§ 3.36 p.m.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, with the agreement of your Lordships' House I should like to repeat the Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime 605 Minister is at this moment making in another place. This is the Statement:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about political honours.
"It is my view that the services of those who work for political Parties, thus contributing towards the functioning of our democratic system, should not be excluded from recognition by the Sovereign. Nor, if there are to be honours for political and public services, do I consider that they should be confined only to members of the Party in power.
"I have therefore made a recommendation to The Queen, which Her Majesty has approved, that the forthcoming New Year's Honours List and future Lists should include a number of awards for political and public services to members of political Parties.
"I have also invited the right honourable gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party, to agree in principle to make recommendations for such honours, which I can then submit for the Queen's approval together with my own recommendations.
"All recommendations for honours for political and public services will be considered by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee before they are submitted to The Queen."
That, my Lords, is the Statement which the Prime Minister is just making.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I do not doubt for one moment the great value of those who work for political Parties, and I should make it clear that my remarks are in no way a criticism. I believe that such people perform a most valuable and important service—indeed, one member of my former constituency was alleged to have been promised a knighthood if he could get me out. In due course I was got out, and he got a knighthood; and now I am in your Lordships' House. But, my Lords, I am bound to say that I regard what is now proposed, and I think it is likely that those who sit on these Benches will regard it, as a retrograde step. It is not a simple matter. There are quite serious difficulties and objections. I take it (and perhaps I could ask the noble Earl to confirm this) that the arrangements concerning honours for 606 local government service, which hitherto have been excluded from this category and, as I understand, continued to be granted even when my right honourable friend Mr. Wilson was Prime Minister, will continue, and that local government service will be rewarded.
May I also ask whether the arrangements for Life Peerages, which are of a political nature but are not political honours, will continue as hitherto? I should like to be assured on that. May I also ask whether it is the intention of the Government to revive hereditary titles, baronetcies, which to-day, however relevant they were in times past, now seem somewhat irrelevant; and, even more so, hereditary Peerages? The fact that we know so many able, competent and charming hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House does not alter the fact that we regard the hereditary Peerage system as a nonsense in this age. This is not just a partisan view, because I know people in all Parties who take that view. It may be that any concern I may have on this matter is unjustified, and that there is no intention of reviving hereditary titles. Generally, however, I would say that this is a retrograde step. I do not know whether the Labour Party will co-operate, but I doubt it.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords—
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, may I reply at once to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, who has put three questions to me? I know the noble Baroness's special position in this matter, if I may so term it, but I should like to answer the three questions put by the noble Lord while I have them in mind. In the first place, as a second-rate, second-generation hereditary Peer, I should like to thank him for his kind references to hereditary Peerages, if not to my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Lord asked me three questions, the first of which was the position regarding recognition of the services of elected representatives in local government. The position there, as I understand it, will remain as it has been since the then Prime Minister's Statement of October, 1966, when provision for such recognition was made—and, indeed, effect has been given to it. No change is proposed in those arrangements. But as 607 noble Lords will be aware, those arrangements made no provision for Members of Parliament, for local Party supporters or workers, or for national or local Party officials.
Secondly, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition touched on a matter of interest to us all: the position regarding Life Peerages. It is my understanding that my right honourable friend takes the view that Life Peerages should be conferred on the basis of what would strengthen your Lordships' House rather than of their being used as some form of grand or super honour. But, by the same token, I think he also takes the view that he would not wish completely to exclude the possibility that some Members of another place might have it in their power to make a useful contribution to your Lordships' House.
My Lords, on the question of hereditary Peerages, it is my understanding that my right honourable friend will not be recommending hereditary honours in the ordinary course of business; although this is a possibility which he would not wish completely to exclude.
§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEYMy Lords, may I, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, welcome the Statement which has been made? This is not the moment to discuss whether the whole honours system is, or is not, a good thing. Leaving that aside, we see no reason why those who work in the political Parties for the good of democracy should be excluded, We welcome very much the proposals to make this as multilateral as possible; it shows a very distinct improvement on the attitude of the last Conservative Government to these matters. May I ask one question about the minor Parties—for instance, the Scottish Nationalists, who are represented in the House of Commons? As long as we have an unjust electoral system which does not represent the votes cast in the country, it is absolutely right that we should safeguard as much as possible the position of those Parties. Can the noble Earl say whether they will be taken into account? And may I express the pious hope that political honours will be given for real merit and not be just a matter of "Buggins's turn"? I can assure the House that we will do our best to follow that.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the welcome that he has given to the Statement, and I should like to echo what he said about "Buggins's turn". So far as other Parties are concerned, it is my understanding that although the majority of awards will, normally speaking, go to members of the Party in power, other Parties will be adequately represented. That includes the Liberal Party and other Parties.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, I was going to ask the noble Earl whether he would define more closely what he means by "a political honour". He said something in a rather ambiguous way about "by virtue of" my "position"—and presumably he was referring to the fact that I was a member of the Committee that he was talking about. I was under the impression that we had been taking this into account.
LORD REAMy Lords, as another member of that Committee, may I support the noble Baroness? So far as I am aware there has been no suppression of political honours in recent lists. Both the noble Baroness and I have been through long lists of decorations of the Order of the British Empire.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARKMy Lords, would the noble Earl also tell us whether his right honourable friend is prepared to take into consideration those Parties in this House which are not Parties in the accepted sense—for instance, the Peers on the Cross-Benches? Would it not be appropriate if they were allowed to submit names? I am sure that they would be able to suggest people who might greatly strengthen your Lordships' House? And my own Benches may possibly be able to do that. Perhaps we could clear up certain doubts; because there are clergymen in your Lordships' House (Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Sandford) and sometimes it is thought that they are our nominees. I think it ought to be made clear when people are nominees of this Bench and when they are not.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, may I say, before the noble Earl replies, that I am not sure whether we discuss the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in public. Do we?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I do not think that it is a matter that we should go into in any detail. I made reference to it in repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. Of course, we know that there are distinguished Members of your Lordships' House who are members of that Committee. But I think that this is a matter which we should not go into too deeply. Bearing in mind certain honours that have been conferred in the not-too-distant past, I think one can easily exaggerate the drama of the change now proposed.
I will bear in mind and report to my right honourable friend the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate; but he should remember that we are talking of political honour. He, I think, was distinguishing between political honour, proprement dit (as we are speaking French so much this afternoon) and the reinforcing of your Lordships' House from whatever Bench it may be.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, surely there is a good deal of difference between political honours of the type we are now discussing and membership of your Lordships' House. This is a matter which I think will give very considerable concern to many people in all walks of life and particularly political life. I can understand the difficulties about having a debate, because this question of honours is the prerogative of Her Majesty the Queen, but I wonder whether there is not now a real case for meetings between the two Front Benches in both Houses for this matter to be looked at coolly, calmly and sensibly, not only for the immediate future but for the long-term future. I wonder whether the noble Earl would address his mind to that and ask his right honourable friend the Prime Minister whether the time has not come, in the interests of democracy, that this matter should be carefully looked at, preferably not by question and answer but by means of a proper discussion, informal if you like—a cool and sensible airing of the subject.
§ LORD FERRIERMy Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd has said. I have views on Life Peerages, but it did not occur to me to mention them because we were discussing political honours generally. I would echo this question to the noble Earl, the Leader 610 of the House, as to whether there cannot be conversations respecting this House.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, arising out of the original reply, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government realise that a great many of their own supporters and persons in other Parties are in favour of the retention of the system of creating hereditary Peerages? Will they therefore consider the advisability of reversing the lamentable decision of the last Prime Minister that baronetcies should not be given to the retiring Lord Mayors of London; and will they consider the advisability not only of conferring such baronetcies on future holders of the office but also on those who were unjustly deprived of them by this action of the last Government?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I must confess I have some considerable sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and echoed by my noble friend Lord Ferrier, that perhaps, with all the inadequacies of question and answer in this House, we should not try to go too deeply into this matter at this stage. I will gladly undertake to bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister the views expressed by the noble Lord and my noble friend, and, indeed, by my noble friend Lord Mansfield.