HL Deb 04 February 1948 vol 153 cc873-82

2.39 p.m.

Debate resumed (according to Order) for the fourth day on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Salisbury on January 27, to Viscount Addison's Motion that the Bill be now read a second time.

The Amendment was as follows: Leave out all words after "That" and insert: this House, While re-emphasizing its oft expressed readiness to consider proposals for modifying the basis of its membership which may conduce to the more effective performance of its constitutional duties, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which would effect no change in this respect; for which the nation has expressed no desire; which would go far to expose the country to the dangers of a system of single chamber Government; and' which can only serve to distract the attention of the country from the economic crisis and from the united effort towards recovery which is so vital at this time.

The Marquess of SALISBURY

My Lords, I should like, if I may, to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make with regard to the further consultation with his colleagues arising out of the events of yesterday's debate on this subject.

The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Viscount Addison)

My Lords, we have given very careful consideration to the various suggestions that have been made with a view to arriving, if possible, at a mutual agreement on the basis of the matters that have been under discussion. The Government have agreed—may I say, in pursuance of an aim of which I have vainly endeavoured to assure your Lordships on several occasions, that we should reach agreement to discuss the whole question without prejudice—to offer an altogether new alternative form to paragraph 1 of the statement which has already been circulated to your Lordships. The proposal I have now to make, therefore is that the Government are willing to enter into conference on the issues raised, without prejudice on either side, on the understanding that

(1) The discussion of the powers of the Second Chamber should be limited to ensuring reasonable time for the due performance of their functions by that Chamber.

I hope that that will be fully acceptable to your Lordships.

The Marquess of SALISBURY

My, Lords, I am sure that we all welcome warmly the statement which has been made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and we would all wish to thank him and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for the valiant efforts which they have made to find a solution of our immediate difficulties which is satisfactory to their Party and to ours. It is, I think, a notable victory for that spirit of common sense on the part of all concerned which has always inspired this country and in particular, I think, this House, in facing our national problems. The course which the Government have now adopted, to adjourn the Second Reading of this Bill and to try to ascertain whether an agreed solution is possible to the question, both of the composition and the powers of the House, before proceeding further with the Bill, is clearly the right and sensible course. It ties no one on either side; it enables all concerned freely and without commitment to see whether common ground can be found. I know that I shall be representing the views of all those who sit on these Benches when I say that we are very ready to enter into comprehensive negotiations, without commitment, on the basis now proposed. I hope that these negotiations will lead to mutually satisfactory conclusions.

It would, of course, be wrong light-heartedly to assume that we are already through all our troubles. The present formula docs not resolve all the differences between us over the powers and composition of the House. What it does is to enable us to consider the whole problem decently and in order. What we have achieved between us is to jump one fence; and it is a very large and difficult one. There is no reason, if there is sufficient measure of good will, why we should not surmount the others. At any rate, both we and the Government will have done our best and we shall have nothing with which to reproach ourselves. If we fail, it will be as a result of an honest difference of opinion. But do not let us anticipate failure and, above all, I hope that throughout the negotiations which are to take place we shall eschew rancour and the spirit of Party prejudice. We enter into these negotiations with no commitments and, let us hope, with no prejudice on either side. Let us so conduct our talks that, whether they succeed or whether they fail, the sting and bitterness shall be taken out of this controversy. So, I believe, we shall all deserve well of our country.

I would like to say just one word about the future course of this debate. The whole character of it has, of course, been entirely altered 'by the statement the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has just made. On the eve of negotiations, it is clear that no one would wish to say anything which might prejudice their success, and I should imagine that the general view would be that this debate should be immediately adjourned. If that is the view of your Lordships, who have, of course, the final say, I should be prepared in those circumstances to withdraw my Amendment, whilst of course reserving the right to put it back on the Paper, either in its present form or in an amended form, in the unhappy event of these discussions not leading to agreement. If we follow the course I suggest, the way will then be open to the Government to adjourn the debate upon the Second Reading of the Bill. That debate can be resumed at a later date, when the Bill can be accepted, amended or rejected as envisaged in paragraph 2 of the Government's statement.

2.43 p.m.

Viscount SAMUEL

My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches will, I feel sure, regard as wholly satisfactory the statement which has been made by the Leader of the House, and would also wish to concur in the course as to to-day's procedure that has been suggested by the noble Marquess who has just spoken. We have now got through the preliminaries to a prologue to a preparatory conference, and I will express the hope that the prologue—that is to say, the meeting of representatives of the Parties to consider whether sufficient basis for agreement exists to make a conference likely to be fruitful—should be opened as speedily as possible. I would like to see it done, if it may be, in a matter of days, and I trust that that next stage may take no more than a week or two. As has been already stated in these discussions, the atmosphere is always of great importance in negotiations of this kind. Political weather is notoriously uncertain, and at any time some change might conceivably nip this bud in its early promise. I trust, therefore, that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will be able to assure us that no time will be lost in going forward to the next stage.

I would add one other word, which perhaps can come more properly from these Benches than from either the supporters of the Government or the supporters of the official Opposition. I feel certain that I am expressing a thought which is widespread throughout this House in saying how much we appreciate the spirit of wise, conciliatory moderation that has been shown in the course of these discussions by both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in this House. Both have made really great concessions, not in matters of political principle to which they are attached, but in respect of the standpoint which they adopted at the initiation of these matters. On points of procedure they have wisely not stood upon punctilio, but have agreed that we should have in mind, not only mainly but solely, the great object which we desire to pursue. Particularly, I am sure, your Lordships will agree that we have been fortunate in having as the Leaders on the two sides the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who command such great confidence among their respective supporters, and whose prudent and public-spirited advice and action in this matter have enabled them to render great service to your Lordships' House and to the country.

The Lord Archbishop of YORK

My Lords, I also rise to welcome the statement which has been made. If this preliminary agreement had not been reached I am sure that the greatest disappointment would have been caused, not only in this House but also throughout the whole country. I join with what has already been said in offering both congratulation and thanks to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, for the perseverance, persistence and skill which they have shown in reaching this agreement. If this spirit is shown in the preliminary talks, and in the conference itself, I believe that we may confidently look forward to a successful issue of this conference.

2.48 p.m.

Lord ROCHESTER

My Lords, I apologize for intervening, and I crave the indulgence of the House. I want to raise one point which seems to me now of crucial importance and which brooks no delay, in view of what has transpired this afternoon. Whilst apologizing for intervening, I feel impelled to mention the matter at this, the earliest opportunity, after the decision to which your Lordships have just come. Like other noble Lords, I went through the controversy of thirty-seven years ago as a Member of the other House. I voted for the Parliament Act of 1911, and should unhesitatingly have voted for the Second Reading of the present Bill, if it had gone to a Division, if only to secure its consideration and possible amendment in Committee.

Now that the Government have so generously met the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, we are faced with an entirely new situation. A conference to consider the composition as well as the powers of your Lordships' House is to be convened—to quote the words of the Government statemen— confined to a small number of the leading members of the Parties concerned. It is the penultimate word about which I am concerned. What Parties? Doubtless it refers to the political Parties, but I would remind your Lordships that there are other parties deeply interested and gravely concerned about the composition of a reformed Second Chamber. One of those parties is the vast body of Free Churchmen in this country. I presume that a Second Chamber, based on the balance of power of the different political Parties, is not now envisaged. That being so, let me refer to what was said a few days ago by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York. In The Times of January 24, he is reported as saying that your Lordships' House was of the greatest value in providing opportunities for free debate and for the revision of hasty legislation, but there was general agreement that it should be reformed. Then he suggested that the number of Bishops who had seats could be reduced. With the reduction of the numbers on the Episcopal Bench, there should be appointed some of the leaders of other Churches. On behalf of a vast body of Free Churchmen I desire publicly in your Lordships' House to thank the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, for saying that, and saying it so explicitly. His Grace is not, I know, alone in that opinion. In the Methodist Recorder of December 18 last reference was made to the possibility of a Committee being set up to discuss a plan for reform, and it was claimed that in that event the plan should take account of the anachronous fact that Nonconformity as such had never been officially represented in your Lordships' House, and that if a reformed Second Chamber is envisaged, hereditary no longer but representative of the nation's life in its various aspects, the Free Churches should be given a place in addition to the Anglican Church. Thus my intervention this afternoon is to ask that the claims of the Free Churches for official recognition in any reformed Second Chamber, and for adequate representation commensurate w: th their position and influence in the country, shall not be overlooked. This, I submit, is a claim that in justice cannot be ignored, and is one, I trust, that will be readily conceded. I ask the noble Viscount who leads your Lordships' House with such exemplary patience and courtesy whether he can assure us that account will be taken of this consideration.

2.52 p.m.

Viscount ADDISON

My Lords, I appreciate very much the way in which the suggestion has been received. I gather that the noble Marquess opposite will accordingly withdraw his Amendment and that we shall then proceed to adjourn our debate. I must say that in my heart I should naturally have been glad to have the Bill read a second time, in order that the details might be discussed. I understand, however, that that course is not acceptable to-day, but whenever it is amended that will, of course, have to take place. However, being exceedingly accommodating in these matters, I will say no more about it at the moment. And, of course, as the noble Marquess has said, it is quite clear from the statement, and understood by all of us, that these discussions will be free and open discussions, entered into without prejudice or. either side, and that after the preliminary conversations have taken place the different parties concerned will report progress to their own friends. No one will be prejudiced in advance; the discussions will be entirely free and open, and I cannot imagine that they will take place without fall consideration of all the material factors.

I am quite sure that it would be entirely inappropriate at this time to make any comments on the numerous details which must unfortunately emerge. In that respect I entirely share the view of the noble Marquess, that although we have got over this difficulty there are many others still in front of us. But as we have agreed to enter into this conference with all this good will, I trust that noble Lords will do all that is necessary to protect that good will and to ensure that it will prevail.

2.54 p.m.

Viscount STANSGATE

My Lords, I want to ask one question of my noble friend the Leader of the House. His statement said that the conference would discuss "the due performance of their functions." Who is going to define the meaning of those wonderful words "the due performance of their functions? We have spent ten days trying to define what the conference is about, and now we are told that it is to consider "the due performance of their functions." It means nothing at all. It is a purely question-begging evasion, from start to finish.

Several Noble Lords: No.

Viscount STANSGATE

One should speak without restraint in this House. After all, I have spent forty years in maintaining what I believe ~.o be right in the matter, and I am sure that your Lordships will be gracious and merciful. Will the effect of this not be that the Conservative Party may compel the Government, properly elected and enjoying the support of the electorate, to go back to the electorate time after time until the Government are tired and worn out? That was the case put by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, yesterday. I do not suppose that I shall get a definition now, but we are not even to have it debated here; we are all to be put under the pressure of the caucus. There is too much caucus in this country. We need a little more conscience: and a little less caucus.

Are we perfectly certain that what is being done to-day is not impairing in any way the immunities which this Bill may have under the Parliament Act? Section 2 of the Parliament Act says that if a Bill is not passed it is taken to be rejected. But Section 2 of the Parliament Act, so far as I can make out, has never foreseen the possibility of the promoters of the Bill themselves being responsible for withdrawing or postponing it. It is a difficult point. I am quite sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House will see that the matter is protected, but it is vital that we should not be told at the end of this Session: "You asked that the Bill should be postponed and that it should be put off; and now you are going to rush a decision, when the public are not really apprised of the issue." That is a matter that should be watched. There are a number of other things, but for the present I wish to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and to ask him again if he will give his assurance that nothing that is done will impair these immunities. That would remove one of my anxieties—though I am afraid that no flame of hope will be kindled in my heart.

Viscount ADDISON

My Lords, with regard to the second question, I can give the noble Viscount a complete assurance. If he looks at the statement which I made on Monday, and which was circulated, he will see that paragraph 2 is inserted to deal with the very misgiving which he has just expressed. It reads: The Bill now before the House should either be passed with or without agreed amendment, or rejected by this House, before the end of the present Session. That makes it quite clear that the proceedings under the Parliament Act will not be superseded in any way by what is now being arranged. Those words were inserted in order to meet the very point which my noble friend has raised. With regard to the second point, the noble Viscount and I have been co-fighters on this subject ever since 1910, and I do not think that he need have misgivings that any of us who enter into this conference will be in any way more disposed than he is to forget our convictions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount ADDISON

My Lords, in the circumstances I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Addison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

House adjourned at three o'clock.