HL Deb 10 March 1955 vol 191 cc909-17

3.27 p.m.

Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion moved yesterday by Viscount Samuel, That there be laid before the House Papers in regard to the proposals for the reform of the House of Lords which the representatives of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties in both Houses unanimously agreed, at the Conference of 1948, might have been the basis for further consideration in detail, with a view to their submission to their respective Parties, had it been possible to achieve general agreement over the whole field of powers and composition; those proposals being as follows:

  1. (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 910 opposed to the establishment of a Second Chamber of a completely new type based on some system of election.
  2. (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. (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. (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. (5) Women should be capable of being appointed Lords of Parliament in like manner as men.
  6. (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. (7) In order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration would be payable to members of the Second Chamber.
  8. (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. (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: (Cmd. 7380).

LORD LAYTON

My Lords, I do not think anybody who has listened to what has passed in your Lordships' House during the last half-hour can fail to feel satisfaction at the reply given by the noble Lord on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and also to hope most sincerely that it will be followed by action. The last time I spoke to your Lordships on a subject of general political principle, some nine months ago, I found myself, unhappily, in opposition to my noble friend and leader Lord Samuel. I am extremely happy to say that on this occasion I find myself wholeheartedly and enthusiastically on his side. I think he has every reason to be satisfied, with qualifications, with yesterday's debate. His own speech was a physical and intellectual triumph, and it must have been still more pleasing to him that it marked a step forward in this difficult subject on which he has spent so much time and on which he has been so persistent.

It is true that the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition, in reporting the canvass he made of opinion in the Labour Party—a sort of personal Gallup Poll—expressed an opinion that was a disappointment after the statement he made in January. On the other hand, the Government position has been clarified, and I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for making the position clear, point by point, on the statement in the Conference Report. I think my noble friend must also feel satisfaction at the substantial measure of agreement shown in the House on the subject which he brought forward.

Let me elaborate that slightly. On the need of a Second Chamber, I think there was almost entire unanimity in this House. But that only gave rise to the question of whether the House, with its present composition, is able to carry out efficiently and adequately the functions that fall to it, or whether some Amendment or adaptation of its composition is necessary. I think it will be agreed by those who followed the debate carefully that, in spite of the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and of other points that were made, the balance of opinion was clearly, with various degrees of enthusiasm—or lack of enthusiasm, shall I say?—that some amendment or evolution is necessary. Further, there was a degree of common opinion on certain principles of amendment, though not on details. Moreover, the agreement on these points extends to part, at all events, of the Labour Party. The statement of the Leader of the Opposition, to which I have referred, contains certain references indicating that a number of people agree in substance on that general approach. I think it would be true to say, too, that the speeches from the Labour Benches, on the whole, would not be noticeably different from the general body of opinion expressed in this House yesterday.

It is also true that one of the leaders of the Labour Party, Mr. Herbert Morrison, has comparatively recently published a book on the subject of the working of the Constitution, including a whole chapter on the subject of the House of Lords, its functioning and its composition. He has written an article on it, in the course of which he says this: With regard to changes in the composition of the House, I adhere in general to the views expressed by the Party Leaders in the Report of the all-Party Conference published in 1948. That is a comparatively recent statement from Mr. Herbert Morrison. It seems to me that the formula which he uses is extremely close, so far as he personally is concerned, at all events, to that used by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in describing that Conference yesterday. But on the Labour side, and to some extent in other quarters of the House, I sensed a sort of feeling that, after all, this question does not really matter very much. I want to say, with the greatest force that I can, that in my opinion it matters very much indeed.

I should like to deal now with those three general concepts. The case for a Second Chamber rests partly on practical considerations of the working of the Constitution, and partly on political considerations. On the practical side, there will be no difference of opinion in expressing the case for a Second Chamber—it was referred to by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, yesterday: the great increase in the work of Government and of legislation; a tendency from time to time of blocking the channels; a Second Chamber, and a sort of division of labour, as it were, between the working of the legislative machine between the democratic Chamber, where political considerations are necessarily dominant, and a Chamber where political considerations are much less dominant. Expertise and calmer consideration, if necessary, should, and does, produce better results than single-Chamber Government. On that side, if there were not two Chambers, we should be forced to something like a massive devolution in the work of legislation and government as the only possible alternative. Many suggestions have been made in that direction from time to time. When I think not merely of Britain's domestic problems, but also of foreign affairs and the affairs of the Commonwealth, it seems clear that if it were not for the existence of a Second Chamber, we should require a radical alteration in the whole constitution of the House of Commons and of the legislative apparatus generally.

But there is also a political consideration. If a Second Chamber—certainly in this country, but I think this applies to others, too—can command the approval and support of the nation, it may make good some of the deficiencies and help to ward against some of the dangers of a democratic Constitution. Let me say at once that it is not a disservice to the cause of democracy to say that there are such dangers and deficiencies. I am not saying that I want to put a brake on the wheel of progress, but it has been my lot to watch constitutional affairs on the Continent and elsewhere in recent years, and I feel that anybody who has done that cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that it is extremely important to watch the apparatus and the working of the constitutional machine.

Democracy is up against, and is being measured against, totalitarianism. Is it really efficient? There is no more important problem today than to keep our constitutional practice right up to date and to see that it works well and smoothly. I need not give illustrations, which will occur to almost everybody at once. We have seen what difficulty and trouble occurs to our French neighbours across the Channel from the constitutional point of view; and we have seen the problems that arise in the United States of America. I do not pretend that "McCarthyism" is due to flaws in the Constitution of the United States, but its magnification, and the way the problems of "McCarthyism" were spread, were not by any means entirely detached from the methods and practice of the Constitution. There is tremendous importance in seeing that these constitutional things are rightly worked.

This need to watch carefully applies in this country, too. Many of your Lordships will have recently read a book about the working of the Party system in this country. This is not a debate about the Party system, but few of us would doubt that the Party machines are tending to become possibly dangerously rigid, and that is something that must be carefully watched. The mover of the Motion pointed out that, for the first time, the Independent Members of the House of Commons have completely disappeared. The voting system of to-day might easily at the next General Election produce a Government dependent on a minority of votes in this country.

EARL JOWITT

The present one is, is it not?

LORD LAYTON

Where there are three Parties there is a different system, and it rarely happens that the actual Government concerned have a majority vote. That has certainly been so in the past. On one occasion when the Government were elected on a minority vote the Prime Minister, in his first speech in the House of Commons, said he realised that he had got a trust of a different kind from that which fell ordinarily to Prime Ministers and, because of that fact, he would not do this, that and the other. But it is a problem. It may well be that a Second Chamber helps to maintain a platform for independent points of view, or minority points of view; and as I say, might also help to make good some of the deficiencies and flaws that may arise under the Constitution. It was pointed out yesterday that, to a large extent, the hereditary Peers in this House do represent an independent point of view. Certainly they do, and the prestige of this House is largely due to that fact. At the same time, without any question it also produces a politically biased point of view and an overwhelming weight on one side. I think the reform of the constitution of this House could produce a Chamber which would provide a platform for many at present unrepresented elements in the community without permanently weighting the scales in one direction.

I now come to the further point of whether changes on the lines of the proposals mentioned on the Order Paper would make this Chamber more efficient and effective in carrying out the necessary duties of a Second Chamber. The speech, made yesterday by the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition certainly implied that in the Labour Party it is presumed and assumed that reform would greatly increase the prestige of this House—indeed, it is for that reason that some channels of opinion in the Labour Party go on to assume that, because of that increased prestige, there is a danger of an attempt to increase powers, which is something the Labour Party would oppose. I think it must be admitted that a reform, a modification or an evolution, whichever word you wish to use, in the composition of this House, would undoubtedly increase the prestige of the House. The decisive answer to the question, however, was given by the Leader of the House in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he spoke of the difficulties in running the House on present lines. It is as clear as it can be that as things are at present, those difficulties will necessarily increase. The refusal of so many people to accept a Peerage for economic reasons means that it is not possible, as things are at present, to get the right selection of Peers into this House. The levelling of incomes, the equalitarian trend of the whole of the community, means that very few people are free and at leisure to do the increasing work which ought to be thrown on an effective Second Chamber. The problem of the Leader of the House will inevitably get worse and worse.

As I said, the comments of the noble Marquess yesterday on the nine points of principle, though not of detail, clarified the position. This is not the occasion to go over them, because they have been discussed at great length before, but it is clear that they must include the following points. First, there must be the creation of a number of Life Peers on a carefully planned basis, designed to give a correct balance and also to maintain and develop the independent and expert characteristics of this Chamber. Secondly, there must be a considerable reduction in the number of hereditary Peers who sit in this House, whether there is abolition of the right of inheritance or not, because it is, I think, recognised that we shall get a hopeless situation if we have the continuous creation of Peers and retain the right of everybody to sit in the House.

Some arguments were given yesterday against the hereditary right to sit in the House as an absolute right. The attitude of this House is one thing, and the attitude in the country is another. It is well that we should consider opinion outside this House. Now the only evidence I have on that point is not immediately recent; it is about five or six years old; but I do not think there is any reason to suppose that the opinion of the country as a whole has changed very much since then. The only time since the war that a Gallup Poll has been taken on these issues—polls have been taken on many questions relating to the composition of the House of Lords, but only once, I think, on this specific point—was when the question was asked: "The sons of Peers inherit the right to sit in the House of Lords. Do you think this should be retained, or should it be abolished? "The voting was 26 per cent. for it to be retained, 56 per cent. against retaining the right, and 18 per cent. "Do not know."

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Would the noble Lord give that last figure again?

LORD LAYTON

26 per cent. for retaining the right, 56 per cent. for abolishing it, and 18 per cent. "Do not know," or gave no specific answer.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

That does not add up to 100—I beg your pardon; it does.

LORD LAYTON

I would not compete with a banker, but I think 26, 56 and 18 make 100. In any case, even if it did not add up, there is no doubt at all that the proportion—

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am sorry, but did the noble Lord not say 26, 56 and 18?

LORD LAYTON

Perhaps I have not allowed for the discount! In any case, it is clear that the figures are so large that they show an overwhelming proportion—more than two to one—against the right of inheritance. I quoted those figures merely as indicating that opinion in the country does not attach great prestige to the fact of heredity in this connection. The third point is that, for the present at all events, the numbers should not be fixed. May I at this point make a brief comment on one other suggestion that was made more than once yesterday, and that is as regards possible inclusion among Life Peers of Members from the Colonial or Commonwealth areas? I should like to make only this comment: that we must be very careful in applying that proposition. It would be a great mistake to let it be thought in general terms that this was the opening of the door to a system under which we should have a great Senate of the Commonwealth, because that is really not in the picture. A great deal is to be said for the proposition that this House should have the benefit of such experience, but if it is done it must be done on the individual and personal basis, and not on any basis of representation.

Coming to one further point about the proposals, I would add that we should not attempt at this stage, whatever the formula adopted, to try and get a new constitutional shape for the House of Lords in a final form. Having regard to the background history and all that has been said about evolution, I am certain that we must do this by trial and error, and move, as we have always moved, by degrees. But we do need substantial changes if the Howe is to be put into a condition where it does what is really needed. Substantial changes in the practical work of the House are needed at this stage in order to maintain and increase the prestige of the House in the country and to remove the bias that is felt about it from the Left.

To sum up, I do not think that the continuation of the House of Lords without readaptation is a possibility that is open to us—not, at all events, if we are thinking of taking a long view. The choice is between a single Chamber—which I think most of us reject—and evolutionary changes in this historic institution of which we are all proud members. The matter is urgent, for the reasons I have given. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to suggest that, while he was sympathetic, this was not a good time to do it. There is no great crisis at the moment, he suggested, between the two Houses. That is perfectly true, bat I submit that the improvement of our political institutions, both in theory and in practice, and their firm hold on the hearts and minds of the people are of supreme importance. That involves an evolution, a change. The right time to mend holes in the roof is on a dry day when the sun is shining, not to wait until the storm is pouring through the holes. The noble Marquess who leads the House asks for collaboration in helping to solve what is inevitably a complicated and difficult question. I am sure that at least the Liberal Party will respond to his invitation.