HL Deb 04 February 1953 vol 180 cc199-224

2.37 p.m.

Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment moved by Earl Jowitt to the Motion moved yesterday by Viscount Simon, "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Amendment was as follows: Leave out all the words after "That" and insert: this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which purports to alter the constitution of this House in any one particular without any consideration of such wider changes as Her Majesty's Government have suggested should be the subject of discussion between the Parties.

LORD BALFOUR OP BURLEIGH

My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that up to the present we have had a remarkable debate. Yesterday was marked by an announcement which I felt showed a remarkable coincidence. My noble friend Lord Swinton, who is leading the House, in the absence of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who we greatly regret is not here to-day, announced that invitations to the Conference, which we had heard was in the offing, had in fact been issued. Had your Lordships been capable of being electrified, I suppose that that announcement would have electrified you. I think also that in any other Second Chamber in any other part of the world that announcement might well have put an end to the proceedings in the debate on my noble friend's Bill. But not so in your Lordships' House. How fortunate that it was not so, for as the afternoon went on we listened to what I thought were some remarkable speeches. The point that struck me, as I listened to them all, was that in every speech I found points with which I agreed and points with which I disagreed. And perhaps that fact illustrates as well as anything could the difficulties of the subject of the reform of your Lordships' House.

I must go back for a moment to 1911. We are fortunate in having with us two noble Viscounts who took a part, in another place, in the events of 1911. I myself was not a Member of your Lord ships' House, but I was old enough to take an intelligent interest, I hope, in the proceedings, and I have a vivid recollection of the events which occurred in that year. If your Lordships will forgive me for being personal. I may tell you that I have added up the number of years during which I have had the privilege of sitting in your Lordships' House and I was surprised to find that it is now more than thirty. Where I have spent all those years I cannot imagine, but I was astonished to find that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for that period, which is three-quarters of the not inconsiderable period which has passed since 1911. Therefore, I have had some considerable time for reflection, from the point of view of your Lordships' House, on the problem which we are discussing to-day, which I think I may fairly say is the reform of your Lordships' House in general.

You all know that the 1911 Parliament Act dealt only with the powers and not with the composition of the House. The first point I want to make is that the settlement of 1911was a settlement by agreement. I do not deny that there was a good deal of dust and heat before the agreement was arrived at, but it was, in the event, a settlement by agreement. When we examine the contents of the Division lists we find, as was only right and proper, that the Bench of Bishops had a remarkable part in bringing about that agreement. The point I want to make in respect to 1911 is that nobody foresaw in 1911 what a fundamental change that Act would bring about. The result of that Act completely changed through the years your Lordships' approach to matters of legislation coming from another House.

It is not denied, and I need not pause to labour it, that in the years from 1945 to 1950 your Lordships acted with wisdom and restraint. I pay my tribute to our noble Leader Lord Salisbury and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and to noble Lords on the other side of the House, who contributed to that happy result. The point I would stress, however, is that your Lordships' House acted in that way without having undergone any change in its composition since 1911. I think that is too often for gotten. We were told at that time that a change in its composition "brooks no delay." It did not happen. Yet your Lordships succeeded, in the years from 1945 to 1950, in acting in the best traditions of the best Second Chamber. Do not forget that our House is the oldest part of our constitutional machinery, with the single exception of the Monarchy. We have a tremendous value in our tradition and in our history. I believe that every Member coming into the House becomes conscious of that. I do not think that any noble Lord coming from another place, or from elsewhere, can be long in your Lordships' House without recognising that there is an accumulated value in the tradition and history of the House, which we must all seek to preserve.

If your Lordships' House is of value and has acted in a manner which has been beneficial to the national interest, we must admit that some part of the credit of that, at all events, must accrue to the hereditary principle. I am not going to labour the point, because several noble Lords made it yesterday, but I know of no way other than by the hereditary principle by which it would be possible to get a suitable influx of younger Members into your Lordships' House. The element of youth in our debates is important, and we must preserve it. The fact that this House has become what it is, suggests to me that further essential change may be smaller than some noble Lords think, and smaller than is generally imagined. I have said that there has been a fundamental change in the approach of your Lordships' House to our problems. I think it is true to say also that there has been a fundamental change in the attitude of the Party opposite to the House of Lords. There was a time when the extreme Left Wing would certainly have wished to abolish the House of Lords. But now, I think, the need for a wise and impartial Second Chamber is generally recognised. That is a considerable change, too.

I pass at once to say a word or two about the two complaints which noble Lords opposite have against the character of your Lordships' House: they are, of course, the hereditary character of this House, and the fact, as they put it, that there is a permanent Conservative majority. On the first of those points, I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Moran said yesterday. He reminded your Lordships, as I have in the past, of the fact that of noble Lords who take part in our debates and carry out the current work of the House, no less than 50 percent. are Peers of first creation; that is to say, they are people who are here for no hereditary reason at all. That being so, it is inaccurate to say that the composition of this House is overwhelmingly hereditary. I was interested to note, also, that my noble friend Lord Moran made that an argument against this Bill. I believe he is wrong when he says that there are only a few persons who would accept Life Peerages. I could name members of both political Parties—not ardent partisans, but men who have political affiliations—who would be valuable Members of your Lordships' House, but who are excluded because they are not willing to accept what is now the burden of a hereditary Peerage. So much for the hereditary character of your Lordships' House.

I turn now to something which I venture to say is more difficult, and about which I believe there is more misunderstanding—namely, this so-called permanent Conservative majority. I would ask your Lordships to remember that the word "conservative" can be spelt both with a capital "C" and a small "c," and that it may mean two rather different things. My noble friend Lord Mansfield mentioned yesterday that at a certain moment the late Lord Salisbury, whose devotion to the cause of House of Lords reform we all know, did him the honour of including him in certain discussions and considerations about a possible reform. I think I can at this date, without indiscretion, tell your Lordships that I too was privileged to be consulted by the late Lord Salisbury towards the end of the last war. I have looked up the names of noble Lords who were concerned, and of the leaders of the Labour Party who were concerned, and to my regret I find that the great majority are no longer with us.

But I can tell your Lordships that the late Lord Salisbury told me that, after conversations with those responsible Labour leaders—they were, I think, mainly members of the Coalition Government during the war— they had agreed with him that, whatever happened to the House of Lords, assuming that satisfactory reform could be carried out, the Second Chamber must always retain a conservative character with a small "c." That is a fact which noble Lords opposite must realise.

The House of Lords must be able to act with wisdom and impartiality; and, of course, it must be recognised by the country as acting with wisdom and impartiality. Noble Lords opposite must realise that the equality of Parties in this House must never mean equality of ardent political partisans. There could be nothing more fatal than that to the character of your Lordships' House as a wise and impartial Second Chamber, for this reason: that it would inevitably thereby challenge the authority of another place. Party battles must he fought in another place, and here we must act with wisdom and impartiality, having regard to the interests of the nation and the peculiar characteristics of our Constitution. That is why we must have a Second Chamber, because another place, under the sway of some emotion or other, could wreck everything by a one-clause Bill. I do beg noble Lords opposite to remember, when they talk about the permanent Conservative majority here, that if they would write the word with a small "c" and not a capital "C," then they are only naming the indispensable characteristic for an adequate Second Chamber, having regard to the Constitution under which we work.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? He has appealed to noble Lords on this side of the House on two occasions. Will he explain to the House why it is that the small "c" always turns it self into a capital "C" every time the Division bell rings? Surely, in the course of years, we on this side must be right sometimes. Why is it that no noble Lord on the other side of the House has ever, to my knowledge—unless it has been a very exceptional case—appeared in the same Division Lobby as we have?

LORD TEYNHAM

May I intervene? Before the war, in 1938, I moved in your Lordships' House two Amendments on which the Government were defeated.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am obliged to my noble friend for his intervention. Going back over the years, I can remember frequent cases When I also have moved, and I am happy to say carried, Amendments against the Government. In fact, if I may be personal, I must tell your Lordships that I once did a terrible thing when I was sitting on the Front Bench as Junior Whip: I voted against the Government. And the awful thing was that die Government were defeated by sixteen votes to fifteen.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Which year was that?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

At a guess I should say that it was 1924. I may tell your Lordships that the late Lord Salisbury gave me the most severe "telling-off" I have ever had, not because I had voted against the Government—which as a Back-Bencher I might have done— but because I had done so when I had the privilege of sitting on the Front Bench. And that, of course, is a thing which is not done. I quite agree that it was a gross error. I was young at the time, and I offer every excuse for my conduct. I may say that it was on a matter of social reform about which I felt very keenly, and noble Lords will be interested in the sequel. Of course, the matter went back to another place, and they saw to it that the decision of the Lords was reversed. I do not think the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, upsets me very much. After all, as people get older they do become moreconservative—with a small "c"—and if they did not, they would not possess the wisdom and impartiality which is an essential characteristic of your Lordships' House.

I propose now to make two points about the 1949 Parliament Act. The first is that, in contrast to the 1911 Act, the 1949 Act was an imposed settlement.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

How can the noble Lord say that the 1911 settlement was a settlement by agreement? Would he say that the Battle of Waterloo was a settlement by agreement?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I do not accept the noble Viscount's analogy. The 1911 settlement was in fact a settlement by agreement because it was passed by your Lordships' House. The Battle of Waterloo was not passed by the French, but the 1911 settlement was actually passed, with the help of the Bishops and others. The noble Viscount knows the history as well as I do. He knows that a great number of Peers abstained, but a sufficient number of Conservatives supported the Government to pass it. It was accepted, and in that respect it was different from the 1949 Act. That was the first point in which, to my mind, the 1949 Act offended, because, as I have said, to get a permanent settlement in this matter we must have an agreement.

My second point about the 1949 Act is rather different. In my humble opinion, it was really unconstitutional, for this reason. There were two General Elections in 1910, and the second of them was really ad referendum the Parliament Act. That was why that second Election was held. The Parliament Bill was put before the country almost as a single issue, and when the Government were returned with the same majority they proceeded to introduce their Bill. But one Amendment was made. It occurred to somebody that it would be improper to use the Parliament Act machinery to extend the life of Parliament. Your Lordships recollect that the life of Parliament was cut down from seven to five years, and it was agreed that it would be highly wrong that the machinery of the Parliament Act should be used to extend the life of Parliament. Consequently, an Amendment was proposed and a new clause was inserted to prevent Parliament from using the machinery of the 1911 Act to extend its own life. I venture to say that if anybody had imagined that there would ever be a Government so unprincipled—forgive the word—as to use that machinery to shorten the period of delay, then, of course, there would have been another clause in the 1911 Act to prevent noble Lords opposite from doing that very thing. Such a clause was not there, and they did it; but it was not in my view a fair or proper use of the Act.

I venture to repeat that any settlement, to be permanent, must be by agreement; and, if noble Lords opposite will forgive my saying so, one of the difficulties of the present situation is that noble Lords opposite and their Party speak with two voices. How often have we heard the noble and learned Earl who leads the Party opposite pay tribute to your Lordships' House! I do not know whether he has used these words, but the sense of his remarks is "the wisdom with which the House of Lords has handled legislation coming from another place." We have been very grateful to him for what he has said. We have listened with great interest. But in the country the Labour Party all too often forget any virtues of the House of Lords and concentrate on defects—defects which, I am sure your Lordships agree, to a very large extent no longer exist. With the deepest respect, I make the suggestion to the noble and learned Earl opposite who leads the Labour Party, that the greatest contribution—or, at least, a very great contribution—that he could make to reform the House of Lords would be to go up and down the country and tell the constituencies, in just the same language as he uses in the House of Lords, his opinion of the way in which the House handled the legislation from 1945 to 1950. That really would be a tremendous contribution.

I believe that there is greater agreement on this matter among sensible people than might be thought from the arguments we hear. If I may say so, extremists on both sides in this matter are dangerous. May we look ahead just for one moment and consider what will happen in the event of the Conference not being successful? I am afraid that we cannot take it for granted that the Conference will be successful: there is a possibility that it may not. Therefore it is, to me at all events, a consolation that the course which your Lordships are taking to-day will leave this Bill upon our Order Paper. With the greatest respect to my noble friend who is leading the House, he is not correct in saying, as he did yesterday, that what we are doing is to adjourn the Bill sine die. If that were the case the Bill would be dead. But, as I understand it, if after our debate to-day events take their promised course, the Bill will appear on the Order Paper of the House of Lords under the heading of "Bills awaiting Second Reading." That is very important, and I hope that, in the event of the Conference not succeeding, your Lordships will be willing to return to consideration of this Bill, which I believe has much greater merits than might appear at first sight.

3.1 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I intervene in this debate with considerable diffidence. I have been here a very short time only—just a little longer than the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, had when he voted against his own Party. I have not yet had time to become a conservative, either with a capital "C" or a small "c." Perhaps I have one advantage: that I can still look at the question of the House of Lords with some objectivity; I have not become so deeply steeped in the tradition of this House as to make me blind to its faults and defects, as might be the case with some other noble Lords.

I think that this is a time when we can all speak frankly about the position of the House of Lords and how we feel about it; and we are very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who introduced this debate, for having given us the opportunity of hearing so many really outstanding speeches on this important subject. We are also obliged to him for having given us the opportunity of hearing the decision of Her Majesty's Government to convene a Conference possibly some weeks earlier than we might otherwise have had it. I have no doubt at all that the announcement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that invitations were actually sent out yesterday, was the direct result of this debate—but I see nothing wrong with that: I think it was helpful to this House to know that the invitations had gone out, and to be able to discuss this question in that context.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON)

As a matter of historical accuracy (and I do not think I am breaking any confidence in saying this) I should say that the decision that invitations should be issued as soon as the House reassembled was taken weeks ago—I mean just when Parliament was adjourning. It was therefore quite natural that when the Prime Minister came back from America a decision which the Government had taken weeks ago should be put into effect. That is what happened, in fact.

LORD SILKIN

I was giving the noble Viscount the benefit of any doubt. But let us say that it was a coincidence that the announcement should have been made on the very day that this debate opened; and it is important because it enables us to discuss this matter in a wider context than would otherwise have been the case.

Both Lord Simon and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and also other noble Lords, have frequently reiterated the statement made by Mr. Asquith in 1911 to the effect that reform of the House of Lords brooked no delay. We have tended to take this statement for granted and to regard the reform of the House of Lords as a matter of extreme urgency—so urgent that even a matter of days was of importance. I have given some thought to it, and I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that, on the whole, there have been no constitutional problems since the Parliament Act of 1911, except when there was a Labour Government. It is only on these occasions when this House is in a position to act in an awkward manner. At other times, the House merely acts in accordance with the wishes of the Government of the day.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

There are exceptions.

LORD SILKIN

Well, I know there was the exception in 1938 which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham; and there was the exception mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which occurred in 1924, when he was a very young Member of the House. But. I think it is true to say that this House, when there is a Conservative Government, normally reflects the wishes of the Conservative Government and does not vote against the wishes of its own Party. I freely admit that during the period of Labour Government this House conducted itself with wisdom and restraint and that it did not seek to override the wishes of the electorate. I do not remember any occasion other than the Parliament Bill of 1947 when a Second Reading was re fused to a Labour measure; and I do not remember any wrecking Amendment that was persisted in—there may have been some passed, but at any rate they were not persisted in against the wishes of the Labour Government. Therefore, I would say that there was no Constitutional difficulty in the years 1945 to 1951, when this question could have been put to the test: they were the only years when it was possible to put it to the test. One might therefore ask, "Why interfere with a system which has worked well, and which is working well? Why consider any reform at all, and what is the case for reform?"

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Why did your Party introduce their Bill in 1947?

LORD SILKIN

I was not expressing my own opinion. I was merely saying that that might be argued, but I am going to show why I think it is wrong. I think it is wrong for a number of reasons. While it is true, as I say, that no constitutional crises have arisen, I think, nevertheless, that it is grossly unfair that any Party in this country should be dependent for the carrying out of its policy entirely upon the good behaviour of another Party. I think it is entirely wrong that a Labour Government should depend for the carrying out of its programme upon the question of whether or not this House decides to give it a fair run.

It is true, as I say, that during the period of the five or six years in question there was no serious complaint. I think, however, that a Labour Government (or a Liberal Government for that matter) is entitled to rely quite as definitely upon being able to carry out its policy as is a Conservative Government. That has not been the case; and undoubtedly a Labour Government has to be much more conservative in the measures that it introduces, and much more conciliatory—not that I think that those are bad qualities—than a Conservative Government similarly placed. And while this House may have worked reasonably well during the intervening period of forty-two years since the Parliament Act was passed, we are living in dynamic times. Conditions are changing and changing very rapidly. It is a very different world that we are in to-day as compared with the world in 1911. So far as the functions of this House are concerned, they are very much more complex, very much more difficult, requiring much more skill, knowledge, training and ability than they did in 1911. Whereas it might have been true in 1911 that the mere accident of birth enabled a person to be a legislator, that is certainly not true to-day. To-day, a person is no more a legislator because he is the son of his father than he is an analytical chemist or a policeman. It is a duty which requires great skill and a considerable amount of training, and I think that the time has long since gone by when one could assume that a person could walk into this House without any training at all and carry out the extremely difficult duties that are required of him.

Moreover, there is the other question, that changing times have brought about great changes in economic conditions. In 1911 it was still true that, by and large, noble Lords were possessed of independent means and could give to this House the time that was necessary, without any serious burden upon their livelihood. To-day, this is becoming increasingly less true. There are still a certain number of noble Lords who have independent means but, more and more, noble Lords are here either with a pension, which in practice means—I hope I am not being disrespectful—that they have expended the greater part of their useful life before they come here, or they are people who have to earn their livelihood and at considerable sacrifice devote a certain amount of their time to coming to this House. I would say that such persons represent a decreasing number and, as time goes on, it will be more and more difficult to get for the service of this House either men who are able to give the time (they cannot, because of the need they have to earn their livelihood) or men of the necessary quality and experience to carry out the duties that are required of them.

So the time has come when change is required, and we have to consider very seriously what is to be the future of this House. I think every speaker so far has recognised that the question of the powers of this House is inextricably intermingled with the question of its constitution. It is impossible to consider one without the other. It has been assumed by most speakers that this House must be an inferior House, that it must be subordinate to the other place, and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has just said, in effect it is to be largely a House which carries out in an administrative way the policy which has been settled in another place. I would not necessarily accept that view. It may be so, but I would not take it for granted when we are considering the reform of this Chamber. I would not take it for granted that this House has to be subordinate to another place. It may have to have different duties. There can be no question of competition or rivalry between the two Houses, but I see no reason at all why, with a reformed House, this House should not be as important and as influential in its way as the other place, although functioning rather differently. I could, on a proper occasion, make one or two suggestions as to the duties which this House might undertake, duties which would in no way conflict with the dignity or importance of the other place but which would, nevertheless, be as important as those carried out in another Chamber.

However, as I say, the question of powers and the question of composition have to be considered together. They cannot be considered in isolation. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, took the view that, on the whole, the composition of this House was all right. He said that there were many Peers of first creation and that half the work of this House is carried out by Peers of first creation. That may be so. If it is so, of course it is a reflection on and some criticism of the hereditary system, because the Peers of first creation are greatly outnumbered by the hereditary Peers. I would not challenge the noble Lord's figures, but the fact remains that, when it comes to a Division, it is not only the noble Lords who have spoken who count but the persons who were referred to yesterday by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailshum, as the "backwoodsmen."

Incidentally, in passing, I should like to say a word about the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He is not here. He lashed out rather violently on all sides, somewhat indiscriminately, because with one blow he hit at his own leader and with another blow he lashed out at this side of the House. He lashed out side ways and behind him at the "backwoodsmen"—in fact, he dealt blows all round. He almost describe himself as a "backwoodsman." I personally have no objection to "backwoodsmen." He described them as bores, people who come here and bore the House. I would not agree with him. I think they come here and give us a breath of fresh air, the atmosphere of the moors and the heather. But I would say to the noble Viscount, who I regret is not here, because I should have liked to say it to him personally, two things. First, when he has lashed out like that in all directions, it would not be a bad idea for him to listen and hear the replies. I think that when one is talking about form and sincerity—because the noble Viscount was impugning the sincerity of both sides of the House—it might have been a good idea for him to turn up to-day to hear what other people have to say about his own observations. There is this to be said about the "backwoodsmen"; they may bore people in the tea room (I do not say that they do, but that is the view of the noble Viscount), but at least they do not make speeches. I think it is only right that this should be said, and I re peat (I would say it equally if the noble Viscount were here) I consider that a noble Lord who turns up merely to hear himself and nobody else speak is doing little service to this House. After all, one of the important things about this House is not only to speak yourself but to hear what other people have to say.

VISCOUNT SIMON

Would the noble Lord forgive me for one moment? I suspect that the noble Viscount to whom he is referring is earning his living.

LORD SILKIN

I have no doubt that that is so; and there are other noble Lords here who could be earning their living, too. But I do say that, if he comes here and makes a violent attack, and particularly makes an attack on the sincerity of this side of the House as well as on that of his own side, then whether he is earning his living or not the noble Viscount ought to have the grace to come here to listen to the debate and hear the reply. I do not complain that the noble Viscount is not here very often: I quite understand that he has to earn his living. But I do personally resent it when noble Lords come merely when they are making a speech, then walk out immediately afterwards, and are not seen again until they make their next speech.

EARL WINTERTON

I think that in justice to my noble friend Lord Hailsham it should be pointed out that the statement which the noble Lord opposite has made is inaccurate. The noble Viscount did not walk out immediately after making his speech; he remained here for the whole of the debate.

LORD SILKIN

I will not carry the matter any further. I shall be within the recollection of a number of noble Lords as to whether or not that is accurate. I took particular care to make quite sure of my facts before I stated them. The irony is that the noble Viscount attacked the sincerity of both sides. It is no part of my business to defend noble Lords opposite—they are quite capable of defending themselves, particularly against one of their own supporters. But I strongly resent an attack on the sincerity of those who sit on this side of the Chamber. We regard this as a very serious question, and I think that every one who has spoken, and everyone who has considered the question, has considered it in all sincerity. We are none the less sincere if we venture to disagree with the noble Viscount. We cannot always agree with him. I thought it right to make that digression because it is not the first time that this sort of thing has occurred.

I want now to come for a few moments to the subject of the Bill itself. The Bill provides for the appointment of not more than ten Life Peers each year. In that context, I want to remind the House of the Conference in 1948, and about what was agreed as the heads to be submitted ad referendum to the followers of the three respective Parties. These heads were agreed by the representatives them selves. I do not want to quote them all but I think it right to quote some of them. First, we have this: 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. There is nothing there about a capital "C" or a small "c." At present we on this side take the view that a permanent majority is secured for one Party, but not for the other. It was agreed here that this should not be the case. If in fact those who support that idea take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, then of course this is meaningless. It must mean that some action will be taken to ensure that both sides have an equal chance when matters come up for consideration.

Then there is the second head, which says: 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. I take that to mean the abolition of the hereditary system, so far as membership of this House is concerned. Again the noble Lord shakes his head, but if it is not to be based solely on heredity—

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

"Solely."

LORD SILKIN

Yes, solely.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

That is not an abolition of the hereditary principle.

LORD SILKIN

I take it to mean that. I take it to mean that a noble Lord should have the right to be elected or appointed to sit in this House, but should not sit here merely by virtue of his being a Peer. If it does not mean that, what does it mean?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I have not the Paper in front of me, but I think that if the noble Lord reads on he will see that individuals can be selected either from the hereditary Peerage or from outside it. That is exactly what my noble friend was saying. I venture to interrupt because I was a party to the negotiations, so that I think I know not only what was said but what was agreed.

LORD SILKIN

I do not disagree with what the noble Viscount is saying. Is it not really that no Peer shall have the right to sit in this House?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

What the noble Lord said—I am sure he did not intend to say it—was that we meant to abolish completely the hereditary principle. We did not. What we said was that heredity by itself should not confer the right to sit. The words were very carefully stated.

LORD SILKIN

That seems to be a distinction without a difference. Does it not mean that the membership of the House of Lords ought to consist of selected Members of this House: other noble Lords might not be selected? I will not argue as to whether that means the abolition of the hereditary system. I take it to mean abolition, but if the noble Viscount says that it does not, all right. At any rate, it is a drastic change in the composition of this House. Another head was: Women should be capable of being appointed Lords of Parliament in like manner as men. That again is a revolution. The noble and learned Viscount who introduced this Bill said that this was the last place to which women were not admitted. I think he has forgotten his old University, the Cambridge Union and, last but not least, the Athenæum. I imagine that the Athenæum will change when women become members of your Lordships' House.

VISCOUNT SIMON

Oxford University has for a long time accepted women as members.

LORD SILKIN

If that is the case, I have been misinformed by my noble friend Lord Pakenham.

There is also this head: In order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration would be payable to members of the Second Chamber. Then, following that: Peers who were not Lords of Parliament should be entitled to stand for election to the House of Commons. And then there is a provision for disqualifying from sitting in this House members who are no longer performing their duties here. I point out all these things because they were substantially agreed between all the Parties, and together they constitute drastic changes of the composition of this House. It is true that there was disagreement about the powers of this House. May I say that I think it is a little disingenuous to say that we disagreed over a period of three months? Literally, it may have been true, it might have been true that we disagreed about a period of three days, if it had come to that. The real point was that the Labour Party took the view that it was possible for a House of Lords, constituted as it is, to frustrate all legislation after the third year—in other words, to nullify anything that a Labour Government might do in its fourth or fifth years.

The argument we advanced was that it should he possible for a Labour Government to carry through its legislation, whether in its fourth year or not. That is where the period of the days came in.

The odd days made all the difference as to whether the fourth year should be an effective year or not. I admit that if it came about that neither Party had a permanent majority in this House, this question of being able to frustrate legislation would become of relatively less importance: each period would be treated in exactly the same way. But as things stand, this was a very important matter.

I say frankly to the noble and learned Viscount that, in my view, against this background of drastic changes which were virtually agreed to by all Parties, his Bill really is a very tiny matter. It is no solution to the problem at all. It does not go one tithe of the way all the Parties have agreed to go, and, in my opinion, it will not make much difference to this House whether the change proposed in the Bill is made or not. We already have a number of Life Peers and the addition of not more than ten—some noble Lords would wish it to be fewer than ten, and the noble and learned Viscount has said that he would be quite prepared to entertain an Amendment on that pointߞwould make little difference to the constitution of this House. In the course of thirty years, at the maximum, there would be created 300 Life Peers. But by that time at least half of them would be no longer with us, and at the end of the period of thirty years, assuming that ten were created every years, we should still have 850 Peers, or thereabouts, such as we have to-day, and 150 Life Peers. And the Bill makes no contribution towards dealing with the other problems with which we were confronted at the Conference. I really cannot think it is worth while for this House to proceed with a measure which makes no contribution towards a solution of these problems.

Finally, I want to say a word about the Conference. I have no authority to speak for my Party on the question of the action that will be taken with regard to it. Moreover, one does not normally decide to accept, or reject, an invitation until one has seen it. I am, therefore, not in a position to comment upon it. If I may express a personal view, it is that I hope that, if there are no strings to the invitation, it will be accepted, and accepted in the spirit of both sides being desirous of reaching a solution. Whether or not it would be wiser to start off on the basis of what has already been agreed, and endeavour to bridge this narrow gulf, I do not know. My own opinion, on the whole, is that it would be wiser to start all over again.

Apart from the fact that five years will have elapsed since the former Conference, I feel that we ought to think again about this question of powers. We ought not to assume that this House is going to have in future merely the existing powers and nothing more, or that all is satisfactory as regards the powers, except for the power of this House to interfere with legislation after the fourth year. I should much rather start all over again, and see whether we cannot arrive at some agreement which will meet the points that have been set out very clearly in the White Paper on the Conference, overcome the difficulties that have evolved during the years, and create a House which is suitable for modern requirements, a House of eminent men and women and of young people. Noble Lords were quite right in saying that we must find some way of introducing young people into this House. We want to solve these problems as well as the problem of the powers of this House. I think this would be an opportunity for fresh, clear, honest, objective thinking. And if, then, we are able to reach an agreement I think the delay will have been well worth while, and we shall have rendered a very great service to posterity.

3.47 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, some people in this House, or, at any rate, some outside, may have thought that after the first four speeches yesterday there was not much more to be said, because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who always addresses us with such clarity, told us, there were only three courses that we could take. One course is to agree to the Second Reading, another is to reject the Bill, and a third is to adjourn the debate. Nobody, now, wants the Bill to be passed on this occasion—not even, I understand, the noble and learned Viscount who introduced it. It seems to me that it would make little difference whether we were to adjourn the discussion or whether we were to kill the Bill at the conclusion of the debate to-day. I feel that whatever happens to the Bill to-day, ultimately, if anything is done, it must be by means of a Government measure. I do not think that a measure of this sort, altering the constitution of this House or, indeed, of the other place, is a proper one (I do not use the word in any offensive sense) to be proposed by anyone, however eminent, other than the Government of the day. Let us think what this means. If the Bill were to go to another place it would have to be taken charge of there by a Private Member, unless the Government of the day accepted it. So, clearly, whatever happens, if anything is done on this measure, at some stage it will have to be a Government measure— this Bill or some other substituted in its place.

I was interested in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to which we have just listened, and particularly interested, in the fact that he did not think this House need necessarily be restricted to its present powers. That I understood to be the point he was making towards the end of his speech. I think there is a great deal of misconception about there being a permanent Conservative majority—whether you spell Conservative with a large "C" or a small "c"—in this House. I do not know what other condition there could be. Should we try always to have a Second Chamber with a majority of the same complexion as the majority in the other place? I think that that would be wrong. Let us realise that the larger proportion of the House consists of noble Lords who have achieved political eminence as members of one Party or another in another place, and that the more political in character the House becomes, the less impartial is it likely to be. If a noble Lord comes here because his great-great-grandfather was a great Liberal statesman in his day, it does not follow that that noble Lord, though he may have Conservative tendencies, could not have a fairly independent mind. It may not be apparent, but in the Conservative Party, as in every Party, a certain amount is always done behind the scenes to meet reasonable objections. Perhaps noble Lords opposite will not believe that, but it is so.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thought that, although we did behave ourselves between 1945 and 1950, the composition of this House had made the Government of the day more circumspect and conciliatory. That is what a Government always ought to be, of whichever political Party they are, so that their Acts remain permanently on the Statute Book and are not so revolutionary, either backwards or forwards, as to cause their successors immediately to repeal what has been done.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I made the point that this applied only to the Labour Party and not to the other side.

LORD LLEWELLIN

It made the Labour Party more conciliatory and circumspect and would not make the Conservative Party so? There is more need in the one case than in the other. That would be my short answer to that point.

May I now come to a few observations on the measures before us? I do not suppose that any one has any objection to Life peerages. It is only by chance that Life Peerages have not been in existence for years. We have our Life Peers. I see here one or two noble and learned Lords who sit in this House because of their legal and judicial eminence. To them we gladly and grate fully leave our functions as the final and supreme Court, and we are indebted to them for the way in which they do that work. Noble Lords will know of many eminent men who might well have come to this House had they been able to take Life Peerages and not embarrass their sons by making them hereditary Peers.

It struck me yesterday that several noble Lords were in error when they talked about the Lords Spiritual as Life Peers. They are nothing of the sort: they are ex-officio Peers. Noble Lords may remember that when a former Archbishop of Canterbury resigned, in order to enable him to continue to sit in this House he was given a Peerage and became Lord Davidson. I remember a much loved Bishop of my diocese, Bishop Lovett, saying to me that when he was a Bishop and entitled to sit in the House he was so busy in his diocese that he could hardly ever come to our Sittings, and then, when he retired and had a few years more of active life and would have been able to come to the House and take part in our debates, his membership ceased. I hope that, whatever we do we shall keep the Lords Spiritual as part or the membership of our House. I should like to see representatives of other Churches in your Lordships'House—say the Cardinal Archbishop, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and the leaders of the Free Churches. I should like to see them equally represented as ex-officio Peers I and I believe they would add value to our debates.

But when it comes to the question of Peeresses! The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said this was so settled a question that he need not argue it at all, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, referred to it as a Committee point. It is nothing of the sort. It is a matter which I believe we should consider most carefully. I hope I shall not he thought to be ungallant when I say that, after sitting for many years in an other place with women Members, like other noble Lords, I do not chink that the results of the deliberations there were altered one jet or tittle by, having, ladies there. One of the difficulties I find about political women, as perhaps I may term them, is that they are inclined to be "bossy." We cannot afford to be bossy in your Lordships' House. We are not "bossy" and do not let us introduce a "bossy" element into the House.

My second point is that many of these ladies—I will not mention names, but noble Lords who were in another place with me will know of whom I am thinking—had a tremendous number of bees in their bonnets. It was easy enough in another place, where Mr. Speaker can rule Members out of order, to prevent those bees buzzing out irrelevantly; but there are difficulties in this House. It is probably because of the judicial character of your Lordships' House that we have a quorum so low as three Members. Have your Lordships ever considered what happens in a quorum of three? One has to be the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, or one of his deputies; the second is the speaker, and the third has to be the noble Lord who would have to count out the House, but the fact that he makes up the quorum makes such a counting out impossible. Control could not be exercised in that way. The only thing that could be done would be for the noble Lord to move that the noble Lady be no longer heard. That has been done to noble Lords in your Lordships' House, but not very often. It might be thought very ungallant to do so in the case of a noble Lady and, looking around the House, I do not see many noble Lords here who would be bold enough and ungallant enough to take that course.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that in that some what unlikely event occurring, if the third Member walked out, there would no longer be a quorum.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I fancy that in the other place—it may not be so here—there has to be somebody to draw attention to the fact that there is no quorum. That is not usually done from the Chair, and it certainly would not be done by the man speaking. Of course, if the noble and learned Lord sitting on the Woolsack could get up and call his own attention to the fact that there was not a quorum, that might solve the particular problem. But I am sure your Lordships realise that a certain difficulty does arise in that regard.

I come now to the contents of this Bill. I should not consider merely a Committee point the question of whether or not ladies should be included in your Lordships' House. So long as we have a hereditary element, it seems to me that it would be quite wrong, in logic and in justice, when we are excluding Peeresses in their own right, to allow women Life Peers. This is rather a wider question, and one not to be passed lightly over. When it comes to the question of criticism of this House from outside, let us realise that in these democratic days we shall never be free from criticism unless we have some elective qualification. Whatever else may be done in theory, that is our only defence. It would probably be possible to set up an extremely good House of Lords, members being elected by the same electorate, on a regional basis, with proportional representation, but having some such qualification as being a Privy Counsellor, an ex-Governor or Governor-General, an Admiral, General or Air Marshal, Chairman of the Trades Union Congress, or something of that sort. But the House of Commons, whichever Party were in the ascendancy in that place, would never agree to such a course. We should then be the stronger House: we should rather resemble the Senate in the Congress of the United States, which is certainly as strong as the House of Representatives.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, yesterday referred to the fact that, although every Englishman is said to love a Lord, he had not found that to be the universal feeling since he had inherited a Peerage—perhaps he dissipated a little of the love for him in this House by his speech yesterday, but that is another matter. I would say to him that that does not apply only to hereditary Peers. I happen to be a Peer of first creation, and I have found things exactly the same as has the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. It is not everyone who loves a Peer of the first creation, and it is not everyone who is impressed because this or that Prime Minister has recommended to the Monarchy that XY should become a Peer.

LORD CALVERLEY

Hear, hear!

LORD LLEWELLIN

That does not necessarily impress, I suspect, the hard headed people of Yorkshire, as the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, happens to come from there. What we have to think of is what best we can do. It will not necessarily bring more kudos to this House to get rid entirely of the hereditary element in it.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that these heads in this White Paper were agreed by all Parties. But that is not the case. They were agreed between the Leaders of the Parties as matters which they would take back and put to their Parties. I must say that I am not at all in favour of paragraph 5 (3)—and here I speak as a non-hereditary Peer. That paragraph says: 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. Why am I particularly against that? Because this House would then become a House of old men. Many young hereditary Peers have done good work in this House. I am glad to see a number of them on the Government Front Bench to-day, but they have played a valuable part on both sides of the House. Those young men could not become members of this House under this scheme. Perhaps the only one would be the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary of State for Air, who might have qualified with heredity plus a Victoria Cross. Otherwise they must wait until they have worked their way up; so, under this scheme, we should become a House of old men.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

That really was not the intention. I am rather embarrassed by all these discussions of what took place, but we did not mean at all that in order to become a Member of the House a man must have been an Admiral, a General, or the holder of some such rank. The idea was that a number of Peers, who would be Life Peers, should be chosen, and that they might be chosen either from commoners or from Members of this House. I would say that the natural people to look to are the Members of this House. It was very much present to our minds that we did not want a house of old men, and that there should be the chanceߞas, indeed, it was the intention—of selecting young men.

LORD LLEWELLIN

If the qualifications referred to in this White Paper cover a young man, then I am perfectly satisfied. But I thought it was a qualification that a man must have served his country in industry, in the trade union movement, or in other spheres, for a number of years before he would be considered as a Member of your Lordships' House. I am glad to be corrected if I am wrong.

I now come to paragraph 5 (9) of the White Paper. Nobody has paid a great deal of attention to this item. The Bill we are discussing merely enables your Lordships' House to be added to; it does nothing about the 800-odd people who already compose the House. I am not throwing any stones at noble Lords who do not attend this House: some of them are too old to come. One must remember that in the other place to get re-elected you must be young enough to stamp up and down your constituency and make speeches. Here, Members are Members for life, and a considerable proportion are elderly gentlemen, who probably at one time in their lives attended your Lordships' House very regularly but who are now incapable of doing so. That might be the fate of every one of us in your Lordships' House. Others are too ill; others have to earn their living away from London; others are in the Services; some may be serving their country overseas in Governor-Generalships or Governorships or something of that sort. I sometimes think that it is very fortunate that they do not all attend. This place would be indescribably crowded if the 840 of us all attended at one time. And I do not know what would be done, at any rate about the catering department. Therefore, I am not throwing any stones at those people.

I believe, however, that if a noble Lord has not attended for some time, we in this House might, of our own volition, do something about it. I believe that we could well amend Standing Orders or make a new Standing Order, because just as in the future magistrates will be asked to undergo some training and sit in courts before they take part in deciding cases, I believe it is right that those who are going to vote in this House should keep in touch with what is going on and should not be able at the last minute to come down and vote. We might well have a Standing Order prohibiting any noble Lord from voting unless he has sat a certain number of times in the previous Session of this House. I throw out that suggestion for what it is worth. It is a way in which we could get rid of one of the embarrassing things that is said about your Lordships' House. There are some who may say or feel that this would be encroaching on the Royal Prerogative. It is only reinforcing what the Monarch has commanded all of us to do. I would remind your Lordships of the Writ of Summons to Parliament. It says: … considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending (waiving all excuses) you be personally present…to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid. We should not be running contrary to the Royal Prerogative; we should be backing up the Command that Her Majesty and her predecessors have given to each one of us. I suggest that this proposal should be seriously considered. If it were adopted we should find that the numbers who could attend and vote might automatically be reduced to some 400 people—not on the basis of a ballot, but on the test of whether the person has been in a position to come here and attend to his duties and give his counsel. We are indebted to the noble and learned Viscount who introduced this Bill for giving us an opportunity of discussing these important points before they come up to the Conference, in which I hope all Parties will now take part.