Lords Sitting of 16 June 1958

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Read 2a, and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  THE LATE EARL FORTESCUE
  2.35 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I have deeply distressing news to convey to the House, as many of your Lordships will know: that is, that the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, died on Saturday last, thus depriving us of a dear friend and a valued colleague. In the short time available I have tried to discover what would be most suitable to the House, and I propose that we should pay tributes to Lord Fortescue to-morrow, at the beginning of Business. I believe that that is agreeable to noble Lords, except that I understand that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who has told me that he will be unable to be in the House to-morrow, probably would like to say a personal word to-day.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with the permission of the House I would just say a personal word on the very sad news that we have had. To me, personally, it is an absolute loss. Negotiating with Lord Fortescue, as we have done through "the usual channels." one could not but be struck by his great personal courtesy and—what will be an especial loss to Her Majesty's Government—his imperturbability in every situation. He and Lady Fortescue were hosts to myself and my wife while I was paying
  858
  a political visit to the West Country last October, and it seems almost unbelievable that to-day we have to mourn the loss of both these gracious and very great persons. I shall leave it to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to pay a more adequate tribute to-morrow on behalf of all my friends.

  THE PRINCESS LOUISE HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN
  2.37 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: 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 the Minister of Health is now in a position to give his decision on the future of the Princess Louise (Kensington) Hospital for Children.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, this matter concerns a proposal made to my right honourable and learned friend the Minister of Health by the Board of Governors of St. Mary's Hospital and debated in your Lordships' House last year. The proposal was twofold: first, that for a temporary period during adaptations of the maternity unit at St. Mary's Hospital two wards at Princess Louise Hospital should be used for maternity patients; and second, that thereafter the Hospital should become a hospital for adults.
  My right honourable friend has considered this proposal very carefully in the light of the views of the hospital authorities concerned, of the University of London and St. Mary's Medical School, of the Royal Borough of Kensington and other interested bodies, of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and of the other Members of your Lordships' House who took part in the debate to which I have referred. He has had regard also to the terms of a restrictive covenant attaching to the land on which Princess Louise Hospital stands, which limits the use of the building to that of a hospital for children with maternity wards, and also to his obligations under Section 6 (4) of the National Health Service Act, 1946.

  859
  All these considerations have led my right honourable and learned friend to the conclusion that he would be justified in approving the temporary use of two wards for maternity patients, but that he should not approve the long-term use of the Hospital for adults but should review the future of the Hospital again towards the end of the period of temporary use for maternity purposes.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, which at least means that the plan for complete conversion of the Children's Hospital to adults use is not to be gone on with immediately, may I ask him to give some indication of the total number of beds to be used for mothers, and for how long? And will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that such partial use will be related solely to the period required for the rebuilding of St. Mary's Maternity Department?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first question, I would say that thirty-nine cots in the two wards to be converted are to be removed and there will be provided in place twenty beds for mothers. It is anticipated that the period will be for about two years after the work of adaptation has been completed; and it is expected that the Board of Governors will begin adaptations this year. The answer to the noble Lord's third question is, Yes; but, as I have already explained, the future use of the Princess Louise Hospital will be reviewed towards the end of the period of temporary use of the two wards for maternity purposes.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, in view of the indefiniteness, not to say rather evasive nature, of my noble friend's reply, I would ask him for an assurance that this plan of the Ministry is not just a way of doing by the back door that which a recent decision of a Scottish court has made it difficult for the Ministry to do by the front door. Will my noble friend either accept or deny that suggestion?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I think I have explained that my right honourable friend has an open mind. He has no desire to prejudge the situation which may exist when the maternity unit
  860
  at St. Mary's Hospital is ready for occupation. I am not aware that the decision made by the Scottish court, to which the noble Lord has referred has any bearing on my right honourable and learned friend's decision.

  THE WITHHOLDING OR WITHDRAWAL OF PASSPORTS
  2.42 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: 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 the protection afforded by the possession of a valid British passport is the normal right of a British-born subject either in the United Kingdom or the Colonies; and for what, if any, reasons it is held that a passport can be withheld or withdrawn.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, the protection of a British-born subject does not derive from the possession of a passport but is the exercise of one of the normal functions of a sovereign State. No British subject has a legal right to a passport. The grant of a United Kingdom passport is a Royal prerogative exercised through Her Majesty's Ministers and, in particular, the Foreign Secretary.
  The Foreign Secretary has the power to withhold or withdraw a passport at his discretion, although in practice such power is exercised only very rarely and in very exceptional cases. First, in the case of minors suspected of being taken illegally out of the jurisdiction; secondly, persons believed on good evidence to be fleeing the country to avoid prosecution for a criminal offence; thirdly, persons whose activities are so notoriously undesirable or dangerous that Parliament would be expected to support the action of the Foreign Secretary in refusing them a passport or withdrawing a passport already issued in order to prevent their leaving the United Kingdom; and fourthly, persons who have been repatriated to the United Kingdom at public expense and have not repaid the expenditure incurred on their behalf.

  861
  In the Colonies the prerogative is exercised by the Governor as the representative of the Queen, and the policy and practice of Colonial Governors in issuing or withholding passports follows broadly the lines of the United Kingdom policy.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that very clear reply. May I ask him this question: how does the Foreign Secretary make up his mind whether the withholding of a passport would meet with the approval of Parliament?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I should imagine by his own judgment, my Lords.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, have we got to the stage now when the Government governs by its own judgment? The question I am asking is: what about the power of Parliament?
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether be is aware that in Cyprus many passports are withdrawn, although no charges are made against the individuals concerned?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I do not think there was anything in my reply which said that any charges bad to be laid in order to withdraw a passport.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, how in that case can you find a man guilty unless you try him?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, there is no suggestion of guilt in the withdrawal of a passport, the issue of which is a Royal Prerogative.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, in the event of the Minister's exercising the power to withhold a passport because in his judgment that would meet with the approval of Parliament, does he subsequently take steps to confirm that it is the view of Parliament?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I have no example of that in mind.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, this is very obscure. Are we really to understand that the Foreign Secretary sits and says, "In my judgment Parliament will support me in refusing a passport to Mr. A, and therefore I do it"? What I am asking is this: what steps does he take to confirm his estimate of the Parliamentary wish?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, as I replied to the noble Viscount's original question, the Foreign Secretary obviously uses his own judgment as to whether he considers he will, or will not, have the support of Parliament. Obviously, if he subsequently proves not to have the support of Parliament he will be in an awkward position; therefore he would not take steps about which he was not reasonably certain. However, if the Foreign Secretary did, in fact, take such steps, there is nothing to prevent a Member of Parliament from putting down a Question subsequently which would, presumably, elicit an answer one way or the other.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, would Parliament have the power to reverse the decision which was made proprio motu, on his own judgment, by the Foreign Secretary?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, if Parliament decided that the Foreign Secretary had overstepped his prerogative, I imagine, though I will not commit the Foreign Secretary in any way, the Foreign Secretary would re-exercise his prerogative on the ground that he had made a personal misjudgment.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I hope some opportunity will be given to elucidate this extremely obscure constitutional position.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, does the noble Earl imply that the sole right to decide whether a passport shall or shall not be granted rests with the Home Secretary, and the only action open to one aggrieved would be in fact to defeat the Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, that is a very difficult but not unknown process.
  LORD KILLEARN: Would not the noble Earl agree that it is an extremely wise and salutary thing that the Secretary of State should have this discretion in regard to passports? Surely that is the common-sense point of it.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: Would not the noble Earl also agree that in fact all this does is to give to the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary the powers

  863
  which are given to a Government under emergency powers during a state of emergency?
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question: is he aware that what is in people's minds is the undesirability of our following the American precedent, where the withholding of a passport is a definite act of State.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, this process has been going on for many years. The number of passports withheld annually is one or, at the most, two, as against the many millions which are issued.

  PARK LAND IMPROVEMENT BILL
  2.50 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Park Lane Improvement Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROET): My Lords, as a native of Central London, I have particular pleasure in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It will enable the London County Council to put in hand a road improvement which is most pressing and which will be the largest single road work in Central London for over fifty years. The scheme is, even so, only one of several which the London County Council are carrying out in London on a large scale, with the approval and assistance of the Government, and with the object of removing congestion from roads which were never designed for all the traffic that clutters them up to-day.
  May I remind your Lordships of some of these schemes? The Elephant and Castle is being entirely reconstructed. The Notting Hill Gate widening will get rid of one of the smallest bottlenecks of traffic to and from the West—incidentally, not one of the largest bottlenecks, as it is usually illogically described. A new
  864
  system of control will soon begin to operate at Hammersmith Broadway, where traffic will eventually be further helped by a new flyover on the Cromwell Road Extension leading to London Airport. St. Giles' Circus is to be partially reconstructed, and the Corporation of the City of London have also begun work on their scheme for Route 11 in the City.
  More ambitious than all of the other London schemes is that for which this Bill provides. Hyde Park Corner is the busiest junction in the Kingdom, possibly in the world. In 1956, 91,000 vehicles passed—or lurched—through it in twelve hours. At times it becomes stagnant with traffic. Not only that, it is often a test of a driver's patience and ingenuity to get through the junction at all, and roads ought not to make such demands upon those who use them. At Marble Arch. which is also very congested, 65,000 vehicles were counted in the same period, and Park Lane itself is often solid with the traffic—it certainly was twenty-five minutes ago.
  The London County Council's scheme is designed to remove this congestion. Its leading features are to be found in the Explanatory Memorandum prefixed to the Bill and do not, I think, need re-stating by me. It would really be simpler to adjourn this debate and hold it round the models in the Royal Gallery, but I understand that there are slight constitutional difficulties in the way of doing so. Incidentally, I should be vastly obliged if the noble Lord who has removed from the models one bus, two plane trees and the south side of Curzon Street would kindly put them back, because the models are at present under my charge.
  The aim of the scheme is to provide very much larger roundabouts at the Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch junctions, so as to give traffic more room for manœuvre, to drain off the Piccadilly-Knightsbridge traffic from Hyde Park Corner by building an underpass beneath it, and to convert Park Lane and the East Carriage Drive in Hyde Park into complementary one-way roads. Except for controlling access to and from Mayfair, traffic lights will be abolished throughout. Although this is an elaborate and extensive scheme, it would normally have been possible for the London County Council to carry it out under their own general powers, but the scheme has to incorporate small portions of Hyde Park and the

  865
  Green Park. These can only be given up by the Crown under the authority of Parliament. Hence this Bill.
  My Lords, may I dwell on this point? There is not one of us who does not prize the Royal Parks. None more so than I, who have lived half-way between Hyde Park and Regent's Park for almost all my life. I can assure your Lordships that, had it been possible to devise an effective solution to the traffic problem without having to encroach on the parks, the Government would never have agreed to this trespass. As it is, your Lordships will have seen from the models, and from the outline plans which I have had prepared, how little, in fact, of the parks is to be taken.
  Before it was decided to approve the present scheme a Working Party was set up by my right honourable friend the former Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, to investigate whether it was at all possible to produce a scheme which would leave the parks untouched. The London County Council, the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Road Research Laboratory, the Metropolitan Police and others were all concerned in this study. The conclusion reached was that no scheme could reconcile the demands of traffic, amenity and finance half as well as the scheme now embodied in the Bill. All the rest were open to objections of one sort or another, and there was none which would not have meant an alteration to some part of the landscape. The next best, for instance, would have required the removal of the Decimus Burton Screen at Hyde Park Corner, and in any case it would have been a less effective solution to the traffic problem.
  The net loss of grassed or planted areas in the two parks will, in fact, be no greater than four or five acres. We all wish that it could have been none. This scheme will also, inevitably and unhappily, involve the loss of a number of trees. No one can regard this prospect, too, as anything but a most regrettable sacrifice. But, if we are going to take the congestion of the roads in this part of London as seriously as it deserves, we have to decide between preserving the free flow of traffic at the expense of some trees or preserving those trees at the expense of the flow of traffic. The Government have decided, after great
  866
  deliberation, that there is no escape from this sad result. As my noble friend Lord Perth told your Lordships on Wednesday last, about sixty forest trees will be lost to the two parks, and some thirty-five smaller trees. This is certainly a small number, in comparison with the 3,100 or so trees in the whole of Hyde Park and the Green Park, but it never can be small enough. It may be possible to reduce the number even further, and I can give your Lordships an assurance that not one more tree will be cut down than is absolutely necessary.
  A great deal of thought has been given by the London County Council to the landscape treatment of the new layout, and they have consulted the Royal Fine Art Commission. I am in duty bound to bring to your notice that the Commission oppose the scheme in principle, on the grounds that any encroachment on the Royal Parks ought to be resisted. Since, however, a decision in favour of the scheme has been taken, the Commission have most helpfully commented on certain points of landscape design, and modifications have been made, or are being considered, in the London County Council's plans.
  I should like to mention, if I may, one piece of advice which has been particularly valuable. The Commission suggested that the surface of the new roundabout at Hyde Park Corner should form a logical link with the character of the parks on either side. Your Lordships will have seen from the model that the dominant feature will be a grassed expanse suitably planted with trees. I think your Lordships will agree that this will be a great improvement on the irregular and bleak concrete islands there at present. The processional route will, of course, be preserved, both here and at Marble Arch.
  The new islands at Marble Arch call for a slightly different treatment, since they will form what the planners call a terminal feature, but once again a grass expanse will predominate. Both these places, as well as the central reservation between the Park Lane carriageways will naturally remain open for the recreation of the public. It will be necessary to move one or two of the smaller memorials and statues, including Byron and the Cavalry and Machine Gun memorials, but, wherever possible, they

  867
  will be re-sited in the vicinity. The Decimus Burton Screen will be left untouched; pedestrians will still be able to go through it, but it will be closed to vehicles. The Wellington Arch and the Wellington Memorial will stay as they are.
  It would clearly be unsatisfactory to leave some of the lodges at the various gates into Hyde Park along Park Lane isolated between two carriageways of fast traffic. Two of the lodges (those at Cumberland Gate and Grosvenor Gate) are of great historical interest, and they will be moved a short distance and preserved inside the new boundary of the park, which will in future run along the western side of what is now the East Carriage Drive. The lodges at Stanhope ate, which are of much less importance historically, will be removed altogether.
  Two features of the new layout are of particular interest. The first is the underpass between Piccadilly and Knightsbridge. We are sometimes asked why Her Majesty's Government do not do more to encourage the building of underpasses in London, when they have been built with such success on the Continent, notably in Brussels. The answer is that the reason more underpasses are not built in London is not for want of encouragement, but for lack of opportunity. Underpasses need streets with enough space to accommodate their approaches, and the places in London where the carriageways can be made wide enough without tremendous expense are very seldom the places where traffic would benefit from them. For example, it would be prohibitive to build either a north-to-south or an east-to-west underpass at Marble Arch. At Hyde Park Corner, however, we have the opportunity, as well as the best of reasons, for putting some of the traffic underground, and the L.C.C. have wisely included an underpass in the scheme.
  There has been a good deal of comment on what the capacity of the underpass should be. When the Bill was first published it provided for an underpass with one traffic lane in each direction. That would probably have been sufficient for ten to fifteen years at least. But my right honourable friend and the London County Council ultimately decided that it was better not to under-insure but to make certain now that there would be sufficient reserve capacity for as far ahead
  868
  as anyone cared, or dared, to look. The Bill was therefore amended to provide for two lanes, each in a single tunnel, in each direction.
  The effect of the new layout will be to provide Hyde Park Corner with a substantial reserve capacity, taking the surface roads and the underpass together, at the peak hours. The reserve capacity at Marble Arch will also be greater. Should it, however, eventually prove necessary, it will be possible to increase the reserve capacity here at Marble Arch by restoring traffic light control at Great Cumberland Place.
  The other feature I want to mention is the arrangements for pedestrians. Obviously, traffic flows more freely, and pedestrians cross roads more safely, if the twain shall never meet. What is proposed here is to fence off the islands at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch, and along the central reservation in Park Lane, and to provide twelve subways at suitable points to let people get from one side to the other in safety. Several of these subways will give access to Hyde Park, and they will also allow people to get on to the islands and to most of the central reservation in comfort. In nearly every case the subways will be served by ramps. This should be of great comfort to members of the "Pram Pushers' Union," whose life on a hot Sunday round Marble Arch is liable to be nasty, brutish and short—and I speak from painful personal experience.
  My Lords, the Bill which provides for these matters does not, I think, require much comment from me. The leading provisions are annotated in the Explanatory Memorandum. It is really a Bill to enable the London County Council to carry out the works listed in Clause 1, which are the main works, and those in Clause 3, which are subsidiary. Clause 4 permits the London County Council, with the consent of the Minister of Works, to enter upon and use such land in the parks as they may require for the works. The limits within which the London County Council are to work are shown on the plans deposited with the Bill. Your Lordships will notice that the power given in Clause 4 is only a right of entry to do certain things. This reflects a proposal of the Crown Estate Commissioners that, although land will be lost to the parks, it shall not be lost

  869
  to the Crown—in other words, the freehold title of the Sovereign to the land will not be affected. This arrangement was graciously approved by Her Majesty in giving her consent to the Bill.
  If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, the Government expect to move Amendments at a later stage to provide for the protection of the British Transport Commission and certain statutory undertakers and on one or two minor matters. My Lords, I ask you to give this Bill a Second Reading and a quick passage through its remaining stages, so that we can now all get on with the job. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  3.5 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, with his usual clarity and good humour has presented this Bill to the House so clearly that I do not think any of us will be under any misapprehension as to what is going to happen. The noble Lord is quite right when he says that this matter has had a great deal of thought. If my memory serves me correctly, it was in December of last year that the Second Reading of this Bill took place in another place, and it has been substantially amended there, to its great benefit, in Standing Committee. Therefore, many of the criticisms levelled in another place cannot, I think, be levelled in your Lordships' House.
  On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, I welcome this Bill, although I must say, in fairness, that one or two of my colleagues have some reservations, as I have myself. However, in total, I would congratulate the Government. I think this is a bold and imaginative scheme, and I shall watch with the greatest interest the outcome of this experiment of an underpass. I should have been bitterly opposed to the scheme in its original form, providing for only a dual carriageway; but now that it is to have two tunnels, with two carriageways each, I think it may be adequate for the future.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft has given us statistics. The trouble with our road policy for this last fifty years has been that we have never had enough wisdom to look far enough ahead. We
  870
  have wasted millions and millions of pounds through making our roads too narrow and then widening them foot by foot, with the advent of different Chief Engineers at the Ministry of Transport. This Bill does give us a chance of saying that, once this is done, then at least for twenty-five years we shall not have much to grumble at. One of the chief criticisms I have heard is that in having such a bold scheme as this, at, as I think the noble Lord said, and as is common knowledge, the worst traffic spot in this country, if it cures this great bottleneck at Hyde Park Corner it will only create another down at Knightsbridge or somewhere else. But that is true all over this country; and if we wait until we can widen every length of road right over the country, we shall never get any improvements in our roads. I know of no place where a bold widening of the road has not meant a bottleneck; and I know of hundreds of places in this country where four carriageways merge with abruptness into two. But is that any good reason why we should never have a four-carriageway road, or never start one?
  So, my Lords, I welcome this Bill, although I have one or two reservations on which I should like the noble Lord to give me an answer. From my observations and studies of the question of London traffic—and I spent some time in the Ministry of Transport—I can say that this is only one small part of the problem. Do not let it be thought that, with all the schemes the noble Lord has mentioned—those at Kingsway, the Elephant and Castle and so on—we are going to make a very great imprint on the total problem. This is a contribution. The one thing to which I would ask the Government to give serious consideration is the resuscitation of the idea—which we shall have to do at some time—of a roadway right round London, with limited access, to see whether we cannot drain off from our thickly trafficked spots the through-traffic which at present goes through London because it cannot find its way round.
  The noble Lord, I think, has given some figures of the commercial vehicle traffic that runs through Hyde Park Corner. There must be some way of creaming off that traffic. I am hoping that with the experiment, and with the lessons we shall learn we shall have the

  871
  imagination to go on building underpasses, which in my view are far better than flyovers, especially in urban areas; and flyovers, in my view, are far better than roundabouts. I think the roundabout has been proved to be a traffic congestor and not an easement, unless it is large enough. I remember that in the last unfortunate strike—I think it was a railway strike—I saw some pictures taken from a helicopter of the roads just outside London, and the greatest congestion was at the roundabouts, because of the degree of weaving across the line of traffic that has to take place.
  My Lords, I am not going to criticise the proposals in this Bill as they stand. There are one or two questions I want to ask the noble Lord, and I want to make one or two suggestions. I want to ask him: is it intended that parking of vehicles shall be prohibited in the East and West Carriage Drives? If we want four traffic lines, if it is necessary to have that width of road, if it is necessary to encroach upon the parks, then let us encroach upon them to move the traffic and not to garage it.
  The next point I want to make is that I view with concern and sharp criticism the decision, if it is a decision, of the London Transport Executive not to use the underpass for buses. I am tempted, in all good will, to ask who is the dictator of London traffic—the Minister of Transport, the L.C.C., which is the highway authority, the Westminster City Council or the London Transport Executive? If Sir John Eliot is capable of learning any lesson at all, he is capable of learning the lesson of the last three or four weeks, that it is not traffic that has congested London; it is the buses. I think that the buses should be made to conform to a plan of traffic and should not be a law unto themselves. I know that I shall be subjected to criticism of neglect of the pedestrians when I say that we should have bus stops further away from Hyde Park, but in my view it means only re-routing the bus services.
  When you are trying to solve a huge problem like the traffic problem in London you cannot expect to have a bus stop right outside your front door, nor a Tube station. I should have thought it would be a matter of grave concern and
  872
  action by the Minister to see that the traffic did conform to a pattern which will cause the least possible congestion. What is the good of spending a sum which I understand will be between £5½ million and £6 million—that is the cost to date: Heaven knows what it will be before the scheme is finished!—and then having almost as much congestion with omnibus traffic? I go from your Lordships' House to Paddington station, and if I want to go there during the rush hour I have to allow myself, in a taxicab. twenty-five minutes, in order to be certain of catching my train. Since the bus strike I have done it in seven minutes and eight minutes, and all that time is made up around Hyde Park Corner.
  The next question I want to ask the noble Lord concerns pedestrian tunnels. Again I know that I am raising a controversial point, but I think it better to raise it, so that it can be discussed. I think it is quite a correct thing to have these tunnels. They are to be placed at points that will allow pedestrians to cross two carriageways in Park Lane and the East Carriage Drive. Do the Government not think that the time has arrived when they should try an experiment in control of pedestrians and prohibit the crossing of these eight traffic lines—that is what it means—by methods other than going through the subways? I would prohibit the crossing of these roads except by these subways. The noble Lord says they are going to put up railings. What are they going to be like? Will they be like those hideous things that surround Trafalgar Square and the hideous things around Parliament Square? I hope that some of the noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who is intensely interested in the question of amenities, would not consider that a lot of galvanised iron tubing right the way down these carriageways will add to the amenities.
  Now I should like to come to this question of amenities. I have followed what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said in the Question and Answer, and I shall listen with the greatest respect, as I always do, to what he has to say this afternoon. I know that some of my own colleagues would fight this Bill on the principle of encroachment on the Royal Parks. I myself do not like it; but you have to pay a price for the traffic in

  873
  London; you have got to pay a price to have the traffic of London move a bit more quickly. The congestion costs industry, and therefore the country, millions and millions of pounds. While nostalgia may prompt opposition to encroachment on the Royal Parks, I think perhaps that carrying this sense of antiquity to the extreme is not always wise—because, after all, anything that is old is not of necessity beautiful, as some of us have borne in upon us every day of the week. I am quite prepared to leave it to the L.C.C. and the Ministry—not necessarily the Royal Fine Art Commission, because to me they are not the safeguard of beauty—to make that layout, as the noble Lord has said, a thing of real beauty. Woodland naturalness is only in some cases an excuse for untidiness. I can see that if the work is done properly the amenities will not suffer. I remember the outcry against the Pitlochry Hydro-Electric Scheme. If ever there was any man-made thing that added to the beauty of Pitlochry it was the Pitlochry Hydro-Electric Scheme after it had been finished.
  That brings me to my next point. I want the noble Lord to tell me, if he will, what is the timetable of construction of this scheme. If we are going to tackle the road problem of this country, whether it is by the Hyde Park Scheme or any other, we have got to knock some sense into the administrative delays that have abounded with every scheme ever put forward. There was another road scheme that interested your Lordships so much that you devoted a whole afternoon's debate to it. That was the ring road around Oxford. We had Government assurance after Government assurance that it was priority No. 1 and that they would move it forward with the utmost rapidity. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, himself, just about a year ago, gave your Lordships an assurance that it would be started this year. All the local authorities were asked to expedite their arrangements, to get all their plans ready for going out to contract; and those plans have lain on the Minister's desk since January. It is now June, and the Oxford Western By-pass will not be started this year.
  Why this circumlocution? Every month that the delay goes on the cost goes up by about a quarter of a million pounds, until it gets to the stage when the Treasury will say, "We are sorry, but
  874
  we cannot go on with the scheme. It is now going to cost too much." The real reason why it has cost too much is the dilatoriness and circumlocution that goes on between the Ministry of Transport and the local officials, and the shuffling of papers and this, that and the other. I am not going to ask the noble Lord to answer that point, but I bring it up this afternoon because, before the Recess, I am going to put down on the Order Paper a Question for him to answer in detail; so I warn him of that now.
  What I want to ask the noble Lord now is: if Brussels can build in eighteen months a three-tiered underpass with an overhead road a mile long costing £14 million, why does it take us four years to accomplish a smaller scheme? If noble Lords want to know the reason why the cost for all these road projects is so high, I can tell you that it is because of the interminable officialdom and red tape which surrounds them. If you gave a contractor the job of getting on with the Hyde Park Scheme and paid him, not for how long it took but, if I may use the phrase, for how long it did not take, you would get it done much more quickly and cheaply. I ask the noble Lord this question: what assurance can he give the House that Londoners are not going to look for four years upon a site at Hyde Park Corner such as can be seen at the junction between the Great West Road and the Chiswick High Road? Any of your Lordships may go down and see the works that are going on there in regard to a relatively small flyover. The battlefields of France never looked worse; and it goes on year after year. Many of your Lordships have seen that scene of horror. Can your Lordships imagine that staring your Lordships in the face at Hyde Park Corner for four years? I ask the noble Lord: what is he doing to see that we do not suffer that fate?
  My Lords, perhaps I may ask one last question—this is the only real question I have to ask on the Bill. I now propose to give the noble Lord an opportunity to throw back in my face a lot of what I have said, because I want to ask him why, in Clause 7 (2), there is put into the Bill some arbitrary language which I cannot quite understand. Perhaps he will save me the trouble of putting down an Amendment on the Committee stage by explaining it to me now. Recently we have heard a lot about the wickedness of

  875
  landlords, but this Bill gives the L.C.C. the right—I use my language in general terms—within fourteen days of the passing of the Bill to evict all the tenants from all the property that has to be pulled down. My information is that there are forty-two of them, some of them small shopkeepers. If I could use a colloquialism, I should have thought that fourteen days is "a bit quick". I should have thought that sixty days' notice to quit would be more appropriate.
  The wording of the subsection is:
  "At any time after serving a notice to treat in respect of any land an interest in which may be acquired compulsorily under the said section six, but not less than fourteen days after giving the owner and occupier thereof notice of their intention to exercise the powers of this subsection, the Council may enter on and take possession of the land. …"
  Perhaps we could be a little more generous. After all, if this is going to take four years I do not suppose that all the bundles of red-taped documents will be tied up for quite a considerable time; so another, say, sixty days instead of fourteen days might be more reasonable in order that they may find alternative accommodation. The L.C.C. cannot treat until this Bill becomes law, and within fourteen days they can evict the tenants. That is the only point of detail I have to raise on the Bill, and if the noble Lord can answer me now it may avoid the necessity of my putting down an Amendment on the Committee stage. For myself—I think I can say that I speak on behalf of the majority of my colleagues on this side of the House—as this Bill is politically not controversial, we wish it well. I wish that we could see the completion of the scheme within a reasonable length of time.
  3.27 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down, to this extent: this matter is not politically controversial as between the different Parties. But that does not mean that it is not intensely controversial. I hope, if the House will bear with me, to give reasons, which some noble Lords may find convincing, why this Bill should not receive a Second Reading to-day. I am grateful to my noble friend who introduced this Bill for having provided us with the model which he promised in answer to the Questions which I put
  876
  last week. I am also grateful to him for having arranged for civil servants from the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Works to show me and some other noble Lords who were particularly interested round the principal areas concerned, in order to explain the nature of the proposals on the spot.
  I think the most remarkable feature of the debate so far has been the assumption that, if we sanctioned this scheme, it would do a lot of good. I hope in the course of my remarks to disabuse your Lordships of that illusion. I oppose the Bill and propose to group the grounds which I wish noble Lords to bear in mind under three heads—namely, the injury which the scheme will do to the Royal Parks; the wrong diagnosis of need on which the Bill is based; and, lastly, but by no means least, the mistaken belief that the solution proposed will work.
  May I start with the injury to the Royal Parks? I would remind the House that, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport explained on the Second Reading in another place, it is what is done in the Royal Parks that accounts for the fact that this Bill is being brought before Parliament at all. There are, as has been said, lovers of the Royal Parks in all quarters of the House. I myself am a great lover of these Parks, but I am not going to suggest for one moment that other noble Lords, wherever they sit, have not the same affection for them. I would, however, mention two facts which I think the House will wish to bear in mind in considering what is being done to the Royal Parks. At the time of the Second Reading debate in another place, there was at any rate some doubt about the precise attitude of the Royal Fine Art Commission. That doubt has been set at rest by a statement which the Commission published on December 19 of last year, after the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. May I read the second paragraph of that statement?
  "From its inception in 1924, the Commission has attached the greatest importance to the preservation of the Royal Parks and has on several occasions resisted suggested encroachments on the perimeter. The present proposals, based on traffic considerations, constitute the largest encroachment ever suggested. The Royal Parks are a unique feature of London and one of its main attractions both for those who live there and for visitors from other parts of the country and from abroad. Their value has increased enormously as the

  877
  built-up areas of the metropolis have extended beyond them, and hitherto no sacrifice of immediate practical convenience has been considered too great to preserve them intact. There is a grave risk that if an encroachment of this kind is once permitted, further demands will follow from time to time, which, if accepted, would whittle away the splendid series of open spaces."
  That is the view of the Royal Fine Art Commission, a body to whom this House sometimes pays some attention.
  The other matter which I would bring to your Lordships' attention is the remarkable speech of my right honourable friend Mr. Nigel Birch, the former Minister of Works, in another place on April 30 of this year. He expressed the hope—which repeat—that this Bill will receive the most careful examination by this House. He condemned the Bill utterly, and the importance of his speech was recognised not merely on his own side of the House, for a tribute was at once paid to it by Mr. Anthony Greenwood, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. There are two things to remember about the former Minister's speech. In the first place, I am convinced that this scheme would never even have been embodied in a Bill had my right honourable friend remained the Minister of Works. The second matter is that my right honourable friend had available to him, at the time he was a Minister, memoranda and information which have not been made available to this House.
  On the question of injury to amenities, Mr. Birch mentioned that fifty of the finest and largest plane trees would be felled at the outset. I have found, in discussion with various noble Lords, that the greatest of all the injuries that this scheme is going to do is not known to them at all: it is a new injury, I think, introduced since the time when the Bill received a Second Reading in another place. That injury is the appalling destruction of plane trees on the north side of Green Park, next to Piccadilly, rendered necessary. I believe, by the widening of the original proposal for the underpass.
  My Lords, I wonder whether the House has considered why it is that these Royal Parks—one of the glories of London, and, indeed, of our country—have survived for so long. It is not because encroachments have never before been proposed: it is because the Ministers responsible have always thought that the Royal. Parks were something that should
  878
  be fought for at almost any cost. Does anybody suppose that, if these encroachments are permitted, that will be the end of the story? These are not the only threats to the Royal Parks, even at this moment. I could mention other threats, if the Minister of Works is prepared to yield, made to different Parks by the Minister of Transport and by others. Does anybody suppose, if this scheme is adopted and, as I hope to show, will not work in its present form, that then, if it is proved to be necessary to have great car parks in the neighbourhood, there will not be an irresistible demand for great car parks in or under Hyde Park, whatever may be the sacrifice of trees? There are some who think it monstrous that there is not a great helicopter station in London. Are your Lordships quite certain that there will be no demands for such a station in the Royal Parks? Once the Ministers concerned think that the Royal Parks are expendable, there will not be an early limitation of the uses for which it will be suggested that they, or bits of them, might be expended.
  I venture to draw attention, because I find it so enlightening, to what was said in another place on the reason why there are to be no underpasses at Marble Arch. Since they were remarks made in the present Session, I must not quote them but must paraphrase them. I will paraphrase them fairly closely. The reason why there is to be no underpass at Marble Arch is that an underpass there would be very costly and would involve heavy demolition in the Edgware Road. I am not joking—that was the reason given. What will be thought by posterity of a Parliament that thought the expense of demolition in the Edgware Road so obviously more important than the destruction of the amenities of Green Park?
  The cost in amenity is great. In both Houses it has been suggested that this is the biggest single improvement since the creation of Kingsway in 1905. It is true that this is the largest scheme; but, of course, to create Kingsway in 1905 it was not necessary to abolish public open spaces, and it was not necessary to ruin great amenities. The cost in amenity of the present scheme is very great. The cost in money is enough to provide eighteen miles of a new motorway. That gives the House some idea of the cost involved. But, my Lords, let me say to Her Majesty's Government at once that

  879
  I am one of those who agree in wanting better roads and facilities for traffic. I admire the energy which my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is showing in so many directions. But I believe that here he is making, or has made, a mistake that would be obvious to all Members of this House, or a great many of them, if they would spend a day in doing as I have done, reading through all the documents in the case.
  I pass from the destruction of amenity to the diagnosis which I say is at fault. It has been said quite truly that this is the busiest junction in the whole country. The figure of the 1956 police census has been mentioned—91,000 vehicles in a twelve-hour day. It certainly is the busiest junction, if we judge by the volume of traffic; but, as every experienced motorist in London knows, it is nothing like the worst junction. It is not one of those places where one is likely to be badly held up and certainly does not compare with a dozen other examples which will occur to any motorist who uses his car in London.
  In regard to delay, not only does it not compare in seriousness with a great many other traffic interruptions with some of which—I want to be entirely fair to Her Majesty's Government—the present Minister is proposing to deal, though he does not propose to deal with all, but it is incomparably less bad than some of the worst examples outside London. I speak on the morrow of a great traffic jam. I wonder what will be the thoughts of motorists who last night took two hours to negotiate two miles at Staines when they learn that it is proposed to spend more than £5;¼ million on a scheme at Hyde Park Corner, not to remedy a serious existing obstruction comparable with many others but to provide a scheme of traffic which, I believe, the greatest traffic engineers in the world have pronounced to be unworkable.
  That brings me to the third objection to this Bill. Even if Hyde Park Corner constituted the main problem and deserved the first priority, even if it were right to sacrifice parts of the Royal Parks for an adequate and permanent solution of the traffic problem at this point, the fact remains, in my submission, that the scheme authorised by this Bill will not work. I shall give my views as to why it will not work though I know noble
  880
  Lords will agree with me that, in order to ascertain whether or not it will work, it is not my views that they particularly want to hear but the views of the Road Research Laboratory. They, after all, are the experts. The Road Research Laboratory, who have conducted experiments on this matter, have advised Her Majesty's Government—and we are not even given the papers or told what their reports were. In fact, that information was refused when I asked for it last week.
  In the interval between my Question last week and to-day I have done my best to consult some of the experts. I know that the points I now raise will not take by surprise my noble friend the Minister in charge of the Bill, because I gave him notice of these points in my supplementary questions last week. I referred to a note that had appeared in the Observer giving weighty criticisms of this scheme which are so far unanswered. One of those with whom I have spoken over the week-end was permitted by the Minister concerned to see some of the reports of the Road Research Laboratory; and some of the points that appeared in their report on the experiments they had conducted were made known by the gentleman I have mentioned to Dr. Feuchtinger of Ulm, who I believe is perhaps the most distinguished road engineer now alive. In any event, he is visiting this country this month, to address a research group of another place interested in these matters, and I believe he will be very well known not only to Her Majesty's Government but to those of my noble friends who are expert on this matter of roads. He is officially consulted by many other Governments outside his own country and is at present the adviser on very important works in the Netherlands and elsewhere.
  What astonishes me is that, though we in this House are so often accustomed to pay tribute to science and to talk of the need for consulting technicians and technologists, too often great schemes are proposed in which we absolutely fail to act in accordance with those principles. I have often been most impressed, when travelling in the United States of America and on the Continent, by the fact that in certain respects they are much more advanced than we are here in road improvements. I agree with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on that matter. He

  881
  is entirely right in saying that a roundabout itself can be the scene of the greatest congestion and of traffic being brought to a standstill. After all, I would remind noble Lords that we already have a roundabout at Hyde Park Corner. Nor are underpasses always the solution. In fact, neither provides a universal solution.
  I do not want to trouble the House with many examples of the jargon used by these traffic experts, but I must mention two conceptions that are of some importance. The first is the great difference between the possible or maximum capacity of a roundabout and the practical working capacity of that same roundabout. There are a great many traffic problems that cannot be solved at all by the use of roundabouts. The limitation on what is possible in the way of "weaving" depends directly on the volume of traffic. I believe that the view held in the United States of America, where they have a great deal of experience of these matters, is that it is impossible at a roundabout to have traffic "weaving" without signals if the vehicles are passing at a rate greater than 1,500 vehicles to the hour. At this junction, even with the use of the enlarged underpass, the volume of traffic will be many times that amount. The best calculation that I can make, on the figures last published by the Ministry of Transport, is that this underpass at Hyde Park Corner for the east—west traffic may take 14 per cent. of the volume of traffic.
  London Transport have already expressed their determination not to use it for the buses. I am not going to comment on the little dispute, or the great dispute, between the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and London Transport; but, of course, one of the grounds of the objection of London Transport is the amount of interchange from one bus to another that takes place at this point. I am not necessarily defending their decision, but I am giving their ground. But if I are in the least right on the volume of traffic that will be taken by the underpasses—and it is these underpasses which cause the greatest injury to amenity—then that will still leave a volume of traffic, even if traffic does not increase, attempting to "weave" at this series of roundabouts which is greater than can be accommodated, according to the views of
  882
  the most distinguished traffic engineers in the world.
  I notice with great interest that my noble friend, in introducing this Bill, said that the whole of this scheme—I think he said with the exception of entry from Mayfair—was going to be controlled without traffic lights. I am certain that what he told the House he believed to be a fact, but I venture to make the confident prophecy that he is wrong. If any noble Lord has gained the idea from the model that, when this scheme has been adopted, traffic is going to move continuously and smoothly round these various roundabouts, without traffic lights, he is deceiving himself. Lights will certainly have to be used to introduce what is called (in the horrible jargon of the experts) "directional channelisation". I do not defend the jargon, but it means that you control the traffic, not by a roundabout, but by a system enabling the traffic to move rapidly in the direction in which it wishes to go. Perhaps I might quote the expert conclusion accepted in the United States, which is this:
  "… It is possible for a signal-controlled intersection having proper design of channelisation to carry much more traffic than a traffic circle "—
  that is what they call a roundabout. The conclusion continues:
  "Indeed, properly combining traffic signals and channelisation may possibly provide the same service as a grade separation "—
  that is, having a separation of levels.
  My Lords, I say that, should this House pass this Bill, it will be demonstrated very quickly that the traffic cannot flow unless traffic signals, by lights, are adopted. My noble friend may then say, on the supposition that I am right about that, "If that is found to be the case, then we can introduce traffic lights." But that is not really an answer, for this very simple reason. If the need for lights were recognised generally at the outset, then the layout for traffic at this point would be quite different from the layout proposed under this Bill; and it might well be one that would be much less destructive of amenities.
  The Minister said in another place that a perfectly sound technical case could be made for saying that the underpass should not be built at all. Nevertheless, since he said that, he has doubled the size of the underpass, and I am not necessarily

  883
  opposing that, if there is to be an underpass at all. But I beg this House not to pass this Second Reading to-day, but to insist that an opportunity shall be given of hearing expert views on the matter and of reading the reports the Traffic Research Laboratory have made to Her Majesty's Government, instead of blindly sanctioning this unique destruction of the Royal Parks.
  My Lords, I believe that this Bill, if carried, will constitute a disastrous precedent by encroaching on the Royal Parks; it will effect an immediate injury to amenity, and it will waste a vast sum of money and result in a wholly inadequate improvement in the flow of traffic. Of course, I know how many people will find it difficult to believe that what I say is true, for this reason: that anything that has even the label of doing something for traffic is accepted as desirable without any consideration of what the effect will, in truth, be. My Lords, I do not know how many noble Lords remember some of the errors in formal logic which used to be taught to those who studied the logic of Aristotle and other systems, but may I give an example of a fault in logic that is to-day very prevalent? From the true premise that some traffic improvements injure amenity, very many people draw the quite illogical conclusion that anything that injures amenity must benefit traffic. My Lords, I would assure the House that that is undoubtedly an error.
  I know that angry young men sometimes command attention; I know that the position of an angry old man is generally considered to be ridiculous; and I am aware, therefore, that my plea for London—the city that I love, which I would do almost anything in order to preserve—may strike some people as old-fashioned and blind. But I assure them that, if they will study this matter, they will probably come to three conclusions: first, that the price we are asked to pay for this scheme is very great indeed; secondly, that this scheme is prompted by a wrong diagnosis of the problem; and, thirdly, that when we have paid the price we shall not get the advantage which alone might make it worth while.
  3.57 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken with deep sincerity, and in some of what he says I am sure he
  884
  has the sympathy of the whole House. None of us would wish callously and in cold blood to encroach on open space in London, where it is so much needed, still less on the Royal Parks; and I personally have great sympathy with the point he put forward that, if one permits this, one might be able hereafter to make an equally good case for something else. I will ask him to look at this matter from the point of view of the citizen of London. Here we have a problem. I do not know whether he would suggest, by comparing the traffic congestion at Staines with that at Hyde Park Corner, that there is not a problem at Hyde Park Corner. Those who use Hyde Park Corner as frequently as I do will have no doubt whatever that it has one of the most serious traffic blocks in London, and, furthermore, that it is one of the most dangerous points. It is the business of those who are responsible for dealing with the traffic of London to do something about it.
  The noble Lord, with all his talk, gave us no suggestions as to what should be done, except possibly that we should do something about Staines, with which I fully agree. But this is not a week-end problem; it is a daily problem which faces the citizens of London, and I submit that we are not dealing with it too soon. I was a member of the London County Council before the war, and I remember that Hyde Park Corner was one of the problems that we were trying to deal with even at that time—1937 and earlier. My noble friend Lord Latham was there with me and he will know that we spent hours and hours over this problem of Hyde Park Corner. Everybody has tried to find the solution which would be some alternative to taking four or five acres off the Park. I can assure the noble Lord that this scheme is not the first idea. It was never thought that the problem of Hyde Park was an easy matter to negotiate, but this is the simplest way of solving it. Every other alternative was considered and now we are faced frankly with the choice—and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, cannot get away from this choice—either we carry out this scheme or something like it, or we do nothing worth while about traffic congestion at Hyde Park Corner.

  885
  Recently the London County Council have acquired between thirty and thirty-five acres of space in that area of London, at Holland Park, which is quite close to Hyde Park. This is a factor which is worth taking into consideration, because the people of London want open spaces. I agree that there is a certain sanctity about the Royal Parks, but to the Londoner thirty acres of open space at Holland Park available to him is at least as advantageous and beneficial as four to five acres of Hyde Park. For many years the London County Council have been seeking to develop open spaces all over the County with the view of providing people on the outskirts of London as well with open spaces. Therefore, this is not by any means a net loss of open space. Every year there is a net gain.
  In life one has to hold the balance. When I was Minister of Town and Country Planning I was constantly up against this problem. Somebody wanted to do something which, on the face of it, was highly undesirable but which, on the other hand, was wanted to solve a problem which would otherwise not be capable of being solved. I had to make a decision. I could not solve the matter by making a speech in Parliament. Here, at long last, a decision is being made. I would make one appeal. I have seen the model—and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that I have not taken the bus that is missing. I do not think any Member of your Lordships' House would have taken it. There have been visitors about the place as well as noble Lords. From the model, the scheme looks an attractive proposal.
  I am sure that the Government and the London County Council will take heed of the words of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth and see that it is really made one of the great amenities of London. We can make even a road an amenity. It is true that ninety-three trees will be lost, but, after all, trees have a limited, though long, life, and in the natural order of things these trees would have gone in any case. They are going sooner than they otherwise would. I hope that we shall replace them with an equal number of trees, or even more trees, and in the end we shall not have lost an amenity but gained a new amenity. I am sure that we can do this. I know that the Government and the
  886
  London County Council will do all that they can to make this an attractive feature of the new London which is being built. I am not going to deal with the traffic aspect, with which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, dealt. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, is going to follow me and he and other noble Lords are much more competent to deal with that aspect; but I thought that I would say a word on the question of amenity.
  4.5 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I put my name down to say a few words in this debate, first, because I thought that there was going to be some opposition to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Man-croft, and secondly, because, having lived on and off in London all my life, I have a great love for the city, as we all have, and therefore have a great interest in this measure. I can sympathise very much with the views set out so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Conesford, but I think that we ought to look at the matter in proportion.
  The size of Hyde Park is 373 acres, to which have to be added about 220 acres or so of Kensington Gardens, and there are the Green Park and St. James's Park which together add up to another 80 or so acres, not to mention Regent's Park and the new Holland Park, to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred, Battersea Park in another district and Victoria Park in the East End. London is very well furnished with parks, and it is also a source of great pride to us that there are so many more open spaces, which I have not mentioned, which perhaps do not merit the name of "Park". I do not know of any other city in the world that I have visited that is so well furnished with green and open spaces, except perhaps Paris, with the Bois de Boulogne. This measure proposes a net decrease in our park space of four to five acres out of the hundreds of acres I have just mentioned.
  I went and looked at the model in the Royal Gallery and afterwards, yesterday, I went and looked at the ground itself. I think that the Marble Arch will positively be improved by this scheme. The Marble Arch is now a nasty, arid, circular bit of tarmac. At the speakers' forum there is more tarmac. I should have thought that few trees will need destruction at the Marble Arch, and I think that the layout

  887
  of the new roundabout proposed, when it is mature—of course, it will look hideous for four or five years—will be a positive improvement on what is there at present.
  When we come to Hyde Park Corner, a few trees will be lost for the time being. I love trees, just as does anybody else, but they are not sacrosanct. They are only vegetables, which grow to their full maturity, eventually die and have to be cut down and uprooted. Some people get a kind of worship of trees. For some years I was chairman of the garden committee of the square in which I lived. There was one huge plane tree in a corner of that square—a very fine tree, but it rendered life miserable for the inhabitants of about half a dozen houses who lived immediately round it, because it obscured all light from them and branches poked into their windows. Some of them came to me and begged me to have the tree cut down. So I got the sanction of my committee, with the greatest difficulty—your Lordships would not believe the amount of abuse I had from the inhabitants of the square as a whole who were not affected by this tree. Indeed, the contractor who felled it for me told me that his forester, when up on top of a tree in the corner of another square, cutting away, suddenly found himself faced with a gun pointed at him from the top window of one of the houses and the threat that he would be shot unless he got down. He got down and reported the fact to his boss and the boss went to inquire about it, and found that the offender was no less a personage than one of Her Majesty's counsel at the Bar.
  That has rather taken me off the track. I do not think the destruction of amenity on the whole will be so great as is feared by my noble friend Lord Conesford. We shall lose the beautiful Hamilton Garden, which has been such an added attraction to the park; it will be seriously interfered with, although not entirely destroyed. On the whole, when we look at the matter in proportion, I do not think the loss of amenity is a reason for opposing this Bill.
  I now come to the actual traffic itself. My noble friend Lord Conesford says that Hyde Park Corner is not all that bad for traffic. I agree with him there. I go round Hyde Park Corner, I suppose, on an average about six times a week, or
  888
  perhaps even more, at various times of the day and evening, and I would say that the actual going round Hyde Park Corner is not all that bad. Where the delay occurs is in the approaches to Hyde Park Corner. At Constitution Hill, if you happen to be going home at about six o'clock in the evening, you find there is a queue almost up to Buckingham Palace and it takes you a great deal of time to get through. Similarly, coming up from Wilton Place there are occasions when the traffic is extremely bad. This scheme, in my view, is designed not so much to improve affairs at Hyde Park Corner as to improve them between Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch. Up Park Lane many delays occur. If you wish to turn off anywhere into Stanhope Street or into Brook Street there are many delays; if you are coming down Park Lane, there are traffic lights and policemen and many delays. In my view, the most important part of this scheme is to secure a flow of traffic from north to south.
  I feel that the present roundabout at Marble Arch is a very bad one. The Cumberland Hotel ought never to have been built where it is without the entrance being recessed, as is that of the Westbury Hotel in Conduit Street, which gives no additional trouble in consequence. The entrance to the Cumberland Hotel was not recessed, and there are all day long and far into the night taxis, luggage and passengers disembarking, which very much increases the congestion in Great Cumberland Place and, in my view, makes that roundabout worse than Hyde Park Corner. I am sorry to hear that there is to be no underpass treatment at that junction, and I hope that it may not be too late to reconsider the point.
  Another area which was mentioned in the debate in the other place was down towards Wilton Place and Sloane Street where the road narrows. A bottleneck occurs there, and one frequently finds that if one has successfully negotiated Hyde Park Corner one is held up for a long time, particularly in the evening, at Wilton Place. I hope that efforts will be made to improve that position. It was suggested in the other place that the pavement to the south might be narrowed to about four or five feet. I think that suggestion is worth considering, because the pedestrian traffic at that particular point is, on the whole, not congested. Another

  889
  suggestion is that Wilton Place should be made a place where there is no right turn. A third suggestion is that Albert Gate should be permanently closed. All of these seem to me to be important suggestions, well worthy of consideration, in order to get a free flow of traffic in that particular bottleneck, so that the improvements that we achieve at Hyde Park Corner shall not be frittered away when you get down towards Sloane Street.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I would remind him that the scheme for the new Bowater building at that corner contains a big double traffic road into the Park, which we hope will meet many of the objections the noble Lord has just raised.
  LORD BLACKFORD: I am aware of that, and it will be interesting to see what effect it has, although somehow I think the bottleneck may still be there and may still need treatment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke about car parking, and asked: "Are cars going to be allowed to park along this new road?"—and he hinted, in fact, that they certainly should not be allowed to park there. My noble friend Lord Conesford said: "If this encroachment on the Park is permitted, where is it going to end? There is no doubt that people will want to use other parts of it as a car park." Between those two, how are we going to reach some agreement? Car parking is here, whether we like it or not, and it will increase, whether we like it or not; and something must be done for the car parker. I submit that there are parts of Hyde Park which could be used as a car park without decreasing the amenities or destroying a single tree. For instance, as a small boy I used to ride frequently in Rotten Row—I am speaking of about the year 1895. In those days, Rotten Row was full of riders every day. How many people ride in Rotten Row to-day? I should have thought that it was a very small number, and those who do largely consist of small parties of children learning to ride.
  890
  The top part of Rotten Row, close to Hyde Park Corner, has no trees on it. I submit that there is plently of room there to make a car park which would take several hundred cars and thus enable the owners of those cars to take a train from Hyde Park Corner to their destinations further East. Similarly, I have for a long time thought that Rotten Row at the Marble Arch end is practically unused by riders and is really wasted space. Nobody can say that a sandy track is a thing of beauty, and, heaven knows! nobody can say that a car park is a thing of beauty; the one is the same as the other; nevertheless, the one is useful, while the other no longer is. Therefore, I submit that that part of Rotten Row between Marble Arch and towards Victoria Gate might be used as a car park, and people who parked there could take the train from Marble Arch further East. Those are slightly controversial points which I fear will not be agreed to by my noble friend Lord Conesford. But we have to face the unpalatable fact of cars and car parks, and something will have to be done about them. Apart from that, I support my noble friend Lord Mancroft, and I hope that this Bill will obtain a Second Reading with the full approval of your Lordships' House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, we have arranged to interrupt business at this point in order to deal with Leave of Absence questions. There are still a number of noble Lords who wish to speak on the Bill before the House. I suggest that my noble friend Lord Mancroft might make some inquiries to ascertain whether it is felt that we should continue with this Bill later to-day, or adjourn the discussion until to-morrow, and I can move something to that effect at a later stage. In the meantime, I should like to move that the debate on this Bill be adjourned.
  Moved, that the debate be adjourned.—(The Earl of Home).
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

  PEERS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE
  4.18 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME had given Notice of his intention to move to resolve, That the Standing Orders of the House for the conduct of public business be amended by leaving out Standing Order 21 and inserting the following Standing Order:
  Leave of Absence
  21. (1) Lords are to attend the sittings of the House or, if they cannot do so, obtain leave of absence, which the House may grant at pleasure; but this Standing Order shall not be understood as requiring a Lord who is unable to attend regularly to apply for leave of absence if he proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can.
  (2) A Lord may apply for leave of absence at any time during a Parliament either for a session or the remainder of the session in which the application is made or for the remainder of the Parliament.
  (3) On the issue of Writs for the calling of a new Parliament the Lord Chancellor shall in writing request every Lord to whom he issues a Writ to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence or no.
  The Lord Chancellor shall, before the beginning of any session of Parliament other than the first, in writing request

  (a) every Lord who have been granted leave of absence ending with the preceding session; and

  (b) every Lord who though not granted leave of absence, did not during the preceding session attend any sitting of the House (other than for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance)

  to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence or no.
  A Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being requested to do so may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament.
  (4) A Lord who has been granted leave of absence is expected not to attend the sittings of the House until the period for which the leave was granted has expired or the leave has sooner ended unless it be to take the Oath of Allegiance.
  (5) If a Lord, having been granted leave of absence, wishes to attend during the period for which the leave was granted, he is expected to give notice to the House accordingly at least one month before the day on which he wishes to attend; and at the end of the period specified in his notice, or sooner if the House so direct, the leave shall end.
  The noble Earl said: I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Business on the Paper.
  Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee on the said Business.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, in the proposed new Paragraph (1), after the first word "Lords" to insert, "both Spiritual and Temporal." The noble Viscount said: I have put a number of Amendments on the Paper because the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when this matter was raised the other day, said that it would be most inconvenient if matters were raised without notice; so by the courtesy of the Clerks I put the Amendments down on Friday and they were circulated. The first one I shall deal with in detail in a moment, but I want to make this general remark. These Amendments are framed in a sort of chain, a catena; they all relate to one another. The general effect of them is to show that the plan which is proposed by the Swinton Committee is totally incompatible with the Writ of Summons which we all receive. That is the general purpose of the Amendments. The Amendments themselves I can deal with in sequence.
  As a journeyman working in your Lordships' House, I should like to thank the noble Earl for reviving Rule 55 for the purposes of this debate. It is a very ancient rule of this House which dates back to 1620. I will just read the operative words:
  "To have more freedom of debate, and that arguments may be used (pro and contra), Committees of the Whole House are appointed, sometimes for Bills, sometimes to discuss matters of great moment."
  I believe that that will very much assist debate, and the noble Earl can be well assured that I shall not attempt to prolong the debate, because the art of opposition is not to make long speeches in attack but to promote long speeches in defence.
  The first Amendment I have to move is about the Lords Spiritual. I ask the Government, is it intended that whatever practice we set up for dealing with the absence of Lords Temporal shall apply in exactly the same way to the Lords Spiritual? The reason I ask the question is that if you read the Report of the Merthyr Committee you will find that the Report all the way through deals with Peers—Peers are to do this and Peers are to do that. A Lord Spiritual is not a Peer; he is a Lord of Parliament; and

  893
  therefore I became a little suspicious—or rather not suspicious, but inquiring—when I observed that in the Merthyr Committee Report no mention was made of Lords Spiritual but merely of Peers. On the other hand, the Standing Order which is proposed to your Lordships to-day speaks of "Lords", and "Lords" undoubtedly do include the Lords Spiritual. Therefore, my Amendment can be easily disposed of if the Lord Chancellor, or whoever is going to reply for the Government, can say that the Lords Spiritual will be treated in exactly the same way and be required to give exactly the same explanation of their absence as Lords Temporal.
  There is nothing new about this, and there is nothing disrespectful. Moreover, I should be the last person to suggest that the Lords Spiritual are not fully engaged in their diocesan work; I know that that is the explanation of their absences. But, at the same time, there is a very long history of struggle, of the Crown in the first place, to enforce attendance in your Lordships' House, and it would be a very great pity if a large and very important section of this House were omitted from the scheme. Therefore, I would ask the noble Earl or the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether he can clear up this matter. The last time this matter was seriously tackled, I believe, was in 1841, in the trial of Lord Cardigan, but I do not know much about that. The real case worth reading is the trial of Caroline, the Bill for the degradation of the Queen in 1820. There is no doubt that in that case the Lord Chancellor was determined to enforce the Writ of Summons, and the gist of all my Amendments is to show—I will come to that later in the debate when we have the "Second Reading" discussion—that the effect of this scheme is to degrade the Writ of Summons in favour of some private arrangement which we make among ourselves. That is not the way in which the matter was treated in the past.
  THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Viscount pleaded with me to make this a Committee stage. The noble Viscount is now, as I understand it, himself making a speech which he says he is going to make on "Second Reading" later. I hope he will stick to the Committee stage on individual Amendments.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I certainly will reserve what I have to say. I have no desire to diverge. I thought it extremely relevant that it should be made clear that the Lords Spiritual have always been included in these arrangements. I shall therefore merely content myself, in order to put myself strictly in order, because I must refer later to this matter again, with saying that this is what the House resolved in 1820:
  "Resolved, That the Lord Chancellor do write a letter to the several Peers and Prelates of the House in the following terms"
  and then was set out the Resolution; I shall read it when it is in order—
  "and that a copy of the said Resolution do accompany the same."
  It maybe that the Amendment can be withdrawn at once, so long as I am assured that the position of the Bishops is going to be exactly the same as the position of the Temporal Lords in this matter. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Paragraph (1), line 1, after ("Lords") insert ("both Spiritual and Temporal").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  THE EARL OF HOME: I should always desire to give the noble Viscount immediate and absolute satisfaction. In this case I can. There is no need for this Amendment, as the word "Lords" in Standing Orders undoubtedly covers both Temporal and Spiritual Lords.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then the noble Earl can assure me that the same procedure in the way of communication and reply and publication of names, and so on, will be adopted for the Lords Spiritual as for the Lords Temporal?
  THE EARL OF HOME: Exactly the same.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.28 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved in paragraph (1) to leave out "at pleasure" and insert "upon cause shown". The noble Viscount said: There seems to be a peculiar weakening in this paragraph from the position previously taken up by the House. The date given to the Standing Order is 1889, but nobody seems to know how it got there. However,

  895
  Standing Order No. 21, as it is to-day, states that
  "Lords may obtain leave of absence at the pleasure of the House upon cause shown "—
  that is to say, the House could not just do as it pleased but had to be satisfied that there was cause shown. Therefore, the purpose of my Amendment is as follows: I leave out "at pleasure", but I do not mind whether it comes in or not, because it has no particular meaning, or no restrictive meaning, so long as the words "upon cause shown" are inserted. If the Government are willing to insert that Amendment, then I can at once cease speaking.
  Amendment moved—
  Paragraph (1), line 2, leave out ("at pleasure") and insert ("upon cause shown").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Viscount the immediate satisfaction that he got on the last Amendment, and I hope he will bear with me if I follow him into one or two of the historical researches which obviously have occupied his leisure so profitably. It is quite true that the words which he wishes to add occurred in the older Standing Orders, and in the proceedings that Queen Caroline took in 1820 the House, as I think he was beginning to tell us, resolved
  "that no excuse be admitted save liability from age "—
  that is, being of the age of 70 years and upwards, a provision which would be a great depriver to this House in the case of the noble Viscount this afternoon—
  "or from sickness, or from having been out of the Realm in foreign parts or on account of the death of a parent, wife or child, and that every Peer absenting himself from age or sickness do address a letter to the Lord Chancellor stating upon his honour that he is so disabled."
  But in the proceedings in the time of Lord Cardigan, in 1841, the Lord Chancellor was requested to write letters to all Lords to acquaint them that the House expected their attendance on certain dates, and certain Lords sent in excuses. I think I ought briefly to condole with my noble friends on the various indispositions of their ancestors. At that time the Earl of Home said that he
  "cannot in his state of health travel from Scotland at this time of year."
  896
  In relation to my noble friend Lord Perth, the Lord Strathallan said:
  "He is in Scotland and cannot take so long a journey in this inclement season without endangering his health."
  The predecessor of the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, just said "Illness". The noble Lord, Lord Stourton, just said "Gout"; and the predecessor of the then Lord Seaton, with the military terseness and discipline that one would expect, just said, "Unable to attend", as did a number of other noble Lords. That is the background of the historical position.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Not the full background. The Lord Chancellor has omitted the other column in the return. There are three or four pages of this return in the Journals of the House saying what penalties were inflicted when the excuse was not accepted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, but I thought that at the moment we were considering the excuses. I assure the noble Viscount that I am charged with that information as well, but I will leave it to him to make that point. But I must proceed to the present position.
  The Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Merthyr considered whether it was any longer necessary or expedient that Peers should give reasons in their applications for leave of absence, and they came to the conclusion that the normal reasons for which, in modern times, a number of Peers did not attend the House, were set out in paragraph 20 of the Swinton Report. Perhaps I may trouble your Lordships with just a sentence of that paragraph, because I think it is most relevant—the noble Viscount will find the paragraph in question at page (viii) of the Report. After setting out the change in the number of Peers—and, if I may take the relevant years, in 1800 there were 150, in 1830 363, and in 1955, 846, which shows the difference in the size of the House—the Swinton Committee went on to say:
  "The Committee have felt obliged to recognise that at present, out of so large a number, there must be many who are unable to attend, either because they are fully occupied with other important duties, or because they feel themselves unfitted for parliamentary work, or for reasons of age, health or expense. Recognition of the undoubted fact that many Peers are thus debarred or prevented from attending the House is not, in the view of the Committee, to be taken as a criticism of such Peers."

  897
  These are the reasons which commended themselves to the Merthyr Committee, and, in view of those reasons, I consider, and I ask the House to accept, that it would really be embarrassing and undesirable for those reasons to be stated.
  I put this in all seriousness to the noble Viscount, because he knows, and I know, of cases where it has been expense. I do not think one ought to dwell on that. We are living in very changed conditions from the times that the noble Viscount has been considering, and I think it would be batter if that were not demanded and that we should proceed to accept the recommendation of the Merthyr Committee, that reasons be not disclosed.
  There is just one other point I should like to make with regard to that matter. The Merthyr Committee say at paragraph 3 (8), at page 4:
  "That while leave of absence would normally be granted automatically on application, it requires to be formally granted by the House."
  The paragraph then goes on to say that the action should be recorded. Then it was suggested that the next paragraph of their Report should be quoted in the Lord Chancellor's letter to the Lords of Parliament. I will read that paragraph to your Lordships because it will be a matter that we shall have to refer to in this discussion. It says:
  "The Committee have given much consideration to the question of whether there should be a closer definition of. 'regular attendance'. The Committee considered that this was neither possible nor desirable. They recognise that this must be a matter for individual interpretation. But in framing the Standing Order the Committee have taken account of the position of Peers who are engaged whole time in the professions and in industry and of others who have extensive commitments in local government or in other voluntary work. They realise that these are unable to devote more than a partial service to the House. They recall that such Peers have in the past made valuable contributions, based on their own knowledge and experience, to the work of the House in Debates, it the revision of the Bills and in Private Bill and other Select Committees. They believe that the House would be reluctant to lose the services of such Peers and that Peers in this position need not feel themselves under any obligation, in consequence of their inability to attend regularly, to apply for leave of absence"
  I fully agree, and I should be willing to include that paragraph, which I think would be most helpful, in the letter which I send off if the Standing Order is approved.
  898
  On the general point, the Swinton Committee have given the reasons very fully—I need not go through them again—why this House is entitled to adapt its procedure for giving leave, which is excusing absence and which it has exercised certainly for 333 years, to modern conditions; and it is entitled, in my view, to grant leave without cause shown, as was the intention of the two Committees which this House set up. Therefore, in view largely of the quotation from paragraph 20 and what I have said on it, I would ask the noble Viscount not to press this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I think the Lord Chancellor has completely made the case that I am trying to advance before the House. He has shown us that the Writ of Summons is nothing at all—that we may get it in the most insistent, terms and that, because somebody has written a paragraph saying that people are engaged in business, or that there are so many Lords you cannot expect them to do their duty, or 800 cannot do their duty in the way that 300 may do it—here I am being driven into the Second Reading speech that the noble Earl, Lord Home, complained of, because I am following the Lord Chancellor—the whole basis of the House should be altered.
  I am riot in favour of the rigid enforcement of the Writ of Summons, because it has broken down. I would not support the House of Lords as it is, for one moment. I want to clear the site; but that is not the point. The point is that this is an attempt to substitute for the Writ of Summons a number of reasons which I find are really quite unworthy and are, in fact, revolutionary. If no reasons are given, but the list is simply presented, I do not know what will happen. I believe there is to be a list published, but no one will know why the Members are absent or for how long. The words: "If he proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can", but there is no definition of "reasonably can". If a man is in business and he says, "I have to go to China for two years, but I shall come as often as I reasonably can", how is that to be considered? The House retains no sort of control. With great respect, I could not possibly accept the Lord Chancellor's appeal. I do not, naturally, intend to ask Members to go into the Lobby,

  899
  although I hope that we shall have an opportunity of voting on some Amendments which will be moved under more reasonable auspices, but I shall insist on this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I intervene for only one moment to remind noble Lords that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was a member of the Swinton Committee. He was a most helpful member of that Committee and was deeply interested in it, but he never took any exception to the Report which the Swinton Committee made and which, as this House knows, was a unanimous Report which has been approved. We went into this matter very carefully in the Swinton Committee, as indeed it was carefully gone into by the Merthyr Committee. That Committee included learned Law Lords as well as perhaps the greatest authority on Parliamentary procedure of our time, the late Lord Campion. We had not the slightest doubt that it was clearly competent for the House to grant leave of absence; that it was the duty of those who could not attend to apply for leave of absence; and that it was well within our powers and would be a satisfactory compliance with the Writ of Summons in the circumstances of to-day if people who could not attend regularly attended as often as they reasonably could. We deliberately set out in paragraph 20, to which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor referred, the reasons for which Members of the House would be likely to, and could reasonably apply for, leave of absence.
  Surely nobody can doubt for a moment, that the House has a right to make a Standing Order about leave of absence. In fact, we have had one for years in the Standing Orders. Equally, nobody can have any doubt that we can vary the form of that Standing Order about whether people should state in terms their reasons, or that reasons can be stated for them, as they are in the Standing Order. I remind the House of that only because I think that noble Lords can be satisfied that it is well within their competence.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Earl has repeated the Report in interesting terms, and he is quite right when he says that I was a member of his Committee. I admit that in the early days of the
  900
  Committee I had hoped, for certain family reasons of my own, that there might be an escape for my own heir; but I did not attend the concluding sessions of the Committee. I was abroad. Therefore, when the vote was taken that this be the Report, I was not there, and I will take up the position of one who has fallen from grace. However, it is quite irrelevant.
  What the noble Earl is saying is that we have the right to grant leave of absence; but I wish we could have more information regarding Standing Order 21. It has been claimed that we have a right to grant leave of absence upon cause shown. What does this mean? It means that if there is the right to grant a leave of absence, by and large, which overrides the demand of the Writ, surely it strikes at the very root, the foundation, of this House. Therefore, to say that we have always had the right to grant leave of absence is doubtful. This Amendment seeks to clarify what is the root objection to this Committee's Report. It is that it is substituting for a feudal House of Lords, which I do not support, something which is a Committee House of Lords; a closed corporation in which Members among themselves meet and decide who is entitled to come and who is not. That is revolutionary. I am afraid that this is a Second Reading speech again, but it will crop up on every one of these Amendments. Therefore, on this Amendment, with great respect, I shall raise my voice in support.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE had given notice of his intention to move, in paragraph (1), after "proposes" to insert: "bearing in mind the terms of his Writ of Summons". The noble Viscount said: I cannot see how this sort of business can be reconciled. It is being mixed up with solemn assurances which are demanded in the Writ of Summons. The words are given to us, and it is possible simply to say: "I am sorry; I have a board meeting and I cannot attend this morning." I have put this Amendment down, but I do not insist on it.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Viscount does not wish to move the Amendment?
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No.
  4.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved to add to paragraph (3):
  "the terms of this letter shall follow precedent and be reported to the House".
  The noble Viscount said: The Lord Chancellor anticipated what I was going to say on this Amendment by reading Lord Eldon's letter. It was a pretty stiff letter, but he read it. No excuse, disability of age, and so on; but we have had it. He demanded a reply, and the replies to him, and to previous letters of the same kind, were recorded in the Journals of the House. Some excuses were accepted, and some were not. It may be a good reason to do away with all this, but it cannot be done simply by a decision of the Committee of the House. It must be based either upon legislation or upon some alteration of the Royal Prerogative. That is the reason why in my Amendment I include the terms of the letter. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor would favour us with a copy of the intimation that he intends to send out. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Paragraph (3), line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  LORD SALTOUN: I think the noble Viscount has proved too much. He has emphasised the terms of the Writ, and they are very extreme. The noble Viscount, although he is here very often, is not here every day, and I think that he must himself take the terms of the Writ with a certain grain of salt. In fact, we all find it quite impossible, under conditions of modern life, to be here every day. Yet the terms of the Writ are very extreme. I suggest, as I say, that he has preyed too much, and that if the terms of the Writ were meant to be taken literally they would long ago have been modified.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Could the noble Lord find a minute or two to address himself to the Amendment which I have moved, which is that the terms of the Lord Chancellor's letter should be published?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to say to the noble Viscount that I think that he has raised an important point, and I am prepared to accept his Amendment in this form—to add to paragraph (3):
  "The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House"
  902
  May I just say why I put it that way—because the Amendment implies that such letters from the Lord Chancellor have always been reported. This is not in accordance with my researches, and therefore I do not like the words "in accordance with precedent" when they are not strictly accurate. I want to be absolutely fair to the argument of the noble Viscount. At certain times, as he has pointed out, the form of the letter has been laid down in detail beforehand, and if the House would bear with me I should just like to give the result of my researches into this matter.
  The most usual form of entry was:
  "Ordered that letters be written by the Lord Keeper to the absent Lords."
  That wording I have actually taken from 1705, but the terms of the letter were not reported. Occasionally the Order was more detailed. I read this because it is interesting to show how the House did attach conditions to the Order. I take one entry of March 11, 1678:
  "Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled that the Lord Chancellor do forthwith write letters to all the Peers and Prelates and Members of the House who have not attended the House of Peers since the beginning of this Parliament requiring the said Lords to come and attend His Majesty's service in the House of Peers intimating in the said letters that such of the said Lords as are within 50 miles of this place do give their said attendance within one week after the receipt of the letters to them respectively sent; and that those Lords who are at a greater distance from this place give their attendance here within a fortnight."
  Then it goes on to deal with age and sickness.
  So far as I can find out, on ten occasions an Order was made for a letter to be written in specific terms—for example, the letter about Queen Caroline's Bill in 1820. These are the only letters of which the terms are recorded. In all the other numerous cases they were not, and no letter was subsequently recorded. The letter which I propose to write, if the House decides in favour of this Standing Order for the purpose of bringing leave of absence into effect during this Parliament was submitted to, and examined by, the Merthyr Committee, and secured their approval. It is all conditional, of course, on the Standing Order being approved. I shall, if I am directed to send it, gladly report this first letter—that as the letter which is dealt with in the next Motion on the Paper—and, for the future, my

  903
  directions are clear in the Standing Order. I shall write the letter in accordance with them. I shall, in accordance with my Amendment to the noble Viscount's Amendment, if he is prepared to accept it, report it to the House; and then, if anyone does not like the form of my letter, that matter can be raised.
  That is with regard to the future, after the Standing Order has been approved. I should also undertake—and I hope your Lordships will find it reasonable—to submit to the Supervisory Committee, a draft of the letter which I propose to write at the beginning of each new Parliament, and I am sure that my successors will be equally glad to do so. The first letter, therefore, has been before the Merthyr Committee; I shall submit any other letter to the Supervisory Committee, and I shall report to the House the letter I have sent, so that the House may have both anticipatory and subsequent method of seeing what I have done.
  I hope that the noble Viscount will take the view that I have tried to meet his point, because, even with the noble Viscount in the House and delighting us with every speech, the idea that we should have perhaps a two-day debate, making this House a drafting Committee, on the letter which I send out, is a prospect which appalls me, and I am sure appalls the House. I hope the noble Viscount will think that I have met him fairly. I suggest that we agree on this variation of his Amendment:
  "The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House."
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I did not quite understand what the Lord Chancellor said. Did he say that the Merthyr Committee had published the terms of his letter?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. I said that I had shown a draft to the Merthyr Committee, so that they would see the sort of letter I had in mind. But I pointed out that it was entirely conditional, because, of course, this House has not yet approved the Standing Order. But I wanted the Committee to know what sort of letter I had it in mind to send out; and they think that it is the right sort of letter. As I said, that letter has been before the Merthyr Committee, and
  904
  I propose that in the future the letters should be submitted to the new Supervisory Committee, so I think I am meeting the spirit of the noble Viscount.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am very grateful. I accept the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor to my Amendment, but why is this matter so secret? Why should the letter be submitted to the Merthyr Committee and then to this other Committee? Why cannot we know what the Lord Chancellor is going to say to Members of this House? Surely we can be told the terms of the letter? Are they lengthy?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know if the noble Viscount heard what I said. I said that I thought it would be undesirable, and intensely boring, for this House to form itself into a drafting Committee—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —in order to occupy perhaps two days in debating word for word the letter I am to send out. There are certain things which it is convenient to do through a Committee of the House, and if noble Lords have any observations to make on my draft letters they know me well enough to know that I shall be pleased to make any improvements in those letters.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not want to pursue this aspect, but on this business of working through a Committee, we had an example the other day of someone saying that because a Statutory Order had passed through a committee, your Lordships need not debate it. That idea is a mistake. Power resides in this House, and inasmuch as I attach enormous importance to the terms of the letter and the replies made to it, and the action taken on those replies, I consider that it is a constitutional point of the first order. I should therefore like the terms of the letter to be disclosed. If that is not possible, I will say "No".
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Viscount accept my variation of his Amendment, which goes some way to meet him?
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask the Lord Chancellor to read it again?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The words are:
  "The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House."
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then presumably the letter can be discussed in the House, in which case I accept the Amendment to my Amendment. I believe that it meets my point and I gratefully thank the noble and learned Viscount.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Before we leave this Amendment and the paragraph to which it refers there is a point that I should like to raise with the noble and learned Viscount, although it is rather awkward because I do not know if I am in order. The noble and learned Viscount is going to write a letter to every Peer asking each whether or not he wishes to apply for leave of absence
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We do not know what he is going to say.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It says that much on this Paper. Apparently the noble and learned Viscount takes the initiative. He does not wait for a noble Lord to say that he is occupied and cannot perform the duties of the Peerage. Taking the initiative, he asks each noble Lord: "Do you want to have leave of absence?" And the terms of this letter—although the noble and learned Viscount has undertaken to submit it to the House, presumably before he sends it—
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble and learned Viscount did not say so.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It seems to me that if the noble and learned Viscount proposes to submit the letter after he has sent it there is not much point in it. Can he answer that now, because if we are not to see the letter before it is sent, I suggest that there is no point at all in seeing it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have submitted to the Merthyr Committee—
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Is it in the Report?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not. I have submitted a form of letter to the Merthyr Committee, and they have approved it; and that seems to cover us
  906
  for the first occasion, which is really the one concerned in the next Motion. I feel that it is more convenient that what is really a matter of drafting should be dealt with by a Committee; but the terms of the letter will be reported to your Lordships' House, and it will then be possible for any noble Lord to raise a point if I have gone wrong. But, of course, it will also be possible (and this is a point which your Lordships have to bear in mind) for anyone to answer my letter saying, "I do not apply for leave of absence," in which case the whole scheme will not apply to him. That is why I say that it is, in fact, a voluntary scheme.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for a moment, surely the Peer has simply to say "I do not apply for leave." He need not say that he has some reason for not applying.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then what has become of the Writ? What happens if, having received a Writ from Her Majesty the Queen, I inform the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that I do not intend to obey?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Obviously I am speaking indistinctly: a noble Lord can say, "I do not apply for leave of absence", and then the scheme does not apply to him at all.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But he has to attend.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am very much indebted to the noble and learned Viscount. I agree that this is not something to draft in this House. I am on the question of principle—what, in principle, the letter is going to say: and I am surprised that an initiative is taken under this scheme. Here are Members of Parliament, Peers who have the duty to attend Parliament, and it seems odd that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, of all people, should say, before they have a chance to come to the House, "Would you like leave of absence?" That is an odd thing to do. It is odd that if a Member of Parliament seeks to escape from his constitutional obligations, perhaps because he cannot carry them out for some reason, the initiative craving leave of absence should not be on him. He should rot be, as it were, invited—

  907
  and perhaps incited—by the Lord Chancellor to ask for leave of absence.
  What happens if a Peer feels slightly affronted by receiving this letter—as I believe I should feel—and does not answer it? This document says:
  "A Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being requested to do so may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament."
  Who decides whether he "may be granted" leave? It seems to me that nobody has the right to give him leave of absence against any intimation from him that he wishes to receive it. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will say that this is a Second Reading speech, but it comes immediately upon the question of the text of the invitation to apply for leave of absence, and I thought that perhaps the noble and learned Viscount might care to develop the matter a little here.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: May I add a word? This again is a matter which the House has already twice debated and decided. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is not arrogating to himself some special right without the authority of the House to communicate. I do not know whether the noble Lord attended all the earlier debates—
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: No.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I do not know whether he attended the debate in which your Lordships' House carried a Resolution adopting the ten paragraphs of what is called the Swinton Report and directed the Standing Order to be made—which was all that the Merthyr Committee did. Paragraph 33 (b) which the House has already approved in terms says:
  "That a communication be addressed to all Members of the House at the beginning of every Parliament, stating that if they desire to be relieved of the obligation of attendance they should apply for leave of absence, either for the duration of the Parliament or for any shorter period, and further that they should state in reply to such communication whether they do or do not desire to apply for leave of absence."
  That has already been approved by this House and all the new Standing Order does is what the House resolved some months ago to do—that is, to say to the Committee: "Will you please draft a
  908
  Standing Order in terms carrying out what we have now instructed you to do." The noble Lord is really starting a complete mare's nest, because in writing this letter the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will only be doing in writing what your Lordships have already instructed should be done.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Earl has forgotten already the first words of his own Report, that
  "It is not our business to say what ought to be done but what can be done."
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: Of course I have not at all forgotten that, and I am not referring to what was merely said in the Report. I am referring to the decision taken by this House, which passed a Resolution saying: "We approve of the Swinton Report and we instruct the Merthyr Committee, and we decide that that should be carried into effect by a Standing Order; and we instruct the Merthyr Committee to present us with such a Standing Order." Of course our Committee do not decide what the House should do. Our Committee told the House what it could do, and then the House considered the Report and said, "We think this is a good and practical Report; we wish it carried out, and we so instruct you.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am surprised that a former Member of another place can make such a speech. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that a Report cannot be approved "globally" in that way. We must have put before us something to which we can move Amendments and examine clause by clause. Of course the House approved it in general.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: The House did not in the least approve it in general. Really, the noble Viscount must not mislead the House, either wilfully or by accident. The Motion before the House was quite specific: "That this House approves certain sections of the Swinton Report "—naming those sections—" and directs that that be carried out by Standing Order."
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It may allay the noble Earl's heat if I remind him that my question was asked, in all sincerity, of the Lord Chancellor, and it is the Lord Chancellor who has been courteous enough to answer it. The second point is that the noble Earl was

  909
  a Member of another place long enough, as I was, to learn that on the Committee stage on any business one is fully entitled to seek certain assurances.
  LORD GIFFORD: May I raise one point for clarification? As I recollect it, the original wording was:
  "A Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days … shall be deemed to have asked for leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament."
  Is that not so?
  5.11 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very anxious that there should be not the slightest doubt on this point. My noble friend Lord Swinton is correct as to procedure, and if the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, will look at the next Motion on the Paper (I am anticipating it. but I want to keep the matter in order) he will see that my noble friend Lord Home is to move:
  "That, for the purpose of giving effect to the above Standing Order during the present Parliament, the Lord Chancellor shall forthwith send a copy of the Standing Order to every Lord to whom he has issued a Writ of Summons to this Parliament and who has not during this session attended a sitting of the House (except for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance) … and shall request every such Lord to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence for the next session of this Parliament or for the remainder of this Parliament or whether he does not wish so to apply. If a Lord fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being required to do so he may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of this Parliament."
  We shall be considering that Motion in a moment. If the House passes it, I shall send out accordingly the letter I have undertaken to send, because that is the first procedure. That letter, which is the letter that has been considered by the Merthyr Committee, will be reported to the House. The last thing I want to do is to keep any letter from the House; but I think, as I have said (I am sorry to repeat it), that in all quarters of the House noble Lords would be intensely bored if we got into a drafting session on the Amendment. I hope I have made the position clear.
  Lotto WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It was clear, and I am the last to want to deal with a draft. The point raised by the noble Earl was completely wrong. The important point has been altered since we received the Committee's Report, and it is that point on which I wish to speak.
  910
  The Report from the Select Committee, Paragraph (c), states:
  "that any Member of the House who fails to reply to such a communication should be regarded as having applied for leave of absence".
  That is very different from the present wording which is put forward: that a Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days "may be granted" leave of absence. Does that mean that the Lord Chancellor has discretion? If he has not got discretion, who has it? And what does "may be" mean, if not "may be"?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is at the House's discretion. That was put in to answer a point raised in one of our earlier debates. It was suggested that it was bouleversement, on giving leave of absence, to say, "If you do not apply for leave of absence, or do not say you do not want it, then you get it." So the form was altered into a permissive form, so that the House could, despite the fact that the noble Lord had not answered, not deem him to have applied for leave of absence and not put him on the leave of absence list. It means that if he communicated to the House and said, "I have not answered because my letters have gone astray," or, "I have been pressed. Would you communicate my desire?" the House has the discretion not to put him on the list.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: That is very important. I am indebted to the Lord Chancellor. It means that if someone does not answer he will not have leave of absence imposed upon him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. It is at the discretion of the House to grant leave of absence, but the House can decide either way.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does it mean that we are going to revert to the old practice of the seventeenth century, when individual cases were dealt with? There may be a case of recalcitrance: someone is angry and says, "I am not going, and I am not answering your letter." What do you do then? The Lord Chancellor says that it will be for the House to decide. Will an individual case be brought forward that Lord X, not having replied to the Lord Chancellor's letter, shall be excluded from attendance for the remainder of the Parliament? Is it individual, and is it in effect mandatory?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not mandatory. Would the noble Viscount look at paragraph 3 (2) of the Merthyr Report. That paragraph reads:
  "That the communication mentioned in paragraph (b) should be issued by the Lord Chancellor and that Peers should be requested to reply to it within twenty-eight days of its issue; and that a further letter be sent by the Lord Chancellor to any Peer who fails to reply within this period, stating that unless within a further period of seven days he notifies his desire to the contrary he will be considered to have applied for leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament."
  On that, the original Standing Order was framed. The point was developed that we did not want him to be automatically deemed to have applied for leave of absence, but we wanted it left to the discretion of the House, so that if he raised the point, or if someone else did, the House could say, dealing with the individual case, that he would not be considered to have applied for leave of absence and would not get it. It was to give more flexibility and to protect the individual all the more.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: This is a very interesting prospect. It means that people who do not apply may get leave automatically, and then you go on to say that if a man complains that he has leave of absence without asking for it, then the House has to decide. I do not know how long it is since this House took the case of Lord "So-and-So" and decided whether he should have leave of absence. It must be a long time ago. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor would tell us something about that historically.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We shall have a full opportunity of discussing the position on a subsequent Amendment. On this Amendment I have gone far towards meeting the noble Viscount, and he has said he will accept my form, so we will deal with this point and consider the others later on.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: In that case I will not insist on my original form.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I put the Amendment as amended.
  On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to—namely, to add to Paragraph (3):
  "The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House."
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: May I ask one question on the proposed Standing Order 21 (1)? It says:
  "… proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can."
  This is my second visit to the House this year, and I should like to know—
  THE EARL OF HOME: Would the noble Marquess mind raising this point at a later stage? I do not think this is quite the place at which to raise this particular point.
  5.20 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, in Paragraph (4), to omit expected". The noble Viscount said: This word "expected" is a very interesting word. I have read Standing Orders very often and I read them through specially to find out whether the word "expected" occurred, and from start to finish it does not—because they are Standing Orders. "Expected" would be a suitable word for a Companion to the Standing Orders, advising noble Lords on what to do and what not to do; but what sort of Order is it that says that a noble Lord is "expected" to do something and provides no sanctions if he does not do it? Therefore, I should like to know whether the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has any objection to the omission of the word "expected," which appears to be entirely alien to the character of Standing Orders and to be taking away with one hand what it professes to give with the other. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Paragraph (4), line 1, leave out ("expected").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  THE EARL OF HOME: There was a choice of words before us at an earlier stage of these proceedings. The House has no power to prescribe that a Peer should not attend. Therefore, the Standing Order deliberately uses the words "is expected", so as to avoid any implication that we want to order a Peer. The idea is to establish a convention. The question at the earlier stage was whether the word used should be "should". My noble friend Lord Saltoun objected to "should" as being too mandatory. I have never been sure myself, possibly like the noble Viscount, of what is the difference between "should"

  913
  and "is expected." It so happened that a number of my colleagues and I were talking about this, when the Prime Minister reminded me of an extract from the old Army Manual, which will probably be familiar to your Lordships, and which reads:
  "Officers of field rank on entering balloons are not expected to wear spurs."
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: There is another quotation:
  "England expects every man to do his duty."
  THE EARL OF HOME: I am bound to say that I wobbled between the word "should" and "is expected." On the previous occasion the majority of your Lordships felt that we should use the term which was less mandatory, and I hope that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment. I "should expect" that he would not press his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: My Lords, this discussion is very relevant to the Amendment which I propose to move later. I do not think that it would be convenient for me now to say anything about the use of the single word "expected". If I say nothing, it is because I reserve what I have to say on that point until we come to my Amendment.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: On the advice of an ex-Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.23 pan.
  LORD WRENBURY LORD WRENBURY had given Notice of several Amendments to paragraphs (4) and (5), the first being in paragraph (4), after "House" to insert "for the purpose of voting and speaking". The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, as all my Amendments deal with much the same point I will speak on them altogether. I cannot see any reason why a Peer should be prevented from sitting in your Lordships' House; so long as he is prevented from speaking and voting unless he is a regular attender. It is obvious, I should have thought, that it is very much in the interests of the House that a great many Peers should not either speak or vote, for various reasons. I have always taken the view that younger Peers would do much better to bide their time until they had experience which would be of some use to the House, and I cannot help feeling that many people have
  914
  come to the same conclusion. I think that they would be wise to wait for a number of years. How much more palatable their advice will be with ripe age and a few grey hairs!
  I think that if Peers are not allowed to sit in this House, certain anomalies follow. Peeresses will be permitted to sit and listen to debates; the eldest sons will presumably be able to sit on the steps of the Throne; and visitors will be allowed to sit in the Strangers' Gallery. It would be an extraordinary position, I think, if a Peer were not allowed to attend the House. Furthermore, I think—and this is the whole point of my Amendments—it would benefit the House if younger Peers were to become familiar with what goes on in the House so that they can be of use later.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I wonder if I may reassure the noble Lord …
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order! The noble Lord is making a maiden speech.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
  LORD WRENBURY: I am very anxious that no difference should be made between working and non-working Peers. It seem to me that, if this scheme goes through, that will be the result, although it does not specifically say so.
  I feel that tradition is capable of springing up more quickly in these surroundings than anywhere else, and the danger is that it will become taken for granted that there are certain professional Peers, who do their duty and turn up regularly, and certain Peers who do not do so. It is perfectly true that the remedy lies with a Peer himself, but my own view is that for some of them there is more virtue in staying away than in attending. I am still thinking particularly of those who are either in professions or in business, where often it is not possible, especially if a noble Lord is in the position of an employee, to make arrangements for attending, certainly not for attending regularly, unless "regularly" means something very different from what we all take it to mean. It is not good enough to say that the Peers to whom I refer are not going to be in a position to make some useful contribution to the work of the House. They

  915
  may well be able to do so in future. All credit to them if they now say that they are not in a position to make a contribution of much value, because they are either in training or not in a position to do so; because in a few years' time they may be in that position.
  So far as I can see, the Merthyr Committee's recommendations take account of the fact that valuable contributions have been made by Peers who are not elevated from another place or professional politicians in some other way. I believe that people drawn from all walks of life can usefully attend, and I feel that they should not be debarred from the educational, and I should say pleasurable, opportunities of attending debates in this House until they reach a particular stage in their careers. Certainly I gain a great deal of pleasure from listening to speakers here, and I think it would be a mistake to stop that process of education. I once attended a party in this House and at the end of it a Peer came to me and said: "Do you often attend the House?" I said: "As a matter of fact, it is very difficult for me to attend, because my office closes at quarter to six." He then said: "You are exactly the sort of person we want. The Benches in the House become so empty round about that time, the more people we can get to attend then, the better." If that view is seriously held, then it is illogical to say that noble Lords may not attend debates. That is the point I have in mind.
  I think it might go even further. Once there is this dichotomy between working and non-working Peers, I think there will rather to devolve on those who attend be a temptation for Peers' privileges regularly, as opposed to those who do not. I admit that it does not say so, but I can see tickets for the Trooping the Colour and various other ceremonies going to those who attend regularly. I should have thought that that point was worth considering, because the whole essence of this scheme takes it for granted that it is a virtue to attend the House as regularly as possible. The purpose of my Amendments is to recognise that in many cases it may be a virtue to stay away, not because a Peer is old or infirm, but because he takes his job seriously and does not feel in a position to make a worthwhile contribution until he knows
  916
  it properly. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Paragraph (4), line 2, after ("House") insert the said words.—(Lord Wren bury.)
  THE EARL or HOME: I am sure your Lordships will hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, having taken his courage in his hands and made such an excellent maiden speech, will come and address us often, and that we shall see and hear him as often as he can reasonably get here. I rather think that I agree with most of the noble Lord's objectives. He wants the young Peers to come here and be able to make a contribution to our proceedings; and I think all your Lordships would wish to see that. He does not want the House to become hardened into a hard core of regular attenders, without any dilution from outside of those who have experience of outside interests and outside work. We should certainly agree with that, too. But I do not know whether the noble Lord has realised what would be the effect of his Amendment. What he is really asking is a special form of leave of absence for a Peer who in fact he wishes to be present. He really wants this young Peer to be present and to be able to sit here and learn wisdom from all he hears round about him.
  I am bound to confess that for a long time I was attracted by the theory of the two Writs: that there might be a Writ which enabled a Peer to sit and speak, and another Writ which enabled a Peer to sit and speak and also to vote. I think that only one other noble Lord was attracted by the idea, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and therefore I dropped it. I do not really think it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, as he would do by his Amendment, to create a type of Peer, a creature unknown in Parliament before, who would simply sit here and never speak or vote. I do not believe—and I have given the matter further examination—that we can really divorce sitting and speaking and voting. Therefore, I cannot encourage the noble Lord to think that I can accept the series of Amendments he has put on the Paper—and I take it that he is discussing them altogether.
  I would say, however, that I am perfectly certain that the words of the Standing Order need not discourage any

  917
  young Peer in business from coming to this House. The interpretation of as often as he reasonably can" in such a case would possibly be no more than once or twice a Session if the young Peer was exceptionally busy. I should like to make it clear at this point that I feel there is nothing in this Standing Order which would prevent such a young Peer from coming, and that "as often as he reasonably can" would be interpreted by the rest of his Peers as "as often as he can fit it into his career outside the House".
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: This would seem to be a convenient moment to ask the noble Earl what happens to a man who gets leave of absence and turns up. Where does he sit? Is he entitled to go about the House? Can he come into the House? What is "inside the House"? Is it below the Bar, or above the Bar?
  A NOBLE LORD: In the bar!
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Can we have some explanation about the position of the disinherited Peer?
  THE EARL OF HOME: The joke of the noble Lord behind me was so good that I could not hear what the noble Viscount said.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was making a practical point. In the other place, when a man who has not taken the Oath appears (it happened to me once, by accident), he can be told that he is subject, under information, to a forfeit of £100 a day. What happens to a Peer who has been told that, willy-nilly, he is on leave of absence and who says: "I should like to go down to the House"—perhaps because he has friends there? Does he sit in the Gallery? Does he sit on the steps of the Throne? I only ask this for information.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I think a question is to be asked on this point later. I believe the answer is that the Merthyr Committee considered the point and felt that such a Peer should have all the facilities of the House; but if he attempts to go into the Chamber, then he has to take the Oath before he can sit.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not see how you can take the Oath without attending a Sitting. A noble Lord takes the Oath, but he has a leave of absence, being in possession of the Oath. He then sits on the steps of the Throne. Is he
  918
  allowed to do that? I do not know. I do not believe that anyone has given thought to this matter at all; they have put the whole thing into a basket and shaken it up, because they wanted to get the scandal of the absent Peers dealt with, and I think they have made the case worse.
  THE EARL OF HOME: Some thought has been given to this matter, and I feel quite certain that a Peer who takes the Oath will not be able to sit in the Chamber although he will be able to sit on the steps of the Throne. I speak subject to corroboration, but I feel reasonably certain that that is correct.
  LORD WRENBURY: I cannot quite see why. Quite clearly, the object is not to save space. These seats are so much more comfortable than the steps of the Throne, and I cannot see why one should not sit in them.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: Perhaps I can answer that question—and I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, on his speech. We on the main Committee did consider this point carefully—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, will, I think, confirm it. It really arose on whether "speech" and "vote" could be treated as separate things. That was really the proposal of the late Lord Exeter, which was debated in this House some years ago. We came to the conclusion, advised by Lord Morton of Henryton and others, that it was not possible to make a distinction between the speech and the vote. Therefore I think the short answer to the noble Lord is that it would not be possible by a Standing Order—it would require an Act of Parliament—to create the two new kinds of Peers which my noble friend the Leader of the House has suggested, the non-vocal Peer and the vocal voting Peer. That certainly could not be done by the House by its own Standing Order. But the whole object of the Report of the Committee was that those who could attend occasionally—and I hope everybody who attends this House will not think he has got to make a speech whenever he attends—of course would not apply for leave of absence, and that would apply to the noble Lord, who, when he receives the Lord Chancellor's letter, will say, "I am going to go as often as I can "—and I hope that it will be fairly often.
  LORD WRENBURY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.42 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS VISCOUNT SIMONDS rose to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Standing Order, to leave out paragraph (4). The noble and learned Viscount said: I should like, if I may, though I do not immediately follow the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, to add my congratulations to those of speakers who have spoken, and I do so because I remember as a young counsel more than fifty years ago trembling before his grandfather and receiving much kindness from him.
  I move the Amendment which stands in my name. I am encouraged to do it by the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, looking at me, said that he hoped to take part in a Division moved under more respectable auspices. I shall give him that opportunity. The Amendment that I move is to omit paragraph (4) of the proposed Order.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder if the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to ask whether it would be convenient for him that we should discuss his two Amendments together, and then he can decide whether to move them.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: If the House accepts my view of paragraph (4) probably little discussion will be necessary on paragraph (5). On the other hand, if it rejects my view of paragraph (4) I do not think I shall bother to move paragraph (5).
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Would the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, permit some of his camp followers to vote against paragraph (5) if they like?
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I will give the noble Viscount the opportunity of taking part in two Divisions. My Amendment proceeds on the footing that paragraph (1) of the Standing Order is accepted, and there has been no Motion to delete it. Therefore, I am dealing in paragraph (4) with a Lord who under that Order has to attend the sittings of the House or, if he cannot do so, obtain leave of absence. That is, of course, mandatory. I am omitting the people who, for one reason or another, do not come within that because they are within the proviso and
  920
  do not require to get leave; I am dealing only with people who have obtained leave.
  Before I come to what I have to say myself, I want to say this. My noble friend Lord Salisbury has been prevented, quite unavoidably, from coming here today. He regrets it very much because he wished to put his views upon this Amendment before the House. He called me out of the House the other day. We had a long discussion and he asked me to put his views before the House. I think your Lordships would all desire to have the views of the noble Marquess who, I suppose, more than anybody in this House is imbued with its ancient traditions and anxious for its future, and whose wisdom and counsel has guided us through so many years.
  What the noble Marquess wished me to say was this. First, that his views broadly—and I use his very words—coincide with mine. Let me say that I hope I am pretty well word perfect in this, because I am anxious not to misrepresent in any way what falls from a noble Lord whose influence is so great. I asked him to commit it to writing; and although I cannot make his speech in this House I can tell you as accurately as possible what are his views. His views are, first of all, these: that leave of absence given by this House on the authority, the delegation, of the Sovereign, cannot override in importance the peremptory terms of the Writ. Therefore, if any Peer, notwithstanding that he has leave of absence, yet finds unexpectedly that he can take his place in this House—it may be that for some strong reasons of conscience he feels impelled, whatever his other obligations, to come here and take his seat—he should, notwithstanding that the period of absence has not expired, be entitled to do it without any moral stigma (these, again, are the noble Marquess's words) attaching to him.
  The words in paragraph (4), "a Lord who has been granted leave of absence is expected not …", convey to him, as they do to me, a moral flavour, and he feels most strongly that those words ought to find no place in the Standing Order. They do, of course, to some people, apparently, not convey any moral flavour, and to those persons the words are not objectionable; but if they suggest in any way a moral stigma, the flavour that the Peer who comes is doing something that

  921
  he ought not to do, then to the noble Marquess, as to me, they ought to find no place in the Standing Order of this House.
  It is only right that I should go on to say, and this again is what the noble Marquess told me, that in view of the concessions which the noble Earl who leads the House had made in attempting to meet the objections of the noble Marquess and many of his friends, though he could not vote for the new Standing Order he did not propose to take any part, if he had been here, in the Division. That is out of friendship and loyalty to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. But his last words were these. He said, "I hope you will make it absolutely clear that a Peer who has received a Writ of Summons has a right to attend which is not to be qualified or nullified by any action of the House." Those are his words as near as I can recollect. I think they must have great weight with all your Lordships, even though, as it appears, contrary to what I understood was to be the position, a Government Whip has been issued in this matter. That is nothing to do with me, except to say that I sit on the Cross-Benches and am unmoved by Whips from one side or the other.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I think we have had three debates in this House deliberately without a Government Whip, but there must come a point where a Government must make up its mind.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I quite agree. I understood—and this is relevant to something the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said more than once—that this matter was down for consideration on Committee in order that we might have the opportunity of moving Amendments, and it seems to me to be worth nothing that on previous occasions noble Lords have made speeches or, indeed, committees hive reported. We are here to consider now whether this should be the Standing Order of the House. If we are told "It is no use saying that", I really do not know why we have a debate at all.
  I believe that if I were a good advocate I should leave the matter with the indication of the noble Marquess's views to the House. But I do not think that he would wish me to do that, and so I will, with your Lordships' permission, somewhat elaborate (though it is nothing more) what the noble Marquess has said.
  922
  I think that all your Lordships would at once see how the last words that I used—that the right of a Peer to attend and speak and vote, should not be qualified or nullified by any action of this House—in effect repeat what the Swinton Committee itself said. I thought the most salient point in the whole of that Report was where it said that it is not legitimate for the House, under the guise of granting leave of absence to a Peer, in effect to deprive him of his right to sit and vote. What else do you do when you say to a Peer, "You have got to get leave of absence. You can get leave of absence only for a term, which may be the rest of the Session or the rest of this Parliament; and when you have got that leave you are not to come back except upon three "(now one) "months' notice."
  I use the words "are not to come back." The words in the Standing Order, as amended, are "is expected not to come back." That is an Amendment to the original form of the Order" should not come back." I have not heard from anybody—I suppose I have not had the opportunity of hearing from anybody—what the difference is between those two things. It is quite clear that to many people there is a significant difference. There is not to me, although, of course, there may be to others. There is not to me any more than there was, and I suppose still is, to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton—
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: Not merely to me, but the whole of my Committee.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I am choosing the noble Earl because I attach so much weight to what he says. What the noble Earl said was—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208, col. 1063:
  " There is not the least doubt that the word ' should ' has, in fact, the same legal interpretation as ' is expected '."
  I am happy to agree with him. I am the more happy to agree with him because I am not agreeing with him in a good deal, and he has been rather sharp with me at times, although I hope that sixty years of friendship will stand the strain. But whether the words are "is expected" or "should," it is quite clear, I would suppose to anybody, that those words are put in with some intention. What is the intention? Are they

  923
  not intended to deter the Peer who, during the period of his leave of absence, finds he can come back? Why else is he told that he is "not expected"? As I say, it is possible for a different view to be taken; but that that view is taken will appear very clearly.
  Now I venture to cite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I do so not only because his speeches on their merit carry so much weight, but because I know that he speaks for a representative and respectable body of Peers. What the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said was this—I quote from column 1020:
  "It was precisely for this reason that the proposed Standing Orders have been drafted, so that a Peer who had obtained leave of absence would be unable to attend the House and vote without giving three months' notice."
  I think, if I may say so, that Lord Teynham is quite right. But that is not the view accepted by everybody, because consider what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr said.
  LORD TEYNHAM: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? What I intended to indicate was—and I think the noble Viscount will agree—that the whole question is entirely one of a voluntary basis, and therefore a noble Lord is not in any way prevented from coming back to the House.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I will deal with the question of a voluntary basis later. As the noble Lord has challenged me on that, I must point out that he goes on to say that it becomes a Standing Order. What he said was:
  "As your Lordships know, in the past, for many years now, we have never had any trouble about the breaking of Standing Orders. On the other hand,"—
  observe how military the noble Lord is—
  "I suggest we should remember that it would in fact be possible for a Resolution to be moved in the House for ' contempt' should a Peer break a Standing Order".
  Then he refers to a Report of the Select Committee.
  I cannot doubt that many noble Lords, on being told that they are not expected to attend the House, would regard themselves as under a moral obligation. I cannot help reminding the noble Lord who sits on my left that he has immortalised himself by saying that he would rather commit any offence against the law
  924
  than break a Standing Order. What is the position of the Peer who is told that if he comes to this House before his period of absence has expired he is breaking a Standing Order, and, in the view of Lord Teynham, a Resolution may be moved to commit him for "contempt"? Who can doubt but that that has the same force as has summoning Black Rod and telling him to exclude a Peer who is breaking a Standing Order?
  In view of that, how very unreal it is for the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who takes quite a different view, of course, of the meaning of the words "is expected", to say what he said in the House. What Lord Merthyr said will be found at column 1048 [Vol. 208] of the OFFICIAL REPORT. There he said:
  "If there is one thing that I particularly want to say this afternoon, with considerable emphasis, it is that there is not a word in this Report which will in any way, if it is adopted, take away the rights of your Lordships' House or the Members thereof."
  He goes on to say that he wants to emphasise that point particularly because he is differing from me. Then he says:
  "I believe that this question is vital, and if I thought for one moment that this Standing Order did take away a right which has been enjoyed by your Lordships' House for centuries I should not be standing here supporting it or proposing it. But in fact I have no doubt whatever that it does nothing of the kind."
  How can that be said? In the one case, if there is not this Standing Order, a noble Lord is as free as air to come into the House. Pass this Standing Order and he is under the menace that he may be committed for contempt. At any rate, if he is not committed for contempt he comes under the severe condemnation of this House because he is breaking a Standing Order, and then the noble Lord may find his rights are taken away. In one case he is a free man; in the other he is in bondage.
  Which is the right view? I do not think it much matters which is the right view, if there is such a thing as a right view when you are construing words of this kind. What matters is that to many people it must appear plain that these words do restrict their right to come into this House. If they take that view—and it is a reasonable view to take—it cannot matter that other people take a different view. Therefore, such words as these

  925
  ought not to find any place in a Standing Order of this House. If one person can sensibly say, "I have my Writ. It is true that I have leave of absence and that might affect my duty, but it does not affect my right and I propose to come", and he is told: "No, you are not expected surely that cannot be a constitutional exercise of the rights of this House.
  When I spoke on the last occasion it was somewhat early in the debate, and I said then, with all sincerity, that I had not seen any effective answer to the constitutional point which I then raised and indeed, raised on a previous occasion, many years before I occupied the Woolsack. I said, with all sincerity, that if the Lord Chancellor, who I presumed would answer me, could convince me, I would willingly withdraw. My Lords, I can only say, with great respect and perhaps sorrow, that I was never less convinced by anything than by the speech of the Lord Chancellor on that occasion. Apart from frequent citation of authorities, which, I venture to suggest, was not what the House wanted as much as reason, the noble and learned Viscount made two material contributions to our debate. The first is contained in Hansard, Vol. 208, col. 1073, when the noble and learned Viscount was answering a point that I had made. He was good enough to say that the point which I had made really did "not become any the stronger however often it was repeated". I am sorry if I trespassed too much upon his patience. He said:
  "That is the view of the noble and learned Viscount. My view is that it does not deprive anyone of the right to sit and vote but lays down the manner in which that right shall be exercised. That is the difference between us."
  Then Hansard reports that several noble Lords cried "No, No." That does not surprise me. It is said that a noble Lord can come to the House and be told: "You are not expected; you cannot come and sit and vote," and the noble and learned Viscount says that that is a way of directing the method in which he shall vote! It is a curious way of directing the method in which he shall vote during the next three months. The method of directing that Peer how he is to vote is, apparently, to tell him to get out. With great respect, I cannot help feeling that if the noble and learned Viscount reflects upon that argument, he
  926
  will think that it is hardly worth while putting before the House. To tell a Peer that he cannot come and that he is not expected to come is equivalent to excluding him and depriving him of his vote.
  The other contribution which the noble and learned Viscount made is prefaced by reminding Members that the Lord who has obtained leave of absence has done so under the direction of the House. That is the Order which I read at the opening of my speech. A Peer having obtained leave of absence, it is suggested that some sort of scheme is entered into as a result of which he is bound by any other conditions, lawful or unlawful, which the House chooses to impose. The noble Viscount is reported at column 1076 of Hansard as saying:
  " … if a Peer voluntarily comes into a scheme like this, then he should not be able to give up and return to the House without some period being involved, and that that period should be of some length of time. That is a condition on which one gets into a scheme."
  Those noble Lords who were present may remember that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, intervened and said to his noble and learned friend that his conception was slightly different. A Peer comes into the scheme because under the Standing Order of this House he does what he is told to do. He has asked for leave of absence. He is told that he must get leave; he gets leave and then he is told, "You have entered into a scheme and you must stay away for as long as we want you to stay away." That is an argument which ought not and cannot, in my submission, weigh anywhere.
  I simply want to emphasise what to me seems so clear, namely, that when such words as "are not expected", "should not", "ought not", or whatever they may be, are used, it is in effect placing a grave obstacle in the way of a Peer who wishes to do his duty. I do not see how it can be done. When we say that a Peer is not expected, let us be more vivid about it. He comes with his Writ prepared to do his duty and anxious to exercise his right, but the Lord Chancellor says, "You may be anxious and willing, but I do not expect you." It will not hold water. Therefore, I venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name, which will exclude

  927
  this threat and leave the House in the position in which it ought to be of seeing that noble Lords obtain leave of absence when they apply and, having obtained it, stay away just as long as they feel they cannot do their duty and exercise their right.
  I have found frequently in this debate the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton occurring. The noble and learned Lord is most anxious at the earliest possible moment to make clear what he intended when he took part in the Committee proceedings of this House, and I hope that he may be allowed to do so at an early stage.
  6.8 p.m.
  LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON: This proposed Standing Order is, of course, founded on the leave of absence scheme which appears in the Swinton Report. I was a member of the Swinton Committee but I have not taken part in the previous debates which have dealt with this subject because I did not wish to speak either for or against the leave of absence scheme. But I feel that I ought to say something in this debate, because, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, says, my name was referred to frequently on the last occasion when the Standing Order in its original form—it has of course undergone a change—was debated.
  I should like to start by reminding the House of one paragraph in the Swinton Report. It is paragraph 21 and reads as follows:
  "The Committee gave most careful consideration to a number of proposals all of which, in the view of the Committee, would have had the effect of derogating, in greater or less degree, from the right conferred upon a Peer by his Writ to attend and take part in the proceedings of Parliament."—
  Then other proposals were mentioned, and the paragraph continues:
  "All these proposals would, in the view of the Committee, contravene the principle laid down in the Earl of Bristol's case and would therefore be ultra vires."
  After mentioning certain other proposals the paragraph concludes:
  "It was further suggested that the House might make use of its power to regulate its own procedure and to order what might be called its domestic arrangements, in such a manner as to exclude Peers who did not regularly attend All those expedients, in the view
  928
  of the Committee, would amount to the exclusion, or partial exclusion, of a Peer from the House, and would not be within the power of the House to enforce."
  May I couple with that, just to emphasise it, a short portion of paragraph 29, to which the noble Viscount. Lord Simonds, also referred:
  "the Committee came to the conclusion that it would not be legitimate for the House, under the guise of granting leave of absence to a Peer, in effect to deprive him of his right to sit, speak and vote."
  Now, my Lords, in view of these passages, when I read and considered the scheme set out in paragraph 33 of the Report, containing the words:
  "Members of the House are expected, if they have been granted leave of absence, not to attend,"
  I felt no doubt that it could not have been intended by this scheme to impose any bar or restriction whatsoever on a Peer who was on leave of absence if he felt that he ought to come back to the House while he was on leave of absence. There was no restriction on him whatsoever. I interpreted the words "is not expected" somewhat in this way. Let me picture a Peer who is on leave of absence coming back. A Member of the House says to him, "We did not expect to see you here" but he replies, "Well, I felt that I should like to take part in this debate, and so I have come." Now that, to my mind, is a perfect answer. If the words are that he "is expected not to attend", they are words of expectation, and I interpreted them as a natural expectation which might or might not be fulfilled.
  But when the Standing Orders were drafted I found that the words "expected not to attend" were altered to "should not attend." I ventured, with some hesitation, to approach the Leader of the House on that subject and express the hope that possibly the words might be altered back to the words of the Swinton Committee—" is expected not to attend." To my mind, the two phrases are different, and I ventured to observe that, if there is no difference in meaning between the two of them, why alter the words of the Swinton Report? I do not say that it was because of this request of mine in the least, but it is a fact that the present Standing Orders go back to the words "is expected not to attend". Now, to me these words still mean, as they meant when I concurred in the Report of the Swinton Committee, merely a matter of

  929
  expectation. The view that I take, and have always taken, is that any Peer on leave of absence is perfectly free to come and sit and speak and vote at any time, and I gather from what the Leader of the House has already said this afternoon that that is the view of the Government.
  In these circumstances, and having made the proposal which was ultimately accepted, I do not feel that I can possibly vote for the Amendment which is being proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, but I do feel that if there are other Members of the House to whom the words "is expected not to attend" have a different meaning or a different flavour, then this suggested Amendment raises a very serious question for consideration.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I would say that in spite of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, it was quite clear that the Select Committee were anxious that Peers granted leave of absence should give reasonable notice before returning to the business of the House, and this view has already been accepted by the House in previous debates on the matter. As I have pointed out already in a reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, the whole scheme is on a voluntary basis, and all the House is being asked to do is to regulate its procedure. I personally do not think it would be right that a Peer who is on leave of absence should be able to come back to the House at a moment's notice because he might see something on the Order Paper that interested him. I suggest that it would be quite contrary to the whole spirit of the wishes of the House which have already been expressed in previous debates and also by the Report of the Select Committee.
  I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, considers that although a Peer might be on leave of absence and might never have even attended the House, he should in fact still be able to attend as soon as lie sees some particular matter on the Order Paper. Now, I do not think that that can be right. I personally am still of the opinion that the period before which a Peer should come back after he has asked for revocation of his leave of absence should be not less than three months, because if the period is much shorter a Peer might come back and debate the last stages of a Bill in which he has not taken an earlier
  930
  part. I feel that this would be against the general wishes of the House.
  On the other hand, I am prepared to accept the compromise of one month's notice that has been set down in the Amendment to be moved later by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and I hope it will work out all right and not produce any of the unfortunate occurrences that I have mentioned. I would repeat, in order to emphasise it, that this House is the High Court of Parliament and is quite within its right to lay down its procedure. I would also remind your Lordships that the whole of this scheme is on a voluntary basis.
  6.18 p.m.
  LORD HANKEY: I shall speak for only a few minutes, because I make no pretence of being an expert on this question: I brought almost a virgin mind to it. But when I heard my noble friend's speech the other day I was tremendously impressed by it. Perhaps I may quote another extract, from the beginning of the speech, instead of the one at the end of the speech which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, quoted. It is in these words:
  "Whatever the expediency of these Standing Orders may be, they violate in a most flagrant way the principles of our Constitution so far as they relate to the right and duty of a Peer to attend and speak and vote."
  Like the noble Viscount himself, I heard all the remaining speeches, and I have been over them most carefully to try to discover if that was completely countered; and the conclusion I reached was the same as his own, though I never had a word with the noble Viscount about it. It is not for me to say what the facts are. I am an old Clerk of the Privy Council, though I do not think that this particular problem ever came my way. But I do feel this: that if there is a doubt about a great principle—and I do not say which side is right—it would he wrong to found a Standing Order on it, and I think that is what the noble Viscount believes has been done.
  So much for the question of law. Then there is the great question of expediency—whether or not the House might not lose valuable advice at a critical moment. My memories go back a long way, but even in comparatively recent times I can remember the late Lord Wavell—not the first Earl, but the second—coming home from Kenya and taking part in a debate,

  931
  and impressing the House tremendously. Had this rule been in force, the noble Earl, being out there in the Army, might well have asked for leave of absence, so that he would have been unable to attend; or it might have been very difficult for him to do so.
  I remember another case—and there is one other noble Lord in the House who should also remember it—where a noble Lord came into a debate of less general interest than that. It was a debate on the quality of bread. The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, came home at equally short notice. Nobody knew that he was to take part in the debate, but he jumped up and made a most decisive speech on the subject. I believe that there are cases when that might happen. For about twelve years I had to go to Egypt every year, which involved absences from the House of from five weeks up to some three months. There was no question of asking for leave, of course—perhaps it would not have been necessary: I do not know. I used to tell the Clerk of the Parliaments that I was going to be absent and leave an address, and that seems to me much simpler than all this "red tape" and procedure. From the legal side and from the side of expediency, therefore, I support strongly the deletion of paragraphs (4) and (5).
  6.23 p.m.
  LORD SOERS: Perhaps I may intervene just for a moment, as a very junior Member of your Lordships' House. There seems to have been a good deal of difference of opinion as to whether or not the words in these two paragraphs really impose a moral obligation not to attend. I must admit that when I first read them that was my impression. I felt that one would have to be very careful in asking for leave of absence, because thereafter one would be banned from attending the House for a certain period. I may have misinterpreted the position, but I do not suppose I am the only one who has done so. And if that is not intended to be the meaning of the paragraphs, what then is the purpose of including them? Otherwise, they seem to have no significance at all.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I had proposed to make my maiden speech at a later stage this afternoon; and I still
  932
  hope, with the leave of the House, to be allowed to speak then. But I am probably the only person present who is seriously considering applying for leave of absence. I have come some hundreds of miles to listen to this debate in order to clear my mind—though I must say that it is not very much clearer. I have heard one eminent legal Member of your Lordships' House say that here the word "expected" means that one must not come; and I have heard another say that it means one can come whenever one likes. I hope that we may have a little enlightenment upon that matter.
  LORD SALTOUN: I should like to congratulate the son of a very old friend, and one who is himself an old friend, on his very brief maiden speech. It was of a kind which will naturally make us anxious to hear him again. We had some spirited exchanges the last time we debated this matter on precisely the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton; and at that time we were told that "should" and "expected" meant the same thing. Since that time the Standing Order has been amended to include the word "expected", and if that means what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, suggests it means, then I am perfectly happy with that word. If not, I am bound to say that I shall not be happy.
  I do not feel there was very much weight in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, about a Peer who has not attended the earlier stages of a Bill suddenly deciding to come and speak on the last stages. I remember a case in the 1930s where a Peer who had not attended the earlier stages of a debate intervened on the Third Reading; and, although he did not get his way, he did in the end get alterations made to the Bill which made it acceptable in Scotland—which otherwise it would not have been. An intervention on Third Reading may be very effective and very useful to your Lordships. My feeling on this matter is reinforced by what my noble friend Lord Hankey has just said. The example he gave of the late Lord Wavell is one which I feel sure will have a strong effect upon us because of the affection we always had for that noble Earl. I hope that we are going to get a proper interpretation of this word "expected" this afternoon.
  6.27 p.m.
  VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: I have not taken part in all these debates so far, and I should not have intervened to-day but for the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton. I would begin by saying, in the absence of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, that he, a very learned and profound lawyer, has made the point that we are doing some vital damage to our Constitution. But I have always noticed that in the proceedings of our Parliaments we do not normally pay great attention to profound principles, which are generally observed by their omission.
  I cannot believe that there will appear at the Bar of this House a queue of learned, profound, wise and witty noble Lords, all with a tremendous message to deliver, which a hard-hearted Lord Chancellor, representing the House, will not permit them to deliver. In practice, the position is that there are in this House a number of Peers—we may know some of them—who never attend and never intend to do so. There are a number of Peers who come occasionally, when they can, and who do not intend to give up their right. I believe it might be made plain from the Government Benches that if a noble Lord intends to attend the House, perhaps only once a year, or even more rarely, he should not apply for leave of absence. I feel that if that were done it would be a great help.
  I cannot quite follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, because, with great respect, in the Report of the Select Committee it is stated, in paragraph 33 (c), on page 12:
  "that any Member of the House who fails to reply to such a communication should be regarded as having applied for leave of absence, unless he attends to take the Oath within one month of the beginning of a Parliament."
  Having already said that they should attend regularly or apply for leave of absence, the Report says, in paragraph 33 (d):
  "that Members of the House are expected, if they have been granted leave of absence, not to attend until their leave of absence has been terminated by their giving such notice as may be prescribed by Standing Order."
  Here I agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds: I consider that a moral duty is placed on a noble Lord who has applied for leave of absence not to come within one month. But looking
  934
  at it within the context of the practice of this House over many year, the size, as well as the duties of the House, and the way in which some noble Lords, for reasons which are perfectly good, never attend and never intend to attend, I do not think we are making a great breach in the Constitution. I do not believe we shall deprive ourselves of the counsel of noble Lords who have and will come because they have something to deliver. Taking the context as a reasonable practical man who has profound respect for the working of our practical Constitution, I must say that I cannot follow the noble Viscount into the Lobby.
  6.30 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, said that this matter had been discussed on several occasions, and I do not want merely to repeat arguments that I have put before. The noble and learned Viscount gave his evidence to the Swinton Committee, who heard other witnesses and decided against his evidence. The House then considered the Report of the Swinton Committee, and approved it on December 12. They then welcomed the Merthyr Report on April 24. The matter has been so fully threshed out that I do not want to go over again matters which I have developed before, or, simply from the point of view of justifying my own position, to continue the argument on points which have now become of less importance. But I ask your Lordships to consider this matter dispassionately, forgetting what view has been taken of one's own views, and objectively, with only the interests of the House in mind.
  I think that what we have been apt to forget is that, basically, this scheme does not purport, nor can it purport, to affect the legal right of a Peer to sit and speak and vote in your Lordships' House. He can do that. Whatever the scheme says, he can come in. If the occasion arose where he came in and said, "I have not given notice, but this is the reason why I came—" I am sure that he would be listened to by the House.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Would his vote be valid?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. That is the fundamental misconception which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has had throughout this debate.

  935
  You cannot affect the validity of his entry or his vote. Even the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, has never put his argument on that basis, I believe—I give him the opportunity of interrupting me again if I am wrong, but I understand he has never put his argument on that basis.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I hope that the noble and learned Viscount is clear that there is no question of a legal point. I think that matter was carried a bit too far. I did not say that Black Rod could be summoned to exclude; but what I did say was that the methods which had been used were as forcible a deterrent as would be the threat of physical expulsion.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What the noble and learned Viscount says covers the case. I did not say there was a legal bar; what I said was that there is a moral bar.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that the noble and learned Viscount is saying substantially the same. Let us take the first point and make sure that everyone including the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is now convinced that there is no legal bar.
  Then we have to consider the next point: whether there is a moral bar. I listened with great care to what my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton said in his intervention, and I hope that I am putting it rightly. I have tried to consider the words used, but when one is listening to a number of speeches in the course of debate one has not got the best opportunity to think out words. However, this is what I believe is the position: that the words on the Order Paper express how the House would expect its Business to be conducted. I do not think there is any difference between what I say and what Lord Morton of Henryton has said. It is very difficult to eliminate, or to say whether one ought entirely to eliminate, the element of volition in the word "expect", because there is always an element of wishful thinking about every one of us. But I think I have put it correctly and that it is what my noble friend said.
  The question is, how the House would expect its Business to be conducted. In
  936
  that sense, you would not expect to see the person there. And when the House expresses how it would expect its Business to be conducted, it cannot avoid entirely (and I hope I am being completely frank with Lord Morton of Henryton) the element of what it would like to see. I do not think it is possible in these circumstances and in this context. That is the position which we have to face. I am quite sure, for reasons which I have given over and over again, that the House is entitled to say how it would expect its Business to be conducted; and I should have thought, again, that to endeavour to elevate that to a moral stigma is making a debating and not a real point. It is perfectly proper for the House corporately to announce its expectations. If someone does not fit in and fall in with those expectations, then it is a matter for him to consider what view he takes of his own conduct. That is the position and. as I say, I think that it has been unduly magnified, perhaps in order to get it under the admirable umbrella of Lord Salisbury's words.
  The next point I want to make clear is a point that was raised by my noble and gallant friend Lord De L'Isle a moment ago. That was on what I may call the practical aspect of this matter—namely, when can a Member say that he proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can? I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord De L'Isle, that if a Peer says, "I hope I shall attend once, twice or three times in a Session," and that this is his view of how he can act with regard to what he has to do, then that comes within the words of the Standing Order. In case anyone thinks I am saying that merely in answer to what Lord De L'Isle has said, I would remind him that my noble friend Lord Home said exactly the same thing half an hour ago, in answer to Lord Wrenbury. That is a considered opinion, and I hope that my noble and gallant friend will take it as such, as we have both said it on independent occasions this afternoon.
  The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, complained of my speech on the previous occasion, because I had made too many references to the Committee—as he said, consulting authority and not dealing with argument. It is only fair to remind your Lordships that one of the

  937
  many accusations made by the noble and learned Viscount was that he had not had any of his submissions to the Swinton Committee adequately considered, or adequately considered to his own satisfaction. I felt it only right, since he had made that charge, that I should refer to the various sections of the Report of the Swinton Committee which dealt with the points which the noble and learned Viscount raised in the debate. The points were dealt with in the eleven paragraphs of the Report which has been specifically approved by your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Viscount has not returned to, but he has not abandoned—and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has taken it up—the suggestion that this matter is unconstitutional and contrary to the law and custom of the Constitution. Apparently equally as the noble and learned Viscount did not convince the Swinton Committee, I, in turn, have not convinced him. That is a fate that befalls everyone who advances a legal argument in every circumstance.
  I still consider that the view which I venture to put forward has substance. It falls into these two parts: that there is an undoubted right of this House to regulate not only its procedure but also its method of functioning. As early certainly as 1621 this House exercised the right to excuse Peers for non-attendance. In the 1620s it exercised the right to allow leave of absence, and it has been exercising these rights every since. I was taken up for raising the question of proxies. I cannot see the relevance. The right of voting by proxy was considered to be an inalienable privilege of peerage, and was so stated; and this House proceeded on that basis. The time came when the House wanted to dispense with the habit of voting by proxy. While accepting that it was an inalienable privilege of peerage which could be taken away only by Act of Parliament, the House decided that it would suspend voting by proxy, and although there is a method by which that suspension could be abrogated, we have kept the suspension going for a hundred years, and voting by proxy has ceased to be part of the mechanism of this House.
  I still say—and I put forward my views with great diffidence, in view of the contempt which they have earned from the noble and learned Viscount—that everything points to the fact that we have a
  938
  power to regulate how Members of the House shall sit, vote and speak, subject only to this: that we cannot deprive them of their right. Nobody suggests that we are depriving them of their right, in the sense of law. I suggest that by saying how we expect the Business of the House to be conducted we are not indirectly trying to do what we cannot do directly, and therefore I feel of the same opinion that I have always expressed—that we are within our constitutional rights.
  It was said that I was wrong to suggest that there could be some sort of bargain. When one criticises, however vehemently, it is important that one should quote the whole of what has been said. What I said was that there are two elements: first, no legal deprivation and, secondly, a voluntary scheme into which any Member of your Lordships' House can come if he chooses. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, if a noble Lord does not want leave of absence at all, he is not in the scheme; but if he wants to come into the scheme, then it seems to me sense, and it does not seem to me to have any immoral element, that he should abide by the expectation of the House as to how its Business should be carried on. I will not take this matter any further. Those are my views. They are—exactly like those of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds—unshaken by the argument that I have heard. I would ask your Lordships to consider that we have now, I think, given a full answer on a very important matter. I do not regret any of it. I only apologise if I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Before the noble and learned Viscount leaves the point he made to me, I would ask him this. He says that if a noble Lord does not come into the scheme, then he is not part of it: but what happens if he does not answer the letter and is deemed to have come into the scheme?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If he does not answer the letter and is deemed to come into the scheme, a Peer has three choices of conduct in front of him. The first is to say that his legal right is to come to the House and that he asserts his legal right. He can come and give an explanation of the matter according to his temper.

  939
  The second is to say that he asks the Supervisory Committee who, I assume, would have a right—
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Would they?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Whatever Committee the House appoints, I should have said, assuming that the Supervisory Committee is the Committee the House will appoint to deal with it. I am not avoiding the noble Lord's point at all. A Peer can apply to the Committee and say that he wants to come back in a lesser period than that of one month and give his reasons. His third choice is to give a month's notice under the Standing Order. So he does not do so badly, from a practical point of view.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, but I should like to add something to the debate on the Amendment now before the House and I shall limit myself to that. I was a member of both Committees that have sat and I supported the general scheme, and I support it still, but I confess that I have some doubts about the paragraphs which have been challenged by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds. As regards the word "expected", I well remember the long discussions we had in Committee on the possibility of finding some sanction for this proposal other than a legal sanction which would deprive Peers of their hereditary or other rights, and the word "expected" was taken, I think by all of us, to imply a moral obligation. It was practically equivalent to saying: "We shall not have a legal contract with these Peers, but there shall be a gentlemen's agreement. and one of the non-attenders who has signed a letter asking for leave of absence will not treat it lightly and nevertheless come to the House just as he might have come if he had not signed such a letter." We want to get rid, if possible, of the regular non-attenders, if only to improve the constitutional appearance of the House.
  I hope that this experiment will be made, and that it will succeed. But whether it will succeed or not, to my mind, will depend largely on the answer which the House gives to-day on this very point: what is a Peer "letting himself in for" if he signs this self-abnegation document? What I want to
  940
  do, in the few observations I shall address to your Lordships, is to ask the Government how they think the scheme will work in practice in certain eventualities; and the eventuality I have in mind is that one of the crises in politics that occur in the course of every generation may suddenly burst upon the country—it may be international politics; it may be that suddenly there is a danger of war. Suppose there are 100 Members who have signed an undertaking of nonattendance, what is to happen to them, in those circumstances? Are they to say: "We are sorry, but we feel deeply upon this as a matter of conscience and mean to come"?
  Then the question arises: would this Standing Select Committee which is to be appointed to supervise the general arrangements with regard to leave of absence be empowered to act in such a case? Would they be able to recommend to the House that the whole of these leave of absence undertakings should be suspended in view of the urgency of the situation? Suppose it is not a question of international politics, but of domestic politics, and there is an unforeseen crisis, some economic or financial situation of the greatest importance; are we to leave it to this Supervising Committee—which, by the way, is to consist of the Whips of the three Parties—a body which is to decide perhaps on releasing or not releasing 100 votes in an imminent Party Division, to decide whether the House should be recommended to suspend these votes of abstention? It may be said: "The Member who has signed this has brought it upon himself. He need not have signed it, and he ought to realise what might happen." If this Resolution is passed, and the Standing Order is made, and next week or next month the letters go out, what will be the attitude or the demeanour of individual Members who are hesitating with their pen in their hand to say whether or not they are going to ask for leave of absence? A great many would say: "In ordinary circumstances, I have no intention of attending—I never have attended; I am not a House of Lords' man and do not mean to attend—but I certainly do not mean to deny myself the right of exercising the privileges of my Peerage"—in

  941
  circumstances such as those that I have sketched out.
  I want to encourage Peers to sign these letters if they are in doubt; and want this experiment to succeed. But in those circumstances, I do not want the signatories to feel that they would be accepting too great a disability. In an earlier stage I think the recommendation was that a Peer should have to give three months' notice of his desire to terminate his leave of absence; and now it is to be one month. I should like to ask the Government to answer my specific point of how this is expected to work out in the given circumstances of crisis—I have not come to any conclusion in my own mind; there may be advantages on both sides—and, if it is not satisfactory, whether it might not be better to make the period much shorter than one month, or perhaps to leave it to the Peer to take action immediately without any preliminary period at all.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I had not intended to intervene at this stage, but I must say I am rather concerned, having listened to the debate, as to the direction in which we are going this evening. The reply which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, made to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, was very persuasive, but in the course of his speech it seemed to me to stand out that we were dealing with the question of the amendment of, and the future observance of, Standing Orders of this House; and it left the impression upon me that he, at any rate, would agree that the question of the Standing Orders of this House is one for this House and for this House as a whole. All the steps which have led up to the present position, from the moment of the presentation of the general principle to the House by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, up to the present time, have not seen any attempts in the various sections of the House to throw a spanner into the works in general in its consideration. Members of all Parties have taken part in the various stages, and especially in the two Committees which dealt with the matter, but in the whole of that procedure it seems to me to have been desired to retain within ordinary recommendations made to the House the principle that all sections of the House have the right to have a completely free opinion and to
  942
  present it in the House even to the point of a vote.
  I understand that to-night, while I was out in the tea room, it was made perfectly clear that at certain stages in this debate, at any rate, it is intended to use the Government Whip to carry the Motion on the Paper. In view of the case submitted by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, and, in particular, the wise presentation just made to us by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, out of his great experience, it would be most undesirable to come to a decision on this matter tonight on a Party Whip vote. I am not thinking merely of trying to make—as I seem to understand from one or two phrases in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the Front Bench opposite—a sort of more respectable constitutional appearance of an action of this kind. The only real merit in coming to an amendment of this kind of Standing Orders must be to ensure more efficient management of the general business of your Lordships' House. I am not sure if one could say that you make a House more efficient by particularly excluding some people that you do not want to come. I do not think that that is the way to deal with an Assembly of this kind.
  I am particularly concerned about the vote that is going to be taken now upon this Amendment, for it will largely affect the vote upon the main proposition to be put later, because of its influence upon future, and perhaps very near future, impending political changes. Whatever is decided, I want, if possible, this matter to be decided by a free vote of your Lordships' House. If this is going to be carried by a Party vote, then we must have some guidance given concerning the propositions put by the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel, and the kind of crises that may arise. After I have listened to that very able and experienced Parliamentarian, I can begin to visualise all sorts of things arising, and we shall have to consider very carefully indeed if we are going to have this kind of camouflage amendment to the Standing Orders of the House of Peers by means of Government Party Whip vote. It is pretty good guidance, in one direction at any rate, on the things I have in mind.
  I rise at this stage in the debate to put these questions to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House. Do you insist upon

  943
  using the Party vote? If you do, then we shall want a great deal more debate on it before we vote. That is the first proposition. Secondly, how do we view the future progress for to-day's Business set down on the Order Paper? Because if we make, it may be, a decision against the view of the Simonds Amendment, if I may so call it that in the presence of the noble and learned Viscount, then the debate upon the main question is obviously going to be much more protracted, much more detailed in argument: it must be so. Therefore I should like to know, first, are you going to put the Government Whip on for this vote on this Amendment? That is important. Secondly, how are you going to deal with the rest of to-day's Business, because if this discussion is going to be much more prolonged, I think I ought, on behalf of the Opposition and all those people who want more and adequate consideration of the matter, in view of the points raised in the debate, to ask for postponement of this debate to another day.
  THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, has, I think, imported probably a little unnecessary Party feeling into this matter. After three debates without any indication from anywhere as to what the House should decide, or any lead, I thought we ought to put a suggested Standing Order on the Paper. If the noble Viscount would like a copy of the Whip I sent out, I think it was to say that a very important debate would take place on this day, and therefore we suggested that a full House would be a good thing. But there is no Party vote. I do not intend to put the Party Whip on this. I thought, after all this time and after three debates, and after we have talked the subject inside out, that I should not be giving a lead to the House if I did not suggest that it was time to come to a decision on a Standing Order.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The last thing I would wish to do would be to misrepresent even the intention of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, but I understand that in the course of exchanges between the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, and someone else on the Government Front Bench, it was understood that the Government Whip was issued and would probably be
  944
  operated. If that is not so, may I withdraw what I said about the Whip?
  THE EARL OF HOME: I would not ask the noble Viscount to withdraw anything. A perfectly normal Whip was sent out indicating that it was an important debate and there might be important decisions. But I do not intend to put on the Government Whip. I think it is a matter for the House.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I am sure the noble Earl has forgotten but a two-line Whip was sent out and at the end of it it said:
  "Divisions may be challenged and your Lordships' attendance in support of the Government from 4.15 onwards is urgently requested."
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is it not a fact that matters of Standing Orders and the interpretation of them are, by long custom, a matter for the House and not for the Government at all?
  THE EARL OF HOME: They are a matter for the House, but there must come a point when one cannot waste the time of the House any longer, and we really must put some concrete, solid proposals before the House for consideration. On these Amendments it is perfectly true I sent out a Whip indicating that it was an important debate and asking for the support of noble Lords. I hope some noble Lords of all Parties will give support to this proposed Standing Order. This particular Amendment, I think, raises a matter of principle on which Members of the House should vote as Members of the House. Therefore the Party Whip will not be on. Nevertheless, I think I must say this. I hope I am as jealous a guardian of the Constitution as anybody, and although I am a comparative newcomer in this House. nevertheless I assure your Lordships that I would never consciously do anything which would weaken or impair the right of a Peer to do his duty in this House. I should like to make that absolutely clear. It has seemed to me that we are really making a little heavy weather on this Standing Order. There is no attempt to prevent a Peer from exercising his right to Sit.
  LORD KILLEARN: May I interrupt? I am thinking of something the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said, which was rather minatory. It has a bearing on this

  945
  question—in my mind, a very considerable one. Lord Teynham used what seemed to me rather threats if a Peer did use his right of coming back and voting. He is not in the House at the moment, and I am not quite sure what he did say.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I ask the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, to clear up one other point? I may have got it wrong. In the earlier stages of this debate I understood that the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, assented to the proposition that if a noble Lord came, not having had time to withdraw his leave of absence, he would have to sit on the steps of the Throne. Later the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said he could come and sit and we should be glad to hear what he said. If a noble Lord can give other reasons for attendance, not having given a month's notice, I cannot see the object of adopting this Standing Order.
  LORD WINSTER: May I ask a question, further to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn? The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, has just said that nothing is being done by this Standing Order to impair the rights of a Peer. But surely, if there is a question before the House about which the Peer feels very strongly indeed and is anxious to speak and vote, if he has leave of absence he is prevented from doing so, because he may not come here without giving a month's notice that he wishes to do so.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I said that there was no attempt to prevent a Peer from exercising his right to sit. We cannot do so and are not trying to do so. If a Peer feels impelled to come back and talk in debate at no notice at all, he will do so, and nobody can stop him.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: And sit in the House?
  THE EARL OF HOME: I have no doubt that the House will accept his explanation as to why he felt impelled to come back before the normal notice.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Earl did not say vote, but to attend and speak.
  THE EARL OF HOME: He would.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But someone will get up and say, "Your name is in
  946
  the book in the Prince's Chamber. What are you doing here?".
  THE EARL OF HOME: I think noble Lords do respect the wishes of this House, and a noble Lord who felt himself compelled to come back would give an explanation in the normal way in a few sentences, and no doubt the House would accept it.
  LORD WINSTER: In view of that, the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was unjustified and does not represent the views of the Government.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I framed the Standing Order after hearing all views, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and I myself came clown against Lord Teynham's view. I think we have a right to expect that. Peers should do their best to enable this House to pursue its business in the most seemly way.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: There is still a very important outstanding point which has not been cleared up. I am sorry, but it is vital. This situation is most likely to arise at a time of intense Party feeling in some political crisis. What happens if the House of Lords, with a large Party preponderance, declines to accept the explanation of a Member who has come back because he has an urgent feeling that he has a constitutional duty to act as a Member of Parliament?
  THE EARL OF HOME: The House could not decline to accept it in that sense, because the Peer has a perfect right to come and speak and vote.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Then what is the use of it?
  THE EARL OF HOME: I am coming to what is the use of it, because I think it is worth reminding my noble friends, and indeed all Members of this House, that there are 300 and more Peers whom no crisis, either external or internal, has ever induced to come near the place. Therefore I think perhaps this scheme is worth trying. No doubt we shall have to proceed over the months and years by trial and error, giving them a chance to regularise their position. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asks, "What would happen in the event of a national crisis?" Let us take the case of a war. Then, inevitably, I think, there would be

  947
  consultation between the Leaders of the Parties in the House; and the House would, I suggest, in that case, suspend the Standing Order altogether. I think that would be the way to deal with an international crisis of that kind. In the normal domestic situation a Peer would have to decide for himself.
  The final point I would make is that there is nothing irrevocable about this scheme. We have proceeded through the centuries by trial and error. We have used that procedure which is useful to us and helpful to our Business, and have discarded that which is not. But I think that, after two inquiries by authoritative Committees of the House (I am, after all, only taking their advice, and commending it in the most suitable form, as I think, to your Lordships), we might try this Standing Order to see how it works; and my forecast is that it will work for the general convenience of the whole House.
  LORD SILKIN: I should not have intervened in order to reply to the noble Earl but for his last remarks. He speaks of two inquiries which have been held. I want to emphasise—I was on both of them—that we did not, and we were not asked to, accept the principle that these inquiries were on the hypothesis that if the House wanted to do something this was the way to do it. The first question we considered was: what could it do, assuming that it wanted to do something? We then had a general Report. Then, on the second occasion, still on the same assumption, never accepting the principle at all—
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: With great respect, the noble Lord is wrong—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is most rude to interrupt in a middle of a sentence.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: This is a question of fact. On the second occasion the Merthyr Committee met after the House had passed a formal Resolution approving the Swinton Committee's proposals and directing the Merthyr Committee to prepare a Standing Order.
  LORD SILKIN: We were not committed on either occasion. I think it is quite wrong to suggest that this Committee sat with the principle settled for
  948
  it. We were doing a drafting job on the second occasion; on the first we were indicating how the thing should be run. I should not have intervened at all except that I felt perfectly free, and I think that every Member who served on the Committee is perfectly free at this stage to express his views about the desirability or otherwise of this Standing Order.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I think that this is a Standing Order which the House should try, and then we shall see if it works. Of course, if it does not work, the House is a realistic body, and we can do away with it.
  LORD SILKIN: I want to make it quite clear that I hope that we shall not regard ourselves as having been committed because we took some part in drafting the Standing Order.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I should like to recall the Committee to the actual Amendment which is before us. We seem to be getting a long way away from it. I venture to speak, not having taken part in any of these discussions upon any occasion before. As I understand it, no serious objection has been raised to the first paragraph of this Standing Order which is the vital part of it; and I suggest to the House that the paragraph we are now considering must be interpreted in the light of paragraph (1), which says:
  "Lords are to attend the Sittings of the House or, if they cannot do so, obtain leave of absence …"—
  not ask for leave of absence, if they do not choose to attend or do not like attending"; they are to attend or, if they are unable to attend, then they are to ask for leave of absence. That is the operative part of this Standing Order.
  I think that Lord Morton of Henryton is correct in the interpretation he has placed upon paragraph (4): that it is merely a statement of expectation based upon the fact that the Member has already stated that he cannot attend. If he cannot attend, then surely nobody expects him to be here. If the circumstances change, it is within the power of the House to revoke the leave of absence which has been given to him—not, with all respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, a matter to be dealt with by the Supervisory Committee, which has no

  949
  power of any kind to deal with any matter of that sort. It is a power which resides in the House itself and in no other body, and it cannot be believed that this House would deprive somebody whose circumstances had changed, and who became able, contrary to his expectation, to attend, of the right of sitting, voting and taking part in these proceedings.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I believe that it is in order for the mover of an Amendment to be allowed a few words in reply, and in accordance with the tradition of this House (this is what one always says at this late hour) I do not propose to keep the Committee for long. I have only one thing to say: that I have been left in complete doubt, both by the Leader of the House and by the Lord Chancellor, whether, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury holds, and as I, and many others, hold, there will be a moral stigma—those are the words which he used and which I have adopted—attaching to a noble Lord who, having obtained leave of absence, comes back to the House before that leave of absence has expired. On that point, I am left in absolute doubt. If there will not, then there is no reason in the world for putting in the Standing Order. On the other hand, if there will, then equally it ought not to be there, because it imposes a sort of deterrent upon a noble Lord who is willing and able to do his duty. There is no escape from that dilemma. Either it is meaningless, yet may have a meaning which it ought not to bear; or it has a
  meaning and, if it has that meaning, it should not be there. This really is the most wanton attempt to give a person the best of both worlds. I am happy to think that it may be resolved to-night.
  There is only one other thing I want to say. The noble and learned Viscount has returned to his old analogy of proxy voting, and has suggested that, because in a certain year this House required the surrender of what was described as the "inalienable right" of a Peer to vote by proxy, therefore it can deprive him of the right to vote altogether for three months, or whatever the period may be. The one is defining a method by which the vote may be given and the other is a denial of the vote altogether. It really is, in my respectful submission, a most deceptive analogy and one which I had hoped, in vain, that he would not again trail before this House. I shall press my Amendment as I think this is an important constitutional question. We have listened to what I may call the ancient wisdom of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I have listened to it with the greatest possible pleasure, because I concur in every word he said with regard to the practical difficulties which will ensue, apart from what I conceive to be the theoretical lack of constitutionality of the proposal.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 53.

  CONTENTS

  Albemarle, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Meston, L.

  Howe, E.

  Dowdling, L.

  Milne, L.

  Limerick, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Fraser of North Cape, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Morley, E.

  Grantchester, L.

  Russell of Liverpool, L.

  Hankey, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Henderson, L.

  Sinha, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Kershaw, L.

  Somers, L.

  Simonds, V.

  Killearn, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Stansgate, V. [Teller.]

  Latham, L.

  Lawson, L.

  Swaythling, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Layton, L.

  Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

  Brocket, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Winster, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bessborough, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

  Donoughmore, E.

  Swinton, E.

  Gosford, E.

  Woolton, E.

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Home, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Onslow, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Ormonde, M.

  Perth, E.

  Davidson, V.

  Radnor, E.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Bathurst, E.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Congleton, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Soulbury, V.

  Denham, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Douglas of Barloch, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Alberdare, L.

  Dovercourt, L.

  Mills, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Gifford, L. [Teller.]

  Morrison, L.

  Birdwood, L.

  Hastings, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Savile, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Strathalmond, L.

  Cohen, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Conesford, L.

  McCorquodale of Newton, L.

  Teymham, L. [Teller.]

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  VISCOUNT SIMONDS VISCOUNT SIMONDS had given notice of his intention to move to omit paragraph (5). The noble and learned Viscount said: I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, but I am bound to say that I do not see any point in moving to omit paragraph (5) if paragraph (4) stands. Therefore, although I fear I disappoint Viscount Stansgate, I do not propose to move that Amendment.
  House resumed.
  7.31 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I ask the leave of the House to move that this debate be now adjourned. It is obvious, I think, from the general feeling in the House and the very close decisions in the vote in Committee, that there is a great deal more yet to be said about the matter in regard to the general proposition (which has still to be carried) of the Standing Order and the second Motion on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House. So far as I know, there is not much opportunity of getting any food in this House tonight, and we are already at the hour when we usually adjourn, at any rate for food. But I think it is very desirable, before we come to deal with the main proposition of the Standing Order, that we all should have the chance to read the Hansard report to-mororw. We should have the opportunity of looking very carefully indeed at the various explanations which have been given and the different views from quite learned persons as to what the particular words in a particular line in the proposed Standing Order actually mean. We can then see how far we are going to be able to rely in the future upon what is merely a Government Minister's expression of opinion at this stage of the matter in this House, as governing the future action, when it
  952
  comes into question, of how the Standing Orders should be interpreted. Noble and learned Lords will be able to get up and will be able to quote that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, or the Leader of the House, said this and said that; but it will be merely a sort of calling-up of support for a particular view, and it will certainly have no binding effect upon what may have been thought to be the actual meaning of the Order.
  I think that, having regard to the kind of crises and situations of a Parliamentary character in which we might quite properly find ourselves, it is essential that we have the opportunity now of reading very carefully the expressions which have been made both from the Government Bench and from learned authorities in the House, and that we should consider the matter as a whole before we go on to the main vote. For that purpose, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
  THE EARL OF HOME: I hope the noble Viscount will not press this suggestion. I know he has never liked this Standing Order, or any part of it, but we have had I do not know how many debates now—it might be three or four—covering or re-covering the same ground.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  THE EARL OF HOME: After all, we are doing something important but something which is not irrevocable. If, after experience, we find that this does not work, as practical people we can vary the Standing Order. Of course, if it is the wish of the House to adjourn we shall do so, but I do not think it really is. I think the House feels that we have had a great many discussions about this matter. Therefore, I would propose that the noble Viscount should let us get on with it and see how it works.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I just ask this question? Does the noble Earl intend to go through with the other two Motions? Because on the question of the constitution of this Select Committee some points may arise.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I should hope to be able to meet the noble Viscount on that.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am going to support my noble Leader in his Motion that the House do now adjourn. It seems to me that it is a most important thing that the House should be now adjourned in order that we may consider what is, after all, a very important constitutional change which is being made in a most unorthodox and curious way. The fact of the matter is that the effect of the votes taken here on these Motions, which purport to be merely resolutions concerning Standing Orders of the House, will be to alter completely the Constitution of the House of Peers.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Rubbish!
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says "Rubbish", but the fact is that a large number of people will feel morally bound net to exercise their constitutional rights in the time of national crises, and that is a very important constitutional change. The Government have really, throughout this business, never brought forward any cogent reasons for making this great change. They probably have their reasons, but they certainly have not publicly stated
  them. We have had advice from some of the most distinguished lawyers available to us—conflicting advice. With conflicting advice it is all the more difficult for laymen to know exactly what is best to be done. We have not only had conflicting advice from the legal Members, but we have had really conflicting statements from members of the Government: as to the interpretation which they put upon the words of this Standing Order. It seems to me that we ought to have a little time to find out what is really being done.
  I am not clear now whether in fact the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is going to seek to induce Peers to sign some kind of undertaking that they will not come to the House. He is going to write to everybody at the beginning of Parliament, even though they have been most regular attenders, and say: "Would you like to 'contract out' of your obligations? Would you like to stay? "If they do not reply, it is possible that they will be deemed to have replied and to have applied for leave of absence. They have then to go through a peculiar procedure, on which nobody seems able to agree, in order to have the right to do their duty as Members of this House. I suggest that in those circumstances we should have a chance to read what has been said and to consider what has been done.
  On Question, Whether the debate shall be now adjourned?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 49.

  CONTENTS

  Lucan, E. [Teller.]

  Ebury, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Hankey, L.

  Silkan, L.

  Stansgate, V.

  Kershaw, L.

  Wilmot of Selmeston, L. [Teller.]

  Killearn, L.

  Brocket, L.

  Latham, L.

  Winster, L.

  Burden, L.

  Morton of Henryton, L.

  Wrenbury, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor)

  Home, E.

  Davidson, V.

  Morley, E.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Haikham, V. (L. President.)

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Goschen, V.

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Perth, E.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Radnor, E.

  Soulbury, V.

  Ormonde, M.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Swinton, E.

  Auckland, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Woolton, E.

  Birdwood, L.

  Donoughmore, E.

  Chesham, L. [Teller.]

  Gosford, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Conesford, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Denham, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Savile, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Somers, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Gifford, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Swaythling, L.

  Hastings, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Russell of Liverpool, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  7.50 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move that the Standing Order, as amended, be agreed to. I think that every point on it has been considered time and again, and therefore I will leave it to your Lordships to ask any questions about it which you may wish to ask. All I can say is that I think that, after much discussion, this is the best form of Standing Order we can devise, and I hope your Lordships will agree to give it a trial.
  Moved to resolve, That the Standing Orders of the House for the conduct of Public Business be amended by leaving out Standing Order 21 and inserting the proposed new Standing Order, as amended.—(The Earl of Home.)
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I did not vote for the Government on the recent Amendment, and I shall not vote for the Government if there is a Division on this Motion. I think it is right that in a few words I should explain to your Lordships my reasons. At any time since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, if agreement could be obtained between the Parties, I think there was no Member of the House who was not perfectly ready to discuss its powers and Constitution with a completely free and open mind. For a very large part of the time that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, there was a large body of your Lordships who would have been willing, if agreement could have been obtained between the Parties, to discuss the Constitution of the House, without any reference to powers. Both those efforts failed, against the hostility of the Socialist Party generally and particularly of noble Lords opposite, who never failed to express complete and unutterable hostility to any hereditary Chamber.
  So far as I am aware, outside your Lordships' House nobody is very much interested in us or in our composition. You never hear it discussed politically or anywhere in any circle of society. Yet
  956
  the Government, with their flair for starting hares that no one in the world wants to chase, have pressed on with unilateral modifications of your Lordships' House. We dealt with a relevant Bill the other day, and now we have this scheme. I am bound to say that if your Lordships think this will have a good effect—and the majority clearly do—I am perfectly willing to let it have a run, and I shall not vote against it. I must say, too, that the modifications I asked for when the matter was last discussed, and the explanations given in to-day's debate, have largely changed my attitude to this proposed Standing Order. The principal point is this. If these Standing Orders become simply a dead letter, then I think we must reckon that they have failed in their object. But I am bound to say that my own attitude is that all this business is not worth while. It is said that Napoleon condemned manœuvring before a fixed position. Noble Lords opposite clearly constitute a fixed position, and if I am going to be shot at dawn, I have a great deal of more useful things to do than to waste my time getting my face lifted—and that is precisely what I understand this matter to be.
  LORD WINSTER: I certainly did not feel capable of taking part in the proceedings on the Amendments, which were almost entirely occupied with legal and constitutional matters upon which I am a complete layman. I should, however, like to say one or two words on the general issue. What has been occupying my mind the whole time and puzzling me is this: what exactly is the object of the Standing Order which is now before the House? The noble Earl, Lord Home, speaking upon the proposal, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208, col. 1005]:
  "… we … should be seen to be an efficient and workmanlike House".
  From that statement I draw the inference that that has not been our appearance heretofore. But in what way does the passing of this Standing Order create that appearance? What is there in it which will make us appear to the public to be what the noble Earl called (col. 1009):
  "a House of recognisable working Peers"?

  957
  That is the question I should like to put to the noble Earl. What is there in this Standing Order which will give us that appearance?
  THE EARL OF HOME: I used that phrase, if I may say so, not in relation to this Standing Order, but, I believe, in relation to the Life Peerages Bill, which was taken in conjunction with this matter.
  LORD WINSTER: Very well. At any rate, it is the wish of the noble Earl that we should appear to be "an efficient and workmanlike House," and that we should appear to be a "House of recognisable working Peers." That is the noble Earl's ambition, and I ask him what there is in this Standing Order to create that appearance which he is so anxious the House should present to the public.
  Then the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who is not now here, said that all we do by this Standing Order is to enable those Peers who cannot discharge their duty to regularise their position—that we make honest men of them. But I think that what many of us are concerned about is the very large number of Peers who could discharge their duty if they chose to do so, but who do not choose to discharge it and have no intention of doing so. Again I ask: What does the Standing Order do to meet that situation? The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor spoke, I think, more than once about the "scheme" and about entering into this "scheme"; but what precisely is the "scheme"? What is the object of the "scheme", exactly and precisely? I am not trying to deal with the legal and constitutional points at all; what I am trying to get at is this: what is the object of the Standing Order and what purpose is it hoped that it will serve in the conduct of the work of this House?
  Surely, what we want is that Peers should attend; that is what we are concerned about. Even an occasional attendance, a very rare attendance, is still a good thing from that point of view. I have noticed very often in your Lordships' House what great satisfaction there is when a noble Lord with an unfamiliar face turns up to take part in a debate. The noble Earl, Lord Home, was at pains to say to-day that there was not a Party Whip on and that the vote was not a Party matter. But I am bound to say that I saw quite a number of faces in the
  958
  Division Lobby which I have rarely, if ever, seen in your Lordships' House before.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if the noble Lord had looked in the Lobby, he would have found a number of people who did not obey the Whip, if there was one.
  LORD WINSTER: At any rate, it is a fact that a few unfamiliar faces did turn up; and their very unfamiliarity, I would say, made them all the more welcome. I imagine that what I will describe as the chronic non-attender will not care very much whether or not he has leave of absence. But is it the object of this Standing Order to save such a Peer an occasional twinge of conscience by regularising his position, or is the object to show the country at large that we are so virtuous that, rather than be shocked by the sight of Peers not doing their duty, we have decided to make it legal for them not to perform their duty? Headmasters could apply the same system to truancy by making truancy legal. We might make absenteeism legal in the same way.
  May I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether any habitual nonattender has consulted him and said that he felt uncomfortable because he is not doing his duty and knows that he ought to be doing it? Has any non-attending Peer ever said that to the noble and learned Viscount? I feel that when this letter is sent out and received (and may I say here that I have considerable sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston said this afternoon?) there will be many Peers who will not greatly appreciate receiving that letter, asking them whether or not they intend to do their duty, especially when they have been doing their duty to the best of their abilities. I feel that non-attending Peers might well either not reply to that letter or reply to say that they do not want leave of absence. Because, as a matter of human nature, people are reluctant to surrender a right, even if they are not in the habit of exercising that right.
  Another point occurred to me during the debate. Paragraph (1) of the Standing Order speaks of leave of absence "which the House may grant at pleasure." I take it from that that what the House "may grant at pleasure" it

  959
  may rescind at pleasure. The House may, decide that for a time the Standing Order is not in force. Suppose, looking into the future, we get a Bill which does not commend itself to the Conservative Party—for example, a Bill for the re-nationalisation of steel. Is the Standing Order then going to be rescinded—because what the Government give the Government can take away—in order to suit Party convenience of that sort?
  If we want Peers to attend the House, why put any obstacle of any sort whatsoever in the way of attending? As a result of passing this Standing Order, what difference is there going to be in the appearance of the House, in the attendance at the House or in the working of the House? Precisely in what way will the Standing Order affect attendance or the performance of duties in the House? I am sure that many of my noble friends would be grateful if we could have a clear and precise answer to these questions, more especially to the main question—namely, what object have the Government in mind in putting forward this Standing Order?
  8.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for giving me the privilege of making a pocket edition of a maiden speech, but perhaps it is a good moment for me to say something, as I should like to say a few words in direct answer to some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said. I came here with a beautifully prepared maiden speech, but having heard the debate, I think that it would be quite inappropriate for me to deliver it. I have to make up another one.
  The noble Lord, Lord Winster, said he wondered whether any noble Lord felt guilty about not attending. I confess that, since I read the debates last year, I have had a feeling of guilt. I did not have one before because I did not know that I had a real obligation to attend. I did not read the Writ with the care with which evidently a great many noble Lords read theirs. But since then I have had a certain feeling of guilt, and I think it is right that those, like myself, who do not attend should be told either to take leave of absence or to come to the House. I do not see how this applies
  960
  from the legal side, but the fact that the House voted in favour of this principle is quite enough for me. In spite of the fact that noble Lords may be reluctant to attend, I hope that they will feel, as I do, that they should either come more often or accept leave of absence. I have made up my mind to come more often. I was cheered in that decision by the comments of my noble friend Lord De L'Isle and the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that if a Peer managed to come two or three times a year, he would "make the grade". That is what I should like to try to do.
  I feel that the way this Standing Order is drawn is extraordinarily fair, because it indicates to those who cannot come often—and I am one of those who cannot possibly attend regularly, unless your Lordships' House is moved to the plains of Tipperary—that they should come when they reasonably can. That puts it straight into the court of the individual Peer. I feel, and I think that probably other noble Lords will feel, that this puts them on their honour either to come to the House or to apply for leave of absence to try to make the scheme work. It may be that, from the legal point of view, this scheme seems, to use a slang phrase, singularly "half-baked"; but from the practical point of view I think it will work, and I would advise the House to give it a trial.
  8.9 p.m.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord on his first speech in your Lordships' House? When he says that it would be difficult to move your Lordships' House to Tipperary, I hope that the noble Lord will frequently move himself from Tipperary to here so that we may hear him speak more often. I think that what he said was both wise and sensible.
  If I may turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said, mine was one of the strange faces he saw in the Lobby. He has not seen me in that Lobby for eleven years, and he is not likely to see me in that Lobby again for the next eleven years. I should like to say a word about the reason I was there, and also about why I propose to vote in favour of the Standing Order. I am one of those who believe in this House and would like to see its influence and power increased. I do not normally vote with noble Lords

  961
  opposite because I think they want exactly the opposite, and therefore I hesitate to accept with any great confidence their assurances as to the welfare of this House. I believe that if the power of this House is going to be increased we have to get rid of the greatest stone thrown against us, which is this miserable business of the "backwoodsmen" Peers. I am a far more radical reformer than many of your Lordships, and I should like to see the House with a number of hereditary Peers and a similar number of Life Peers. The Government would not go to that extreme. I am sorry that they did not; and, if I may say with all humility, I think that, by not doing so, they may have landed themselves in some of the legal difficulties which induced me to vote against them on the last Amendment, because I felt that legally the position was impossible.
  The reason I wish to say what I am going to say is this. I voted for this scheme originally, and that is why I shall vote for this Resolution. Whilst I do not think it goes far enough, I believe that it is on the right lines. Although personally that particular bit of the Resolution seemed to me not entirely to make sense, what is trying to be done is absolutely right. What we are trying to do is to enhance the reputation of this House in the future, and therefore its influence, which believe to be one of the best things in the Constitution of this country. Therefore, although, for the first time in my political life, I voted on the last Amendment against my own Party, I propose to vote for the Resolution, and I do not regard my action as inconsistent.
  8.12 p.m.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I think I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said: that the most cheerful thing about to-day's debate has been the appearance of the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, to grace it, and I hope that he will come here often. This debate has taken a long and somewhat curious course, and I cannot help thinking that at the end of this day nobody is very happy about it. I think that at this time, of all times, when Parliamentary Government is threatened from many sources, this country has a peculiarly important and historical mission to justify, maintain
  962
  and present Parliamentary institutions in all their brightness and rightness and glory, and anything which is done which causes people to feel that discreditable arrangements are being made goes right to the root of the survival of Parliamentary Government.
  I think that to-day's debate and the whole consideration of this proposal is rather a miserable piece of business. Why have the Government brought it forward? Are they not satisfied with the working of the House of Peers as it is? If they are not, then presumably they do not like the feeling that there is a large number of Members who normally do not come, but who can come if they wish to. That is a charge which has been brought against the House of Lords by many people. To me, it does not seem to do a great deal of harm in the ordinary working of Parliament, but there may be inherent in it a potential menace. If that be the case, surely the proper thing to do is to reform the whole Constitution of the Second House of Parliament; and proposals to that end should have been brought forward in the proper way and legislation presented to both Houses in the constitutional manner for the alteration of the Second House of Parliament.
  We have the inestimable advantage that we have no written Constitution, and I beg the Government at this time not to take any steps in the direction of a written Constitution, with all is perils and difficulties. I should hope that before this Standing Order is finally adopted the Government will have second thoughts on the whole problem. I speak for myself, perhaps, when I say that I do not think the hereditary principle in some form in the Second Chamber is inconsistent with a good Parliamentary system. I think that in some ways it is fine, and that the Government should devote themselves to finding a way in which the Virtues inherent in that part of our system can be blended into a modern Parliamentary democracy. But they have chosen to try to avoid that issue; and by a peculiar and, I think, slightly discreditable attempt to amend the Constitution by way of Standing Orders of this House, they not only have really forfeited an opportunity, but have declined a duty which I think history has put upon them. I sincerely hope that the House, upon reflection, will not approve of this Standing Order.
  8.15 p.m.
  LORD BROCKET: My Lords, I wish to make only two or three remarks. Rather like my noble friend Lord Lloyd, I am not in the habit of voting against my own Party, but on this issue I have always voted against my Party whenever I have had the opportunity. I have found only one really convincing argument in favour of these Standing Orders, and that is that the threat of a Writ has brought the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, from County Tipperary to your Lordships' House. I do not intend to go into the arguments, but I may say that I am unconvinced by the speeches from this side of the House. I should, however, like to make a protest that, if this change is to take place, so few Members of your Lordships' House are present. In the last Division sixty-seven Peers voted. The Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, was defeated by a majority of only sixteen. I feel that on such an important matter, with such a small proportion of less than one-twelfth of the total Members of your Lordships' House taking part in the final stages of passing this Standing Order, it would have been much better to accept the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and adjourn.
  8.18 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, this debate, if it has done nothing else, has proved the case that we have tried to make. Look at the history of this affair. How does it arise? It arises because about two years ago there was a great deal of public comment on the absenteeism from this House, and it was doing harm to the reputation of the House. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, then came forward with a perfectly logical scheme. I think it was his idea that a college of Peers should elect other Peers; in any case, it did preserve the hereditary principle. But it was rejected. Why was it rejected? Not primarily because of us. It was rejected because the Conservative Party will not give up the privileges of the succession. Therefore the Government thought up this extraordinary scheme, produced by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, by which there was going to be a letter sent round which would shame Peers into coming here—that is really what it amounts to. There was a great deal of humbug in
  964
  the whole thing. We do not force them; there is not any obligation; yet somehow, if they do not come—of course, if they do not come the whole scheme is defeated—they are under some sort of slur. That is the plan, and that is why I object to it.
  I should never follow the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, into the Lobby on his constitutional view that the Writ of Summons can in the present circumstances be the proper basis for a Second Chamber. But I do follow him in his view that to attempt to substitute for the Writ of Summons this ramshackle scheme, by which you send a Peer a letter, and another letter, or write his name in a book, and when you have done so he has a perfect right, so we are told late in the debate, to turn up and vote, is quite wrong. That is where we are. And this is an effort to cure absenteeism in the House of Lords!
  The House of Lords at the present moment, omitting the Peers of Royal blood, consists of 2 Archbishops, 21 Dukes, 27 Marquesses, 132 Earls, 108 Viscounts, 24 Bishops and 535 Barons. That is a grand total of 749 persons. This change, which we are warned by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, has constitutional implications, is carried by 52 votes in a House of 749 members. If ever there was a thing that could expose the weakness of the House, that people will not come under this system, it would be this vote tonight.
  Then we had from the Liberal Benches something which gave me a terrific shock, from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. He said you must not consider leave of absence as a bar to attendance, because there may come a time when there is an economic crisis, and then you will want all the Peers here. That is the time when all the Peers come here. If you get an "economic crisis"—by which, of course, is always meant the advent of a Labour Government—I do not want the Peers here. Therefore the weakness of this scheme is that it does not give a presentable House, although a distinguished assembly is present now. It does not give a House of numerical strength, but it does preserve the right of a body of Peers to come at the right moment and prevent the electors from having their way. I do not know whether my noble Leader intends to have a vote. We have

  965
  had a lot of voting tonight, in very peculiar company.
  8.23 p.m.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, as I have sat here as a humble Back-Bencher of average intelligence for the last four hours, listening to speeches, perhaps I may be permitted to waste two or three minutes of your Lordships' time in following the prevalent fashion and summing up my impressions of the debate. I started this afternoon perfectly clear in my mind as to what these Standing Orders meant, and in spite of listening to every speech my mind is still clear on the subject. Perhaps that is a severe handicap. As a Back-Bencher, I have other things to do. I protest at having to listen again and again to the same request for an explanation. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, has now once more asked the noble Earl the Leader of the House to give a clear explanation of what they are trying to do. I have heard the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, give him that answer at least twice this afternoon, and nobody takes the faintest notice.
  LORD WINSTER: Would it be asking too much of the noble Lord's kindness to ask him if he would repeat what the object is?
  LORD MILVERTON: I would never dream of attempting, even at this late hour and under the confusion of mind induced by this debate, to try to usurp the privilege of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, whose patience is still apparently unexhausted; I have no doubt he will make a last forlorn attempt to get noble Lords opposite to understand what he has been saying all the afternoon. I knew quite well when I came here that if I had asked for leave for three months and some special occasion had occurred, or if I had suddenly come back from where I went, I would have no doubt of my right to come to this House. I would get up, just as I would if I had a financial interest in some subject of debate; I would declare that financial interest, or in the same way, why I had come although I was supposed to be on leave, and ask for the indulgence of the House; and I have no doubt it would be given. So we have wasted about three hours on that subject.
  Now the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, says the number here now is a proof of the fact that this subject has
  966
  not been sufficiently debated. It is proof of the fact that Members of this House are sick and tired of it. We have had this subject again and again and again. I can only say that it will be a merciful thing if we can finish with it tonight. The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, has told us that this is an attempt to streamline, or whatever you like to call it, the procedure of the House and it does not alter the Constitution in any conceivable way. Why not try it, as he said? And if it does not work satisfactorily it will be open to noble Lords opposite or any other noble Lords to suggest Amendments.
  8.27 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I think the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has really saved me the necessity of making a third despairing attempt to get understanding, but I will do my best in two minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, said that our procedure has been unorthodox. If he can think of anything more orthodox than the Reports of two Committees followed by three debates, I should like to know what it is. He seemed to suggest that there might be something discreditable about it on the grounds that if we wanted to do anything we ought to have gone for total reform of the House of Lords. We are willing to do so. I noticed some words of his which I took down, but I will study them tomorrow with greater attention and perhaps approach the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, seemed to hint that he would be content to see the hereditary clement blended into the House.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The noble Earl will remember that I said I was speaking for myself.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The plan of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was rejected by his Party.
  THE EARL OF HOME: If enough people speak for themselves on the Front Bench that may make it official. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, we hope this Standing Order may help in two ways: first, in regard to the 300 Peers who have never taken the Oath and the 100 who have taken the Oath and never done anything else. That is one negative advantage. The other is that it will encourage people like the noble Earl,

  967
  Lord Donoughmore, to take their duties more seriously. It is "a long way to Tipperary", but it is one of those odd mathematical things that it is not so far from Tipperary when you come here. It will be very nice to know that every hereditary Peer so stimulated will receive the warmest welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Winster. I repeat what I said, that I think the House would be well advised to try this Standing Order.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I beg to move the second Resolution which stands in my name on the Order Paper and which deals with the letters which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will send out and which he has said he will report to the House.
  Moved, That, for the purpose of giving effect to the above Standing Order during the present Parliament, the Lord Chancellor shall forthwith send a copy of the Standing Order to every Lord to whom he has issued a Writ of Summons to this Parliament and who has not during this session attended a sitting of the House (except for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance) or a sitting of a Committee of the House, and shall request every such Lord to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence for the next session of this Parliament or for the remainder of this Parliament or whether he does not wish so to apply. If a Lord fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being required to do so, he may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of this Parliament.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  THE EARL OF HOME: The next deals with the Committee. I think it will be necessary to have a Committee of Members of all Parties, because we cannot foresee how this Standing Order will work out and what difficulties will arise. Therefore, I suggest that the appropriate form of Committee is one we have used before—that is, the three Whips of the Parties—and I shall in due course, after consideration, propose a name in place of the late noble Earl, Lord Fortescue. I hope the House will think it suitable to have a Committee in being to which we can refer various questions as they arise
  968
  as we experience the working of the Standing Order.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—
  E. Lucan
  L. Amulree.
  —(The Earl of Home.)
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, as an Amendment to the Motion, after "absence" to insert:
  "and shall report to the House fully as to its proceedings and in particular, following ancient precedent, the reason advanced for absence".
  The noble Viscount said: What the noble Earl proposes seems a reasonable piece of machinery. What interests noble Lords more is what they are going to learn from the Committee. It was rather alarming to-day when the Lord Chancellor told us that he would not tell us the terms of a perfectly simple letter that he is going to write. He said that it was private between him and the Committee, and that until the Committee had seen it he could not let us have it. Are they going to work in secret? Are we not going to know? I do not know, but I understand that there is to be appended to the Minutes of Proceedings a list of Members who have leave of absence. Is there to be another list of Members who do not attend and have no leave of absence? Are we to have any record at all of what replies the Lord Chancellor receives? These are important questions.
  Although I may be quite wrong, it is possible that this new arrangement may be challenged. To give an example, I myself have from time to time felt most incensed at articles in the newspapers. There are at least two Members of this House who received their Peerages originally because of their services to the Press. Clearly their duty under the Writ is to come here and expound and defend their policy. But that is not what they do. They hire a journalist to write an article and put it about and they have no responsibility for it; and they can apply for leave of absence here. Supposing. as I have often thought of doing, a Motion were put on the Order Paper requiring the presence of Lord So-and-So to explain this or that because he was a Press Lord,

  969
  what would be the position then? What would the Committee do? Of course, it may be said that we never have defiance. That may be so—I do not know. It is not sufficient to say "We will appoint the three Whips" and for the Lord Chancollor to say "We cannot tell you what we are doing: we will tell you later on." We want a proper report. I hope the noble Earl will accept it as a practice of the House that Members may address questions to the Chairman of the Select Committee.
  Amendment moved—
  After ("absence") insert the said words.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  8.32 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Viscount was speaking to his Amendment, but I think we may take it that he was. If he wishes to have a report, or that the Committee should make a Report to the House, I should be agreeable. I think perhaps to put in the word "fully" is rather superfluous. I do not know what sort of language the Whips use when they talk to each other: we probably do not want a whole record of their conversation. But if the noble Viscount will move his Amendment so that it reads "and shall report to the House from time to time" I shall be perfectly agreeable to accepting that.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. Can the noble Earl tell us whether it would be in order to put down a Parliamentary Question to the Chairman? If so then I shall be perfectly satisfied.
  THE EARL, OF HOME: Of course, if we leave out the last part.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes, certainly. I thought we should get some of the robust quality of Lord Eldon into the present occupant of the Woolsack, but that is impossible.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  Line 2, after ("absence") to insert ("and shall report to the House from time to time").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand the position, the noble Earl, Lord Home, has moved the Resolution and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has moved his Amendment, which is now
  970
  amended by the omission of the word "fully". Did the noble Earl make any other suggestion?
  THE EARL OF HOME: The words are:
  "and shall report to the House from time to time".
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: This is an interrogation, not a speech. Did the noble Earl tell me that it has been possible in the past to address a Parliamentary Question to the Chairman of a Committee of this kind?
  THE EARL OF HOME: This will be subject to the same rules as apply to all Committees of the House. There are appropriate opportunities for interrogation. Certainly I think it will be perfectly proper through some channel, whatever the appropriate channel is, to question them.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: In that case, I am deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Home; and if the Lord Chancellor knows what the Amendment is I am prepared to accept it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Lord Chancellor understands that the Amendment was to add to the Motion, after the word "absence":
  "and shall report to the House from time to time".
  The Question I have to put now is that the Motion, as amended, be agreed to.
  On Question, Whether the Motion, as amended, shall be agreed to?
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I judge from a statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Home, on April 24, that one of the questions for this Committee will be the facilities to be given within these buildings to Peers who have been granted leave of absence. In those circumstances, I should hope that the noble Earl may answer the following three questions, of which I have given him private notice. The first is: Is it proposed to withdraw from Peers who are granted leave of absence certain facilities in these buildings now available to all Peers? If so, what are the buildings or parts thereof, and do they include the Library, the Dining Room and the Guest Room? Is it proposed to restrict the privileges now enjoyed by the wife of a Peer who has been granted leave of absence? If so, which and how?
  THE EARL OF HOME: Is that all? The noble Lord took me by surprise. The Merthyr Committee proposed that noble Lords who had obtained leave of absence should retain the right to use the facilities of the building, and also that there should be no restriction placed on their wives, as the privilege is one which they enjoy. It is possible that some questions other than those which the noble Lord has asked might arise, and I think that they will be appropriately dealt with by the Committee I have proposed.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, will an absentee Lord and his wife be allowed to come to the Opening of Parliament?
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that is just the sort of question which might well be referred to the Committee. But I think it was felt that people who attend the House—I rather think that Lord Silkin thought this—might have some kind of precedence and priority. However, I think that is a question for the Committee to advise on.
  On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  PHYSICAL TRAINING AND RECREATION BILL
  8.37 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DENHAM: My Lords, this Bill is designed to rectify an anomaly in the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937. The 1937 Act gave power to a local authority to contribute towards the expenditure incurred by any local authority or by a voluntary organisation in providing or maintaining within the area of the contributing authority, or on a site where it will benefit any of the inhabitants of that area, such amenities as village halls, gymnasiums, playing fields, swimming baths and other facilities having athletic, social or educational objects.
  Since that Act was passed, a considerable number of contributions have been made every year, but there have been a certain number of cases where it has not been thought by the Council fair to make a grant of money. These cases have been where the proposed amenity will benefit only a small percentage of
  972
  the taxpayers or, in other cases, where the organisation which runs the proposed amenity is paying its way. In that connection it is thought not fair to give a grant of money. But very often in both these cases the local authority would desire, and would think it right, to make a loan. The operative word in Section 4 (4) of the 1937 Act is, "contribute". There is some legal doubt as to whether a loan from a local authority is a "contribution" within the meaning of this subsection. There has been no test case on this point, but in practice it is impossible for a local authority to give a loan.
  Subsection (1) of the first clause of this Bill gives power to the local authority definitely to make a loan, with the proviso that such a loan can be given only for capital and not for current expenditure. Clause 1 (2) enables the authority to lay down conditions on which such a loan should be made. Subsection (3) was inserted by a Standing Committee in another place at the request of the Scottish Home Department, and enables the Scottish district councils incurring expenditure to raise the district rate to meet it. Clause 2 enables expenditure by the local authority to rank for equalisation grant. Clauses 3 and 4 are formal and relate this Bill in scope and sense to the 1937 Act.
  This Bill has the support of the National Association of Parish Councils, the County Councils Association, the Urban District Councils' Association, the Rural District Councils' Association, the National Playing Fields Association, the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland, and the District Councils' Association for Scotland. During its passage through another place the Bill was supported on all sides. May I ask your Lordships to give it similar support here? I beg to move.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denham.)
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, this Bill, as the mover has indicated, is designed to remove doubts as to whether local authorities, in addition to having power to make grants for purposes comprehended within physical training and recreation, also have the power to make loans. That is the main purpose of the Bill. I could, in parenthesis, say that I regret that the

  973
  expense of promoting physical training and recreation is now dealt with on the basis of the percentage grant and will be merged, on the passing of the Local Government Bill, in the general block grant. That is not a defect which relates only to this Bill, and we shall support the Second Reading, wishing it a speedy passage on to the Statute Book.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE) BILL
  8.43 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is known as the Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Bill. The Bill gives effect, with some modifications, to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce with regard to the maintenance and property rights of husband and wife. I think that I may pass on to deal with the Bill at once.
  Clause 1 deals with a small though important point of procedure. At the present time a court has power to make or order for maintenance on any decree of divorce or nullity of marriage. The word "on" does not mean forthwith or immediately, but within a reasonable time. The practice of the court is to require a wife to obtain leave to file her application for maintenance if more than two months have elapsed from the date when the decree nisi was made absolute. In any event, the court has always the power to take into consideration any delays which may have occurred in making an application. It is really unnecessary that there should be this limitation on the power of the court, and Clause 1 of the Bill provides that the court may make an order for maintenance in pronouncing the decree or at any time thereafter. It is only correct to say that the doctrine of the law will still obtain—that is to say, although an application may be made for maintenance at any time after the decree is made absolute, nevertheless, if there has been delay, that is a matter which the court may take into consideration.
  974
  Clause 2 of the Bill enables a wife who has applied in matrimonial proceedings for financial relief against her husband to ask the High Court to set aside a disposition of property made by him within the previous three years with the intention of defeating her claim. As a matter of procedure, it is not necessary for a maintenance order actually to be made before such a disposition can be set aside. The Bill enables a wife to make an application to set aside such a disposition in the course of maintenance proceedings and not necessarily when an order is actually made. There is, however, protection for a bona fide purchaser for value who has no notice of the husband's intention to defeat the wife's claim for financial relief. It should be noted that "valuable consideration" does not include marriage. A husband should not be able to defeat his first wife's claim to maintenance by transferring all his property to his second wife. Subsection (4) of Clause 2 deals with voluntary dispositions. The Bill adopts the rule established under Section 172 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, by providing that if the effect of the disposition was to defeat the wife's claim it shall be presumed to have been made by the husband with that intention.
  Clause 3 of the Bill enables provision to be made for a former wife out of the estate of a deceased former husband. At the present time if a marriage has been dissolved or annulled, the former wife loses at once and for ever her rights under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938. For example, if a woman has been married to a man for twenty years and has borne him children, and some unhappy dispute arises and she divorces her husband on the ground of infidelity, from that moment she loses any right she may possess against her husband's estate under the provisions of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938.
  Clause 3 goes on to provide that where a man dies domiciled in England without having made reasonable provision for a former wife, the latter may, if she has not remarried, apply to the High Court for provision to be made for her out of his estate. These provisions are limited to cases in which the deceased died domiciled in this country. Only a former wife whose marriage was dissolved or annulled by the High Court in England

  975
  will be able to apply under this Bill. The Bill excludes a former wife who has remarried. An application to the High Court must be made within six months of the date when a grant of representation was first made; nevertheless, with the permission of the court, an application may be made after that time, but before the administration and distribution of the estate has been completed.
  Clause 4 of the Bill empowers the court, on application, to discharge or vary or suspend temporarily any order made for a former wife out of her deceased husband's estate. The court will be required to take into account all the circumstances of the case, including any change in the circumstances to which the court was required to have regard in determining the application for the original order. In passing, it is satisfactory to note that the husband is not left out of the picture. Clause 5 provides in effect that a husband or former husband shall have the same right as a wife to apply to the court to set aside a disposition made to defeat the applicant's right to maintenance, or for financial relief against the estate of a deceased wife under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938.
  Some explanation is required here, as one does not normally talk about a husband obtaining maintenance against his wife. But there is one case where this can be done. A husband can obtain an order for maintenance against his wife where she has divorced him on the ground of his insanity. A husband can also obtain an order for a settlement of his wife's property only where he has divorced her on the ground of her adultery, cruelty, or desertion. As for a former husband being able to apply for maintenance out of his deceased wife's estate, this will apply only where the marriage was dissolved or annulled by the High Court in England.
  Clause 6 contains a number of supplementary provisions, among other important matters, as to orders under Clauses 3 and 4, which enable the personal representatives to distribute the estate after six months from the date on which representation was first taken out. Clause 7 of the Bill extends the operation of Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, which deals with disputes between husband and wife as to property. No
  976
  order under Section 17 can be made where the respondent has parted with the property in dispute and there is no identifiable fund in his hands representing the proceeds.
  I hope I may mention a case which is no longer sub judice. A husband, with a certain amount of justifiable exasperation, took all his wife's dresses and threw them out of the window into an adjoining canal. The husband and wife owned a house adjoining a canal, and if they wished to throw anything out of the window it landed in the canal. When the summons came on for hearing under Section 17 of the 1882 Act, there was no doubt that the husband had had his wife's property, but it no longer existed, and therefore no order could be made concerning her property. Furthermore, there was no jurisdiction under the Act to make any financial order.
  Clause 7 provides, in effect, that the court is able to order one spouse to pay the other compensation for the loss of an interest in property to which the other spouse has been able to establish title. Moreover, if the wife makes a claim alleging that the husband has had in his possession a sum of money belonging to her and she does not know whether it is still in his possession or not, the court can, if it transpires that the husband has bought goods (say a motor car) with the money, order the husband to deliver up the car. Clause 7 also clears up a doubt which has existed in the past as to whether or not the court has power under Section 17 of the 1882 Act to order a sale of the property in question. Clause 7 makes it perfectly clear that the court now has that power.
  Clause 8 is the interpretation clause. Clause 9 provides that the Bill will come into operation on the day the Lord Chancellor may appoint. This is to allow necessary time for alterations to be made in the Rules of Court before the Bill comes into operation. The Bill does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. My Lords, I have the permission of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to say that he agrees with the Bill. I cannot imagine a better recommendation; and with that view I have no hesitation in commending it at this extremely late hour to your Lordships' House. I move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Meston.)
  LORD MERRIMAN: My Lords, I wish to say a few words in support of this Bill, but at this hour they will be very short. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, explained at the end of his speech the provisions relating to Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act which enable courts (High Court or county court) to deal with disputes between husband and Wife. I am not going to repeat the reasons which he gave why the present scheme is unsatisfactory. It is enough to say that this amendment will be an extremely useful amendment.
  With regard to Clause 1, I should like to express my own gratitude to the Royal Commission for adopting or recommending the reform which is embedded in it. When I gave evidence before the Commission, I pressed for an Amendment on this particular point. I can explain the matter in one sentence. According to the Act of Parliament, the application for maintenance by a wife must be made on the decree. Some time ago the Court of Appeal said that that meant "on or within a reasonable time after"; but at the same time they said that seven years could not possibly be "within a reasonable time." More recently the Court of Appeal has said that it is by no means proper to rule out an application made even after eighteen years. That is the reason why I support this Amendment, because it makes it so easy for Judges to know what they are to do, and in future we shall have a much simpler task than we have had in the past.
  My Lords, the real reason why I have come down to take part in this debate is because it seemed to me that, owing to the course the Bill took in another place, there was a grave danger of a misapprehension of the point of Clause 3, which provides for a former wife out of the estate of a deceased former husband. It was argued in another place on the basis that this was, so to speak, a charter for guilty wives. In the Bill we are providing that, in addition to obtaining maintenance from a husband during his life, a wife in a proper case may obtain it from the estate of a deceased husband. If that is right in the case of an ordinary wife against whom nothing can be said, there is no reason really why it should not be open to a wife who can be described as a guilty wife. The application
  978
  for maintenance in any case is open to any wife by the Act of Parliament.
  I have made a point of ascertaining how often in practice anybody who can be described as a guilty wife applies for maintenance at all. I am assured by the Senior Registrar at the Principal Probate Registry—who has, of course, experience over many, many years of these matters—that the number of applications by a guilty wife for maintenance is negligible. If that is so, as things stand at present it necessarily follows that applications by wives in that same condition for this relief out of the husband's estate will also be negligible. I wanted to make it clear that we are not in this Bill opening the door wide to disruption of the inheritance to estates by allowing unfounded claims to be brought in in a proportion that has never been in fact reached as the law is at present. My Lords, this is a thoroughly good Bill, and I support it wholeheartedly.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, for his speech. We all know the very high position which he occupies in the judicial system, and I think that when he, out of his wealth of experience, states that a Bill is a good Bill, then indeed no justifiable criticism can be levelled at it.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I should like to inform your Lordships that the debate on the Park Lane Improvement Bill will not be continued this evening but will be taken after the Business on the Paper to-morrow afternoon.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL PENYBONT MAIN SEWERAGE BILL SHELL (STANLOW TO PARTINGTON PIPELINE) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at two minutes before nine o'clock.