PEERS AND THE PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (Hansard, 16 April 1973)

§ LORD SHINWELL
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)
My Lords, this is a matter of common law. In 1802 a Resolution was passed in another place to this effect and the courts have held this to be declaratory of the law of the land. The ground for disqualification has been said to be that the Peerage is a separate estate of the Realm, distinct from the Commons estate, and a member of the first has no right to influence the composition of the second.

§ LORD SHINWELL
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am grateful for the information? Now that it is available, would he care to consider—and I ask him to do no more than consider—approaching his right honourable friend the Prime Minister and directing his attention to the anomaly that Members of this House who are Life Peers would not come within the ambit of the decision in 1802, which was concerned with hereditary Peers, who have special privileges and who are in a rather diffierent position from, say, young people of 18 years of age who have the vote, or Members of the other place who are entitled to the vote, and other people on the Regis- 900 ter? Is it not time that this anachronism disappeared and the anomaly was removed?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I was of course not closely involved with the decision in 1802 and therefore do not quite know what was in the minds of our elected legislators at that time, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that I agree with him: this is an anachronism and I, personally, would be far from unsympathetic to its removal. Probably the right time and place for that might be one day in the context of the reform of your Lordships' House.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, the noble Earl will recall that the reform which was so strongly supported in the first instance in both Houses, and the Bill that in fact was debated in another place, provided for votes for Peers. Would the noble Earl care to consider whether the time is not right, both for the minor reforms and the major reforms in this area, including the provision of adequate expenses to some Peers who are finding it very difficult to attend your Lordships' House?

§ LORD SHINWELL
My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that, like himself, I was not in this place in 1802 and therefore had no say in the matter? I can give him my assurance that had I been present I would have registered a strong protest. But is the noble Earl aware that only the other day I was permitted the privilege of going to the polling booth and voting in the council elections, and if I am permitted to do that why is there this anomaly, this anachronism, which prevents my voting in a Parliamentary election? On the matter of House of Lords reform, I agree that some day this House may be reformed. I have views about that which perhaps are much less liberal than some others, now that I am accustomed to the place; but is the noble Earl aware that the best way to introduce reform is to start with something that is pragmatic, and that would be to permit Members of the House of Lords to vote at Parliamentary elections?

§ LORD GEORGE-BROWN
My Lords, being unlike both the noble Earl and my noble friend, in my case it is quite unnecessary to declare that I was not here in 1802.

§ LORD SHINWELL
I thought you were.

§ LORD GEORGE-BROWN
One of my predecessors sounds as though he were and the other one looks as though he were. They may like to work that out. Is there not something wrong with the Minister's Answer, because the noble Earl said that when the Resolution was passed it was to stop the former influencing the composition of the latter? Surely 1802 was thirty years before Lord John Russell's first Reform Bill and in those days almost every borough was a rotten borough; those that were not rotten were pocket boroughs; and those that were not one or the other were both. In those days the House of Lords completely controlled the composition of the Lower House.

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I do not want to go too far back into history, but the ghost of Wilkes would be turning in his grave to hear the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, about non-election to another place. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, that this matter was in the proposals for Lords reform, both in the White Paper and in the abortive Bill. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that it seems odd that he has the right to vote in a local government election but cannot cast his vote in the Conservative cause in a Parliamentary election.

§ LORD WIGG
My Lords, before the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, dwells too much on that anomaly, he must face up to the logic of it. My noble friend Lord Shinwell could have stood in the local government elections and that is why he can vote in them. Is it now suggested that Members of this House should be able to stand for the House of Commons? If so, would that not be a far-reaching remedy to our Constitution? Would it not be a salutary rule if before becoming a Member of this House a Member of the House of Lords, hereditary or otherwise, had to run the risk of the hustings?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is going a little beyond the terms of the original Question and my original reply and, with due respect, I think I had better leave it there for the time being.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl what is the relationship between a candidate standing and somebody voting? Is it not a fact that an 18-year old can vote but cannot stand?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, there is another smaller anomaly wrapped up within the larger anomaly and that is that if a Peer succeeds to his title before the age of 18 or between 18 and 21, while, under our Standing Orders, he is not able to take his seat in your Lordships' House, neither is he able to vote in a Parliamentary election.