HC Deb 27 April 1971 vol 816 cc259-61

4.27 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington, South)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in regard to the voting rights in the House of Lords of heriditary peers by succession; and for related purposes. I recognise that the House is anxious to proceed with its business, but I feel that it is not inappropriate after 10 months of this Parliament, for a back bencher to seek to take up 10 minutes of parliamentary time to discuss this important subject.

May I say at the outset that I am not seeking to initiate a campaign. Although the Bill I would like to introduce has been drawn up with the benefit of expert advice, I should point out that I am sponsoring it only myself.

The Bill contains, in effect, only one specific recommendation. I am not trying to attack the hereditary principle. It would be futile and unconvincing to try to maintain that the hereditary principle no longer plays a major part in national life and I consider that the hereditary principle should continue to be given due acknowledgement in our constitution.

If we study the present composition of the House of Lords, we find from the current Vacher that there are four peers of the blood royal, two archbishops, 25 dukes, 30 marquesses, 162 earls and countesses, 109 viscounts, 24 bishops, and 721 barons and baronesses including the law lords and also including the 184 life peers.

Many might not regard this as necessarily the ideal composition for the Upper House. Others might ask, "Why make a change if there is no urgent need? Why make the best the enemy of the good?" I recollect that that condition of liberty is eternal vigilance. It is not desirable that our constitution should contain a flaw. And the worst time to change our constitution would be a time of constitutional crisis.

The object of my Bill is to strengthen our two-chamber system and not to weaken it. I consider that the Second Chamber should be an organ for the clear expression of informed and responsible public opinion. In mediæval times no doubt the ownership of land on a large scale was a suitable, and in many cases almost the only, qualification for a man who wished to play an active part in public life. But now the nature of national life has changed. It is far wider and more varied than in mediæval times; and the composition of the Upper House should take account of that fact. In practice, the composition of the Upper House does indeed respect the change which has taken place since mediæval times. In 1968, when the White Paper assessed the position, out of 736 hereditary peers by succession only about 400 attended at all and only about 250 played any significant part in the proceedings in the Upper House.

The time has come to give statutory effect to this reasonable convention—namely, that only about one in three of the hereditary peers by succession take an active part—a convention, however, which has no legal force and might still be broken at a time of political or constitutional crisis.

In 1958, the Life Peerages Act, which was a one-Clause Bill, was opposed by hon. Members opposite. But in retrospect I believe that few would feel that it has worked out undesirably. Many hon. and right hon. Members who voted against it have subsequently found their way into the other place by virtue of its provisions.

If, however, one is to seek to give statutory effect to some method of restricting those hereditary peers by succession who are entitled to exercise voting powers in the House of Lords, how should the selection be made? The theory that hereditary peers might themselves decide, by some process of selection or election, those whom they wish to remain Lords of Parliament has been advanced by a number of students of the subject; but we have to reflect that, where Irish and Scottish peers were concerned, this practice has been abandoned—I believe with good reason. In my Bill, therefore, I intend to recommend that the choice of hereditary peers by succession who may continue to exercise voting rights in the other place should be made by nomination. I realise that this may be thought by some hon. and right hon. Members to be a controversial recommendation, although it is certainly not a new one and it is widely supported by highly competent authorities.

It is the strength of our unwritten constitution that it permits changes to be made when they are necessary and at the same time places emphasis on continuity and the observance of convention. We might liken our two-Chamber constitution to a bicycle, a bicycle of which at present one of the wheels has a flat tyre. If we may take the rider of this vehicle to be the Prime Minister we can say that he must not incline to extremes or the machine will throw him off. I trust the maturity and political wisdom of the British electorate and of British statesmen and politicians to insist upon due respect for the conventions. I believe that on reflection my Bill will be seen to be not as controversial as it may seem at first.

If the Bill came into effect, I would hope that in the first instance the nominations of hereditary peers by succession as life peers with full voting rights would include all the 250 or so hereditary peers by succession who now take an active part in the other place. In introducing the Bill, I am not seeking to promote divisions or to introduce any sudden change: the Bill is devised merely as a talking point. I hope therefore that I may have the leave of the House to lay it on the Table.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.