Lords Sitting of 25 November 1952

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS
  2.36 p.m.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when India was given independence, his late Majesty's Government guaranteed to Indian civil servants their full covenanted pensions of £1,000 per annum at its then value; and, if so, on what principle, when the £1 was devalued, were these covenanted pensions reduced proportionately.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, with all deference to the noble Lord who has asked this Question, no guarantee has ever been given to retired members of the Indian Civil Service that the purchasing power of their pensions would be maintained at the level at which it stood when India became independent. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise; but it is not the case that these pensions have been reduced.

  BRAZIL: EXPORT CREDITS GUARANTEES
  2.37 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total of outstanding insurances written by the Export Credits Guarantee Department against exports to Brazil; against what proportion have claims been made; and at what monthly rate are such liabilities, when due, being repaid.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, the present total estimated commitments of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of exports to Brazil amount to about £32 million. Claims received represent about 20 per cent. of the total, and payment is now being made at the rate of about £2 million per month.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of the commitments which the noble Viscount has just stated, and the rate of payment of the claims which he has mentioned, would he consider it worth while attempting to obtain information as to the amount of merchandise—that is, merchandise similar to that on which the insurances were previously written, before the Exports Credits Guarantee Department ceased writing them—held up in the United Kingdom? Then, when possessed of that information, would he consider recommending consideration of some scheme whereby advances against that merchandise in warehouses—such as warehouse receipts—could be made? Such action would tend to unfreeze a considerable amount of merchandise which is now held up, which is delaying the putting of more into the pipeline and so tending to have an adverse impact on unemployment.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the Department concerned are, I know, always considering the difficult problem of this Brazilian indebtedness. What I suggest to my noble friend, if he will agree, is this. I will draw to the attention of the Secretary for Overseas Trade, who is responsible for the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the suggestion which the noble Lord has made; and if he would be good enough to put to the Secretary for Overseas Trade exactly what is in his mind, then I am sure the Minister concerned would be delighted to discuss it with him.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House whether the Export Credits Guarantee Department are still underwriting the Brazilian business? And, if so, has the premium been very much adversely affected by the conduct indicated by the noble Lord who asked the Question?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I rather think that for the moment they have ceased to underwrite these risks, but I am not absolutely certain about this. I cannot answer the other point, because it is not my Department—I am not even co-ordinating. If the noble Lord will put down a Question on the Paper, I will see that he has a full reply.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, surely the whole idea of the Export Credits Guarantee Department is to underwrite risks. That is what the Department was formed for.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, but it was not formed necessarily to underwrite very foolish risks, otherwise it might lose a great deal of money and might not be able to underwrite risks which are worth underwriting. That is a principle which I have applied in other forms of insurance, and I hope that the Government will always have some regard to it in underwriting other risks.

  COST OF VIOLENT CRIME
  2.41 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any figures exist which indicate the actual amount which violent crime is costing the country at present, and if so, how such figures compare with those for 1938.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I regret that this information is not available. The material and financial cost of crimes of violence, to the victims and to the country as a whole, involves so many different factors that it is impossible to arrive at even an approximate estimate of the total.

  HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
  2.42 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to say when action will be taken to carry out the undertaking given by Mr. Churchill in the Manifesto of the Conservative Party at the last General Election, that the Conservative Government would "call an all-Party conference to consider proposals for the reform of the House of Lords"; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before coming to the main business of the day, I think noble Lords would desire me to make a brief reference to the Ministerial changes which have been announced in to-day's Press, and which relate to several of the leading members of your Lordships' House. We are glad that the great anxiety which we all felt on account of the serious illness of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, has been relieved, and that he is now on the way to recovery and able to continue in office as a member of the Government, although in a somewhat less heavy Department than that for which he had previously been responsible. Particularly in the year of the Coronation the duties of the Lord President will be greatly increased. This has involved the transfer of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, from the Secretaryship of State for Commonwealth Affairs to the Presidency of the Council. But we are all exceedingly glad—and I am certain that in saying this I am expressing the feeling of every member of the House—that it has not involved his resignation of the Leadership of your Lordships' House.
  I trust that as Lord President the noble Marquess will give close attention to questions of science—and I am speaking now in my capacity as President of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee—a matter to which Lord Woolton gave close attention and with regard to which many urgent questions are pending. I remember that the noble Marquess's grandfather, as Prime Minister, was one of the few statesmen of the latter part of the nineteenth century who realised, with great foresight, the importance of the natural sciences in the life of the community, and, further, that his kinsman, Mr. Arthur Balfour, was also well versed in scientific questions and greatly interested in them. He was, indeed, one

  519
  of the principal progenitors of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which now plays so large and valuable a part. I trust, therefore, that the noble Marquess in this, as in other matters, may carry on a high family tradition.
  The transfers have also involved the removal of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, from his present Department to the office of Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. That used to be regarded as a Department more of ceremony than of business, but it is far from that to-day—indeed, it has become one of the key positions in the Administration. We feel sure that the noble Viscount will bring to its work that energy and efficiency for which he has so long been renowned. Perhaps I may add that the whole House is pleased that one of our younger members, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has now been appointed to a substantial Departmental office, that of Under-Secretary for Home Affairs, in which I have a somewhat special interest, because for over three years during the reign of King Edward VII I had the pleasure and advantage of occupying that post.
  My Lords, I have taken the liberty of altering slightly the form of my Notice on the Order Paper to-day. It was put down as a Question, and I anticipated that little more would be necessary than a mere repetition of a Question I put some months ago and a brief Government reply. But in view of what was said in the other House recently, it seemed desirable that some arguments should be advanced in favour of reform of the constitution of the House of Lords. I also felt that other noble Lords might be desirous of speaking in a debate and would not wish to be tied to the extreme brevity which is customary in making observations on a mere Question. Therefore, I have now put down a Motion for Papers. I frankly confess that if anyone asks me what Papers I move for, I shall not be able to say, but the formula is consecrated by custom. At the end of the debate I shall, of course, withdraw my Motion.
  In the first instance, let me draw the attention of the House not only to the present situation but also to the events which have led up to it. The Parliament
  520
  Act, 1911, passed under the auspices of the Asquith Government at a time of fierce political controversy, had stood on the Statute Book unaltered and unchallenged for over thirty years, and was very seldom used. When the Labour Government came to power in 1945 they thought it necessary to ask Parliament to shorten from two years to one year the period of delay that could be enforced by the House of Lords under the Act of 1911. Accordingly, a bill was introduced in 1947 to that effect. Many of us thought that far more important than this comparatively minor adjustment was the large question of the composition of the Second Chamber. From these Benches we suggested that, this Bill having been introduced, it was an occasion for an all-Party Conference upon this larger issue. I confess that it was somewhat to our surprise that that suggestion was accepted, both by the Labour Government and by the Conservative Opposition, and a Conference was held accordingly.
  The results of the deliberations of that Conference have now almost passed out of the mind of the public, and possibly from the minds of many of your Lordships. The Conference met on several occasions in February to April, 1948, and its composition was highly authoritative. On behalf of the then Government those who attended were the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee; the Lord President, Mr. Morrison; the Lord Privy Seal, who was then Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Addison; the Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, and the Government Chief Whip in the House of Commons, Mr. William Whiteley. On behalf of the Conservative Opposition those who attended were (I quote the names in the order in which they were printed): Mr. Eden, Lord Salisbury, Lord Swinton and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe; and, on behalf of the Liberal Party, Mr. Clement Davies and myself. It will be agreed that with the present composition of our Parties there could not have been brought together a Conference more responsible and more authoritative than one so composed.
  If I was surprised that that Conference should have been held at all, I was much more surprised to find, on the part of both the Conservative and the Labour Party, a sincere desire to arrive at a

  521
  solution. In fact, so far as the composition of the House of Lords was concerned, apart from its powers, we did arrive, at this Conference, at a complete agreement. A White Paper was published, stating the terms of that agreement and adding that if the question of powers could be satisfactorily settled those who were there present were quite prepared to give further consideration to the principles laid down, with a view to working out details and then submitting a definite scheme to their respective Parties. However, it was all rather too good to be true; and it was on the question of powers that the Conference fell into disagreement. As a result, it proved abortive.
  The issue that had been raised by the Bill, which was then actually before the House and consideration of which was suspended only on account of the summoning of the Conference, could not be resolved; and although both sides made certain compromises, at the end there was still disagreement as to the length of time that Statutes ought to require before a Bill passed by the House of Commons could be brought into law over the heads and without the consent of the House of Lords. But at the end the difference between the two sides was brought down to three months, Unhappily, the Conference broke up because the two sides could not agree either to include or not to include that period of three months. This was because, from the point of view of the Party Whips, this three-month period was more important than might have appeared. With regard to the working of the Parliament Act, both sides agreed that, if it was to exist at all, it must give the Commons power to override the Lords during the first three Sessions of a Parliament, when the Parliament was fresh and had had a mandate recently from the people. This first three years could be devoted to legislation all of which could be passed into law in the course of a five-year Parliament.
  On the other hand, with regard to the fifth year, the last year of a five-year Parliament, they were agreed that a measure passed by the Commons but rejected by the House of Lords could not be forced into law before the General Election was held. The only point of disagreement was the fourth year. The Labour Party insisted that if they came
  522
  again into power, or were then in power, they should be free to govern effectively and to legislate effectively for four years—not for three; whereas the Opposition saw no reason to alter the Parliament Act in that regard. That was where the discussions broke down. Both the Conservative and the Labour leaders said that this was to them a matter of principle. It did not, however, seem to me to be a matter of principle at all; it seemed to me to be merely a question of adjustment and of political expediency, and it was not sufficient ground for allowing the whole movement for reform of the House of Lords to break down.
  To my mind, this question of the fourth Session and the three months is insignificant compared with the far greater issue of whether the Second Chamber in the British Constitution should be one which, by its composition, its, character, and its influence, should be able to render adequate service to the nation in its political affairs. It seemed to me—though I may have been wrong—that while the leaders of the Labour Party and of the Conservative Party at the Conference were ready to join in drawing up what we all thought an admirable scheme of reform, both sides were a little alarmed, when they looked at it, by what they had done. The Labour Party leaders were not sure that their rank and file would approve of this; they thought that they would much rather leave things as they were; they had nothing to gain by a stronger Second Chamber and they would not be at all sorry if the whole plan miscarried. On the other hand, the Conservative leaders were probably aware of some uneasiness on the part of their rank and file in your Lordships' House, who were, perhaps, not very pleased to think that their own position, and the long tradition which they represented, would be swept away. I may be quite wrong, for I am not in the inner counsels of their Lordships, but it looked to me as though the tail would be likely to wag the diplodocus—and with a tail so long and ponderous the head might have found some difficulty in determining the direction in which that unwieldy saurian might propose to move.
  However that may be, the fact is that the Conference proved abortive, although I do not think the measure of agreement that was achieved ought to be allowed to fade from our memory. It seemed to

  523
  me the longest step forward that had been taken in the forty years since the Parliament Act was passed. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to remind those of you who have not these facts in mind what the proposals were. They were very succinctly stated in a White Paper of 1948 (Cmd. 7380). If your Lordships will allow me, as they are quite brief, I will read them, because the whole matter depends on the opinion that is formed with regard to these proposals. The proposals are these:

  "(1) The Second Chamber should be complementary to and not a rival to the Lower House, and, with this end in view, the reform of the House of Lords should be based on a modification of its existing constitution as opposed to the establishment of a Second Chamber of a completely new type based on some system of election.

  (2) The revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such as to secure as far as practicable that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political Party.

  (3) The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber.

  (4) Members of the Second Chamber should be styled 'Lords of Parliament' and would be appointed on grounds of personal distinction or public service. They might be drawn either from Hereditary Peers, or from Commoners who would be created Life Peers.

  (5) Women should be capable of being appointed Lords of Parliament in like manner as men.

  (6) Provision should be made for the inclusion in the Second Chamber of certain descendants of the Sovereign, certain Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords.

  (7) In order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration would be payable to members of the Second Chamber.

  (8) Peers who were not Lords of Parliament should be entitled to stand for election to the House of Commons, and also to vote at elections in the same manner as other citizens.

  (9) Some provision should be made for the disqualification of a member of the Second Chamber who neglects, or becomes no longer able or fitted, to perform his duties as such."

  Those various provisions were adopted in order to make it clear that it was not proposed to set up a new Second Chamber which could in any way become a rival to the House of Commons. The House of Commons would remain the sole representative body elected by the people.
  The reason why these proposals are made is that many of us feel that the
  524
  present constitution of the House of Lords is quite indefensible. We have now somewhere in the neighbourhood of 880 members of your Lordships' House, while the membership of the House of Commons is somewhat over 600. In a few years, at the present rate of creations, we shall reach 1,000 members. Of these, about one-quarter are appointed: they are either the first Peers of a creation, Law Lords or Bishops or certain others who are chosen for their own personal merits. The other three-quarters sit by hereditary right—or rather more than three-quarters, I believe. No doubt, a large proportion of those possess the other qualifications that would be regarded as fitting them for membership of a new House of Lords; but the fact remains that those who do not possess those qualifications are, by hereditary right, equal members of the House of Lords with any of the others.
  In recent years, your Lordships' House has been made more representative by the addition of a certain number of members drawn from those who are generally known as the working classes. Altogether, I believe there are twenty-five now; but what is twenty-five among 800? If all the 800 were to attend, the institution would collapse at once; it would be quite impossible to legislate with so unwieldy an assembly. We are saved from that by the non-attendance of the majority of the members of your Lordships' House, a great number of whom have other duties in local government or in other affairs which keep them away from this House. Others have professional duties which require their constant attendance. Now that the class of the "idle rich," of which the Peerage were regarded as the principal representatives, has disappeared, it becomes more and more difficult for members of your Lordships' House to practise regular attendance. But, in fact, the working of the House is made possible only by the absenteeism of a large number of members, and we should be grateful to those who grace the meetings of this House by their absence.
  It is said that the House of Lords works very well. Whenever this subject is debated, my noble friend sitting by me, Lord Strabolgi, usually interjects: "It works very well." It does, up to a point. In dealing with Private Bill legislation, our Committees render most useful service, and in the Committee stage of

  525
  important Public Bills your Lordships constitute an admirable Revising Chamber. Our debates on general subjects of various kinds, which the other House of Parliament is often not able to hold because of the pressure of business, are often of great service in ventilating questions and in paving the way to legislative action. But where controversial issues are involved—and at any time new ones may arise—the House of Lords is greatly handicapped by the knowledge throughout the nation that one Party enjoys a permanent majority in this House. That is why in the conclusions which I have read out to your Lordships we all agreed that one principle should be that in any future Assembly a permanent majority should not be assured to any one political Party. For a hundred years, your Lordships' House has been regarded as politically an annexe of the Conservative Party. That being so, it is unable to carry with the rank and file of the nation the same authority and influence that would be desirable in a Second Chamber. Furthermore, the hereditary principle, in itself, is it rational as a method of choosing legislators, and this is the only Chamber in the world which still retains the character of mediaeval Parliaments in that regard.
  Again, it is proposed in the reforms to be effected that women should be made eligible. With a Queen on the Throne, with women Members of the House of Commons, with all the professions and local authorities open to women, and with the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act having been passed in 1919, it is surely an anomaly that there should be one body, and that a House of Parliament, from which women are now excluded. And not only can no women be appointed to your Lordships' House—in the 500 new Peerages created during this century, not one has been granted to a woman—even those ladies who have inherited some of the ancient Peerages, and one or two modern ones which have not passed to remainders of the descendants of the male sex—even these Peeresses now, although Peeresses in every other regard before the law, are not allowed to sit in your Lordships' House and to vote here.
  The danger which is seen in the reform of the House of Lords, in granting them too much power as against the people, is, I think, an empty fear. The electors
  526
  may say, "Who are these people to govern us? They are not appointed by us." The answer would be that they would have no more power than the present House of Lords—that is, if the proposal with regard to the three months is agreed to. And even if the proposal is changed, it would make practically no difference. What formal powers they have would not be important. What would be important is that the new House, by its composition, the character of its members and its influence, would hold a position in our public affairs most useful to the nation. It would retain the name of the House of Lords; it would carry on its traditions, its procedure and its ceremonies, but it would not be exposed to the same prejudice, in the eyes of the nation on account of the part which it had played in the past in Party politics. Commanding a greaser respect from the whole people, it would be able to render greater service to the nation.
  It was agreed in the Conference, informally, that the first new body of Peers would be nominated for Life Peerages by agreement, the Parties to some extent being represented on a fair basis, with the great majority possibly including people who had no special Party allegiance. It was recognised to be important that the Second Chamber should not degenerate into a senate of old men, that it should not fall into senility and become a sort of asylum for octogenerians, but that we must retain the element of youth and energy which is now to be found by the casual inheritance of peerages by younger men. I think the suggestion was that many of your Lordships' present House who have made their mark here, or who show promise of making their mark here, should certainly be among those nominated to the new Assembly, and that due regard should always be had to the danger of senility.
  That is the background to the question that I am asking. The foreground is constituted by a sentence in the Election Manifesto of the Conservative Party before the last Election, the Election which sent the present House of Commons to Westminster. In that sentence Mr. Winston Churchill, who was the sole signatory of the document, said this:
  "We shall call an all-Party Conference to consider proposals for the reform of the House of Lords."

  527
  The question that I am now asking is, when is that to be? I put the same question previously, on May 6 of this year. I allowed more than a year to pass for the Government to settle down and to collect their thoughts before bringing up this matter. But on May 6, I asked; when is it proposed to take steps to that end? The answer then given by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was
  "as soon as they have taken the necessary measures to deal with the more urgent tasks with which the present economic situation of the country confronts them."
  Well, when will that be? As things are now, the economic situation is always more urgent than a constitutional question. Ten years hence my successor who will be on this Bench may still be addressing the same Question annually to the Leader of the House and receiving the same reply—indeed, by that time it may have been reduced to the status of a Written Question, "Not for Oral Answer."
  My Lords, in any case, the holding of the Conference would take some time, and after that there must be time for public thought with regard to the matter. Parliament is not likely to be engaged upon this question for a considerable period after the decision has been taken to summon the Conference itself. No doubt senior members of the Government would be required to spend some time in the deliberations of the Conference, but I do not think that Parliament need be asked to divert any of its attention from economic questions for some time after the Conference was constituted.
  To sum up, I trust that the work done by the Conference of four years ago may not prove wholly valueless. Surely it is a remarkable thing that the principal leaders of the three Parties should have unanimously agreed on what kind of second Chamber we ought to have, but should have disagreed on what surely is a comparatively minor point. Perhaps we never shall" recapture the first fine careless rapture" of that Conference and the spirit of sweet reasonableness and responsible statesmanship which informed it, but I suggest that at least we might make an attempt. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.14 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, in the first place I should like to identify myself with the message of good will which the noble Viscount gave to the new Ministers, and to wish them all luck in their respective spheres of duty. The next thing I want to say is that I regard it as a little unfortunate that the noble Viscount should, at the very last moment, translate what had been a mere Question into a Motion. It is inconvenient for this reason: that the matter assumes altogether more importance, and had I known that there was to be this sort of discussion, I should have desired to consult with my colleagues to find out what the position is. Your Lordships must understand, therefore, that, speaking as I do at the present moment, I am not attempting to speak with authority, for I have had no opportunity to find out what the views of my fellows are. I think that is a little inconvenient.
  But, speaking with that qualification, I should like to say that I personally and, I think, all my colleagues are anxious not to have an increase in the powers of the House of Lords. I do not think the noble Viscount is asking for any increase in powers. I speak quite frankly when I say that one of the guarantees against an increase in powers is the utterly illogical composition of the House of Lords at the present time. If you were to say, "Let us go back to the old system of 1911,"people would say, "What! With a House of Lords constituted like that?" On the other hand, if we constituted a much neater and tidier House of Lords, should we have any security against its being said: "Now we have such a nice, tidy little House of Lords we can give it much greater powers "? That is one embarrassment that I feel. If we went into a further Conference, I think we should want to be assured that it was not the first step in a scheme to confer upon the House of Lords much larger powers than it has to-day.
  The second point that I want to make quite plainly is that if we went into a Conference we should want to go, as I am sure the Conservative Party would, too, on the same principle as we went before—namely, that it was to be ad referendum. The noble Viscount referred to our having reached complete agreement, but I think that is an entire

  529
  misapprehension of what we decided to do. I have the recommendations before me. The words are these:
  "If it had been possible to achieve general agreement over the whole field of Powers and Composition, the Party representatives would have been prepared to give the following proposals further consideration, so as to see whether the necessary details could be worked out, and, if so, to submit them, as part of such an agreement, to their respective Parties."
  That was all that we attempted to agree upon, and if we do have a further Conference at the present time I am perfectly certain that it is only on that basis that we shall desire to take part in it. I should imagine that what I have just said applies equally to the Government, and I think to the Liberal Party, too. Those are the two qualifications. Subject to that, if it was thought that the time had arisen when it was desirable that there should be a continuation of this Conference, then, so far as I know, on those bases we should be perfectly prepared to take part.
  When we introduced the Parliament Bill in 1948, the noble Marquess moved an Amendment to the effect:
  "That this House, while re-emphasising 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 …"—
  and then he set out various qualifications. After all, that is the basis of the whole thing. We must be certain that the proposals we are envisaging will give us the chance of a more effective performance of our constitutional duties, otherwise there is no point in it at all.
  May we stop to consider for one moment whether our constitutional duties to-day are well carried out or not? Here, speaking for myself, I am bound to say that the wide composition of the House is in itself a source of strength. My experience of the House has been that if any odd and bizarre subject comes up—let us say, potato growing in Peru, or something of that sort—you will find arriving in the House some noble Lord whom you do not know by sight, but who in the early part of his life engaged in potato growing in Peru. That happens repeatedly; we all know that it happens. The fact that such people can come and give us first-hand information of their experience is, I venture to think, of great
  530
  value to us, and I believe we should be in danger of losing that advantage.
  For my own part, I consider that in the last Parliament this House performed its duties of revision exceedingly well. I quoted to your Lordships on June 8, 1948, these rather surprising figures. I was dealing with the main Bills which we had passed in 1946 and 1947, and I found out that in those two years we had moved and carried, on one side or the other, no fewer than 1,222 Amendments on those Bills alone. And of those 1,222 Amendments, some of them moved by the Government and to meet Opposition wishes, and some moved by the Opposition and carried against the Government, only fifty-seven were rejected when they went down to another place. That is a rather remarkable achievement. In those circumstances, I do not think there was shown to be very much wrong with the composition of the House of Lords. We have to remember that we are not a very logical people. I do not think we approach any of our institutions from the point of view of asking; "Is this entirely logical?" We approach any of our institutions rather from the point of view of asking; "Does it work?"
  The Board of Trade, over which the noble Viscount used to preside, was, in fact, a body of which I think the Archbishop of Canterbury and a number of other people were members. This was, no doubt, very illogical, but it worked very well—I hesitate to say because the Archbishop did not attend, but perhaps it was because others did not attend. Even the great office of Lord Chancellor is a highly illogical office, yet I venture to think that wise people would not want to alter it, because it works very well. In our enthusiasm we ought to stop and consider whether we can be sure that this new body would be one which would be able more effectively to perform its constitutional duties. I think we have to watch that point.
  The other point which the noble Marquess made in his Motion was this. He said of the Parliament Bill at that time that the constitutional issue would serve only to distract the attention of the country from the economic crisis and from the united effort towards recovery which was so vital at that time. I apprehend that the noble Marquess will say that a united effort towards recovery is—I will not say

  531
  even more vital, but at least as vital now as it was then. All these things are factors which should be borne in mind and which should prevent our getting too enthusiastic about this matter—enthusiastic up to the point where we do not see the difficulties. On the other hand, speaking for myself, I should like to see the composition of the House altered. For instance, I think it utterly wrong that we should not have women here. I remember that I had the privilege of sitting in the Cabinet with the late Miss Ellen Wilkinson, and there were occasions when certain questions came up, and her special knowledge was of the greatest value. To give your Lordships an example, I recall that there was once a question of the amount of bread a normal family consumed, or something of that sort. The male members of the Cabinet were able only to wonder about it, but Miss Wilkinson was able to tell us at once. That is just a small illustration. I believe it would be most valuable to have women taking part in our debates here, and that is one reform which I should like to see.
  Again, speaking for myself, I had, as your Lordships know, a number of years' experience as Lord Chancellor and I have now had experience from the Opposition point of view; and this experience rather leads me to think that there may be something wrong. I believe that what is wanted more than a change in the composition of the House is an improvement in the conventions and the practice of the House. Of course, when I was speaking for the Government, as Lord Chancellor, I was speaking with a vast majority against me. I do not know whether I am naturally a rather reasonably-minded person—I hope I am—but, at any rate, in those circumstances I was forced to be reasonable. So far as I possibly could, I had to agree with my adversaries quickly. As many of your Lordships will remember, I used to get them round to my room and we would thresh out our problems frankly and in the most friendly way. Very often I used to be able to meet them on all sorts of topics. If I could not, I explained why it was not possible for me to do so. Sometimes I used to go round to Ministers to try to get them to give way. And the net result of all this was very satisfactory.
  But to-day the position is altered. There is no such pressing necessity on noble
  532
  Lords on the other side of the House to try to meet us, because they can easily put their Bills through. Whereas I had to dodge and manœuvre to try to get a Bill through by concession and good will, they can bludgeon their Bills through. In saying this, be it understood, I do not want to make any charges at all; but I am bound to say that with regard to one Bill recently I did feel that we were not met at all, and we did not have a chance, I thought, of expressing our point of view. We were not summoned to any sort of conference. It was, I thought, typically a Bill on which had we been summoned to a conference we might have gone a long way to get together. I am one of those people who believe that the function of this House ought to be to seek a reasonable compromise between two, possibly harsh, opposing points of view.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am loath to interrupt the noble Earl, but I must remind him that his Party never asked for a conference on that particular Bill.
  EARL JOWITT: I am giving the noble Marquess only my impression. If we could have met, we might have been able to improve the Bill. At any rate, that was my impression. Your Lordships will remember that, owing to the exigencies of time, actually the Third Reading and the Report stage came on the same day, so that there was no opportunity of exercising the privilege which this House normally enjoys of moving Amendments on Third Reading. I am not in the least seeking to complain or to make any grievance. I am trying only to point out that that is the sort of thing which, by meeting together, we ought to try to avoid in the near future when we have, as we shall have, some very important Bills coming forward—Bills dealing with transport and steel and the like. In spite of the fact that the Government have a great majority here, I hope in the interests of everyone they will try to meet us, as we used to do in the old days in different circumstances, to see whether we cannot hammer out some kind of agreement.
  That does not entail any alteration in the composition of the House itself, but does involve some improvement and some development, perhaps, of the system of consultation and the like which we had in the old days. That is what I suggest is wanted, because I think the real criticism

  533
  of this House—and I say this quite frankly—is that whereas when the Labour Party was in power we had a most effective debating Second Chamber here—all our Bills had to be tested in the way I have described—when the Conservative Party is in power, as used to be said by the Liberals, I think with some truth, we have virtually Single-Chamber Government. I am strongly in favour of Double-Chamber Government. I believe the Second Chamber is of great value. But I should like to see a Second Chamber which is a Second Chamber all the time; not only when the Liberals or the Labour Party are in power, but equally when the Conservatives are in power.
  I have indicated, speaking for myself, what I feel at the present time are the two principles on which we should proceed—namely, that there is no question of dealing with powers, and it is nothing more than ad referendum. I for my part, and I hope I speak also for my Party, shall be prepared, if and when invited, to embark on further discussions when the noble Marquess thinks the time has come, if indeed he thinks the time is ever going to come. In the meantime, I hope that the hint I have given—and, as I have said, I do not mean to make any complaint but only to give an illustration—may be accepted. I hope we shall work out machinery, develop a tradition and develop a practice of greater consultation, of seeking to struggle towards a compromise, where all views can be met, with our existing composition. I believe that that would be a far more important contribution towards improving this Second Chamber than any other we could make. I have travelled about the world a good deal and I have discussed this question of a Second Chamber in the Dominions. I find that the view generally held, which I confess I hold myself, is that our Second Chamber compares very favourably indeed with any other. No one wants to have an elected Second Chamber. If we do not, we must well consider that we may easily sacrifice our age-long traditions and habits and not be able to find anything which is more effective in the long run.

  THE SITUATION IN KENYA
  3.30 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for a few moments to make a statement to your Lordships similar to one that is being made in another place at this moment by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The statement is as follows:
  "The situation in Kenya has changed for the worse since I last made a Statement in the House. It is clear that the Government of Kenya will be faced with serious trouble in certain localities for some time to come. There are some encouraging features showing that, although the disturbances are more serious, they are also more localised. Accordingly, large-scale sweeps by troops and police are being abandoned, save in exceptional circumstances. In Nyeri, Kikuyu Home Guards are being successfully formed for four or five locations.
  "There have been several serious incidents, including the stealing of weapons, and some members of Mau Mau are becoming more violent. The Governor proposes to concentrate action in areas where serious crime or Mau Mau meetings occur. This will involve the distasteful, but necessary, procedure of punishment of certain defined areas and the area of punishment will be closely restricted. Stock or bicycles and other transport will be seized if the inhabitants fail to take reasonable steps to prevent crime committed in their locality. In the light of a report or other information, the Governor will decide whether a forfeiture order applying to all or only part of the seized property should be made. Before coming to his decision he will have regard to the extent of the co-operation of the people of the area with the police since the commission of the crime.
  "During the week-end the following serious incidents occurred.

  1. News was received from a small police patrol that a meeting at Kirawara was planning to resist the establishment of a police post. Accordingly, a party of three European officers and

  535
  twenty-three Askaris left Thika Police Station to investigate. They found 2,000 Kikuyu being addressed by a young man who was inciting them to violence. He was arrested and he shouted to the crowd to release him. In face of warnings the crowd rushed at the police party. Two shots were fired into the ground. The crowd fell to the ground but quickly got up and rushed, shouting at the police. A third warning was given and the police did not fire until the crowd were less than ten yards from the nearest policeman. The Governor reported yesterday that fifteen Africans had been killed and twenty-nine wounded.

  2. A gang of Kikuyu, armed with long knives, burst into a European farm near Thompson's Falls and attacked the farmer, named Meiklejohn, and his wife. He has since died, unfortunately, and she is in a dangerous condition.

  3. Another European farm was entered in the same area when the owners were absent. Three rifles, a shot-gun and 250 rounds of assorted ammunition were stolen.

  4. In Fort Hall district, two tribal policemen were murdered.

  5. In South Nyeri, five Africans supposed to have given information to the police were murdered.

  6. A gang of ten or more Kikuyu attacked two Asian shopkeepers near Thompson's Falls shouting, 'We are the Mau Mau.' The Asians fired on them and drove them off.

  "One of the disturbing features of recent incidents has been the theft of arms and ammunition. Although trouble may be less widespread in future, it is likely to be more serious when it does occur. The Kenya Government have already modified their plans to meet the changing situation, and I am in consultation with the Governor about further steps which may be taken."
  3.35 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has set before us the serious state of affairs in Kenya, which we all very much regret. I was glad to hear that the trouble has not spread to other tribes. As we are to debate the matter to-morrow, I do not
  536
  intend to pursue it at any length to-day, but I should like to clear up one point in the statement which the noble Earl has just made. As I understand it, he said that the Governor would have to authorise the imposition of any serious measures, such as the seizure of the stock. In the Press to-day there is a report that not the Governor but district officers now have power to close shops, markets, and even the huts where Africans live. In the highlands, where Europeans live, and in the forests, they will be able to seize the crops of resident labourers and their contracts—I do not quite know what that means. I do not see how one can seize contracts, but that is what the report says. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, in fact, it is the Governor who authorises these actions, or whether it is a district officer. Further, I should like to ask him whether it is true, as reported in the Daily Telegraph to-day, that out of 3,000 cattle seized in Nyeri, 1,000 have died through lack of food and water, and whether he considers that is the right way to treat animals, whether belonging to Kikuyu or otherwise.
  3.37 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as my noble friend said, this is not the occasion for discussing this matter, but I am sure we shall all wish to express our sympathy with the victims, African and European, of these dastardly attacks, and with their relations. I think this is the right moment to ask the noble Earl whether he will carefully consider a suggestion I wish to make. The suggestion is that a committee of inquiry should be appointed to look into and make recommendations about the incident at Kilawara, to which he has just referred. I have been looking up the precedents and I see that the precedents since the war show that it is now a general rule in the Colonies that a committee of inquiry is appointed (that is the appropriate Governmental procedure) when the police are obliged to fire on a riotous crowd and, as a consequence, a number of people are killed and injured. This seems to be very much in accordance with British ideas of justice and fair play.
  I listened very carefully to the noble Earl's statement and I think there are one or two questions which it did not clear up and which could be cleared up

  537
  by an impartial and independent committee of inquiry. First, how was it that a gathering of 2,000 Africans was able to assemble when public meetings were banned under the Defence Regulations? How was it that this illegal gathering had not been detected earlier at a less dangerous stage? Secondly, how was it that this small body of police tried themselves to arrest members of this hostile crowd, instead of waiting for reinforcements? They knew that the temper of the crowd was extremely hostile and dangerous. Why were the police not supplied with tear gas? This might have saved them from having to use their firearms. I do not know whether the Kenya police are equipped with tear gas or not. If they are not, that is a question that deserves the most careful consideration.
  There may be, and probably are, perfectly satisfactory answers to all these questions, but I think these questions ought to be answered, and the right body to answer them is not the Government, which some people might consider a biased and partial body, but an independent body such as has been appointed on the previous occasions—I will not mention them because the noble Earl knows them as well as I do. I do hope—especially as this single event will have wide repercussions, and will be greatly misrepresented and distorted, both in Africa and elsewhere, by people who dislike our system of Colonial rule—that we shall have the advantage of the views of an absolutely independent body, views which we can point to as being the authoritative record of the facts which the noble Earl has just described.
  3.41 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Munster, in addition, whether this proposed committee will also inquire how it came about that three youths, two with no experience at all, one having had only six weeks, and the other only a month in the Army, were sent into this difficult position; and what instructions they received. Those are points which should be included in the inquiry,
  538
  which I trust the noble Earl will grant, as it is entirely in accordance with precedent.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps I may endeavour to reply to some of the questions which have been addressed to me. In the first place, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked about the number of cattle that, according to a report which he read in the Press, have died. I have no information about that matter at the moment. I hope that I shall have information upon it by the time your Lordships discuss the Kenya situation to-morrow, and that I shall then be in a position to reply to the noble Lord. He also asked whether the district officers have powers to close shops, markets, and the like. I should imagine that the authority which the Governor has is probably delegated to the district officers, and that gives them the power which they necessarily need in those circumstances.
  I now turn to deal with the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about whether a committee of inquiry will be set up to consider this incident. I should like to consult my right honourable friend on this particular point. So far as I am aware, with the information which is at our disposal at the present time, the incident which took place is fairly clearly outlined in the statement that I have just made to the House. Nevertheless, I will consult my right honourable friend between now and tomorrow, and I hope that I shall then be in a position to give the noble Earl further information on the point. As to the matter raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I think I should point out that, as I understand it, these three European officers and twenty-three Askaris were not soldiers, but police officers. I will check up on that point also between now and to-morrow.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. It does seem to me to be overstraining the capacity of boys (and they are only boys) to send them to face a hostile African mob—I do not know on what instructions. When forty-four casualties were inflicted by twenty-three soldiers, there must have been a good deal of firing.

  HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
  3.43 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the two speakers in this debate who have offered their good wishes to the new Ministers, and especially to say how glad we are that the noble Marquess who leads the House with such brilliancy will still continue as our Leader. I rise to support, with a certain amount of reservation, the appeal which has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that an all-Party Conference should be held on the subject of the reform of the House of Lords. I say "with a certain amount of reservation," for I feel that such a Conference will be useless unless those who are members of it are prepared to make, on one side or the other or on both sides, some advance on the conclusions which they reached on the last occasion. If they go into this Conference with the same opinions, the Conference will end in the same deadlock and will then be a waste of time; it will cause a good deal of irritation, and will deepen that fatalistic pessimism with which so many now approach any question of the reform of the House of Lords.
  I, myself, feel that it would be wise at the present time to separate (I know how difficult it will be) the questions of the constitution, the composition and the powers of the House of Lords. In principle, I agree with those who feel that the House of Lords should have more power than it has at the present time. I should be glad to see something which would strengthen the House of Lords in checking any hasty legislation which may possibly be imposed in the future. But I feel that it is outside the realm of practical politics at the moment to strengthen the powers of the House of Lords. I cannot find anywhere any enthusiasm for this course. I find no great enthusiasm for it among the rank and file of Conservatives, so far as I know them; they give a formal assent, but there is no enthusiasm. Undoubtedly, any attempt to strengthen the powers of the House of Lords would meet with strenuous opposition from various quarters. Once again there would be a long, difficulty controversy, and again that controversy would probably end in a deadlock. It would
  540
  be impossible to increase the powers of the House of Lords without general agreement. Otherwise, if one Party in power carried through a proposal for increasing the powers of this House, probably when another Party came into power there would be introduced a Bill to reverse that decision. Therefore, I feel it would be far wiser to concentrate on the composition of the House of Lords, on which already there is a large amount of agreement.
  I feel that I may claim to be a House of Lords man. I have been a member of this House for something like thirty years—a long time for a Bishop. I used to be a regular attendant, and should still attend more frequently but for the distance between York and London. During those thirty years what has impressed me most of all in this House is that when a great national or international problem is discussed it is discussed on the highest level; and this House, through those discussions, has a great influence on the country as a whole. This is partly due to the fact, as the noble and learned Earl has already pointed out, that we have in this House experts on all kinds of questions. I know that when I speak on any subject I am haunted by the thought that I shall probably be followed by some noble Lord who knows a great deal more about the matter than I do; and I am certain that many noble Lords are conscious of the fact that in the House there are many who are real experts on a number of different subjects. In the atmosphere of this House it is possible to debate these matters quietly and without much interruption. Another great quality of this House is that it will listen to any speaker, however far he is from being an orator, provided he knows his subject and exercises the quality of brevity. Therefore, this House has a great influence—a great educative influence—and helps to form opinion in the country. I believe that if the composition of the House of Lords was strengthened, that influence would be still greater than it is at the present time.
  There is general agreement, I believe, on what is required to strengthen the House of Lords. It has been pointed out that our numbers are too great. It is, indeed, unfortunate that there are so many members who never attend, but it would be a disaster if all regularly

  541
  attended. There is general agreement that the membership of the House should be smaller than it is at present. There is general agreement, also, that the House should be more representative; that we should have women members and more members who had direct experience of the mill, the factory and the docks. Again, there is general agreement that the hereditary principle needs to be modified so that there should be a larger proportion of members in this House who are first creations or who are Life Peers.
  The most frequently repeated charge against this House is that it is a House of one Party—that it is a Conservative House. Here again there is general recognition on both sides of the House that this state of affairs should be remedied. I think in honesty I should add that it is going to be a difficult matter to prevent a Second Chamber from being Conservative in its outlook, for when we are over the age of fifty we naturally become more conservative, it may be because with experience wisdom has increased, or it may be through the hardening of the intellectual arteries. I will not say which of those explanations is right. But there is, and there is bound to be, a tendency for any Second Chamber to be more Conservative than Radical in its outlook. However, it is a weakness of this House that, with whatever restraint a Conservative Party in power or in Opposition uses its majority, it is regarded as largely a House of one Party.
  On these matters there is general agreement, and the proposals which are put forth are practical proposals. If they could be accepted without tying them up with an increase of our powers, I believe that the educative and moral influence of the House of Lords throughout the country would be greatly increased. That is why stress should be laid on the composition of the House of Lords rather than on its powers. Then I hope that eventually the powers of the House of Lords may be increased. Here I differ from the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition. I believe that if the House of Lords was more representative and was strengthened in various ways, in time, through its impartiality and its wisdom, it would so win the confidence of the country that its powers might be increased. I hope, therefore, that a Conference may be held, but before it is held I hope that, through the usual
  542
  channels—whatever that term may mean—some attempt will be made to discover whether there is any likelihood of success. If there is no likelihood of success, the holding of such a Conference will postpone, rather than help forward, our wishes for reform of the composition of this House.
  3.53 p.m.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I am one of the few of your Lordships who was present in the House when this matter was debated in 1925, and I spent an hour reading with interest, and not without amusement, what was then said. Lord Birkenhead said that it was quite impossible that the House could continue as it was then. That was twenty-seven years ago, and I am still here. Then there was Lord Buckmaster. He gave as one of his reasons for wishing that the composition of the House should be changed that it was necessary for the Labour Party to be represented in this House. He said that no member of the Labour Party would ever accept an hereditary Peerage. We are all very glad that that little difficulty has been overcome. Every member of the Conservative Party who took part in that debate gave as a condition for altering the composition of the House that it should be given increased powers. That, I believe, is the opinion of the Conservative Party to-day. I do not think any members of the Conservative Party, or very few of them, would willingly see its composition altered unless it was given increased powers. To abolish the House of Lords and create a Senate would not, I think, commend itself to the Conservative Party. Of course, I am not speaking for the Front Bench. The noble Viscount compared the Conservative Party to a saurian. If it is a saurian, it differs from other saurians in that the brains are not confined to the head. Whether the head is willing to alter the composition of the House without giving it increased powers, I do not know. But the main body of the Party is, I am sure, opposed to it.
  The representative of the Labour Party on that occasion was Lord Haldane. As usual, he made an excellent speech, in which he said much the same as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said to-day. I do not know whether the noble Earl has read Lord Haldane's speech, but it is remarkable how he agrees

  543
  with that very distinguished man, both in his view that the House of Lords might well be left as it is to-day, and also in his expression of opinion that, whatever the composition of the House, the Labour Party will not consent to any increase in its powers. Lord Haldane said that most emphatically, as the noble Earl has said it to-day. We seem to have reached this point; that it is impossible to make any alteration in the constitution of your Lordships' House unless one of the great political Parties abandons its principles. That being the case, it seems to me that the sensible thing to do is to leave it alone.
  3.57 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my principal reason for intervening to-day is that I am able to bring to a discussion of this kind an attitude I have gathered from many years' experience over the country as an election worker, and because, since becoming a member of your Lordships' House, I have made it my business to become acquainted with the everyday business of the Assembly, and I know something of its trials and something of its problems. May I say one word on my earlier life, which I hope will not be taken as too much of a challenge, because I think that in these days a challenge would be quite out of place in discussing a very important subject such as this? At a General Election nowadays there are three Parties and three Party leaders. Each of the Parties and each of the leaders appeals to the people of the country for five years of power, and almost every speaker who takes part in the Election, whether he is a Member of the Commons or of your Lordships' House, also asks for a period of five years of power for his Party or leader. Early on I came to the conclusion that, although the people might be willing to give five years of office and five years of power to a particular Party, there was only one Party to whom they could guarantee five years of power—and that is the Conservative Party. They could guarantee to give years of power to the Conservative Party because that Party already has a majority in your Lordships' House. But if they elect a Labour Government, based upon the majority in the Commons, then the authority of that Government has to be shared with the majority Party in this House.
  544
  Speaking as an old election agent, as a man who believes in the value of "one man, one vote," and "one vote, one value," I would say that elections carried on under those conditions are not good for a democratic community; and if I may be guided at this time by that one point alone, I should say that the sooner we can have a Conference the better; and the sooner we can reach a conclusion the better, because then the sooner shall we free the electorate so that it has a chance of voting Liberal, Labour or Conservative, as the case may be, and of making quite sure that in so doing five years of power for that Party would result. I need not dwell on that point. I think I have said sufficient to indicate that in this House we should not strive for further power, because that would take us further away from democracy. What I do think we should strive to obtain is authority. Authority is very important, because it can be based on real values; and if we can bring that kind of authority into this House, then it seems to me that we shall have surmounted the difficulties that confront us at the moment.
  The next matter which I wish to mention is that of the revising powers of the House, because it is here, I think, that we have more to gain than in any other direction. Under the Parliament Act, 1949, this House has power to delay the passage of a Bill for a period of time. That is quite an unimportant matter, but it can be very irritating to a Party in office if they have not a majority in your Lordships' House. It is important that in this House the revising powers of the Chamber should mean the same thing all the time; they should not mean one thing under Labour and another thing when the Conservative Party are in office. The powers should be equally distributed to prove acceptable. I want to bring this question of revising powers before your Lordships in a concrete way, and I ask the noble Marquess who is to reply to this debate to give further thought to the views that he himself has expressed from time to time.
  My noble and learned Leader, Lord Jowitt, has already made reference to the debate that took place on the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill, and has expressed the view that on that occasion we were not treated as we have a right to expect, for the reason that the Bill had been delayed in another place and

  545
  came to us only at the last minute. Even though there had been a desire in this House for full consideration, that full consideration was denied us because of the delay in another place. From February until July that Bill was hung up and received no attention in that Chamber. When we took the Third Reading of the Bill we made our complaint, and asked for information on what were the revising powers of this Chamber and what were the rights of those who desired to make a change. The noble Marquess who is to reply to-day said (OFFICIAL, REPORT, Vol. 178, Col. 1009):
  "Every Amendment which any noble Lord puts forward in this House, in whatever part of the House he may happen to sit, has a perfect right to be considered on its merits,"—
  So far, so good. The noble Marquess then went on:
  "and with a genuine desire to see whether it is what may be called a constructive Amendment; and it is the right of any Government to decide whether, in their view, at any rate, such Amendments are constructive or merely wrecking."
  Well, my Lords, I should like to know what is meant by a constructive Amendment. Is it one which strengthens a Bill or diminishes its force? Does it add something to the Bill or does it take something away? Has it for its purpose delayed action, pending a General Election, or is it concerned merely with dots and commas, phrasing or drafting? It is important that we should realise what a constructive Amendment is, if that is to be our guide, because it is only (and I agree with my noble friend on this) by establishing a body of practice in this House that we shall build up the good will that eventually will allow us mutually to settle our problems. But as long as we are guided by phrases of that kind, without distinction or meaning, we shall find ourselves in constant difficulty.
  I want now to refer to the discussions on another Bill, the Iron and Steel Bill, when it was before this House. On that occasion the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 163. Col. 553):
  "… I say again that I believe this House might well have felt justified in rejecting this measure en Second Reading and, in doing so, they might fairly have claimed that they had
  546
  the majority of the people behind them. If I did advise that course to your Lordships it was because I have always believed that it is the function of your Lordships' House not so much to interpret the will of the people as to give the people an opportunity of expressing their own views …"
  The question I should like to put to the noble Marquess is this. Is that Amendment, which delayed the coming into life of the Steel Bill until an Election had been fought, a constructive Amendment or a wrecking Amendment? I venture to say that if we of the Labour Party had had responsibility for that Amendment it would have been described by noble Lords opposite as a wrecking Amendment. I mention those two points because it seems that if this House is going to carry through its function of revision, and if both sides are to work together, and not in opposition to one another, there should be agreement as to the main basis upon which that work is performed. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in that debate made a speech similar to that made by the noble Marquess, to which I have just referred. He agreed that the House would be right in refusing that Bill a Second Reading, but advised noble Lords instead that the Bill should be held up, pending a General Election.
  It has been suggested that perhaps in these discussions which took place in 1947—that is, before this measure came on to the Statute Book—we came very near to a settlement. I wish that I could believe that. It is true that in certain respects there was agreement; but on the main point, whether this House should have power to refuse a Second Reading to a Bill sent up by the House of Commons, there was no agreement at all. Perhaps I might put it more plainly if I were to quote the then Leader of this House, the late Lord Addison. He put the matter very clearly indeed—so clearly that I am sure it is worth repetition. He said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 163, Col. 566):
  "We have taken the view, and we stand unalterably upon it, that we will not accept that this unrepresentative House, completely unelected, shall be able to demand a second mandate of the people."—
  That is quite clear and distinct. I am sure that my Party would never agree to it, and that Lord Addison, when he spoke, expressed that view for all of us.

  547
  He went on:
  "and shall refuse to give authority to Bills introduced in the fourth Session of a Parliament by a Government with a large majority in the representative Chamber. We refuse absolutely to accept that position. I say to your Lordships that the Labour Party will never accept it, and it will be a very undesirable thing if this House insists upon it."
  I have started in a way which would seem to suggest that we are unsympathetic to a further Conference, or that we are not anxious to bring about a better state of affairs. That, I think, would be a quite wrong conclusion to reach of the purpose of my speech. So far as the first part is concerned, I am content to point out the stark nakedness of the actual position. This, however, is what I myself would suggest—my noble friend has already mentioned it. In this House, when the Party to which I belong were in office, it was the common practice for the members of the Conservative Party to lay upon the Table a large number of Amendments to Bills of a Government character. Sometimes before the Committee stage, more frequently between the Committee stage and the Report stage, often between the Report stage and Third Reading—and, indeed, on Third Reading—discussions took place between the Parties. Sometimes agreement was reached; sometimes no agreement was reached and the Amendments were dropped. Sometimes the Conservative Party took the House to a Division to force their views forward. Those discussions meant, on the part of the Conservative Party, a departure from their past. They meant a reluctance to deal with the Labour Party's Bills as they had dealt with the Liberal Party's Bills between 1906 and 1910. For that we can be thankful. It was a step in the right direction.
  In the present House, the Labour Opposition work on a plan that we will not divide the House against a First Reading, a Second Reading or a Third Reading of Bills, for, in effect, a vote given against the Reading of those Bills would tend towards the veto which used to be the property of your Lordships' House. We now concentrate on the Committee stage and Report stage of Bills, and we bring our Amendments forward, not because we are anxious to obstruct the Bills but because we desire that in another place a further opportunity
  548
  should be given to consider the issues involved. Then, when the other place has considered those Amendments, of which we may have been fortunate enough to secure approval, we in this House shall accept the verdict of the other place. That is another step in the right direction. But I think we can go even further than that. I believe that, if the noble Marquess and his colleagues, and my noble and learned Leader and his colleagues on this Bench, who from time to time find differences existing between them, met to consider them, we should then be on the right road. But I am convinced of this. In the settlement that is to come, it will not be so much the Labour Party giving way, because the Labour Party has little or nothing to give away. Let us face it. It will mean a sacrifice on the part of the Conservative Party, because they have the power; they can now decide. It will be for them to give way, so that there may be an approximation to co-operation in the House. If that is done, I am sure of this. It would not be wise to press for an early Conference to consider either the composition or the powers of the House. Let us get away from doctrine if we can. Let us establish a body of practice, and when we have established that body of practice, in the good old British way, then I think we shall find the other problems concerning us much easier to solve.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, as one of those privileged to be elected to sit in your Lordships' House by virtue of the Act of Union of 1707, and having been lucky in the last election, I should like to say how cordially I agree with the closing remarks in the speeches of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that the matter should be left where it is. I cordially endorse the views of the two noble Lords. If I may, I would venture again to make a plea for life peerages for those in the scientific and technological fields. We all know how vitally important it is to apply the lessons of science and technology. It would be of immense value to your Lordships' House if people who lead in these and allied fields could be appointed Life Peers. I suggested such a practice some time ago, but apparently there is some difficulty. But since the most reverend Primate, His Grace the Archbishop of

  549
  York, has mentioned the matter, I venture, as an engineer, again to submit that point to your Lordships. I hope that the other matter under discussion will be left to rest.
  4.17 p.m.
  EARL WAVELL: My Lords, may I, as a young hereditary Peer who has always had encouragement to speak, make one point impromptu? I believe it is a corollary of the scheme proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that hereditary Peers should be allowed to continue to sit and speak in your Lordships' House and to exercise all rights—for instance, the right of writing to Ministers—but not to vote.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I did not say that.
  EARL WAVELL: I did not say that the noble Viscount said it. I said that some people have put it forward as a corollary of his proposals and, as one who ardently wishes a reform of your Lordships' House and who believes it a complete anachronism that a young and junior officer like myself should have a right to vote, I believe that this suggestion does meet some of the difficulties. I think it meets the objections of those who are against any change. It meets the difficulty put, forward by the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition, who said that there might be someone with a great, expert knowledge of growing potatoes in Peru (as there are others in this House who have a variety of knowledge on different matters), and if an hereditary Peer could continue to sit and speak, we could still have the benefit of that knowledge. It meets the difficulty also of those of us who are in the fighting Services and in other Government services, who naturally spend a great deal of our service time abroad and who can be stationed in this country only occasionally.
  Under any plan to create Life Peers as Lords of Parliament, those people will inevitably be people who have risen to the top of their profession; they will be older people; so this proposal enables the younger people, who are usually hereditary Peers, still to sit and speak, but not to vote. The noble Viscount in his plan said that the hereditary Peers who were not made Lords of Parliament should then have the right to vote and
  550
  stand for election in another place. One could not have it both ways. If one, as an hereditary Peer, had once exercised a vote at an election, then for the duration of that particular Parliament one would not be able to sit and speak in this House. One could perhaps choose between these two alternatives.
  4.20 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before I come to the substance of this debate, perhaps you will allow me to give my grateful thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for the all too kind things that they have said about me personally. In some ways this is for me a very sad day. The Commonwealth Relations Office is a great office. As the main link between Her Majesty's Government in this country and the other members of the Commonwealth, it is now, I profoundly believe, one of the highest and most important offices in the State. I must confess that I have been both intensely proud and extremely happy in that office. On the other hand, I have been fortunate in being privileged to take over another great position, one, I suppose, at least equally distinguished, and for that I am equally grateful. I can assure the noble Viscount that so far as the scientific side of my new activities is concerned shall do my best. I cannot pretend to have the equipment which my grandfather had. As the noble Viscount will know, he was a distinguished chemist, which I certainly am not; but, however haltingly, I shall do my best to follow in his footsteps. Above all, it is, as I am sure you will believe, an intense happiness to me to feel that I shall be continuing to lead your Lordships' House. It has been my good fortune to occupy the position of a leader, either in office or in Opposition, for a good many years now, and I think it is a sign of the tolerance which is one of your Lordships' most noted virtues that you have stood me for so long. If you will bear with me just a little longer, I assure you that I will do my best to serve the interests both of your Lordships and of the House.
  Now I will turn to the subject of debate. I am sure no one in this House will complain that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has raised again a subject so near to his heart and, indeed, as he will know, to my own. Of course, he has a far longer experience of the subject than

  551
  I have; I think he has an experience which goes back for over forty years. In his young days he wanted to prune this House of the powers that it had till then exercised. It is certainly not my purpose to-day to argue that the powers possessed by your Lordships' House before 1911 should now be restored. I do not think that any responsible person would argue that that would be a good cause, for, after all, whether the House of Lords exercised those powers well or ill (on the whole, I do not think they did quite so badly as is sometimes thought) times have greatly changed since then, and no one would suggest nowadays that, so far as the power to deal with legislation is concerned, the House of Lords should be anything more than a junior partner to the House of Commons. I think that is common ground in all Parties.
  If I have harked back as far as 1911, it is to stress the remarkable fact that the noble Viscount, who was hitherto anxious to reduce the powers of the House and who certainly would not be called by anyone who knows him a friend of reaction, now feels that perhaps the pendulum is swinging almost too far. As I understand his argument, he is pressing for a reform of one kind or another. I do not propose to follow him to-day and embark upon a discussion of what is the correct type of reform, but he is pressing for some reform to enable this House to perform its proper function under the Constitution; and, as I understand it, that is the reason why he has put down this Motion to-day. Of course, there is nothing illogical in what may appear to be a change in his attitude. In any bicameral Constitution there must be a proper balance between the two Houses. It is just as dangerous that the balance should be overset one way as the other. Indeed, I submit—and I hope it may not be regarded as very conservative to say this—that it may well be even more dangerous to overset the balance in the direction of giving a Second Chamber too little power than it is to give it too much. At the same time, I would fully agree with the noble Lords opposite that both would be wrong.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has often, and rightly so, pointed out in this House—true it is not a matter to which he gave so much attention to-day, but I have heard him argue it—that we in this
  552
  country have an unwritten Constitution and it is possible for the whole edifice of the State to be overturned by a single vote in the First Chamber, quite possibly entirely against the will of the people, unless there exists some power of delay to enable the British people, the electorate or whatever you may care to call them, to understand the issues involved and to make their views clear upon them. As I see it, that is the main function of a Second Chamber, and certainly it is the main constitutional function of your Lordships' House. Ultimately, it is far more important than any of these other functions of revising or of discussing great topics, to which reference has been made this afternoon; for it should ensure, not necessarily by an Election but by their declaring their views in no uncertain manner, that the people will finally decide the destiny of their country. Therefore, as I see it, the function of this House is not to contravert, to thwart or to flout the will of the people—certainly not that—nor even to interpret it, but to allow time for the people to form and to express their own view.
  That, as I understand, is the broad principle which the noble Viscount intended to enunciate to-day in the light of a long political life, and that is the broad principle which I should have thought nearly all of us must support, to whatever Party we belong. No doubt there will be varying views as to the nature of the reform that may be needed. While it is inevitable that we should not all see eye to eye on a difficult technical question of this kind, there is no reason why we should regard difficulties of that nature as insurmountable. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, I think, said that complete agreement was reached four years ago on composition. I should like to think that that was quite true, but the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will probably agree with me in saying that the noble Viscount went a little too far.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: On the principles.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, to the best of my recollection there was no final agreement reached on composition or even on the principles. The discussions started with composition and

  553
  then they moved to powers. So far as I can remember, no final agreement was reached on composition.
  EARL JOWITT: That is quite right.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It is a pity that there should be any Misunderstanding about that. The Conference definitely resolved that if they had been able to come to agreement on powers they would have submitted these nine points to their Parties as the principles on which a settlement could be reached with regard to composition.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, but no detailed scheme as to composition was accepted, and my impression was that same small gap—perhaps not a very large one—still existed.
  EARL JOWITT: May I intervene? As the noble Marquess may remember, we promised to submit proposals if we got full agreement, so that the necessary details could be worked out.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So what I said was, broadly speaking, correct. The reason why no final agreement was reached is a matter of opinion. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, permitted himself a mild gibe on the subject. He said that the heads of the Labour and Conservative Parties were wagged by long and unmanageable tails. I cannot speak for the Party of noble Lords opposite; I do not know what their motive was. But I can assure the noble Viscount that that was not the reason which actuated the Party to which I belong. If I may be allowed a very mild joke on my own side, I could not help thinking, as I listened, that whatever may have been true about us, this wagging of long and unmanageable tails is an uncomfortable experience which is not likely to afflict the head of the Liberal Party. But what the noble Viscount in his humorous metaphor did not mention was the body. He mentioned "head" and "tail," but he never mentioned the "body." I can hardly believe that he meant to suggest that the heads of political Parties, in any circumstances, can afford to ignore the opinion of the main bodies of their Parties. To that extent any decision which was reached by the Leaders in those discussions in which we all took part four years ago was bound, as the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, said, to be ad referendum.
  554
  All we could do was to get as near as we could to agreement. Then it had to be referred by the Leaders of each of the Parties to their supporters.
  I should like at this point to say a word with regard to the suggestion made by the most reverend Primate in the very wise and moderate speech which he delivered to your Lordships this afternoon. He suggested the desirability in any further discussions which might take place of separating—at least this is what I understood him to suggest—theaspect of composition from the aspect of power, and concentrating upon composition. I think, at first sight, that that is a very attractive idea. I can assure him, speaking for my own Party, that that suggestion, like all others, will be carefully considered when the time comes. But I should not like him or the House to ignore the fact that even then there are considerable difficulties over such a course. After all, when one is trying to decide what powers the House ought to have, one is bound to take into account who are the people who are going to exercise those powers. One is bound to bear in mind that powers which a House of one type of composition might be perfectly fitted to exercise would not be at all suitable for a House of different composition. Therefore I assure the most reverend Primate that, as we all found in 1948, it is very difficult to separate entirely these two aspects.
  Having said that, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that we did find an unexpected measure of agreement four years ago. And I do not see any good reason why the same should not be true again, if the will to agree is really there. I should like to think that that will is there, but I am bound to say that such reactions as we have had up to now from the Opposition are not very encouraging. I hope that on further thought they will become more forthcoming. When the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, raised this subject—I think it was about six months ago, in May, 1952—the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, really did his best on behalf of his Party to bang the door on any discussion. He has not been much more forthcoming to-day—he has been rather more forthcoming, but not much.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, took a very bleak view. He said, without frills and furbelows, and quite frankly, that if

  555
  these negotiations—at least, so I understood him to say—are to be successful, it must be the Conservative Party that must make all the concessions. The Labour Party, he said, had nothing to give away. We made most of the concessions last time—and we were happy to do so—to try to get agreement. But, really, to start negotiation on the basis that you have nothing to give away is not likely to lead either to a very friendly or a very fruitful discussion. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, as I understood, said, without any prejudice to the question whether it would be right to raise this matter at the proper time, that he did not think the present moment was entirely and in all respects appropriate. That argument about inappropriateness of time is becoming a sort of theme song for the Opposition. We heard it voiced, I remember, over the question of Seretse Khama, and then over the question of Central African Federation—
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does the noble Marquess remember assuring the House that as soon as it was clear that Seretse Khama was not going back the tribe would choose a new chief? But they did not do it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount, as usual, is rather too impatient. Things are not going so badly as he thinks—or not so well as he hopes—I do not know which. We have heard this argument used on many other subjects, and now we hear these melodious notes of procrastination sounded again on this subject. As I think I have said before, if you are a responsible Government you cannot always pigeonhole every important issue on those grounds. If you are to wait in politics till the moment is entirely appropriate you will never do I anything at all. I hope, with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that it will not be necessary to wait till then, though I agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that there must be priorities of urgency. Clearly that must be so. But I do not think that you can wait till the ideal moment, because the ideal moment seldom comes.
  The noble and learned Earl said, or implied, that in his view the system is not too unsatisfactory as it is, and that he really did not see any urgent reason
  556
  for change. It is very agreeable for us on this side of your Lordships' House to know that the noble Earl and those who support him are so thoroughly happy about the present composition and direction of your Lordships' House. They have indeed, voiced certain criticisms of the conduct of business in recent weeks, and, in particular, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, complained as I understood them, of lack of Parliamentary time and of the facilities for consultation given in the case of a particular Bill not many weeks ago. I realise that the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, gave that as an instance. He made it clear that he was not making a serious complaint. I do not want to make too heavy weather of it, but it would be a pity if a wrong impression should go out to the public. Therefore. I should like to say that so far as Parliamentary time is concerned, I am sure that Lord Shepherd will agree that this was no last minute arrangement. The timetable for this Bill was arranged through the usual channels as far back as July, before we went away, and there were no complaints about it then. I agree that the time was short, but, as the noble Lord has very fairly said, the reason it was not longer was not our fault; it was due to delay in another place. But the timetable, I understand, was arranged through the usual channels.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I quite agree, but when arrangements were being made it was impressed upon me that, owing to the delay that had already taken place elsewhere and the requirements of the timetable of Business in this House, we should have to take the measure through all its stages very quickly indeed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is perfectly true, but I think the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, rather gave the impression that the House had been hustled at the last moment, and I should not like that impression to remain.
  EARL JOWITT: And I thought so. The fact that we had Report and Third Reading on the same day is to my mind conclusive proof that that was so. I know that the noble Marquess did his best, and I know that we had to get the Bill back to another place in time to obtain the Royal Assent; but I think that

  557
  whenever we get Report and Third Reading on the same day this House is quite unable to do its work properly.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree with the noble Earl. Broadly speaking, it is an undesirable procedure. But the point is that it was not rushed upon the House when the House came back after the Summer Recess. The time-table of the House was put to noble Lords opposite before we went into Recess, and it would have been perfectly open to the noble Earl to come to me then, but he did not do so.
  May I now say a word about consultation? We were told that there were no facilities for consultation. Consultation was not asked for. There were other Bills, not mentioned in the speeches this afternoon—the Dentists Bill and others—where consultation was requested; and we had consultation. I can only yet once again assure noble Lords opposite that it will be my object, so long as I am leading this House, to ensure that all possible facilities are given to the Opposition. If they think that the facilities are not adequate, I beg them to come to me and I will do my best to put things right. I do not say that I shall always succeed, but I shall do my very utmost. I hope that in the passage of time we shall workout arrangements to enable the House to have as full co-operation as possible, now that we are in office and no longer in Opposition. I cannot do more than that. I do not say that every arrangement will work. I do not say that there will not be, on occasion, complaints from the Opposition, which they may have every right to make; but we shall do our best to work together as we should.
  I should like to reply to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He quoted some words of mine, in which I said that it would be for the Government to decide whether an Amendment was constructive or not. He asked me what on earth I meant by that. I do not know whether "constructive" was the right word to use, but what I meant was; Does the Amendment improve the Bill, or not? That is what I meant, and that is what I feel the Government must decide, so far as it lies in our power, as the House will decide finally. I am quite sure that noble Lords opposite, if they were sitting on this side of the House,
  558
  would take exactly the same view as I am taking this afternoon.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, went on to say: Look at the Steel Bill Amendment that was introduced by your Lordships in the last Parliament in order to ensure that the Steel Bill would not come into force until a certain date which must come after the General Election. He asked, did I regard that as a constructive or a wrecking Amendment? We frankly regarded it as a purely constructive Amendment. Its purpose was perfectly simple. We felt that the people should have an opportunity of giving an opinion on that Bill, and that the Government should know that the people were behind that Bill. In the event, that did not work out, perhaps, very satisfactorily for either Party, because neither Party could have argued that the people had decided for them. The Government crept into office with a very small majority and took advantage of it to implement the Steel Bill. The Opposition had lost a great many seats so that it could not be claimed that the people favoured the policy which they were pursuing. The Amendment was a perfectly constitutional one, and to my mind a perfectly proper and constructive, one.
  Broadly speaking, I would agree with what has been said by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, this afternoon—namely, that this system in your Lordships' House does not work badly with things as they are at present; that is to say, while we have a moderate Government (I do not mean only this Government; I would apply that also to the sort of Government of which the noble Earl himself is likely to be a member), supported by a moderate majority in another place. Under these conditions, I do not think this House works badly. But there is always a danger, which we must not ignore—though it does not seem to be a very immediate one—that, as the result of one of those strange aberrations which are always possible in politics, some more extreme Government, whether of the Left or of the Right, may at some time come into power and use that power for purposes which have not in reality the support of the majority of the British people. I believe that if such an event as that were to occur it would be found that the safeguards of the Constitution in respect of the powers and authority of this House

  559
  would prove to have worn much thinner than the noble Lords on the other side of the House at present think. Therefore, I hope that we shall not allow ourselves to be deterred by any doubts or hesitations from embarking on the action which in our view the interests of the country seem to demand.
  As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, reminded your Lordships this afternoon, the Government made it clear at the time of the Election that they proposed to call an all-Party Conference to discuss the reform of the House of Lords. That is still our firm purpose, I would assure the noble Viscount, for if it is possible—I hope it may be possible, and I say this most sincerely—we should all infinitely prefer to obtain this reform by general agreement. The noble Viscount asked when this Conference would be called. In answer to what, I would refer him to a reply which was given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on November 13, when he said that
  "The questioner may rest assured that we shall take steps to call the Conference to which this Question refers as soon as matters of greater urgency in the present state of national affairs have been despatched."
  That, I believe, was the only answer which the Prime Minister could have given, and it is the only answer I can give the noble Viscount to-day.
  If it is not indelicate to mention such a matter in this Assembly, we did inherit a pretty formidable situation from our predecessors, and ever since we came in we have been wrestling with the problems which they left. It seems to us that the need to tackle the harsh realities of our economic and financial situation outweighs everything else. To-day, happily, that situation is improving. I do not say for one moment that we are out of the wood, but we are beginning to see some light through the trees, and it may be—sooner, perhaps, than the noble Viscount expects—we shall be able to take the first steps to secure a further examination of this vitally important subject. I give no promise to-day, but I hope very sincerely that that may be so. When that time comes, we shall ask for the co-operation of all in your Lordships' House, irrespective of Party, to whom the stability of this country is dear. We hope that that co-operation will be
  560
  fully and sincerely given, for on the continuance of a Second Chamber which conforms both in powers and composition to the needs of the time in which we live may well depend the survival of those ancient rights and liberties of the British people of which noble Lords, I know, regard your Lordships' House, now, as in the past, as most zealous guardians.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his reply, from which I draw considerable encouragement. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  PROPOSED VISIT OF POLISH LAWYERS
  4.50 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether visas have been refused to a party of Polish lawyers, including two Supreme Court judges, who proposed to visit this country to study British judicial methods and practice; and, if so, what are the reasons for this refusal; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of my Motion arose out of a notice in the newspapers. I want the noble Earl who, I understand, is to reply for the Government to realise that I knew nothing whatever about the matter, and know very little now except what has appeared in the Press. But that, I believe, is sufficiently disturbing to warrant the inquiry I am making. Before I put the Motion on the Paper I checked up on the bare facts, as announced in the Press, with the Polish Embassy and with the Haldane Society, who I understood had invited these eminent Polish lawyers to visit this country. I may also say, in passing, that, not being a lawyer myself, I do not know very much about the Haldane Society, except that a number of my colleagues in this House and in another place are members of it. Apparently the Haldane Society proposed an exchange of visits between parties of British and Polish lawyers, and the Poles were to come here first. They consisted only of three people, two of whom, I understand, are judges of the Supreme Court of Poland, while the third is a

  561
  professor of jaw at the University of Warsaw. They were to come here purely and solely to study the legal practice and procedure in this country, of which we are all so proud. I should have thought that the more people from abroad who came to see our legal system in action the better.
  I have since had sent to me the programme that was arranged for them, and I find that they were to take part in three meetings. The first was to consider marriage and the family in Polish law; the second the industrial law of Poland; and the third (I wish the noble Earl, Lord Howe, were here at the moment, and I am sorry he has left the Chamber) Polish criminal law and the treatment of offenders. There is nothing very revolutionary about those matters. Then they were to take part in a discussion on what is to some people a most exciting subject, the Rent Acts—repairs and rents—between the Vice-Chairman of the National Federation of Property Owners and the Leader of the Opposition on the St. Marylebone Borough Council. And I am sure that it would have been a most interesting and illuminating discussion. Apparently they were not invited to come here to discuss peace. I stress that, because the word "peace" seems to have become an obscene word in certain quarters. Anyone who desires to discuss peace is, apparently, at once suspect; and any one who proposes to come for a conference to discuss peace is automatically refused admission to this country. Any one who wants to go abroad to discuss peace is also refused permission to leave this country—thus breaking one of the leading provisions of Magna Carta. Incidentally, I understand that a social party had been arranged for these eminent Polish lawyers to meet a number of leading lawyers in this country, and the note which I have mentions that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was one of those who were to be invited to meet these two judges of the supreme Court of Poland and the professor of law of the University of Warsaw. These people were refused visas to enter this country, and I want to know why. The reason for my wanting to know why is this. We have a traditional friendship with Poland of long standing. In the two terrible world wars of our generation they were on our side; there has always been a community of interest and sympathy be-
  562
  tween the Polish and the British peoples—incidentally, we do a considerable trade with Poland—and, so far as I know, except for the unfortunate affair of a Polish tanker which was requisitioned after being built in this country, there have been no troubles between the two Governments and countries.
  People are always complaining—I complain myself—about restrictions on travel to countries beyond what is known as the Iron Curtain. I think it is a pity that there should be any restrictions on travel of any kind. But why should we copy this example and prevent people from coming here—people who, so far as I know, are otherwise respectable? There may be special reasons for it, and if so, perhaps we can be given them. If there is a strong case for refusing admission to these people, in that they might endanger the stability of the realm here, we can accept that. But surely our policy to-day should be, so far as we can, to encourage the freeing of restrictions on travel and the exchange of visits and views between different peoples. I believe that is the way to get understanding between the peoples of the world; and if you get understanding between the peoples of the world, then you may preserve the peace of the world. I suggest that it is a retrograde step to use your power of refusing visas to prevent visits of this kind, unless, as I say, there are special reasons which make it embarrassing to allow these three lawyers into this country, in which case, of course, we can accept the refusal. Otherwise, I hope that the matter will be reconsidered. It is in the hope, first of all, of getting information, and secondly, if everything is all right, of having the position considered further, that I have raised this matter to-day. I beg to move for Papers.
  4.55 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised this question, and if I interpret aright what is in his mind the thing that is worrying him most is that there should be any interruption in what I might describe as understanding from personal contact. I should like at the outset to assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is very glad that any man should come to this country on legitimate business. That is a principle which I think has been continued with no great

  563
  alteration since the change of Government took place. But, in fact, not only are these three lawyers, of whom the noble Lord says two are judges, members of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, but they are high officers of that organisation. One is a vice-chairman, and two are council members. The International Association of Democratic Lawyers is closely associated with the World Peace Movement. It is true that in some senses there is probably no greater crime which the Communists have committed than to degrade the word "peace"—a matter to which the noble Lord referred in his remarks.
  But, if I may emphasise the point, there is no great difference of opinion between us on that subject, on whichever side of the House we sit. If I may, I should like to quote what Mr. de Freitas said on this subject in the other place in July 1951 (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 490, Col. 1205). He described the World Peace Movement
  "as an instrument of Soviet foreign policy designed to stir up resistance to the Western Defence Agreement and the Atlantic pact. It is no more than a fifth column movement run from Moscow. The members owe allegiance to Russia and not to their own countries."
  I could quote what Mr. Attlee said on the subject with perhaps even more force. I would emphasise that there is no great difference of opinion on either side in this respect. In September, 1951, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers passed a resolution in support of the World Peace Council's appeal for a five-Power Pact. Furthermore, in February of this year they sent a commission to Korea to investigate the so-called American use of bacteriological weapons. As a result of that visit, the commission made allegations about the use of germ warfare by the Americans, and those allegations have received a great deal of publicity in the Communist Press and radio.
  I think, therefore, that the nature of the organisation is clear; and I want to emphasise that it is the nature of the organisation to which exception is taken. Frankly, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to allow members of front organisations of the World Peace Movement to visit this country for purposes of carrying out their propaganda. The proposed visit of these three lawyers is a
  564
  case in point. The excuse for the visit is an invitation by the Haldane Society, but the three lawyers concerned are leading members of a Communist-dominated organisation, whose primary concern is the development of the current themes of Soviet propaganda under the guise of concern with legal matters. Her Majesty's Government see no reason why they should facilitate that propaganda.
  There is one other point that I should like to make, and it is this. The Home Secretary does not want to cut off cultural links with the other side of the Iron Curtain, and records show that in point of fact a great many people are coming over. I will quote only one or two instances of people who have come over in the last six months to take part in congresses or discussions of any kind. In the ordinary way there is not a great deal of difficulty in that. For instance, in the last six months, representatives have come over to attend conferences of the National Union of Teachers, the Women's Co-operative Guild, the Eighty-Third Conference of the Co-operative Union—
  LORD STRABOLGI: Representatives from where, may I ask?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I shall have to look that up, but they come from behind the Iron Curtain.
  LORD STRABOLGI: As long as the noble Earl says they are from behind the Iron Curtain, that is sufficient.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I cannot remember off-hand whether they are Polish or Russian, but they come from behind the Iron Curtain. I hope that I can give the noble Lord an answer before I sit down. In point of fact, he may have noticed a statement which was made recently that six Russians were coming over at the invitation of the British Soviet Friendship Society, in which visa regulations were relaxed especially to enable them to be over here in time.
  LORD HENDERSON: May I ask whether these people were not expected last week, but have not left because the arrangements had not been made on their side of the Iron Curtain?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is correct. I was not going to refer to that

  565
  matter, but as the noble Lord has brought it up I must agree. We endeavoured to expedite the visas, and when we had done so the people were not given permission from the other side of the Iron Curtain to leave. We are endeavouring to allow people who are on legitimate business to come over here. I understand that visas have now been granted, and that they will come over in due course.
  LORD CHORLEY: I do not follow the noble Earl. Who are likely to come over in due course?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I mentioned a number of different people who had come over in the course of the last six months—I am not referring to these lawyers. A number of different invitations have been issued, and representatives from behind the Iron Curtain have been allowed to attend, or have come over to attend, organisations of one sort or another. I read out a number, and I am quite prepared to read more if the noble Lord wants them.
  LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord said that there had been difficulties on their own side in the case of certain people. He understood that those difficulties had now been cleared up. I do not follow to whom the noble Earl is referring.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord was not following the debate quite closely enough. We were referring at that time to an invitation extended by the British-Soviet Friendship Society to six Russian singers to come over here and take part in a concert. I am given to understand that the concert should have taken place last Saturday, but that visas were not issued in time by the Russian authorities to permit them to come over. Visas have now been issued, and I am given to understand that the singers will come over. This has nothing whatever to do with the subject of the noble Lord's Motion, and I apologise.
  We are not anxious to help at all in this propaganda, which exploits the love of peace and which depends for its success on the ignorance and credulity of non-Communists. It is quite true that, to a great extent, the propaganda is not successful, but we do not see any reason why we should help it in any way at all. In point of fact, except for a few
  566
  crypto-Communists or fellow travellers, it is only the very credulous or very ignorant among the genuine peace lovers who have failed to see that it is an instrument, not of peace but of political warfare. I have endeavoured to answer the noble Lord's case as fairly as I can, and I think I may say that there has not been any alteration in the broad approach to this problem since the change of Government. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord.
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot regard the noble Earl's explanation on this matter as altogether satisfactory. He is advancing what appears to me to be an exceedingly dangerous argument; that because certain people who have applied for visas to visit this country happen to be associated with a particular organisation which the Government do not like, therefore they are to be refused visas. It is true, of course, that the Society of Democratic Lawyers is very much in the hands of Communists, but it is not true to say that it exists for the purpose of propaganding the Russian—
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask what body the noble Lord is speaking about? I could not hear what he said.
  LORD CHORLEY: The International Society of Democratic Lawyers. That Society existed long before the peace movement to which the noble Earl has referred in such strong terms. I was myself a vice-president of it at one time, and a learned friend of mine, who is a Member or the other House, was another vice-president. Its president for many years was M. René Cassin who is the President of the Conseil d'Etat, the Supreme Administrative Tribunal in France, who is a very well known Liberal and who is as far away from Communism as the noble Earl is himself. It does not follow that all organisations in which there are many Communists are completely Communist organisations. Some people who still retain a good amount of Liberalism in their composition think the world will be got back on to an even keel only if some of us try from time to time to treat the Communists as if they were human beings.
  It seems to me that it is altogether a wrong policy to identify these three

  567
  eminent Polish lawyers with the Russian propaganda to which the noble Earl has referred. The Haldane Society is not a Communist organisation at all. Its chairman at the present time is one of the joint secretaries of the International Law Association. Its president of the past was the late Sir Stafford Cripps. It is a Society of which I have been a member since it was formed in commemoration of the great work of the late Lord Haldane in the first Labour Government. These Polish lawyers have been invited over here to discuss legal questions which are of great interest to lawyers, and it is of great interest and importance to lawyers in this country that they should have some knowledge of the way in which these problems—which, after all, are common to all countries—are being tackled in countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
  A few years ago, a number of Polish lawyers were invited to visit this country—I believe by the Haldane Society. They came, and the discussions with them were very fruitful. They were just as much Communists as the three eminent lawyers who are proposing to come on this occasion—or I presume that they are. I myself was present at an interesting meeting which was presided over by the Attorney-General of that time, Sir Hartley Shawcross, at which I had the pleasure of hearing more than one of these Polish lawyers (who spoke excellent French) discuss legal problems in a very liberal and sensible way. We derived benefit from what they said, and I am quite sure that they derived a good deal of benefit from what they heard about the way in which we deal with legal problems in this country.
  I suggest that these matters are matters which ought not to be treated in the way in which the Government are evidently treating the present application for visas. It is important that these obstructions, these barriers, should be broken down. I feel strongly about this method, which is beginning to develop all over the civilised world, of refusing visas to people because they happen to be members of some organisation to which the Government take exception and to whom there is no other objection. If the noble Earl had said, "We object to their coming for such and such a reason"—which is a perfectly good reason—"and
  568
  therefore we refuse a visa," I should have understood it. But to say that they must be refused visas because they belong to the Democratic Lawyers seems to me to be no reason at all. I hope the noble Earl will take this matter back and that Her Majesty's Government will consider it again, for this seems to me to be a most retrograde step.
  5.11 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Earl say that it was the policy of the Government to encourage international contact. If that were not so, then the future would be even blacker than it looks at present. I understand also the need not to permit anyone to come here who is likely to endanger the military security of this country. That would be folly and should be prevented. But between these two points come these lawyers. I should like the noble Earl to define exactly what his reason is. Does he allege that they are coming here to promote propaganda to undermine the military security of this country, or that they themselves are associated with something which in one of its aspects may be thought to aim at that object? If he says that, if he makes it so wide, then obviously it is folly to have any Eastern Europe Communists at all, except Yugoslavs, because they are all linked with the Kremlin. If the noble Earl is, in fact, making that general observation, I think it is a matter which deserves wide and deep examination, because this country has very sound Liberal beliefs. If the noble Earl says that, the matter should certainly be pursued by my noble friend. If, on the other hand, the noble Earl can tell us that any of these persons are coming here to undermine, in some subtle way, the security of this country, then I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will not wish to pursue the matter.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I have endeavoured to fulfil the task which the noble Lord asked of me and I can only think that the noble Lord did not quite understand me. I must conclude, therefore, that I was extremely indistinct. The first point I tried to make is that these three lawyers are prominent members of an organisation closely linked with the Peace Movement. I will read what Mr. Attlee says about the Peace

  569
  Movement, because it is essential to get this thing in its framework. He says:
  "This Committee"—
  that is, the British Peace Committee—
  "is an offshoot from the World Peace Movement, an instrument of the Politbureau. More than 90 per cent. of the members of its permanent committee are known to be Communists or fellow travellers. What are their aims? They are very simple. They are to try to paralyse the efforts of the democracies to arm themselves. They seek to persuade the workers of the democracies to refuse to manufacture arms. At the very same time they urge the workers of totalitarian States to increase their efforts in munition production."
  We consider that the International Organisation of Democratic Lawyers, whatever it may have been on former occasions, is now closely linked with and is in fact part of that organisation and that these men who are coming here are coming as officials of that organisation. That is as we see it. We say definitely that their visit can only be for propaganda—propaganda which, in point of fact, is one of the instruments used by the Foreign Office in Moscow to further their foreign policy—and that they are working on behalf of the Soviet Union.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Earl knows that we permitted Mr. Ehrenberg to come over here and address a meeting in Trafalgar Square. It was a very wise thing to do, because Mr. Ehrenberg went back a disappointed man.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I think the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has put his finger on the spot. I did not know what a train of explosives I was starting when I put down this Question. After all, there are 1,200,000,000 people behind the Iron Curtain—more than half the population of the world—and they are all nominally Communists. If they are professional men, they belong to their professional organisations, whether they be lawyers or doctors or members of any other profession, and so they belong to what is described by Her Majesty's Government as a "subversive organisation" because these professional associations are under Communist auspices.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What I am saying is that this body is an active instrument of foreign policy of a certain character—
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Mr. Ehrenberg, in his speech, urged the Peace Movement, and he told me afterwards he
  570
  had never been so disappointed, because he thought his visit had been a "flop"
  5.17 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: All these people who come over as Communists and those who are hoping to come as our guests have probably signed the peace pledge. They probably could not help it, as I members of the various bodies.
  Let us look at the matter from another angle. These people were invited here as members of the Association of Polish Lawyers. Now it is dug out, apparently from the Embassy at Warsaw by some smart person, that they are also members of this International Society of Democratic Lawyers, and because they are members of one of the affiliated bodies to the so-called World Peace Movement they are not allowed to come here. That is the curious network which has led to the refusal of visas to these persons, who are high members of the profession—two of them, I believe, Judges of the Supreme Court and the other a Professor of Law at Warsaw University. I am sorry indeed that the noble Earl should have had to make the reply he did. The British Government and the British security machine are being made to look utterly ridiculous. To think that these three people could do any harm in this country is absurd. They are coming here on a set programme of legal studies; and I should have thought that the more people who came here to study our legal system, the better, and the more good it would do. I regret the reasons put forward by the noble Earl. I am sorry that the Government are not willing to reconsider the matter. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS
  Message from the Commons: That they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Tuesday last on the subject of Consolidation Bills as desired by this House.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past five o'clock.