HL Deb 05 February 1930 vol 76 cc469-77

Lords Amendment.

Page 5, line 16, at end insert ("until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows: Leave out ("first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("expiration of this Act").

Lords Amendment.

Page 11, line 17, at end insert ("Provided that no person shall be entitled to receive benefit under the said subsection (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment insurance Act, 1927, as extended by the Unemployment Insurance (Transitional Provisions Amendment) Act, 1929, or by the present Act, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows: Leave out ("Provided that no person") and insert ("and accordingly this latest day in respect of which any person"). Leave out ("after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("shall be the seventeenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two").

Lords Amendment.

Page 11, line 42, at end insert ("until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows: Leave out ("first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("expiration of this Act").

Lords Amendment.

Page 12, line 22, at end insert ("until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows: Leave out ("thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("expiration of this Act").

Lords Amendment.

Page 12, line 31, at end insert ("cease to have effect until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows. Leave out ("first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("expiration of this Act").

Lords Amendment.

Page 14, line 13, at end insert: ("(8) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, nine- teen hundred and thirty-one, and no longer, and thereafter the Unemployment insurance Acts, 1920 to 1929, shall have effect as if this Act had not been passed.")

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows: Leave out ("thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-three").

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be agreed to.

Moved, That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments be agreed to.—(Lord Parmoor.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, for the reasons which I am going to state in a moment or two, I do not suggest to your Lordships that you should refuse the Motion which has been made by the noble and learned Lord. May I say in the first place how much I admire the moderation of the language of the noble and learned Lord—a moderation not altogether studied in all parts of the political field. I cannot help thinking that I have read of language used in another place and in the newspapers which is hardly conceived in that gentle spirit of accommodation which the noble and learned Lord has displayed. Well, I congratulate him, and I would respectfully say to the Labour Party that in the case of a political Party as in the case of an individual it is not always a good thing to have your own way.

The noble and learned Lord and the Government have accepted the principle of the Amendment which your Lordships sent down to the House of Commons—they have accepted the principle, not, I think, with a very good grace, but still they have accepted it, and that is a very notable circumstance. They have varied it certainly, but they have accepted it. The variation has taken the form of prolonging the period at the end of which a reconsideration of this measure is necessary. I do not pretend that I agree with that prolongation. I think it goes too far. A shorter period would be right, but the noble and learned Lord tells us that it would not be possible to bring the machinery of this Bill into operation within the period which was fixed in the Lords Amendment. It is possible that the period stated in the Lords Amendment might properly have been a little prolonged. Why did not the noble and learned Lord suggest it when it was before your Lordships' House?

LORD PARMOOR

I did state distinctly that one objection to the period then suggested was that from the point of view of administrative efficiency it was too short. It was part of my argument then.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

After all the noble and learned Lord is the Leader of your Lordships' House, and he could have suggested the course he thought the House ought to pursue, but the only course he suggested was that the Lords should forego their Amendment altogether. He did not make that suggestion which I say he should have made. What has been the result of—what shall I call it? the accommodation—I think that was the word I used just now; some people might use a stronger term—the accommodation which the Government have offered to us? They will have the satisfaction, if that accommodation is accepted, of passing into law, notwithstanding the existence of your Lordships' House, this Bill, with all its defects, and the defects are notable. For those defects we do not consider ourselves responsible. We condemn those defects now, as we have always condemned them. At any rate the Government have the satisfaction of having passed a Bill full of defects through your Lordships' House. What on the other hand can we say on the other side? We have definitely secured for Parliament and the country the reconsideration of this hasty legislation within a very limited period. That is a very important and notable success which we have achieved. I hope that that will encourage your Lordships to continue to exercise this function of revision which belongs to you, and when the legislation which is foreshadowed to carry out Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill—the children's clauses—come before you I hope your Lordships will remember that your duty remains to revise that just as we have revised the present legislation. We ought to take our legitimate and due share in carrying out that legislation.

Well, the securing of the reconsideration of this measure is an important and notable matter, but what else? What has become of Privilege? The noble and learned Lord's speech on the last occasion was almost entirely absorbed by the Privilege of the House of Commons. What has become of that matter on the present occasion? Do not let there be any misunderstanding about it. No one desires to respect the Privileges of the House of Commons—the genuine Privileges of the House of Commons—more determinedly than we do. We have no desire whatever to invade the Privileges of the House of Commons. These things belong to the settled order of this country and its history, and your Lordships would certainly be the last body to desire to interfere with what are the true Privileges of the House of Commons. But when it is sought to operate the doctrine of Privilege to an unreasonable length then it is right that your Lordships should not be deflected from what you consider to be your duty. The truth is, as anybody with any experience in the House knows, it is impossible for the Lords to keep off this arbitrary ground of Privilege if it is to be enforced in the manner which has been suggested in another place. When I was sitting where the noble and learned Lord sits now, over and over again we had to pass legislation in this House which was a violation of this exaggerated Privilege, and noble Lords opposite do exactly the same thing. The truth is you cannot carry legislation in these days—any reasonably drafted legislation—without the Lords passing this imaginary border.

I am not making any criticism for a moment, of course, of the method in which the House of Commons do their duty. They have great difficulties to contend with, but the result is that legislation comes up to this House in a condition in which it requires very extensive amendment. That is not a matter of controversy. That is conceded on all hands. Every Minister has to propose Amendments in your Lordships' House which are a breach of this kind of Privilege. The Government have found that to be the case. They have certainly used a good many hard words about your Lordships' House, but hard words break no bones and I do not think they will impress the country. The country does not care that an ill-considered Bill has been made of a provisional character. It does not mind that a bit. The country does not care that this rather incomprehensible and mystical doctrine of Privilege is not allowed to interfere with the operations of your Lordships following the dictates of common sense. No, my Lords, about that the country does not care. In accepting this proposal from another place I think we may say that IVQ have secured three things. We have succeeded in placing a time limit upon this Bill. We have reasserted the doctrine challenged, inadvertently I believe, by the noble and learned Lord the other day, that it is not merely the function of this House to recommend but also to revise legislation.

LORD PARMOOR

I must intervene there.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I admitted it was inadvertent.

LORD PARMOOR

It was not inadvertent.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sorry to hear that.

LORD PARMOOR

If you look at the OFFICIAL REPORT you will see that was an entire misunderstanding. What I said was that we had complete power. Then I passed on to the question of Privilege. I should not have referred to the matter to-day except for a paragraph which was brought to my notice—it appeared in the Manchester Guardian—which puts the matter perfectly correctly. There was a gross misunderstanding of what I said in other reports. I am sure it was not the fault of the noble Marquess, but I think I ought not to let it pass without making it quite clear.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am quite certain the noble and learned Lord did not mean to say anything disrespectful of the functions of your Lordships' House.

LORD PARMOOR

Nor did I.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble and learned Lord says he did not I accept that, but at any rate he was thought to have said so, and therefore it was very necessary that what has been done should be done—that we should reassert the right and duty, the obligation of this House not merely to recommend Amendments but to revise legislation. That is the second thing. The third thing is that I hope that we have now established that Privilege cannot be asserted successfully against the reasonable action of your Lordships' House. Those three things appear to me to be of very great importance. We desire to co-operate, of course, in every manner in our power with the House of Commons. As I said on the last occasion, it is part of our fundamental duty to treat that House with profound respect, but we owe a duty also to your Lordships' House and above all things we have a duty to the country and I hope your Lordships will always perform that duty.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I had not wished to take part in this discussion and I do not know that I should have done so but for some of the concluding remarks of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. He said that amongst other things they had secured on this occasion was the assertion of the fact that Privilege was not to be considered when in matters of common sense this House was at variance with another place. I am not prepared to say much on the question of Privilege this afternoon. That is a matter which I would wish to hear discussed by constitutional lawyers in this House before giving either an opinion or a vote. But I do feel bound to say that I do not think in this matter we have reached any conclusion. Although this Bill will receive the Royal Assent in the course of the next two or three days, the matter of the Bill is certainly not at an end. The noble Marquess spoke of the moderation with which the noble and learned Lord opposite had spoken this afternoon. I am not quite sure that I approve of moderation which conceals strong feeling. People who speak moderately when they are voicing the opinions of those who feel strongly are apt to leave a wrong impression upon the minds of those who listen to them. But I feel sure that however moderate the noble and learned Lord may have been in speaking to your Lordships' House, there is a very strong feeling on the part of many members of the Labour Party, not only in another place but throughout the country, with regard to what has been done.

I hardly know whether I ought to congratulate the noble Marquess upon the Pyrrhic victory that I think he has achieved this afternoon. I think the Title of the Bill suggests that it is a Pyrrhic victory, because it is called the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill. The fact is that the insurance problem is so full of complications, difficulties and uncertainties of all kinds that it is almost certain that we shall have every year a Bill dealing with unemployment insurance. With regard to this particular Bill, I think it is quite clear from its provisions that nobody can judge whether it is a success or not within twenty-four months. However that may be, it is quite certain that within that period, or even earlier, there will be another Bill dealing with unemployment insurance. Accordingly I venture to think that the insertion of your Lordships' Amendment has really been unnecessary, because another Bill upon the same subject is almost sure to be brought up before the expiration of that period. I wish, if I may, to repeat in one sentence that I do not think we can consider the question of Privilege as between one House and another as having been settled this afternoon.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

My Lords, I have only a few words to say, but I have felt it rather necessary to say them after having heard the remarks of the noble Marquess who is leading the Opposition. To begin with, may I with the greatest respect congratulate His Majesty's Government on having got out of a very difficult situation extremely well? The first thing that the noble Marquess said was that, by accepting this Amendment, we could still say that the House of Commons had accepted the principle which the original Amendment of the noble Marquess laid down. It has done nothing of the kind. Let there be no mistake about that. The object of the time limit was to get rid of the juveniles the effect of the House of Commons Amendment is not to get rid of the juveniles. It is idle, therefore, to suggest that we are now accepting the same principle as we accepted before. We are not. It is perfectly obvious to anybody who heard the speech of the noble Marquess when he proposed his original Amendment that its effect, if I may paraphrase it, was this: This is an experimental Bill; we do not want it to be a permanent Bill, and therefore let us give it a chance. If that is so, then logically it is obvious that, in order to give it a chance, you must give it sufficient time to enable one of its main provisions to be given a chance. Clearly, therefore, if we voted for the original Amendment on those terms, we are logically bound to extend those terms in order to give the juveniles a chance. Whether, if I had had that point put before me at the beginning, I should have agreed to do so, I am not sure. It does not occur to me that it is a very good idea to put children in the Bill as an experiment for a year, and then take them out of it again. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we are logically bound by the considerations that I have mentioned.

There is one other thing that I wanted to say. It is quite clear to my mind that, by adopting the course which the noble Marquess has suggested, which I feel bound to adhere to—that is to say, by agreeing to the Motion before the House—your Lordships will have done this: you will have established, or re-asserted, that de facto, if not de jure, your Lordships' House are taking the exact position which the noble and learned Lord who leads the House says that he does not accept. You are making this House into a House that is going to be merely a suggestive House, instead of one that really takes a matter into its own hands. I am merely saying that this is reasserting the position that the noble and learned Lord did not assert. In doing so, I am only pointing out that sooner or later we shall have to make up our minds. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said—and I listened with the greatest attention and agreement to everything that he said—sooner or later we have got to assert ourselves as to whether or not we are a mere debating society, whether or not we take a part in the Constitution.

I am not going into the question of Privilege. So far as I can see, the present position is that your Lordships have said: "We do not regard the ruling of the House of Commons regarding this Privilege as right"; and the House of Commons have said: "We do regard it as right." It does not seem to me that we are going to get much further by saying to each other: "We are right and you are wrong." Sooner or later a debate will have to take place when the constitutional question will be raised. All that I am pointing out to the House is that, if we are merely going to play a private school game of prisoner's base, taking the place of the boy who dares to run out for three yards and then with great quickness gets back to the home base and tells everybody what he might have done if he had gone to the proper goal that he started out for, I do not think that we shall get much further. I suggest that the next time a Bill comes before this House that really raises a big question, we should get together and consider what we are going to do, instead of making a little run out and a little run back. This seems to me to do nothing for the dignity of the House nor to help legislation.

On Question, Motion agreed to.