amendment down very early to have it selected and they hope that any final adjustments which are necessary will be made on Report.

This was the basis of my Amendments, but I realised that, in the light of subsequent research, some modification of the figures might be necessary. We should be very obstinate if we put down figures and stood by them when subsequent research did not uphold them. We must always make the best estimate that we can, and should expect to modify our attitude in the light of the facts which become available. Many hon. Members might want to do this.

But our difficulty here is that that information, which should have been available and analysed in great depth by this time to enable us to criticise the model of a second Chamber and the attendance figures, is not available. I argued that this was only one model of many possible ones. One had a system whereby the selection was of the attendance of one-third, the age limit at 72, the size of the Chamber at 230 and the salary at £2,000. I suggested one could have an entirely different model whereby the attendance was greater, but in order to obtain a higher attendance one would need to pay people more; on the other hand, because there was a high attendance the Chamber size could be reduced. One had a whole range of models. One could have for example—and this is only one of the very many models that one could select—an attendance of two-thirds, an age limit of 65, a Chamber size of 150 and a salary of £3,000. I should not like to defend that proposition because there could be information available to us against which it could be tested and found to be wrong. The point is that the Government's model ought to be tested and might also be found to be wrong. It has not been submitted to the test.

I can stand up and strongly claim my model as being superior to that of the Government, and the Government can stand up and claim that their model is superior to mine. This Committee will not be in a position to know which one is right. We should be arguing on the basis of irrelevancies as to whether 72 or 65 is the right age without knowing the facts which are determined and which are held by the Government but which have not been revealed to this Committee. This is the disgraceful part of the entire episode. On that basis the Government are determined to railroad this Bill through with no changes whatever and no justification.

One might assume that the Government had acquired an absolute perfection—although absolute perfection, in my recollection, is usually claimed only by those people who are wholly in the wrong. It might be that they are able to claim this absolute perfection because it is true. If this is so it should be a very easy matter to lay those facts before this Committee on which we can decide for ourselves and fully accept that the Government have made the right decision. At this stage I can put forward a model that is more or less picked out of the air—attendance of two-thirds, 65 the age of retirement, a Chamber of 150, giving smaller accommodation, £3,000 a year—which works out cheaper, and claim for this model greater benefit than the model that the Government have selected. They are not in a position to deny that mine is better than theirs unless they start quoting selectively from a document that has not been laid before the Committee.

This is the present situation. That that is extremely unsatisfactory has been stated again and again. It needs to be stated. It is quite scandalous that we should decide in this Amendment the shape of the House of Lords without the information that the Government are keeping from us.

I considered at one stage trying to find out what information the Government had. There are certain kinds of information—and here I would contradict the Secretary of State when he said "It is all published "—and records that are not published and that may exist. I do not know whether this is true or not. Looking through the journals of the House of Lords, one sees there the attendance of peers. They must sign in and therefore one can get a good idea of the figures involved.

I took a 20 per cent. sample and discovered that the average figure for attendance was 210, although the voting figures were very much down on that. I did not have at my disposal the resources of the Government and was not able to make a full evaluation. It seemed from my sample that the voting figures were much smaller than the attendance figures, and there may here be a skeleton in the cupboard that gives one the impression that there is another piece of information which has not been revealed to the Committee.

Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint, West)

Based on that exercise, would the hon. Gentleman agree that the clocking-out figures are more important than the clocking-in ones in that, while they get their money by clocking-in, they cast their votes by clocking-out?

Mr. Sheldon

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that interesting observation. I have made further calculations—one can gather the attitude of the House of Lords towards this matter from another survey that has been made—and I will come to them later.

Although the average back-bencher does not have the resources of the Government available to him to conduct surveys of this kind, we have been forced, because of the Government's refusal to reveal vital information, to do our best in this connection. I examined the possibility of analysing a reformed House of Lords and I concluded that the best analysis that I could make was to study the relevant factors in reforming the other place.

The figures which I put before hon. Members in considering such a reform—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern)

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to be cooperative and to expedite our business. If he intends to give an indication of the kind of House of Lords that he would contemplate, I must remind him that the Amendment merely seeks to amend the minimum attendance in "a" House of Lords. I should, therefore, have to rule out of order any attempt to describe the type of Upper Chamber that he would like to see.

Mr. Sheldon

I appreciate your Ruling Sir Meyer, but in dealing with the question of attendances I must naturally refer to the figures of attendance, age, size of chamber and salary because these are all inter-related. If I were to say that there should be an attendance of two-thirds, I should have to make a change somewhere else. My remarks are obviously directed to the question of minimum attendance, but one must consider the consequential changes that this involves.

I began my investigation by feeling that it must be a fact-finding operation. Since SC' many statistics have been concealed from us, a survey of this kind is vital. I made some sample tabulations of attendance, but was never confident enough to believe that they could be used as a basis for making a firm asssessment. Being such a complicated matter, I felt that such a wide-ranging examination was beyond the resources of the average back-bencher.

9.0 p.m.

I got co-operation from somebody in a business school who offered me certain facilities. I felt that I could engage him sufficiently to offer certain facilities, including the use of punch cards, but I felt that it would be unfair to impose this burden when the facilities should have been available to the Committee from the Government. There was the question of information which one could gather. I found that there was information of other kinds available, and this I made use of from time to time.

The next thing was a survey of attitudes of Members of the House of Lords. When one makes a decision based purely on fact finding without attempting to make a survey, one has to deny oneself one of the fundamental aids of modern management. The Government make an assumption that 230 peers with a maximum age of 72 and a salary of £2,000 would mean that they would attend two-thirds of the time. What would happen if they attended for only 50 per cent. of the time, or if there were a larger Chamber? Six men sitting round a table cannot decide these matters perfectly. What any ordinary management exercise would consist of is a certain survey to find just what peers think about it themselves and to find how many want to be peers.

Do the Government know? Have the Government any indication of how many of the thousand or more peers would like to be voting peers? Is this not of crucial importance? Does it not have a bearing on attendance and a bearing on the size of the House of Lords? They did not do this. We are not talking about advanced managerial expertise, but about something which a simpleton in any firm concerned with these matters should be able to take on. These are matters on which, with the limited resources I have available, I was able to persuade a firm of research services, Mark Abrams, to undertake a survey of attitudes, the results of which I have with me.

The next thing which I felt was fairly obvious that I should do and which is not a matter of advanced techniques but is again simple, was to make a comparative study. What about Houses of Lords elsewhere? How are they run? What are their attendances like? What tasks do they have to perform? How well do they perform and how do they vary from one part of a country to another? This has not been done. It is a crying disgrace that when we are to create a House of Parliament which is to determine how this country should be run we fail to do some of the most obvious things which could have been done. It is a scandal. It should be known how far short of what they could have done they have in fact done. On the question of international comparisons we find a deplorable lack of understanding of what goes on in other countries.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak)

Does my hon. Friend agree that had this research been undertaken it might well have led the Government to the conclusion that a bicameral system is not an effective system? Is this a conclusion which might have been anticipated and have led to the decision not to undertake this research?

Mr. Sheldon

I should not like to comment on that matter.

The Temporary Chairman

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for not offering to comment on that matter.

Mr. Sheldon

Suffice it to say that there was an appalling lack of knowledge of international comparisons. The speech of the Lord Chancellor on 19th November, 1968, contained this profound statement: …I think the unicameralism position is contradicted by all experience. There is no other Western democracy of anything like our size that has not found from experience that it is absolutely essential to have a Second Chamber. There are, of course, smaller ones which have one Chamber: New Zealand, Israel, Zambia, I believe Liechtenstein, and no doubt some others. General experience has been that it is necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 19th November, 1968, Vol. 297, c. 642.] That was the investigation of international comparisons conducted by the Government. There should have been a full book. We are not talking about a minor Bill to improve the sewerage in one part of the country. We are talking about a House of Lords which is to play a crucial part in the government of Britain. To conduct the investigation on this third-form basis is a standing disgrace to the House of Lords. Had the Government conducted this investigation properly, they would have shown that most of the countries which have two chambers have copied our system—both the revolutionaries who admired us in the 18th century and the reactionaries who admired us subsequently because we had withstood Napoleon. If the Government had been looking in that direction and had followed through the fact that, had we been unicameralists, most countries would have been unicameralists, that had we been tricameralists a large number of countries would have been tricameralists, and then investigated—

The Temporary Chairman

Order. We must draw the line somewhere. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman within his own heart knows full well that he has transcended the generous bounds of the Amendment. I ask him to return to the terms of the Amendment dealing with the question of the minimum attendance requirement.

Mr. Sheldon

I am in some difficulty, as I am sure you appreciate, Sir Myer.

The Temporary Chairman

Then the obvious solution is for the hon. Gentleman to throw the argument overboard.

Mr. Sheldon

Only because one searches hard for a place to look at the technical aspects of some of these matters relating to size, composition and attendance—

The Temporary Chairman

This is not the place to debate them. That is my ruling.

Mr. Sheldon

I am trying to debate the attendance figures in so far as they relate to other countries and point out that in those other countries there are lessons to be learned which were available within the constraints of time, within the constraints upon availability, within the constraints of numbers of staff that could be deputed to this task. All this was available, but it was not gathered.

Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosport and Fareham)

Have the Governments of other countries which have two chambers shown the same unaccountable reluctance as this Government to release attendance figures?

Mr. Sheldon

I do not know. For a brief time I considered what I personally should do in the way of obtaining international comparisons of sizes of chambers, attendance, and so on. I soon realised that I did not have sufficient time available to me to enable me to undertake such a task. As a result, I did not proceed further.

That left me with the approach which I intended to adopt in the time between the interruption of the debate and its resumption today in devoting myself to considering how the figures might have been determined with much greater precision. I thought that I had better secure some outside advice on how it should best be done. As the Committee knows, I was a member of the Fulton Committee which examined the Civil Service and its approach to matters of this kind. I asked the management consultant who was responsible for the exercise covered in the Fulton Report which examined the Civil Service if he would give his view on the approach which should be made in attempting to obtain the right model of the House of Lords and how it should be constituted.

I have his report here, and he has given me permission to quote from it and give his name. He is an eminent and able management consultant, Mr. John Garrett. I shall not quote all he says, but he makes some important points on how the Government could have put before us a rather better figure than the arbitrary one-third which seems to have been decided by half-a-dozen men asking one another's views. Mr. Garrett deals first with the way in which the task is commenced, the technical problems, the method of setting up the study, the terms of reference, allocation of responsibilities, how one secures accountable management in establishing responsibility for various parts of the study, and so on. He then comes to the fact gathering, the part which has been denied to us.

First, he draws attention to the importance of statements of Government policy view, and one should include here, I suppose, the policy view of the Opposition. Then he covers an examination of the existing membership of the other place, how many attendances Members put in, and so on. All that should have been done. We know that part at least was done. Then he suggests an attitude survey of the Lords, I was pleased at that because I had already undertaken it. An attitude survey is valuable in determining what is acceptable. It is an important tool of Government, a tool which is not used anything like enough. At present, the way in which we go about such matters is to ask a few spokesmen who claim to represent an industry or an interest, though we know in our heart of hearts that they have no right to make that claim. One can find these matters out. The methods I am outlining are not perfect. They just happen to be better than those used by the Government, although they, equally, are available to the Government.

One should then take into account the attitudes of other interested persons and bodies. Perhaps the attitudes of Members of Parliament might have been studied; the Government would at least have been a little more knowledgeable on that aspect of the matter.

Next, Mr. Garrett points out the need for comparative studies, such as the one which I had hoped to set going and could not, to see what goes on in foreign countries and institutions. After all the great fact gathering, one next assembles the published data and synthesises it, testing it again with some more surveys. His estimate was that the whole operation would take about three to six months. That is about fair. It gives plenty of time for an exhaustive analysis of one of the most important matters to come before the House of Commons, and it could and should have been done. The Government, who so heartily welcomed the Fulton approach, failed to recognise that here, right in our very midst, was an application that should have been made but was not.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson

I disagree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that an attitudinal survey of the type he mentioned could be undertaken within three to six months. Going by my knowledge of such surveys, I believe that it would be a rather slight survey if it took such a short time. I believe it would have to take much longer.

I also want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the very interesting conclusions reported in the recent study by Professor Mackenzie and Dr. Silver of the London School of Economics in their book on the Conservative working-class voter, "Angels in Marble ". We know that there are many such voters. The study, which also considered Labour working class voters, reveals quite clearly that the majority of working class voters are—

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I hope the hon. Member will appreciate that he is well outside the bounds of order. We are not concerned at this stage with the views expressed by other people. I ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the Amendment, and to remember that he is intervening in a speech by the non. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

Mr. Jackson

I was drawing my hon. Friend's attention to research done in the field, Sir Myer. You allowed my hon. Friend to make the point that there should have been research into the attitude of the public, Members of Parliament and others on reform of the House of Lords. I am merely drawing his attention to some research that has probably escaped his notice. I should like to end by drawing his attention to the conclusion in the book that the majority of Labour voters are opposed to the type of reform contained in the Bill, and are in favour of abolition.

Mr. Sheldon

I am grateful for that intervention.

I should add that Mr. Garrett prepared the report in a great hurry. I rather pressed him. In his covering letter he states: This "— the study— would be an ideal project for a post-Fulton planning unit, and would take three to six months, I would think, excluding systems design. That would add a few months to the figure I quoted. This is something the Government should have undertaken if they really wanted their proposals to be taken seriously.

The survey which I organised with Research Services Limited, using a random sample of Members of the House of Lords, was organised to have the details returned by Tuesday of last week. The most important point I had in mind was the level of attendance, because it came about during the interruption of the debate on the subject. But I naturally took the opportunity of putting a whole range of questions, which were prepared in conjunction with the firm. It was a sample survey of over 300, and we had more than 100 replies, which I and the firm consider to be a very reasonable response, from which one can draw conclusions of some value and close relevance to the decision as to the kind of House of Lords—

The Solicitor-General

Will my hon. Friend indicate how he arrived at the figure of 300?

Mr. Sheldon

This was a sample survey, and the results would have been the same, within broad statistical error, had it been 200 or 400. The House of Lords will not be the same body, on the other hand, if it is 150 as it will be if it is 300. There are occasions when figures are crucial and occasions when they are less important. We should really understand when the first is the case and when the second is the case. We might then be able to come to rather better decisions than the guesswork which is so frequently involved, according to my inference from that intervention. There are much better ways of making decisions of crucial importance than by guesswork.

The survey asked a number of questions. First, it asked whether the peer was a peer of succession, a life peer or a peer of first creation. It asked for details of age; they were broken down into five age brackets. It asked for attendances. In doing this, we realised that it would not be possible to expect Members of the House of Lords to draw upon their diaries; so we asked for approximate attendances, realising, of course, that obviously there would be a bias in favour of over-estimation. We hoped we might be able to allow for that subsequently.

The survey asked for percentages of days on which the Member attended, the days when he obtained leave of absence and the days on which he did not attend. It also asked—and this is relevant to the following Amendment—what days lie would have attended had he not been prevented from doing so by illness or by Parliamentary or public business. It also asked the most important question of all. It pointed out that under the existing proposals there would be a number of possible choices for peers, and it asked whether the peer wished to be a voting peer, a non-voting peer with a right to attend, or to disclaim his right to attend.

So we have the first indication which has been presented to the Committee as to how many peers want to be voting peers. The fact that the Government have come here without really knowing this, other than the conclusions of a cosy group of people sitting around a table and all claiming greater knowledge than they possess and greater ability and understanding than we know they did possess, is quite deplorable. This is an extraordinary lapse from what the Government should and could have done.

The survey asked those who wished to be voting peers if they would be prepared to be non-voting peers if they were not successful—

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely but I suggest that the only portion relevant to the Amendment is that section of the survey which deals with the question of attendances. I must ask him to confine himself at this stage to that section.

Mr. Sheldon

This part is the attendance part, Sir Myer.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I understood the hon. Gentleman to be referring to the ascertainment of whether noble Lords wished to be voting peers or non-voting peers. That is not in order at this stage.

Mr. Sheldon

Those peers who wanted to be non-voting were asked about their attendances. I was attempting to explain—perhaps not very well—that the survey asked the peers whether, if they were not selected as voting peers, they would be prepared to be non-voting, and, as nonvoting peers, how often they would attend. I apologise if I did not get it all out rather quicker, thus saving your intervention, Sir Myer.

For the first time we have had an analysis of how many people would wish to attend, and how frequently. We all know that this does not produce certainty. The only thing that we know, and this is learnt by management organisations all over the world, is that the limitations upon this method are much less than the limitations imposed upon the collective thoughts of half a dozen people who claim to know more than they do. Although we need to read these conclusions with some care, this is the case with all examinations. This provides a much larger base from which to draw our conclusions.

The next question dealt with attendance. It was asked: What salary levels would be regarded as adequate for different levels of attendance? If we had different minimum levels of attendance, we wanted to know how peers would expect the salary to be adjusted. We asked questions about retirement age, which is not relevant here, and factual questions to discover whether the respondent was a Government supporter, an Opposition supporter or a crossbencher. We have begun an analysis of the 100 replies, and so far we have got only preliminary conclusions. I hope that further studies of these replies will be made and that we shall have some further information—

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I hope that the final studies will be in before we have concluded the debate on this Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon

That will not be possible, but there is even better news for you, Sir Myer, and it is that they will be in time for some subsequent Amendments. I do not intend to go through this in great detail, although it is all here.

Mr. Michael Foot

Some of us think that my hon. Friend is rather skimping this. Will he not give us the interim figures about atendances? Some of us are on tenterhooks. We have heard the questions. We do not want him to pass on before he has read the answers dealing with attendances. I think he is doing a great service to the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is certainly doing the Committee a great service, but I do not think he requires the hon. Member's assistance in his mathematical analysis of the situation.

Mr. Sheldon

I will give some of the interim figures which I hope will satisfy my hon. Friend. Anyone who has undertaken a survey knows that there are all sorts of interesting conclusions which can arise as a result of examination, but which may not be apparent on first consideration. It is conclusions of that kind that will be the result of subsequent examination. At this stage I should like to point out one or two important statistics. First, the salaries expected as being appropriate was one of my biggest surprises. It was discovered that the median salary of attendance for 31 per cent. to 40 per cent., which is the range covered by the Government's proposition, was £1,100—

9.30 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman

If the hon. Gentleman continues to develop this argument of £11,000 per annum payment for membership of the other place, there will be nobody left to argue this Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon

Perhaps I could end that rush straight away by pointing out that £1,100 was the figure suggested, although the figures ranged from £6,000 to £500.

Of all the respondents, 72 per cent. wished to be voting peers. On analysis, and one cannot go too much by this because it is broadly within the limits of statistical error, there were 74 per cent. Government, 67 per cent. Opposition and 78 per cent. cross-benchers who wished to be voting peers.

The biggest surprise of all, a matter which will affect attendance levels and to which my right hon. Friend will have to direct his attention, was that 95 per cent. of those wishing to be voting peers would be prepared to attend as nonvoting peers. I doubt whether the attendance figures that my right hon. Friend has assumed have taken into account this surprising figure of 95 per cent.

There is a space for remarks, and the one which I have just picked up—it was not planned—has this remark: I think Mr. Robert Sheldon, M.P., is very silly but I am very pleased to answer his questionnnaire. I am very pleased to use the results and do not pay too much attention to the reasons for filling in the questionnaires. If such a large number of frustrated voting peers will be attending as nonvoting peers, the Government will have to consider how they are to be accommodated and what services are available for them.

My only indication of the reason why so many peers are prepared to stay on and not vote is that some of them have been convinced that the power of the House of Lords will be increased in a way that they welcome. They realise, as the Lord Chancellor said, that although the powers may be a little reduced from the massive powers which we know they dare not exercise, they will be used. It means that anyone attending the House of Lords in the future will have a more interesting job to do and, what concerns us most, a much more powerful job. It is that which Members of the other place find so interesting and what makes 72 per cent. of them, some of whom hardly attend at all now, wish to become voting peers. They know that they will have real power. Of those who are not going to be selected as voting peers, 95 per cent. are prepared to accept non-voting status, because they know that the new House of Lords will be a centre of power. If one is not part of a power machine, it is not bad to be near the centre of power. These are my conclusions, drawn not from the statistical part of the survey but from reading some of the comments made in replies.

The other aspect of attendance is that there is some difference between life peers and peers of succession, life peers wanting more salary and peers of succession tending to be more in favour of a daily allowance. I suppose that that can be tied in with certain levels of taxation.

As to attendance up to the age of retirement, 54 per cent. of those filling in the questionnaire do not wish to have any retirement age.

There is one feature of this survey to which I ought to draw attention. I have been able to detect a bias in favour of those more active peers. It was to be expected that peers who are more active in the House of Lords would tend to reply to the questionnaire more promptly. It is possible to remove this bias and present a true picture of the House of Lords as a body. However, it would require statistical information based on the present composition of the House of Lords, and that information is being denied to us.

We have discussed the kind of information which would be required to relate the statistical sample that we have produced to an average typical sample in the House of Lords. One would require to have the present situation statistically analysed and related to the same survey before one could give a completely unbiased survey.

Sir C. Osborne

It is obvious that a lot of the details in this very fine survey cannot be given to the Committee because of the rules of order. However, will the hon. Gentleman make the full details available so that we can have complete information before us when we come to further debates?

Mr. Sheldon

I am hoping to do that, and I hope it will coincide with the publication of the document that my right hon. Friend has. I have no secrets in these matters. In asking peers to respond, I stated clearly that the information would be published but that there was no question of identifying individual peers. If I do this, I am sure that my right hoi. Friend will make his document available, because that will result in a better understanding of this Bill.

Mr. John Hay (Henley)

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that statistical information is often given by a Minister requesting the eave of the House to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Would he consider asking leave to circulate details of this survey in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Sheldon

I should be happy to circulate this survey in the OFFICIAL REPORT if permission were given.

There is one other aspect I should like to mention about attendances as a result of this survey. The recipients of the survey were asked what attendance they would put in with an adequate salary, on the one hand—it was not defined further than that—or, on the other hand, with a daily allowance. This was of very great importance to the Amendment. We discovered that, with an adequate salary, we could expect something over 70 per cent. attendance and, with a daily allowance, about 60 per cent. attendance. The difference is not as wide as we might think, but the difference existed and the Government should have borne it in mind.

The 70 per cent., on the basis of an adequate salary, is well above the 33 per cent. attendance on which the White Paper was based. It might be assumed that when the Government come to pick their voting peers they will obviously have a great bias in favour of those who are dedicated and interested and, therefore, likely to attend the most. But, even on this sample survey, not picking the keenest Members, we found that there would be 70 per cent. attendance although the Government are assuming 33 per cent. attendance. There is no connection between these two figures.

I thought some of the Amendments were over-optimistic. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) seeks to increase the figure to two-thirds—67 per cent. My hon. Friend is nearly bang on. On that basis I shall have to review my own Amendment which seeks to make it 50 per cent. That was only a guess. At that stage I had no information. However, my guess was better than that of the Government. Theirs was a rotten guess. They are trying to create a House of Lords on the basis of a rotten guess. If they are to make a guess they should get it a little nearer right. There are ways to do this. They should do it. These are not secret methods. They are open and available. If they wanted to do the job properly they should have had enough understanding of the nature of the problem to make the right attempt at the beginning.

Mr. Michael Foot

My hon. Friend must be fair. The Opposition Front Bench, by some extraordinary process, made exactly the same guess.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Temporary Chairman

Mr. Powell.

Mr. Sheldon

I have not yet finished.

The Temporary Chairman

I apologise to the hon. Member. He seems to be the unfortunate victim of hon. Members intervening and the Chair assuming that he has finished his speech.

Mr. Sheldon

I am grateful for your kind consideration, Sir Myer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has pointed out the deficiences of the Opposition Front Bench. He is right to do that. In this matter there was a conspiracy of incompetence between the two Front Benches. Neither side knew, wanted to know, or made any attempt to find out. They assumed that they were the recipients of all knowledge in this matter and they sat together cosily in that little room fortifying each other with the accuracy of their observations. But they failed to find out that the Bill was not founded on reality but on their own imaginations.

Mr. Peyton

In stating, as he has done, that there has been a conspiracy between the two Front Benches, I think the hon. Gentleman is bound to admit that the superior parenthood belongs to his Front Bench, and that any responsibility on this side is at least redeemed by a very diminished enthusiasm for this filthy Bill which the Government persist in pursuing.

Mr. Sheldon

We all know that the diminishing interest is due to the activities of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but in this conspiracy of incompetence which was entered into by the two Front Benches I do not think either side will get any real reward from it until the Bill is finally changed.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair.]

I should like, now, to deal with some of the other matters relating to the Amendment. One of the factors in asking for a higher attendance in the House of Lords is the reduction in the number of backwoodsmen. As we raise the level of attendance there, so we diminish the number of backwoodsmen who have rather less to contribute. The other factor relating to attendance is that we must beware that in fixing any attendance the minimum may tend very easily to become the maximum. A number of peers have commented on this, and perhaps I might quote one or two of their comments. One said that peers clock in just to draw their bonus. Another said that many Lords attend to make sure they are seen, and then go home. This should not surprise us. Whatever figure is finally accepted, it may, for a fair number of peers, tend to become the maximum rather than the minimum one.

The important thing about attendance is that it is tied up with salary, and if we are going to pay members of the House of Lords we have a right to demand certain value for that money. They cannot avoid the obligation of giving the country and Parliament some value for that money.

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster)

Is not that a most dangerous idea to introduce? I think that it would be most unfortunate if that idea were extended to this Chamber.

Mr. Sheldon

The hon. Gentleman knows that the safeguard here lies with the electorate. We are responsible to the people who send us here. If we do not do what is required, or what is thought to be of value, we are soon told of our shortcomings by people in our constituency. The point about the House of Lords is that the Members there are not responsible to the electorate, and if they want to regard the salary as a bonanza there is nobody to say them nay. If they want to attend only very rarely there is nobody to call them to account. Last year there were only 137 sitting days in the House of Lords. One-third of that is 45 or 46. If we take away the days on which they are absent on Parliamentary business, on public business, or are ill, many people will get away with 20 or 25 days attendance throughout the year, and will be paid a salary for that, with nobody to call them to account.

This could be a bonanza to a life peer who, when he went to the other place, never expected to receive it. He gave no undertaking. He went there on a quite different basis and if he attends hardly at all, no one can call him to account and his salary will be just money in his pocket. The House of Lords may have some claims to a greater knowledge of what is going on, but when we leave the House of Commons, we learn something about the country by going back to our constituencies—

The Chairman

Order. I am having some difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon

So since they can get away with an attendance of as low as 45 days, or, if they make the permitted number of claims, 25 days a year, for which they receive £2,000, the ratio is £20,000 a year. It is worth their while to come in—

The Chairman

Order. There is nothing about this in the Amendment. We are concerned with a percentage, a fraction, of attendances.

Mr. Sheldon

I am also concerned with the number of days that they attend, Mr. Irving, which is part of the percentage. Although they may attend only for a few days, they can get large sums of money for a few hours' attendance. We should not accept this without question.

My main concern has been with the whole approach to the House of Lords and the preparation of the model. Instead of using the normal tools of investigation, examination and comparison which are available to everyone—if they were available to back benchers, they should have been available to the Government—the Government preferred secrecy and the prevention of full discussion—

The Chairman

Order. As the hon. Gentleman has already submitted this argument to the Committee more than once, he is now concerned, or should be concerned, on this Amendment with minimum attendance.

Mr. Powell

Not for the first time in these proceedings, I can assure the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that he has put the Committee very much in his debt not only by the thoroughness with which he has investigated such thinking as there is behind the scheme embodied in the Bill but by the research which he put in hand, which has at least shown up the shoddiness and artificiality of that scheme. We shall, of course, look forward to studying what he has said in HANSARD tomorrow and also to the data which we hope will be forthcoming later. Clearly, modifications and corrections will need to be applied to it, but I am sure that it will remain a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the present working of the constitution and certainly a standard by which we can judge the deplorable absence of any such thought and research behind the Government's scheme.

The figure of one-third which these Amendments propose in various ways to alter is one of a group of interrelated figures in the Government's scheme. Two of those figures—one-third and the retirement age of 72—are in the Bill. A third figure, the size of the House, 230, is in the White Paper and the fourth figure mentioned in this debate, which is relevant and co-ordinate with the others, is not even mentioned in the White Paper. That is, the prospective theoretical figure of £2,000 per annum remuneration.

As has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and earlier by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), these three or four figures are coordinate with one another. One cannot alter one without affecting the others; they hang together and are viewed by the Government as hanging together.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale put a very pertinent question earlier today in which he asked which of these figures came first. Which figure did the Government think of first and work from to arrive at the others? I will put my answer to that question. I believe it can be derived from the intervention which the Secretary of State made earlier in the debate on this question, for it is deplorably obvious that in considering these Amendments we are dependent solely upon that scanty information which the right hon. Gentleman vouchsafed. Obviously the Government did look at some alternatives, though they did not do a tithe of the work which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has done.

The very word "calculation" which the right hon. Gentleman used in his speech on 26th February, and the word "model" which I notice occurred once or twice earlier today in connecton with the document we have not been able to see, show that alternatives were considered. It can be proved from the information which the Secretary of State gave in the course of the first part of the debate how extraordinarily simple was the sort of clockwork contraption which lies behind this Bill and which we are being asked to accept on trust.

The Government have shown themselves somewhat secretive about their workings. There are two reasons for secretiveness. Sometimes people are secretive because they want to conceal something, but they may also be secretive because they have remarkably little to conceal and do not want it known how little there is to conceal. I suspect that that, and not the more sinister desire to withhold a great mass of detailed information from the Committee, lies behind the extraordinary coyness which we witnessed—

Sir D. Glover

Is it in order for a member of the Government Front Bench to start throwing missiles across the Chamber?

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I did not throw anything across the Chamber.

The Chairman

Order.

Mr. Powell

The information given by the right hon. Gentleman to which I refer appears in c. 1844 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th February. The right hon. Gentleman was giving the figures for the Session 1967–68 of peers, by succession and of first creation, who had attended for one-third of the sittings and for one-half of them. He also showed how those numbers would be reduced by the application of the retiring age of 72—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.