Lords Sitting of 31 October 1967

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH
The QUEEN, being seated on the Throne, and attended by Her Officers of State (the Lords being in their robes), commanded the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, through the Lord Great Chamberlain, to let the Commons know, "It is Her Majesty's pleasure they attend Her immediately in this House."
Who being come, with their Speaker:
Her Majesty was pleased to speak as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"My Husband and I look forward with pleasure to the State Visit of the President of the Republic of Turkey to this country and to our own approaching visit to Malta.
"My Government will continue to play an active part in the constructive efforts of the United Nations to assure a peaceful and stable world.
"My Ministers will continue their efforts to achieve progress on arms control and disarmament, and especially on an agreement for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
"My Ministers will seek to use all available means to achieve a negotiated settlement of the conflict in Vietnam.
"My Government will continue to work through the United Nations for a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East.
"My Government look forward to the early opening of negotiations to provide for Britain's entry into the European Communities. The closest consultation will be maintained with Commonwealth Governments, the Governments of the European Free Trade Association and the Republic of Ireland.
"My Government will continue to participate actively in the North Atlantic Alliance as an essential factor for European security. At the same time they will work for improved East-West relations. They will also continue to support Britain's other alliances for collective defence.
"During the coming Session, My Government intend to bring the peoples of South Arabia to independence.
"My peoples in the remaining dependent territories will continue to be helped to achieve further constitutional advance.
"The people of Hong Kong will continue to receive the full support of My Government.
"My Government will continue to seek by all practicable means to bring about a return to constitutional rule in Rhodesia in accordance with the multiracial principles approved by Parliament.
Members of the House of Commons,
"Estimates for the public service will be laid before you.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"The principal aim of My Government's policy is the achievement of a strong economy. This should combine a continuing surplus on the balance of payments sufficient to meet our international obligations and to maintain the strength of sterling with a satisfactory growth of output and with full employment.
"Further measures will be taken to stimulate economic advance in the development areas and to promote a more even distribution of employment in all regions, as a means to national expansion.
"Legislation will be introduced to extend My Government's powers to assist financially in the modernisation and technological advance of industry and in the expansion of its capacity.
"My Government will continue to work with management and unions to promote an effective policy for productivity, prices and incomes.
"As soon as they receive the report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, My Government will give consideration to the system of industrial relations and will then put their conclusions before Parliament.
"A Bill will be introduced to establish a National Loans Fund and to amend the law relating to Government borrowing and lending and to Exchequer Accounts.
"Legislation will be introduced to implement recommendations of the Tribunal appointed to enquire into the tragic disaster at Aberfan.
"Legislation will be brought before you to provide for the better integration of rail and road transport within a reorganised framework of public control, to promote safety and high standards in the road transport industry, to strengthen the powers of local authorities to manage traffic, and to reorganise the nationalised inland waterways with special emphasis on their use for recreation and amenity.
"A Bill will be introduced to establish a central system of vehicle registration and licensing.
"Legislation will be brought before you to convert the Post Office from a Department of State to a public corporation.
"My Government will continue to develop policies to secure a rising programme of housebuilding and better housing conditions for the people. For England and Wales a Bill will be introduced to modernise the town and country planning system and another to establish a Countryside Commission, and to provide for greater opportunities for leisure and recreation in the countryside.
"My Government will introduce legislation to enable increased compensation to be paid to tenant farmers whose land is needed for development, to safeguard the welfare of farm animals, especially those reared by intensive methods, and on other agricultural matters.
"My Government will seek powers to take provisional action against dumping in accordance with the code which was agreed in the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations at Geneva.
"Legislation will be introduced to strengthen and amend the law on misleading trade descriptions.
"A Bill will be introduced to provide comprehensive new arrangements in Great Britain for ensuring the safety and quality of medicines, whether for human or animal use; and another to enable improvements to be made in the country's public health and welfare services.
"A Bill will be put before you to increase the level of family allowances.
"Legislation will be introduced to reorganise the social work services in Scotland.
"Steps will be taken through the Council for Scientific Policy to expand and improve arrangements for scientific research and to encourage the international exchange of scientists in Europe.
"Further progress will be made in the development of comprehensive secondary education, in the expansion of higher education, including the

5
establishment of polytechnics, and in developing further education to meet the needs arising from the Industrial Training Act.
"Measures will be taken to accelerate the improvement of schools in socially deprived areas.
"My Ministers will continue to accord a high priority to the supply of teachers.
"Legislation will be introduced to reduce the powers of the House of Lords and to eliminate its present hereditary basis, thereby enabling it to develop within the framework of a modern Parliamentary system. My Government are prepared to enter into consultations appropriate to a constitutional change of such importance.
"Legislation will be introduced to extend the scope of the Race Relations Act.
"Legislation will be introduced to reform the law on gaming.
"My Government will carry forward their comprehensive programme of reforming the law particularly in the fields of family law, and the position of Justices of the Peace. They will also submit for consideration proposals on the law of property, of evidence and of theft.
"Other measures will be laid before you.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels."
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed at half-past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford

SELECT VESTRIES
Bill, pro forma, read 1a.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
The Queen's Speech reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
3.45 p.m.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
My Lords, in moving this humble Address I feel sure that your Lordships would wish me to begin by expressing to Her Majesty our appreciation of the importance and value of the visit paid by Her Majesty and Prince Philip to the celebration of Canada's Centenary in Ottawa and to Canada's International Exhibition in Montreal. I am sure we all felt delighted at the presence of Prince Charles at this morning's impressive opening meeting. I am equally confident that I carry the House with me when I wish Her Majesty success and good fortune in the visit with Prince Philip to Malta.
As a new Member of this House, I count it a great privilege to have the honour of moving the humble Address. The changes outlined in the gracious Speech in both the role and the composition of the House will, I believe, enable the House to play an even more constructive part in the development of a modern Parliamentary system.
Most of us would agree that the biggest internal problem that we face to-day is to make British industry more competitive. There are two distinct, if interrelated, parts to this question. The gracious Speech referred to the need for a strong economy. On the one hand, we have to pay our way abroad, and on the other hand we must have an expanding economy which encourages industry to invest in new techniques and to improve its efficiency. Our great difficulty is to combine the two things—a

7
healthy balance of payments with sustained economic growth. No Government since the war has come up with a complete answer to this problem. We have usually had either a short-term balance of payments equilibrium at the expense of economic growth and industrial efficiency, or short-lived economic growth at the expense of the balance of payments.
Of course, we know only too well that this country faces special difficulties, which have been referred to in the gracious Speech. We have to export more of our national product than any other nation. We have had overseas commitments which have been a burden on the balance of payments but which we have not, until recently, felt able to reduce, and we have to shoulder the international obligations of sterling. Nevertheless, whatever the difficulties may be, British industry has to become more efficient if we are to combine economic growth with a healthy balance of payments. Nor is it just an economic question. A Britain which is economically strong can make herself heard in the councils of the world; a Britain which is economically weak is liable to find herself put by other countries in a humiliating position of powerlessness. And we cannot solve our pressing social needs—more hospitals, housing, schools and higher social security benefits—unless British industry becomes more productive.
The remedies are not only economic; they involve a close examination of the effectiveness of our educational and industrial institutions and organisations. They involve our social attitudes and behaviour. In short, my Lords, if we are to improve our competitiveness, to make British industry more efficient, we need a wide-ranging revolution in our industrial and social habits. I think we have to face the fact that there is no easy way out of our difficulties. It takes time to change attitudes, methods of working and industrial structures. There is no magic wand that any Government can wave that overnight will transform our economy.
In the last Session Her Majesty's Government laid the foundations of a new economic breakthrough. A series of new instruments were created to enable the Government to stimulate and develop on a more selective basis particular sections
8
and areas of the economy. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, for example, is now encouraging more efficient economic units. As a member of the National Economic Development Council, I welcome the Government's decision to ask Parliament to take powers to act more swiftly and flexibly in giving financial support to industry and to particular firms. This will enable the Government to provide urgently needed capital for our science-based industries on which our industrial future depends; for example, our computer micro-electronic and machine-tool industries. The Government will also be able to provide special assistance to those industries which are vital to our balance of payments.
My Lords, I think that all of us, particularly those of us who are involved in industry, must be anxious about the level of unemployment this coming winter. I welcome, therefore, the indication in the gracious Speech that the Government are taking further measures to help the regions. These, together with the investment grants and the employment premium grants, add up to a formidable programme towards developing the regions to play their full part in our economy. The Government, of course, have a very great influence over the climate in which business decisions are made. But the pace of successful innovation and the improvement of efficiency depend, in the last analysis, on decisions taken in the boardroom.
I am encouraged by the unparalleled growth in the use by management of consultancy services during the last few years, which clearly indicates that British management is generally alive to the scope for greater productivity and efficiency. But the Jones Report on "the brain drain" shows that there is a long way to go if British firms are to create the right conditions in which ours and other countries' scientific inventions can be translated into effective and competitive production. If we want our engineers and technicians to stay in Britain, we shall have to see that they are given sufficient encouragement.
There is need for modernisation in the trade union movement. We have to recognise the priority of the national interest over our sectional interests, and that in industrial bargaining the strike should be only a weapon of last resort. The gracious Speech reminds us of the pending report of the Royal Commission on

9
Trade Unions. During the recent rash of industrial disputes there has been much talk of legal sanctions. I believe that while the right to strike must be maintained, the State to-day has a role to play in industrial relations. My own union, in its evidence to the Royal Commission, called for the introduction of a compulsory element in State conciliation so that there can be ex parte references. For my own part, I would go further than this and in the event of conciliation failing provide for obligatory arbitration. In my view no strike action should be permissible until both the courses of conciliation and arbitration have been fully exhausted.
The lack of communication within trade unions, particularly between the national level and the shop floor, is a disturbing problem. If we are to give our members in the trade union movement the service and advice that they must have in a changing industrial world, then we have to transform our methods and our practices. We must also ensure that the shop steward is properly equipped to do his vitally important job. I do not disguise that there is much for the trade unions to do. All I hope is that the situation will not be confused by irrelevant remedies.
The gracious Speech refers to the key role of the productivity, prices and incomes policy in the Government's economic strategy. But such a policy again can work only if it gets the full backing of management and trade unions. On the wages side the Trades Union Congress have made great progress towards developing voluntary efforts aimed to ensure a proper balance between the growth of incomes and the growth of national output. My hope is that the C.B.I. in time will play the same role as the T.U.C. have done in relation to prices. Unless management and unions co-operate in supporting a prices and incomes policy, any Government—and I stress any Government—will be forced to intervene. For it is Government which has the overall responsibility for the reconciliation and achievement of such important national economic objectives as full employment and economic growth.
Membership of the European Economic Community is an essential part of the Government's economic strategy. The gracious Speech makes clear that in spite of all the objections and problems we
10
should go on knocking at the door. Our job must be to challenge every obstacle brought up against our membership.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to touch on two important social advances mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech. The Plowden Report, which was accepted by all Parties, proposed that if we were to ensure that all our children were to get a decent education then we should have to give special help to schools in areas of bad housing. So we should all welcome the special help promised in Her Majesty's Speech for schools in socially deprived areas. We must also welcome the further help to large families, by improved family allowances, as a step towards ensuring that all British children get a proper start in life.
I would hope that Her Majesty's Address might be the signal for a great national effort to achieve a strong economy. In this, the contribution of this House is all important. In a speech which is expected to be non-controversial, I hope I have achieved this by trying to set out what I believe are our generally accepted problems. We shall differ about methods, but in the exchange of opposing views let us do not do anything to hinder solutions which are in the best interests of our nation and our people. My Lords, I beg to move the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath.)
3.57 p.m.
LORD CAMPBELL OF ESKAN: My Lords, I beg to second my noble friend's Motion for an humble Address in reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech. I feel greatly honoured at having been in-vited to do this. My noble friend the Leader of the House, to inspire me, kindly sent me two copies of Hansard recording previous debates on the Address. These I unfortunately opened at the place where the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had said that there was no more difficult Parliamentary performance. I am glad, in

11
what I understand should be a non-controversial speech, to be able to demonstrate the absolute correctness of the noble Lord's judgment.
My Lords, I am especially pleased to be seconding a Motion so thoughtfully and cogently proposed by my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath. He and I first met in 1956, when we were both taking part in his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh's Conference in Oxford on the Human Problems of Industrial Communities within the Commonwealth. It occurs to me that this could be a broad description of all the subjects included in the gracious Speech, and perhaps of a few not included, which I suppose I must not talk about. Modern Governments, preoccupied with the industrial problems of human communities, must never forget that the human problems of industrial communities are even more important.
The gracious Speech defines the social and economic priorities which the Government have chosen, and rightly chosen. It was well said by M. Mendes-France that, "to govern is to choose". It is well said, too, by Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary that to govern, grammatically speaking, means "to determine the mood". The Government can, and should, determine the mood of the nation by the way they use their influence and their powers. For the performance of the nation depends, in practice, upon the attitudes and decisions and actions of individuals all over the country—businessmen and civil servants, and farmers and trade unionists (that is in alphabetical order), and politicians, too. There is at present far too little understanding, and too much misunderstanding, between the various sectors of the community; and, indeed, between them and the Government. As a businessman who lives, to some extent, in the two worlds of business and the Labour Party—I wish there were many more of us—I am always coming across evidence of this split society, and the nation cannot afford it.
I make no apology for talking on this important occasion for a few minutes as a businessman, about business. The business community—organising production, construction, manufacture, distribution, services and exports—is a vital
12
component in the economic performance of the nation and so in the achievement of social objectives. Businessmen must strive to deploy their resources as efficiently and as productively as they can. So must undertakings in the public sector. And, of course, businesses in the private sector must make respectable profits to service the money invested in them and to remain in existence, let alone to expand. An inefficient and unprofitable business is a public scandal.
But if one believes, as I do, that profit is not the be all and end-all of business and must be treated in social perspective, it does not mean that one is against profit. "Man cannot live by bread alone" does not mean that Christians have to be against bread. Real businessmen, as distinct from the delinquent minority of spivs and speculators, are concerned with responsibilities and objectives far wider than making profits for shareholders, important as that may be. Why do they not own up? Big business, my Lords, will never be loved. "It is easier for a camel"—rather than a Campbell—"to pass through the eye of a needle…" But businessmen should seek to be worthy of understanding and respect.
I have come to the conclusion that a great deal of present misunderstanding arises far less from what most businessmen themselves actually do than from what some of their leading spokesmen and commentators say they do—or say they ought to be doing. They concentrate on the maximisation of profits as though that were an end in itself and the highest purpose of human endeavour; and on power economics and property deals and take-overs. They harp on the need to reduce taxation and social expenditure. Some of them even assert the need for a pool of unemployment. It takes my breath away to hear anyone speak as though a permanent slough of despond of unemployed men and women were a desirable, or even a tolerable, objective of public policy.
It must be folly to foster this view of our society split by some deep eternal conflict, with businessmen caricatured as pursuing only the greediest profits, at the expense of all human values, while everybody else is seeking a sensible, pleasant, civilised Britain. This must lead to public ills and private stress. Incidentally, the

13
only possible reaction for trade unionists to this obsessive concentration on profits is to fight like mad for maximum wages.
The Government, believing in a mixed economy, recognise the proper role of profits, and respect the interests of shareholders, whose rights are anyway protected by law. Equally, businessmen must respect the interests of employees, and customers and the community. And their right should be established in a new Companies Act, and their interests protected by law against commercial exploitation. The Government are right in finding means to stimulate the modernisation and expansion of industrial undertakings, whose activities are crucial to the nation's needs, and so to the Government's social and economic objectives. It remains the policy of the Government to remove the extremes of wealth and poverty in Britain—indeed, to stamp out poverty.
If this is a proper national purpose, it should also be an international purpose, to which we should contribute to the best of our ability. I welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to Britain striving with the United Nations for a more peaceful and stable world. I believe that many of your Lordships, on both sides of the House, share the view that the greatest danger to the peace, progress and prosperity of the world is the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor countries. I am sure that the danger and the tragedy of there being two worlds is even greater—far greater—than the wretchedness of Disraeli's two nations. In world terms, Britain is still rich, not poor. In world terms our difficulties are marginal. Think of Mauritius, my Lords, with 14,000 school-leavers a year and only 900 finding jobs. Our difficulties, however grave they may seem to us, do not justify our defaulting on our responsibilities to people who are immeasurably poorer than we are.
British aid and investment in developing countries goes mainly, of course, to the Commonwealth. Many people think that we in Britain have lost our bearings and our confidence. This may well be because we have not, even after all these years, been able to reconcile ourselves to no longer being the centre of a great and rich and powerful empire, whose peoples and resources, and markets and
14
raw materials we can dominate and deploy. But the fact that we can no longer dominate is no good reason for contracting out of the Commonwealth. It is much more in accordance with our historical tradition to forge new kinds of relationships with this group of countries and peoples who, for better or for worse, share many common features and institutions, a group which more comprehensively than any other in the world transcends differences of race and creeds, and economic and political systems. Everyone who thinks it as stupid as it is contemptible to look down on, or to fear, another man because of his race or the colour of his skin, must warmly welcome the proposal in the gracious Speech to extend the scope of the Race Relations Act.
Creative evolution in the membership of the Commonwealth does not, of course, exclude Britain's active membership of the United Nations and of other international groupings, such as the European Free Trade Association, or indeed of the European Economic Community, if negotiations can be started and carried on and concluded on terms acceptable to the present Six and to Britain, and without injury to the Commonwealth. I am sure that all your Lordships will welcome the fact that the gracious Speech, in recording the Government's application for membership of the E.E.C., carries assurance of continuing the closest consultations with the Commonwealth. When the Prime Minister said that the Government intend to pursue our application for membership of the E.E.C. with all the vigour and determination at their command, he added that the Government do not see European unity as something narrow or inward-looking, and that Europe, within the United Nations, should contribute in ever fuller measure to the needs of the developing world. I profoundly hope that our European partners, possibly-to-be, will be convinced of this truth.
In the United Nations I know that a great many people get frustrated and exasperated by endless procedural disputes, by continual sniping at the ex-colonial Powers and by the absence of effective power in the hands of the Organisation. I believe that it is better

15
to have a forum where the representatives of nearly all the countries of the world can meet and talk and argue and disagree than to have no such forum. What other hope has mankind except undisguised power politics, which, in the end, mean war, which can mean the extinction of mankind? The United Nations must continue to seek some effective way of helping to bring the calamitous war in Vietnam to an end, and to find a lasting settlement in the Middle East.
My Lords, one cannot speak of the trouble and danger spots of the world without speaking of Rhodesia. I know that this is a controversial subject, on which many people have strong feelings. With business associations in Central Africa, I myself have strong feelings. I am sure that the Government are right in their intention, expressed in the gracious Speech,
"to seek by all practical means to bring about a return to constitutional rule"
in accordance with the agreed multiracial principles. All British political Parties are surely committed to ending white supremacist government such as the present Rhodesian régime.
While sanctions are certainly not as successful as the Government originally hoped, they are certainly not as unsuccessful as the illegal régime and their friends claim. What practical course of action is there but to maintain and strengthen sanctions, if Britain is to retain her honourable place in international society in a multiracial world? The alternative is to surrender to a régime which has given no shred of evidence that they will do anything other than resist African advancement and any real African encroachment on white privilege and power. Indeed, the evidence all seems the other way.
I am sure we all wish my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs well in his African mission, but what real hope is there, other than through the instrumentality of the United Nations, of finding any issue out of the tragic afflictions of Rhodesia? I hope that our fellow members of the United Nations will direct their attention as much to enforcing their own sanctions as to criticising the shortcomings of Britain's sanctions: because despite many
16
loopholes, which must be stopped up, we are undoubtedly the most honourable keeper of sanctions. We must never forget the appalling difficulties of Zambia in this situation, and we must be forbearing with their understandable exasperations. Many people would say that maintaining relations with Zambia is even more important than repairing relations with Rhodesia. Quite apart from the fact that copper is better for our health than tobacco, one can value the friendship of President Kaunda above the word of Mr. Ian Smith.
My Lords, I have taken up perhaps too much of your Lordships' time with overseas matters—partly because I know something about them, and partly because of the thoroughness with which my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath dealt with home affairs in moving the humble Address. But as Chairman of the Economic Development Committees for Building and Civil Engineering, and of the New City of Milton Keynes, I hope that your Lordships may forgive me if I take up a little more of your time with housing.
Thanks to the priority which the Government have devoted to new housing, there should, by 1970, in Britain as a whole, be one million more houses than households—a numerical surplus of about 6 per cent. But numbers of houses and households are by no means the whole story. Six and a half million—40 per cent—of the houses in England and Wales were built before the First World War. And 4 million of them lack what are euphemistically known as modern conveniences: inside lavatory, bath, hot and cold water, and so on. Moreover, the number of houses unfit for human habitation in England and Wales is now thought to be nearly 2 million. This, incidentally, represents about ten times the total number of houses in Manchester.
This figure would be much higher still if revised minimum fitness standards were adopted, or if proper attention were paid to environmental nastinesses such as dust, and smoke, and smells, and fumes, and noise—some of the human problems of industrial communities. Many of these older houses are simply not worth restoring, but many of them should be salvaged before it is too late. I warmly welcome the intention expressed in the gracious Speech to develop policies designed to put this situation to rights. And

17
I particularly welcome the proposals for better compensation for dispossessed tenant farmers. Their plight has been, and still is, causing a great deal of worry and anxiety at Milton Keynes. And compensation for farm workers must be carefully looked at, too.
My Lords, everybody concerned with houses and with building, and with new and expanding towns, must be looking eagerly forward to the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. The complexities and delays inherent in the present situation are really intolerable; and in central Government, too. Houses, hospitals, schools, factories, transport and power are all organically related in our physical environment and should be planned together. But more often than not, when you get to central Government you would think they were each in different worlds.
The proposals for transport in the gracious Speech are to be welcomed, and are, I know, to be the main subject of tomorrow's debate. But may I be permitted to salute my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport on her breath-taking driving force.
My Lords, the gracious Speech defines the Government's objectives. Clear definition of objectives is always the first essential step towards their achievement. But the means must be worked out, and willed, too. Effective systems of management and communications must be designed, and the right men and women put in the right places to operate them. The Government's programme, and the means of achieving it, must be supported by vigorous public education and explanation; and by the creation of a climate of real understanding of the available choices; and of the material and human problems involved in these choices.
I do not myself believe that convictions about humanity are less valid than convictions about business and economics and defence. But I recognise that they are even more vulnerable to rhetoric and the cliché. We must not be so afraid of the dreadful accusation of idealism that we fail to give serious consideration to human problems which are, as it happens, far more real than all the jargon of materialism which "practical" men seem to assume to be the only laws of nature. I am sure that in the Session ahead your Lordships will play an active and positive
18
part in helping Parliament to find a proper balance between quality and quantity; between human ends and the physical means of achieving them; between the rights of the individual and the interests of society.
My Lords, as a recent Life Peer I feel that it would be impertinent of me to add to what my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath has said about reform of your Lordships' House as foreshadowed in the gracious Speech, except to say that I personally would welcome any changes which could enhance public understanding of our role and respect for our work, and so add to the usefulness of your Lordships' House to Parliament and to the nation. My Lords, I beg to second my noble friend's Motion for an humble Address.
4.17 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until to-morrow. Once again the two main performers have danced their stately minuet and, if I may say so, they have performed with grace and elegance. Each year your Lordships come on the afternoon of Her Majesty's opening of Parliament to watch this engaging ritual. Not indeed so much to discover what the mover and seconder will say, but as to speculate on what they will not say and why they will not say it. It is fascinating to watch the skill and adroitness with which they say enough about the virtues and patent advantages of the gracious Speech to please their own side, but not so much as to make the Opposition feel that they might after all be supporters of the Party whose legislative programme has just been outlined, and which is as empty and as irrelevant as usual.
I think on this occasion I might have known to which Party the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan, belonged, but we have been singularly fortunate in our performers this afternoon. Both are very recent additions to your Lordships' House, and the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, follows a long line of eminent trade unionists who have accepted Peerages and played a notable part in the affairs of this House. We frequently hear with respect their views and in particular, if I may single one out, those of the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, whose distinguished public career makes his contribution so valuable. The same

19
is very much true of the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath. One has only to glance at his entry in the reference books to realise the scope of his work in outside affairs as well as in Union matters. I must say that I was intrigued to discover that Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath's Union headquarters are situated at Ruxley Towers. I do not know the house, but to me it conjures up a vast, red-brick, Edwardian mansion of unsurpassed ugliness—large house parties, ladies in long dresses and enormous hats, croquet and tea on the lawn. Well, perhaps that does go on, but I am inclined to doubt it. And having heard the noble Lord speak this afternoon, I know that Ruxley Towers are not made of ivory.
I also know that among other things the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, helps my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford as a member of the Thames Conservancy Board, a nonpolitical organisation which rewards its members, I believe, since I was once privileged to take part, by a splendid three-day trip down the river from Lechlade, nominally inspecting the banks of the river and the gardens of the lock-keepers, but somehow managing to do a good deal of eating and drinking as well.
No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, is particularly good at judging the gardens, since I notice that in Who's Who he puts gardening as his recreation. I have not seen the noble Lord's garden, but I am quite sure that, being a member, as he is, of the Fabian Society, a former Labour Member of Parliament and a staunch trade unionist, his favourite flowers are all coloured red. But I should be very surprised, having some slight acquaintance with the noble Lord, if we did not find in some herbaceous border or in some bed of mixed plants flowers of some other different colours, for Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath has realised that a garden which consists of flowers of only one colour would be a very dull one indeed. And as in a garden, so in Parliament and in our private life. We should be a dreary lot if we all agreed with each other, and to tolerate the opinions of others is a great civilising influence. And, if I may say so, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, being a man of great common sense and judgment, has already shown your Lordships that he is well aware of that.
20
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan, is a horse of a very different colour—if he will pardon the expression. His achievements in commerce and industry are well-known, as are his associations with the Labour Party, his chairmanship of the Statesman and Nation Publishing Company and his connection with the West Indies. But there are—shall we say?—anomalies in the career of Lord Campbell of Eskan. He was, for example, educated at Eton, and I hope I am not doing him a great disservice by revealing this to the world at large, for I understand that it is not very fashionable for those in authority in the Conservative Party to admit this, and that may very well now be true of the Labour Party as well. I observe, also, that he is a member of Whites. Though I have not the honour to be a member of that club, according to my observation on the occasions that I have been there and my friendship with some of those who are members, it seems largely to be composed of people who are not wholly in sympathy with everything which Her Majesty's present Government do.
Lord Campbell of Eskan is, one might say, one of those strange English political phenomena—not at all understood by foreigners inquiring into English political attitudes, and, let it be said, not wholly understood by some of the English themselves. In the short time that he has been in this House the noble Lord has made a great impression upon it. Those who expected to see a stormy Left-Wing fire-eater, as would befit someone so closely connected with the New Statesman—a paper not always 100 per cent. in support of your Lordships' House, its composition, its powers or, indeed, its existence—may have been surprised. We had expected, perhaps, a Campbell more at home at Glencoe than in the red and gold of this Chamber. But it has not proved so, and your Lordships have seen and welcomed yet another powerful addition to the debating power of this House and to the courtesies that go with it.
If I am not being too contentious, it is a curious fact that both noble Lords owe their presence in this House to the Conservative Party, who brought in an Act to enable Life Peerages to be made, an Act which was strongly opposed by noble Lords who sit on the Benches opposite. It would be even more curious if,

21
as a result of the actions of the Government they support, they were to find that they had lost their seat here.
That brings me to the subject in the Queen's Speech which your Lordships will expect me to say something about—that is, the announcement of the Government's intentions with regard to this House. There will, of course, be many occasions in the coming months on which we shall be able to comment more fully, but there are just one or two things which I should like to say. As it stands, the announcement in the gracious Speech can mean one of two things. It can mean that the Government, though indicating the lines on which they would desire to see reform, have an open mind as to the shape which that reform should take, and that before decisions are made and positions taken up they will consult with the Opposition and seek as best they can to reach agreement. If it is in that spirit that consultations are offered, then those of us who sit on these Benches will most warmly collaborate, for if your Lordships' House is to be reformed it would be much better if it were done in agreement.
But that announcement could mean something very different. It could mean that the Government have decided what they intend to do with regard to the House, both to its composition and to its powers, but that before they do it they will hear what we on this side have to say. If that is what it means, I must tell noble Lords opposite that it is wholly unacceptable to those of us who sit on this side of the House. That sort of consultation would be a sham. It would not be consultation, but information.
This House is an important part of the Constitution, and it is not proper that any Party should unilaterally alter it without first trying to reach agreement with the other Parties; and even if agreement should be impossible, great care should be taken not to use what is, after all, a very temporary majority in another place to alter one of our basic institutions. This would lead not only to great bitterness but, perhaps even more important, to this House becoming a pawn in Party politics, because inevitably the Conservative Party when it returned to office would have to reserve to itself the right to alter any Act of Parliament passed in the teeth of its opposition.
22
There is only one other comment which I would make, and it is this. I find, and I think some of my noble friends find, it very difficult to understand why, if the composition of the House is to be reformed, and therefore, presumably, the objections so often raised as to the unacceptability of the composition are removed, there should at the same time be a proposal to reduce its powers. It seems neither logical nor sensible. There are many of us, and I am one, who would not be prepared to see the powers of this House reduced in such a way that, in effect, we would be altering our Constitution to that of single Chamber Government. I hope we shall hear from the noble Earl the Leader of the House exactly what the proposals mean, and I earnestly hope that the consultation will be genuine, in spite of the rather provocative way in which the announcement was made in the gracious Speech. If not, I think noble Lords opposite will have lost a great opportunity.
Either way, my Lords, we are in for an exciting and a stimulating Session, and on a later occasion in the debate on the Queen's Speech I shall have something to say about some of the other proposals in that Speech. No doubt in the course of this Session we shall disagree, as we always do disagree, on matters of great principle and great public importance. But of one thing I am confident and that is this: that the relationship between Government and Opposition will continue, as it always has in the past, to be one of tough debate and opposition inside the House, and of courtesy and friendship outside it. Certainly, we who sit on these Benches will do our best to see that it remains so.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Carrington.)
4.29 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I rise to second the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and if it will please him I will start by thanking the Conservative Party for the Life Peerages Act. We are all extremely grateful for it. But my main task to-day is to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the humble Address on the distinction with which they have accomplished a task which is by no means an easy one. I have listened over a number

23
of years to Members in both Houses of Parliament discharging this difficult function, and I never cease to wonder at the way honourable Members and noble Lords resist the temptation to embark immediately on the inevitable controversy which the gracious Speech must provoke, and particularly on an occasion like this when there is some controversy which is bound to arise over your Lordships' House. My only consolation is that I am never likely to be asked to discharge this task myself, because I think I am temperamentally totally unsuited to do it. The two noble Lords have to-day very well maintained the traditions of your Lordships' House, and indeed we would expect this from them. I think it is true to say that it is characteristic of both of them that their achievements in life have been very much in the sphere of bringing people together rather than in the partisan rough and tumble of the political arena.
If I may first refer to the seconder of the Motion, I would say that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan, has an enviable record of foresight and imagination in dealing with the problems of the people of our former Dependencies in the Commonwealth. As chairman of a well-known British company operating overseas, he prepared it well in advance for the day when the overseas territories would assume their independence. He brought people from overseas to the United Kingdom to be taught and trained in Britain so that they could take on high-level positions in the various companies overseas. It was a magnificent piece of foresight. But, more important, he went further and saw that people were trained so that they could take a responsible part in the evolution of the new communities which were coming into being as independent nations. I was delighted to hear his views in the different field of profits and incentives, and on business morality generally. They were particularly welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, has in his own way contributed much to the improvement of community relations in different fields. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, he is rightly admired for being one of the most constructive trade union
24
leaders in this country, always seeking for a solution which is just and reasonable. He has done a great deal to help management training, and a great deal in the field of getting more productivity. I am particularly fortunate to be with him on the Council of the Churchill Memorial Trust, and there we have the benefit of his wisdom, his common sense and his wide background when we are selecting people as Fellows to go overseas. I should like to congratulate the noble Earl the Leader of the House once again on his choice of noble Lords to move and second the Motion. They have well upheld the traditions of this occasion.
My Lords, I am not going to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in detail on the question of the reform of the House of Lords—it is well known that we on these Benches have looked forward for some time to reform being tackled—but I do agree with Lord Carrington, and I hope and believe that it is the intention of the Government, that reform by consent would be very much better than any imposition by any one Party in this country. We will certainly play our part, and I am sure everyone else will, in seeing that our objective is to get a proper reform of your Lordships' House.
4.33 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in their generous and fully justified tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan. I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the life Peerages Act was introduced by a Conservative Government. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Byers was particularly generous in, so to speak, not calling attention to the fact that the Conservatives would never touch any Liberal life peerages with a bargepole. But at any rate I agree that as an historical fact it was introduced by the Conservative Party.
It is a long time since we heard a speech on an occasion such as this which carried more real weight than the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath. It was immensely knowledgeable and courageous, and I cannot remember when so much was said in so short a space. I can only hope that the brevity of his speech was not carried

25
further than he would have wished by a suggestion from me that one should not speak for more than twenty minutes. He spoke for much less than that, and I know the House would gladly have heard him for very much longer. But his words will be remembered for many months.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan, comes, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, from a different stable. He was educated in what Mr. Gladstone once called,
"The queen of all the schools in all the world".
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, can explain to the noble Earl beside him that that does not mean Winchester, and I must explain to the noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack that it does not mean Harrow, either. I cannot recall a speech which combined idealism and business sense in a more attractive blend than that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan. He told us that businessmen are never loved—outside the business community, I suppose. As I have found, and as he might have found, the trouble with Socialist businessmen is that they are not usually loved inside the business community. But he is an exception, and I cannot imagine any businessman who would be more loved than the noble Lord, who, like the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, spoke with immense effect.
I should now like, if I may, following the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to amplify a little the passage in the Queen's Speech which announces the conviction of the Government that the time has come for the reform of your Lordships' House and which emphasises our desire for general agreement in bringing about this reform. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that of course reform by agreement is much the best kind of reform. I can assure the noble Lord—and I hope he will take my word for it—that it is intended that these negotiations should be entirely genuine. There is no question of some diktat. He posed a certain question and put two alternatives before me, and I hope he will feel when I have finished that our attitude is close to the spirit of the first alternative that he mentioned and which he much preferred.
26
My Lords, one may be asked: why is reform of the House of Lords necessary at all? Is this place not doing a useful job? Are not our debates said to be of acknowledged excellence? Have we in this place not taken infinite care to avoid antagonising the House of Commons? My Lords, may I say straightaway that there are certain reasons which are not inducing us to embark on reform. There is no vindictiveness in the Government against this House. We do not regard it in the same way as a great reformer described it fifty years ago—and I quote what he said when describing the House of fifty years ago:
"It is filled with old doddering peers, acute financial magnates, clever wirepullers, big brewers with bulbous noses. All the enemies of progress are there—weaklings, sleek, smug, comfortable, self-important individuals."
There are no prizes for guessing who wrote that. The author was, of course, Sir Winston Churchill.
My Lords, we are not resting our case on any alleged mistakes or misbehaviour of this House during the last three years. We pay tribute to the prudent and firm leadership of the Opposition leaders, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and also to the good sense of their followers and the House as a whole. We have achieved here—and I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in his final remarks—a relationship among ourselves which may well be unequalled in any legislative Chamber anywhere, and the sincerity and frankness with which we deal with one another surely are as good as we could possibly hope. Of course, sharp differences of view remain, and will always remain; and even acrimony is not unknown. How could it be otherwise when great issues are at stake?
Why, then, are we setting out—by agreement, we hope—to reform the House of Lords? One starts with one obvious fact which I stressed at the end of our long debate on reform in April last. There is at present, as we are all well aware, a permanent, built-in Conservative majority; and, with powers and composition as they are to-day, a Conservative Government elected with a substantial majority can count on five years of effective life; a Labour Government can count only on four. Here is one reason, certainly, for the undertaking which we gave in our Election

27
Manifesto about the powers of this House, about which the House is aware.
But there is another argument—in my own eyes at least as strong an argument—whose strength is becoming more and more apparent every day. It is an argument not couched in terms of averting a danger, but positive, forward-looking and constructive. Our proposals are part of a determined attempt to bring about the modernisation of Parliament. We are resolved to build on existing foundations—which is, after all, the British way. We believe that a bicameral Legislature is necessary and that the reform of Parliament should be viewed as a single whole. We are determined that Parliament should be modernised; and this is impossible unless we can modernise the House of Lords. We seek a Chamber that will embrace all the best qualities of the present Chamber, but with added capacity to carry a heavier load of Parliamentary work, alike in the fields of legislation, scrutiny and general debate.
I was talking recently to a former Minister from the House of Commons, a man of immense experience, respected by all, who joined this House recently. I asked him what he thought of the life here. He was very complimentary about the friendly atmosphere, the high public spirit and the general quality of the debates, which he felt were much superior, on balance, to those of the House of Commons. "The only thing", he added, wistfully, "is that it all seems rather futile." My Lords, I would never go as far as that. When they join, new Peers often ask me, in my capacity for the time being of Leader of this House, whether I think that the work here is worth while, whether there is any point in making the sacrifices involved in coming here and giving up some other valued service to the community. I reply, "Abundantly so!" And I mean that with all my heart. But I am just as sure that the influence of this House is far less than it ought to be in view of the marvellous variety of experience and talent collected here. As I sit here, I am frequently oppressed by a sense of waste of the service that we in this House should be able to render the State and which we are not, at the present time, enabled to render.
28
In his notable speech in our April debate, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech (who at that time was acting Leader of the Opposition in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington) wound up with this sentence:
"We, for our part, believe that all previous experience has shown that the question of powers and the question of composition are inextricably bound together, and we would wish to discuss them together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12/4/67, col. 1302–3.]
We endorse that heartily; but I venture to set with it a quotation from my own speech in that same debate, which expands the argument. I said (col. 1380):
"I look upon it as our overriding duty to consider the proper functions of our Second Chamber, in addition to its powers and composition."
In short, the Government agree that powers and composition cannot be separated; but neither can be separated from functions.
Now, my Lords, if we say that we want this House to be more useful, that surely means that we want it to perform more functions. Does any noble Lord in any part of the House suppose for a moment that a Chamber composed like ours at present, with its astonishing anomalies and anachronisms, would be allowed by any Government of any Party or by any state of public opinion to acquire new scope or to take on new responsibilities? In short, if we want this House to play a larger part in a rationalised Parliament, the House itself must be rationalised, in functions, composition and powers. Reform must be a threefold package if it is to be any good at all.
My Lords, this brings me naturally to the hereditary principle, which still looms so large in this House, alone among the Second Chambers of the world. Of the one thousand or so nominal or potential Peers, more than 700 inherited their titles. In the average Division—and I gave some of these figures in April—the hereditaries represent more than 50 per cent. of the votes; although two-thirds of the speaking is done by first creations. The built-in Conservative majority—and I have mentioned this point already—follows inevitably. But leaving aside that Party unfairness, there will be hardly anyone left, I suppose, who would now defend the hereditary domination of the British Second Chamber in 1967. I draw your

29
Lordships' attention again to what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said in April (col. 1299) that:
"… in this present day and age"
a built-in majority for the Conservative Party,
"is not really a rational basis on which to run a Second Chamber in a democracy."
But if this built-in majority was to be disposed of we must grapple with the problem of the hereditary Peers in the spirit of the 1948 All-Party Conference.
The third proposition emerging from that Conference with at any rate a measure of agreement (I would not claim that agreement was total in regard to any of these propositions) which Lord Harlech quoted with approval (col. 1299), was that:
"The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not, by itself, constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber."
We can all agree with that. With consultations, as a hope, to follow, I certainly think it unwise to go further now. On the basis of the April debate I am convinced that we are not far apart, in principle, in the matters that I have just been discussing; and I see no reason why we should not reach agreement on method.
Finally, my Lords, a word on powers—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, has the noble Earl left the question of consultations, or is he coming back to it?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I thought I had said: consultations were to be extremely genuine.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am afraid I am not entirely satisfied with that. I do not think the noble Earl has really answered my question.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I can say a word—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Earl like to say it now, or later? If he would like to say it now, I will give way. I might now say why I am not entirely satisfied with what the noble Earl has said so far. If you will read the gracious Speech, you will see that it says:
"Legislation will be introduced to reduce the powers of the House of Lords and to eliminate its present hereditary basis …"
30
Then we are told there will be consultations. What I want to know is: are those two points, the powers of the House of Lords and its composition, open to debate or have they been already settled? If they have been settled already, there is nothing to consult about.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I was going to say a word about that at the end. I had hoped to finish my sequence by taking the question of powers after that of the hereditary principle and then to return to the point. I need hardly say that if the noble Lord wants to put further questions to me I will try to answer them.
Finally, my Lords, a word on powers. I hope I made it plain that we want this House to have not less, but more, opportunities for playing a constructive part in complement to the House of Commons. But there is one attribute—and this deals, I think, with the point that the noble Lord raised in his own remarks—that this House still possesses which I believe to be a formidable obstacle to the kind of constructive co-operation between the two Houses which we seek. I mean the present extent—and I am choosing my words carefully, as the noble Lord will appreciate—of the power, the theoretical power, we have to resist the will of the House of Commons. That power, in its present extent, this House still possesses; but it is noteworthy that it has never been employed during these three controversial years, either by vote or indirectly, by pressure or threat. Although it is never used, there it is in its present extent, and it constitutes an emotional obstacle, an obstacle to our constructive future. Now, my Lords, how far (perhaps this will be of some help to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington) that power should now be limited is something I am tempted to discuss; but to go further along that line would be to prejudice the consultations; and it would tend to damage our primary objective which is reform by agreement.
My Lords, I end as I began. We are set on reform in this Session, but we should vastly prefer—may I make this plain—to see it come by agreement. This sentence again is carefully used, and I shall be surprised if the Prime Minister does not say elsewhere something in terms such as these. We do not intend

31
to make detailed proposals unilaterally, unless the prospect of agreement seems so unlikely or so remote in time as to rule out agreed legislation this Session. Perhaps I should repeat that. We do not intend to make detailed proposals unilaterally—to come forward with a set of detailed proposals and try to thrust them down anybody's throat—but in the last resort we reserve the right to bring forward our own proposals, because, as I say, we are convinced that reforms must come in this Session.
We believe that chances of agreement are better to-day than at any time in the past, better perhaps than they might be for many years. The success of the negotiations is the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government. It lies close to the heart of those members of the Government, in particular, who know and love this House. If the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, wishes to cross-examine me further—I am anxious to be helpful—I will gladly give him a further answer.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the only thing I wanted to make clear to the noble Earl was that if by "agreement" he means only agreeing with him, and there is no scope—that just to agree with the Government is agreement—that is one thing. But if there is genuine room for discussion about what is to be done with the House, then that is a very different matter.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, knows me fairly well by now, and if he thinks that I would approach it in the inferior spirit he mentions I can only say that I would not suppose that that would be his opinion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House just one question. He mentioned something which, to my knowledge, is completely new in all this long controversy. Up to now we have always talked about composition and powers. To-day the noble Earl mentioned something quite new; that is, different functions from those which this House has always performed in the past. I am not going to press him to-day to explain what are those functions, but I think that this House
32
ought to know, very soon, what the Government have in mind, because it must affect our attitude towards these other questions of power and composition.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, we did discuss this (I appreciate that the noble Marquess was unavoidably away: he was abroad) when we debated the matter in April. The subject was spelt out then rather more carefully than I have been able to deal with it this afternoon; but I think that if the noble Marquess will turn back to that debate he will see very clearly what I mean.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
4.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Earl of Listowel be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
Committee for the Journals—Appointed.
Stoppages in the Streets—Order to prevent, renewed.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS (APPELLATE COMMITTEES)
4.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I rise to propose to the House a Motion which I hope your Lordships will be willing to consider without notice. It concerns the appointment of the two Appellate Committees of the House. These, as their name implies, are the Committees which are authorised to hear judicial appeals to your Lordships' House, and the reason why there are two of them is simply to enable two Committees to sit simultaneously if and when the pressure of Judicial Business requires it.
The Motion, which I am now moving, is in standard form and is moved at the beginning of every Session. The special reason for urgency on this occasion, and my reason for asking your Lordships to

33
consider it without prior notice, is that the Committee is required to meet to-morrow, before this House will meet again, to continue the hearing of an unusually important appeal, Conway against Rimmer, which was in part heard during the last Session. This situation of urgency is one which has occurred before, and nearly always in the same circumstances as to-day's—namely, that the hearing of an appeal has been begun in the previous Session, but has not been concluded, and it then becomes urgent to continue the hearing with the least possible delay in the new Session of Parliament. For these reasons the House has been willing in the past to consider a Motion of this kind without previous notice, and I hope your Lordships will be willing to do so again to-day.
I therefore beg to move that this House, in discharge of its constitutional duty to act as the ultimate tribunal in appeals from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, orders that two Committees, each of which shall include all Lords qualified under Section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, as amended by any subsequent enactment, be appointed to hear, during the present Session, such appeals as may be be referred to them in order to secure the due expedition of Public and Judicial Business; and that the Committees have leave to report to the House from time to time.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

RECALL OF THE HOUSE DURING AN ADJOURNMENT
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I beg to move to resolve that whenever during the present Session of Parliament the House stands adjourned, and it appears to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor (or, if the Lord Chancellor is unable to act owing to illness or other cause, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chairman of Committees after consultation with Her Majesty's Government) that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during such adjournment, the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, may give notice to the Peers that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such Notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

ROLL OF THE LORDS
Prepared by the Clerk of the Parliaments; ordered to lie on the Table, and to be printed.
House adjourned at three minutes before five o'clock.