Sitting of 28 March 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ELECTRICITY

    Power Stations (Firing)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board to review their proposals for oil-firing of power stations, as opposed to coal-firing.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is sufficient consideration being given to the fact that what is really relevant is the comparative prices of oil and coal in the 1980s? Is it not likely that for geological if not political reasons the real cost of oil will rise?
    Mr. Peyton: All these matters are considered by the Generating Board. It would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to give directions to the Board at every turn. Its duty primarily is to provide electricity on an economic basis.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Power what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on whether new power stations are to be fuelled by coal or by oil.
    Mr. T. Fraserasked the Minister of Power if, in view of the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government of giving preference to areas of high unemployment in allocating contracts, he will ensure that all conventional power stations constructed in such areas, with adequate coal reserves nearby, will be coal-fired.
    The Minister of Power Mr. Richard Wood): When I consider an application for a power station I take account of where the load is, what different fuels
    1508
    are available and how much they cost. I cannot give an undertaking that in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr T. Fraser) I shall consent only to coal-fired stations.
    Mr. Hughes: But can the Minister say how far he co-operates with the Secretary of State for Scotland on these issues of principle? Is he aware that there is exceedingly great interest in Scotland because a large part of the future of the coal industry depends on this? Can the right hon. Gentleman prod the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to some decision?
    Mr. Wood: I co-operate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland as closely as possible on as many problems as possible, but the problem which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is a matter which is now being discussed between the Scottish Division of the National Coal Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board. I have no reason to believe that they will not be able to come to an amicable arrangement on the possibilities for the future, but I am afraid that I cannot say that they have come to one yet.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the differential in price between oil and coal for the fuelling of power stations anywhere in these mining areas is bound to be infinitesimal. I think that it would probably work out in favour of coal, but the difference is bound to be infinitesimal. Would not it be totally absurd to build a power station on top of a coal field and fire it with oil, and thus deny employment to about 10,000 miners in the area and involve the Government in considerable expense in trying to find alternative work for those people?
    Mr. Wood: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I cannot think of any station which has been built on a coal field and which is fired by oil.
    Mr. Fraser: I am talking about the future.
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman is asking whether it would happen in the future. I cannot give him an undertaking that in all circumstances oil would not be justified, but I bear in mind, and I shall continue to do so, the considerations which I expressed in my first Answer.
    Sir E. Leather: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in several other countries power stations are being built with firing equipment which is readily and economically convertible from one fuel to another, and is there any reason why we should not do that in this country, with all the great advantages that it gives?
    Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend may not know that I recently gave my consent to such a dual-fired power station on the Medway. That was announced a few months ago.
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Power what are the relative technical and financial advantages in the use of oil-firing equipment and modern cyclone coal-firing equipment in electric power stations.
    Mr. Peyton: The cyclone firing of coal depends for its success on the use of coal with suitable physical properties, especially as regards ash. Many British coals have not been found suitable. There are no major technical difficulties in burning oil. General financial comparison is not possible because the relation of coal to oil prices varies at different power stations, depending on sources and transport costs.
    Mr. Darling: If there are no substantial advantages in oil-fired equipment over modern coal-fired equipment, provided that the right kind of fuel is used, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why the conversion of Lots Road Power Station has taken place in view of the fact that this conversion, which apparently has no financial and technical advantages, will throw a considerable number of miners out of work in the North-East? Does he realise that his Answer is in complete conflict with one given by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, on 6th March, who said that there was a heavy balance of technical and financial advantage in the use of oil?
    Mr. Peyton: I think that the misunderstanding lies with the hon. Gentleman who, I do not doubt, will benefit enormously from reading my Answer in the morning. I pointed out that there are no major technical difficulties in burning oil. The Answer given by my right hon. Friend previously to the Gentleman is absolutely correct and at no point at variance with what I have said.
    Mr. Darling: The Question asks not only what is the balance of technical advantages but what are the financial advantages, too. If there is no financial advantage in it, what is the point of throwing miners out of work in order to make this conversion?
    Mr. Peyton: What I said in my Answer was that general financial comparison is not possible. Particular financial comparisons are always made by the Generating Board. Naturally, it is its duty to do so as it is its duty to choose the fuel which will be most economic.

    Nuclear Power Station, Wylfa Head
    Commander Keransasked the Minister of Power whether he has yet reached a decision on the proposals made to him for the establishment of a nuclear power station at Wylfa Head; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wood: After a public inquiry the previous May, I gave my consent on 29th December, 1961, for a station of about 800 megawatts at Wylfa. On 15th August, 1962, I gave my consent to an increase in its size to about 1,000 megawatts. The Board is now considering tenders.
    Commander Kerans: Will not my right hon. Friend attempt to advance the date when the final decision is made? Is he aware that the firm of Richardson Westgarth in my constituency tendered for the contract and, because of lack of decision, may have to lay off a number of people? If the firm got this contract it could employ 700 or 800 people. There is 10·6 per cent. unemployment in my constituency, and I should like early action.
    Mr. Wood: I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's concern. There is no delay for which I am responsible, because I have given all the consents required of me. The construction now only awaits the Board's consideration of the tenders, and I know that the Board is anxious to make progress as quickly as it can.

    Contracts
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board that, when placing contracts for new equipment, it should pay

    1511
    particular attention to the unemployment situation in, and facilities offered by, Northern Ireland.
    Commander Keransasked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had with the Central Electricity Generating Board regarding the placing of contracts by the Board in the Hartlepools, with a view to alleviating unemployment; and what was their outcome.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Power if, in the national interest, he will give a general direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board that it should place contracts in North Lanarkshire in view of its high rate of unemployment.
    Mr. Wood: The placing of contracts is entirely a matter for the Generating Board, which carries out the Government's contracts preference scheme.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is not this rather a short-sighted policy? Does not the Government have an ideal method here of ensuring that work goes to areas of high unemployment, in particular to areas where there has been a run down in heavy engineering industry? Will my right hon. Friend look at this again and give some indication of the percentage of the orders which, over the last few years, have gone to areas of high unemployment?
    Mr. Wood: I will certainly make the researches my hon. Friend has asked for, but the Government's scheme which the Board works does give preference, other things being equal, to areas of heavy unemployment. Clearly it is necessary that things like price, quality and delivery dates should be equal if the tenders are to be considered seriously by the Board.
    Commander Kerans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have much the same problem as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills)? Surely this is a case where the Government can step in immediately for the benefit of areas of high unemployment. In my constituency we have sub-standard electricity works. Surely this sort of thing could be tackled in such areas. As I have stated, I still have 10·6 per cent. unemployed. Can we have action now?
    Mr. Wood: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend again that action is not necessary now because action has already been taken in the formulation of the preference scheme. Preference is given to firms in development districts if their prices, quality and delivery dates are comparable with other tenders.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in areas like Coatbridge and Airdrie, which has a consistently high unemployment rate—it is more than 10 per cent. of the insured population—it is reasonable to expect that publicly-owned enterprises should send in jobs?
    Mr. Wood: Parliament has already told this nationalised industry that it should provide electricity as economically as possible. Therefore, it is right that it should buy its equipment as economically as possible. But, where other things are equal, preference is given to the kind of area the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    Electricity Supply, East Midlands
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the East Midlands Electricity Board to speed up the supply of electricity to outlying country districts so that efficiency may be increased, additional employment provided, and rural economy generally stimulated.
    Mr. Wood: I do not think it would be right for me to give a direction to the Board on this matter.
    Sir J. Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a development project of £400,000, which is ready to start at this moment, and which would provide considerable employment, is being held up because of the slowness in supplying electricity in Mablethorpe, which is an area of high unemployment? Will my right hon. Friend consider this matter again?
    Mr. Wood: I am aware of this matter, because my hon. Friend has drawn attention to it, but I still do not think that it would be right to direct the Board in this matter. In developing supplies to rural and other areas in this country the Board has the responsibility to balance the need for supplies there with the obligation to cover its costs and to give no undue preference. In fact,

    1513
    the Board concerned has made a remarkable advance and has achieved a higher rate of electrification than the average board throughout the country.

    Maximum Resale Prices
    Mr. Barnettasked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to control the price at which electricity supplied by area electricity boards is resold through privately operated meters.
    Mr. Walkerasked the Minister of Power whether he will introduce legislation to prevent the sale of electricity by landlords to tenants at a price higher than that charged by the Area Boards.
    Mr. Wood: The Electricity Act, 1957, gives the area electricity boards power to fix maximum resale prices. It is difficult to devise a fair and effective formula which could be applied generally, but I am discussing the matter with the Electricity Council.
    Mr. Barnett: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I hope that he will go into this matter very seriously because there is considerable exploitation of lodgers in this respect.
    Mr. Wood: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall certainly go into it carefully. This is a very complicated matter indeed, because such is the difference between individual tariffs that it would be difficult to fix a maximum price for the average unit sold. It varies with the quantity sold, and there are other difficulties such as appliances provided by landlords, but I shall certainly go into it and, if I may, I shall write Ito the hon. Gentleman when I have completed my inquiries.
    Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are cases in my constituency where it would appear that landlords are making a profit of 200 per cent. to 300 per cent. on electricity supplied to tenants and thereby obtaining, in the last quarter, an increased rent of about £1 a week by this means? Will my right hon. Friend not only take action on this, but take it urgently?
    Mr. Wood: Although area boards have not fixed maximum prices, they all tell me that they are ready to try to help in settling individual cases of alleged overcharging. Perhaps my hon. Friend would let me have the details of what he said.

    Places of Religious Worship (Heating)
    Sir H. Harrisonasked the Minister of Power whether he will issue a general direction to the electricity boards to act generously when approached by the authorities of places of religious worship for heating by electricity.
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir. I think that matters of this kind are best left to the boards and the consultative councils.
    Sir H. Harrison: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind in his talks with the heads of the different boards that in rural areas very often church and chapel authorities cannot make a decision to have electricity when it is first available, and then when they ask for it they are told that they must pay for the transformer as well? Could not the charge for transformers be borne by the board, because it is in the interests of all villagers that chapels and churches should be adequately heated?
    Mr. Wood: I shall look further into this if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me the details, but it sounds as though it might involve selling electricity below cost to one consumer, which would necessarily involve an increase in cost to others.

    Supplies (Capacity)
    Mr. T. Fraserasked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to ensure that the capacity of the electricity supply industry is extended to meet the extra demands of a 4 per cent. growth in the economy.
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Power what increase in the capacity of the electricity industry will be required by 1966 to meet the demands of the target set by the National Economic Development Council of an annual growth of 4 per cent. in the economy.
    Mr. Wood: An increase of about 2,500 mW above present plans would be needed by 1966, with associated increases in transmission and distribution capacity. As the Report of the National Economic Development Council recognised, a significantly greater increase could not now be achieved by 1966. I

    1515
    said in answer to Questions on 31st January that this will be one of the subjects I shall discuss with the Electricity Council and boards in the course of this year's review of their capital development programmes.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, looking at the increased demand for electricity generally, there seems to be a disproportionate increase between the domestic consumer and industry? I think that the domestic consumer is increasing his intake by 13 per cent. per year and industry by about 4 per cent. Does he not think it very likely, indeed almost certain, that if we are to get a 4 per cent. increase in the economy there will have to be a very steep increase in the use of electricity by industry, and if that is to take place the existing plant will not meet this growing demand? Will he give serious consideration to this and see whether we can in fact maintain this 4 per cent. increase in the economy?
    Mr. Wood: I am giving serious consideration to this matter. I told the hon. Gentleman in my Answer what the extent of the gap was. Clearly the extent to which this gap seriously prevents British industry from achieving 4 per cent. growth depends on various factors, such as where the development will take place and whether it is to be achieved by working more shifts or by building additional capacity. It also depends on competition from other fuels. It is difficult to know where the actual gap would be. It is certainly true that on present figures there would be a gap, and this is a matter which will be considered very carefully indeed.
    Mr. Millan: Is not it the fact that one of our troubles over the past winter was that, in the past, forecasts of electricity demands have been lower than the actual demands? Is the Minister taking every step to ensure that this under-estimating is not carried forward into the next four or five years?
    Mr. Wood: I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question that the gap would continue to exist on the basis of the present plans. It obviously takes time to build power stations. But it is planned to reduce the gap as quickly as possible for exactly the reasons the hon.
    1516
    Gentleman has mentioned—that estimates have been too low in the past and are now being increased.

    Consultative Council Meetings (Press)
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Minister of Power whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that the consultative councils for the electricity industry make their meetings open to the Press.
    Mr. Wood: This is a matter which electricity consultative councils should decide for themselves. Their practice is to exclude the Press only when they think this justified in the interests of electricity consumers.
    Mr. Hooson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he not aware that in some areas much of the work of the consultative councils is done through general purpose committees, which are virtually the councils under another name, and that from their meetings the Press are excluded? Will he investigate the position?
    Mr. Wood: I understand that the councils necessarily want to discuss some of their business—such as the early stages of tariff changes and so on—without the Press being present. It is right that they should be allowed to do this. I understand that all the meetings of the committee in my hon. Friend's electricity area are open to the Press.
    Mr. Hooson: As the consultative councils represent the interests of the consumers, is it not important that the Press should be admitted virtually to all the meetings?
    Mr. Wood: That is exactly the position in the area of my hon. Friend. All the committee meetings are open to the Press.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Pipelines
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Power what applications he has so far received for pipeline authorisations under Section 1 of the Pipe-lines Act and what action he has taken thereon.
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Power if he will give the names of the companies which have applied for

    1517
    permission to lay pipelines, the routes involved, and the distance in miles of each project.
    Mr. Wood: I have received two applications, from United Kingdom Oil Pipelines Limited and Rugby Portland Cement Co. Ltd., both of which published their proposals. I therefore gave details of them in my Answer of 15th March to my hon. Friend, the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet). I have allowed the application by Rugby Portland Cement to go ahead and I am considering the other.
    Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, according to Press reports, he is likely to receive an application from Trunk Pipelines Limited for an authorisation for a pipeline running over the same region as that for which he has already received an application? As the Minister is committed by Section 1 of the Act to have regard to the public interest in making his decision, will he give an undertaking that full details of all applications received by him under Section I will be published, either in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in some other form?
    Mr. Wood: I have read the Press reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I am expecting an application to build a pipeline from Trunk Pipelines quite shortly. I intend when I get that application to examine both these schemes on their merits before deciding whether to allow either, or both, to proceed. If either, or both, proceed, I know that the hon. Member is well aware of the procedure which would have to take place and which would be an opportunity for any scheme which is allowed to proceed to be examined very fully.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider my hon. Friend's request? I am sure that he will agree that the provisions to which he has referred do not offer an opportunity for Parliament to consider the details of schemes put before him, which we hope he will consider from the point of view of public interest. In view of the immense importance of these terrific schemes for two oil pipelines, will not he consider whether in one way or another he will bring the details to the attention of hon. Members?
    Mr. Wood: In this particularly important case I will certainly consider how this matter can best be dealt with, but I know that the hon. Member is very familiar with the procedure to be followed. When the Trunk Pipelines or the other scheme proceeds, it will be carefully gone into, if necessary at a public inquiry. There will be no doubt at all about the details of the company's intentions and proposals.
    Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be quite wrong to publish details of these schemes until they are gazetted, or details are published in the national Press?
    Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend has made a very sound point. The details of the United Kingdom Oil Pipelines scheme were published by the company, but when the details are not published by the company, I should have to consider very carefully whether publication would be right.

    Mines (Working Facilities) Act 1934
    Mr. Skeetasked the Minister of Power, in view of the fact that the procedure laid down by Section 81 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the Modification of Mines Act Regulations, 1948, has proved cumbersome for a wide range of minerals, if he will introduce legislation to extend the provisions of the Mines (Working Facilities) Act, 1934, to cover all minerals, thereby obviating the time expended in prolonged procedure causing damage to the undertakings concerned.
    Mr. Peyton: I am willing to consider any evidence that amending legislation is necessary.
    Mr. Skeet: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the existing practice it may take about a year and a half to complete an application and that certain selected minerals such as coal, under the Acts of 1926 and 1934, are able to bypass the existing machinery? Is it not time that legislation was brought into line for the benefit of all mineral producers?
    Mr. Peyton: I would not wish to add to any delays unnecessarily. Proposals on the lines of my hon. Friend's Question were discussed with interested

    1519
    organisations in 1956 and 1957, but no detailed proposals were put forward then. If my hon. Friend has any such proposals, I should be glad to look at them.

    Iron and Steel (Prices)
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Power whether he was consulted by the Iron and Steel Board about the British Iron and Steel Federation's price-fixing arrangements with the European Coal and Steel Community; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir. Neither the Iron and Steel Board nor I have to be consulted about such a matter. The British Iron and Steel Federation told us about its talks which have led to an understanding that the steel industries of this country and of the Community would have regard to the price regulations of the Treaty of Paris when selling in each other's home markets.
    Mr. Darling: Does not this mean that the British steel companies have given an undertaking to the six countries in the Community that British steel will not be sold in Europe at competitive prices if those competitive prices give an advantage to the British producer? Surely the Minister is not going to say that he favours this kind of arrangement, the private cartel arrangement? If he has not authority to deal with these matters, should not he come to the House to get authority to stop this kind of arrangement?
    Mr. Wood: I do not think that the advantages are nearly so clearly in the direction which the hon. Gentleman claims. It is certainly true that inceased sales, even at low prices, would provide welcome work for the industry—and that is the point the hon. Gentleman made—but it is also true—and this he has not pointed out—that production in the Community is 3½ times the size of production in Great Britain. I am told, and the Chairman of the Iron and Steel Board tells me he agrees, that the balance of advantage is on the side of preventing a price cutting war which would be very dangerous indeed to producers generally in this country.
    Sir C. Osborne: Are British steel prices much higher or lower than the European levels?
    Mr. Wood: I do not think that I could give any direct or concise answer to that. Some are below and some are above.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Was not the Iron and Steel Act passed through this House, on the advice of a Conservative Government, with a view to breaking up a monopoly in this country? If that was the intention, why should the right hon. Gentleman now say that he is in favour not only of a monopoly, but of an international cartel?
    Mr. Wood: Because the purpose of the arrangement is, in present circumstances, to prevent damage to the British iron and steel industry, which the producers believe would be the result of a serious price-cutting war. That is why they reached the agreement.

    Production Plans (Co-ordination)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Power what arrangements exist among the nationalised fuel and power industries to co-ordinate their production plans in the national interest.
    Mr. Wood: I talk regularly and frequently about all important policy matters with the heads of the fuel and power industries, for which I am responsible. The industries also maintain close direct contacts with each other.
    Mr. Lawson: Does the Minister continually bear in mind that the national interest is not always served by concentrating on purely commercial interests? Does not he appreciate that the concentration on commercial interests is turning large parts of the country into mere desert? Would he see that the national interest is considered rather than purely commercial interests?
    Mr. Wood: I can think of a number of examples where the pure wind of commerce is tempered by other considerations. I do not know exactly the consideration which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I can assure him that I certainly take the national interest into account in these matters.
    Mr. Lawson: Would not the Minister agree that this, apparently, is not operating in Scotland because of the manner in which the National Coal Board has

    1521
    smashed so many pits? Does he not agree that almost purely commercial interests apply there?
    Mr. Wood: It must be not only to the commercial but to the national interest to try to produce the coal that the country needs as cheaply as it can be produced.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Power how many of the 260 staff employed in the Gas Division of his Department are employed in Scotland; and how many are in the London area.
    Mr. Wood: Twenty-two in Scotland and 100 in London, out of the present total of 250.
    Mr. Millan: Can the Minister say where the balance of the staff is employed? Is it part of the policy of his Department to spread the staff throughout the country as much as possible?
    Mr. Wood: The balance of the staff is round the country outside London. All staff are either gas examiners or meter examiners, and, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is an inescapable characteristic of gas examiners and meter examiners that they have to be where the gas and meters are if they are to examine them.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Power how many of the 277 staff in his Establishments Division and Information Branch are employed in offices in Scotland; and how many are in London.
    Mr. Wood: The total number at present is 271. None of these is in Scotland, 260 are in London.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Minister strive to reverse the numbers, having regard to the fact that there are none at all in Scotland? Would not it really benefit all these people, and probably their work, if we took them out of the dreary, dull, depressing atmosphere of London? Would not there be consequential ancillary employment in respect, say, of the Information Branch in seeing that the printing was well done in Edinburgh, for example?
    Mr. Wood: I think it important that the Information Branch should be in
    1522
    reasonably close touch with the Minister. In any event, I am being asked one or two further Questions on the general issue of the decentralisation of my Department and perhaps I can give a general answer on that occasion.
    Mr. Ross: Are we to understand that all the information which we have obtained, or have not been able to get, in relation to the Questions we have asked in the past has been due to the proximity of these sources of information?
    Mr. Wood: No. I have my roots and tentacles in all parts of the country and that is why I can produce such full information.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Power if he will transfer the headquarters of his Department to an area of high unemployment.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Power what consideration he has given to the suggestion that his Department should be moved to Scotland.
    Mr. Wood: I am awaiting the result of the comprehensive review of the work of Departments in London which is being undertaken by Sir Gilbert Flemming.
    Mr. Ross: I thank the Minister for that reply, and am hopeful for a good outcome of the review. Will he do what he can to hurry it up, so that the removal, when it does come, can be effected by rail?
    Mr. Wood: I shall await the report and then take the necessary action. There will still be room for the movement of any necessary staff.
    Mr. Lawson: When he is considering this report, will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the very fact that the headquarters of various Government Departments are concentrated in London results in or contributes to the concentration of industries in London? Will he do what he can in this respect to see that industries as well as Government Departments are dispersed?
    Mr. Wood: All these matters will be taken into account.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Minister of Power how many of the 450 staff in

    1523
    his Chief Scientist's Division are employed in Scotland; and how many are in the London area.
    Mr. Wood: The number at present is 435. None of these is in Scotland, and 40 are in London.
    Mr. Gourlay: Can the Minister give any indication of how many of these persons employed in London were educated in Scotland? Can he further say whether he has any future intention of establishing a part of his division somewhere in Scotland?
    Mr. Wood: If the hon. Member will put down a Question about the education of my advisers I will do my best to answer it.
    Mr. Gourlay: Will the Minister reply to the second part of my supplementary question, concerning the future establishment of part of his division in Scotland?
    Mr. Wood: The bulk of the staff of my Chief Scientist's Division are, as the hon. Member will have noted, outside London. That is largely for historical reasons. I do not think that any further decentralisation of this division will be possible.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power how many of the 303 staff employed in the Safety and Health (Mines) Division of his Department are working in Scotland, and have their offices there; and how many are in offices in the London area.
    Mr. Wood: Out of the present total of 296, 29 are in Scotland and 65 in London.
    Mr. Hamilton: How many mines are there in London?
    Mr. Wood: There are no mines in London, but there are mines, as the hon. Gentleman may have noticed, in other places than London and Scotland. That is why the Mines Inspectorate, whose characteristic is that it has to be near the mines, is spread around the country.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister say why some are in London and not in the country?
    Mr. Wood: Some of those in London are in the Safety and Health Division,
    1524
    which advises me, and the others are in the headquarters of the Mines Inspectorate.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues in order to let the House have a statement making it clear whether the Government are serious about decentralising their offices? If they are serious, when will their intentions be made known to the House?
    Mr. Wood: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was listening to one of my recent answers, in which I said that these matters were being investigated by Sir Gilbert Flemming, who would be reporting, and that the Government would let the House have a full statement.
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Power why there has been a reduction from 25 to 23 in the numbers employed in his Scottish and Welsh offices in the last year, whilst the overall increase in staff has been from 1,699 to 1,723; and what steps he intends to take to increase the numbers employed in the regions outside London, and especially in Scotland.
    Mr. Wood: The changes were due to a small reorganisation of the work in Scotland, but the hon. Member is omitting the staffs of the Mines Inspectorate, gas examiners, examiners of gas and electricity meters and their supporting staff. I am now awaiting the comprehensive review Sir Gilbert Flemming is making of the work of all Government Departments in London.
    Mr. Willis: Even in relation to the departments that are to be taken into consideration in this question is it not rather fantastic that, as the office work of the offices in these areas appears to decrease, the head office staff increases? Should not the opposite be the case? When are we likely to know the result of this consideration about the office establishments of the right hon. Gentleman's departments, and the proposals they intend to make?
    Mr. Wood: On the last part of the supplementary question, Sir Gilbert Flemming has been asked to report as soon as possible. I cannot give the hon. Member a definite date. The saving in respect of the reduction in Scotland amounted to two—a full-time shorthand

    1525
    writer and two part-time telephonists. The increase in London is due to the extra work created by the formation of the organisation known as the National Economic Development Council—which has the hon. Member's support—and the work on pipelines, with which the hon. Member will be very familiar.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I hesitate to interfere in Scottish affairs, but since the Question also refers to Wales, will the Minister tell us how many reductions there were in the Welsh office?
    Mr. Wood: There were no reductions in the Welsh office.
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Power how many of the 1,723 staff in his Department are employed in the London area.
    Mr. Wood: Eight hundred and fifty-one are employed in London, out of the present total of 1,684.
    Mr. Bence: Can the Minister tell us whether this office force is housed in one block of offices, or is broken up and housed in different blocks around the London area? If they are in separate blocks, in view of the heavy charges now imposed by the Post Office, under his right hon. Friend, in respect of telecommunications, can the Minister bring all this force into one Department, and possibly move them out of the Landon area?
    Mr. Wood: There are technical difficulties about bringing all of them under one roof, but the main body is under one roof already, so that the difficulty he has mentioned does not arise.

  COAL

    Production (Government Policy)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Power whether he has considered the Memorandum on Europe's energy requirements, prepared by the National Coal Board and the West European Coal Producers and submitted to him by the Board; and whether, in view of the main conclusions regarding the necessity for a policy of coal conservation through continuous production and for an expansion of output during the next decade and beyond, he will make the necessary changes in Government policy.
    Mr. Wood: I have considered the memorandum, but I see no reason to depart from the policies which I announced last July after I had reviewed with the Board the prospects for coal in this country.
    Mr. Warbey: Does the Minister's reply mean that he rejects the main general conclusion of this memorandum—that the coal industries of this country and Western Europe, far from looking forward to a contraction during the next two decades, should plan for an expansion of output above the existing level? Does he accept or reject that conclusion? If he accepts it, what steps is he taking to ensure that there are revised plans for coal output in the coming years?
    Mr. Wood: If the hon. Member considers the memorandum carefully, he will appreciate that no separate forecast is made of the size of the coal industry in Great Britain. The arguments within the memorandum, very important arguments, were taken into account and were very much in my mind when I agreed coal policies with the National Coal Board last year. I do not believe, therefore, that the memorandum requires any redefinition of these policies or, as the hon. Member suggests, any changes in Government policy on this matter.

    National Coal Board (Headquarters)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power whether, in conformity with the policy of dispersion of office accommodation out of London, he will issue a general direction to the National Coal Board to remove its headquarters to the Scottish coal field.
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what reason there is for not accepting this suggestion? Is it not the case that over the last few years there have been more closures in Scotland than anywhere else, so that it would seem singularly appropriate for the Coal Board to open something in Scotland? In view of the enormous depth of despair in Rothes when the new pit was closed, would it not be highly appropriate for the Coal Board to open up there?
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Member asks whether I will give a general direction.

    1527
    This is not a suitable matter for a general direction because it is primarily the responsibility of the Coal Board. A very high proportion of the Board's non-manual staff is already decentralised from London, including a number in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware. Apart from the divisional staff, there are a number of national establishments outside London and I think that the Coal Board has already decentralised itself to a considerable extent.
    Mr. Hamilton: Has the right hon. Gentleman approached Lord Robens on this issue? Can he tell the House how many of the Coal Board stall are currently employed in London? Can he say how their continued employment in London links up with the declared policy of the Government to get as many office workers out of London as they can?
    Mr. Wood: I have discussed this with Lord Robens. There are 2,000 Coal Board employees working in London. I know that Lord Robens is continually considering this matter and seeing whether he may decide of his own volition that more should be moved out of London into other parts of Scotland, England, or Wales.

    Acetylene Production
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Power what investigations are being conducted into the production of acetylene from high temperature treatment of coal.
    Mr. Peyton: The National Coal Board is carrying out research into this matter.
    Mr. Skeet: Would it not be more economic to continue the production of acetylene from calcium carbide?
    Mr. Peyton: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put down a Question about that.

    Smokeless Fuel
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that a sufficient supply of smokeless fuel is now available at a reasonable price in smokeless zones; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peyton: Supplies are generally adequate though shortages of particular
    1528
    types of solid fuel may occur from time to time. My right hon. Friend does not control fuel prices but I have no reason to think that they are unreasonable.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is serious dissatisfaction with the price of 12s. 7d. per cwt. bag of Phimax? Is he further aware that local authorities are being supplied at half the price—6s. 7d. per cwt. for No. 4 Phimax? While there is a certain difference in quality, does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is an extraordinary discrepancy?
    Mr. Peyton: I have no doubt that the Gas Board will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he has raised the question of bagged supplies, I should like to make this point because it is frequently alleged that excessive charges are made for fuel sold in paper bags. It should be remembered, first, that these bags are expensive, and, secondly, that the people who put fuel into the bags have to be paid for doing so.
    Mr. Warbey: As the hon. Gentleman says that supplies of smokeless fuel are now adequate, can he tell me where they are, so that I can get the ton of smokeless fuel which I ordered eight weeks ago and which has not yet been delivered?
    Mr. Peyton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to let me know which type of smokeless fuel he ordered, when he ordered it, and where from, and I shall be glad to draw the attention of the appropriate body to his order.
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Power if he is aware of dissatisfaction with the quality of solid smokeless fuel available to domestic consumers in Glasgow; and if he will take steps to ensure an adequate supply of better quality solid smokeless fuel in this area.
    Mr. Peyton: Much of the dissatisfaction is caused by attempts either to burn smokeless fuels in unsuitable appliances or to burn unsuitable fuels. I am informed that while premium smokeless fuels have been scarce in recent months, supplies of Gloco have been adequate.
    Mr. Small: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a growing dissatisfaction with the quality of the fuel. Does he realise that the further we expand the

    1529
    smokeless zones the greater will be the dissatisfaction among housewives? Can he give an indication now when a start will be made at the new smokeless fuel plant promised to Scotland recently?
    Mr. Peyton: I think—without notice—that it will be in operation next winter. As to the general dissatisfaction to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I do not believe that this exists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that in making these allegations the hon. Gentleman is very largely failing to have proper regard, first, to the difficulties, and, secondly, to the progress that is being made in clean air.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Power what supplies of smokeless fuel are now available at a reasonable price in smokeless zones, particularly in the London area.
    Mr. Peyton: Coke supplies are adequate, including Gloco. Various premium fuels are also available in the area though they are dearer and some users may not always be able to get the kind they prefer.
    Mr. Lipton: Where does the Parliamentary Secretary get that information? We should like to know, because no one in the area would agree with it. Is he aware that, quite apart from the recent cold spell, stocks of smokeless fuel in London have been inadequate for many months past? Who is responsible for seeing that there are adequate supplies of smokeless fuel, particularly in view of the growing extent of smokeless zones?
    Mr. Peyton: I have no doubt that the various fuel manufacturers and the distributing trade will note with care what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has challenged the sources of my information. Perhaps it would be fair if I were to remark that I have been wondering about the sources of his information for many years.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend tell the House when the newly-developed smokeless fuel will become available, as preliminary reports seem to indicate that it is extremely good?
    Mr. Peyton: I think it is a very good new fuel. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will give him more information. Limited quantities will start
    1530
    to become available this autumn. Thereafter, it is a question for the Coal Board to decide whether it intends to develop new plants.

    Supplies
    Mr. J. Hillasked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of coal to support the rate of economic growth proposed by the National Economic Development Council.
    Mr. Wood: Supplies of coal should be adequate to support economic growth at the proposed rate.
    Mr. Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what part the Scottish coal industry can play in this? He will know that in the pits in Scotland in the last five years we have lost 25,000 jobs, and the Chairman of the Scottish Coal Board is on record as saying that unless we can get a new coal-fired power station, at the Barony coal pit a large number of men will be unemployed. Would he advise the Coal Board to cut the selective price in Scotland so that the Scottish Division can be more competitive for a new coal-fired power station?
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman originally asked me whether there would be sufficient coal to support an economic growth of 4 per cent. and my answer was that these supplies would be adequate. In fact, the Report points out that the industry already has physical capacity in excess of its target requirements of 200 million tons. Clearly, the level of coal production in Scotland will depend on the extent to which it can be economic, and I am glad to say that recent signs have been very much more encouraging than past performance.
    Mr. Hill: Will not the right non. Gentleman accept the Mackenzie Committee's Report, which indicates quite clearly that unless we have more power stations in Scotland we shall be short of fuel?
    Mr. Wood: I told the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that the question of a further power station in Scotland is now being considered, and I do not know what the answer from that consideration will be.

  GAS

    Maximum Resale Prices
    Mr. Skeetasked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction to the Gas Council to ensure that the terms on which Gas Boards hire gas meters to landlords for use by tenants, including variable rates of hiring, are made known to such tenants, so that the value of gas paid for by insertion of coins in the meter may also be known.
    Mr. Peyton: Each area gas board has published a maximum resale price for gas as the Statute requires. Meter rents are not usually published, but particulars would be given to inquirers.
    Mr. Skeet: Is my hon. Friend aware that many tenants do not have the remotest idea of the value they receive in gas when they put a shilling in the slot, assuming that when they put in a shilling, a shilling's worth of gas comes out, which is not the fact? In the interests of consumer protection, will he now consider giving as much publicity as possible to the facts so that tenants can find out from landlords who install these meters how much gas they get?
    Mr. Peyton: I do not doubt that what my hon. Friend has just said will command the widest attention. If he will give me any instances of abuses. I will be perfectly willing to discuss them with the Gas Council, if that should be necessary.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the complaint is of long standing, that many old people are being milched by having to pay far too great a price for a supply of gas—or electricity—taken in this way?
    Mr. Peyton: I am here concerned with gas, and the position with gas is rather different from that with electricity. The boards publish a maximum resale price, as they are required to do under the Act. If the hon. Member has any constructive suggestions to make, I will be glad to consider them.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisons and Borstal Institutions (Heating)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons and Borstal institutions
    1532
    oil-fired heating systems have been installed during the last two years and in which others it is planned to install oil systems during the next two years.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): As the Answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Boyden: Presumably that means that it is a very long list. Could not the hon. Lady say why gas, electricity or coal could not be used in these prisons? Surely it is in the national interest to use these indigenous sources of fuel instead of using oil?
    Miss Pike: It is a long list, but in all cases all alternative sources of fuel have been investigated, as the hon. Gentleman will see when he reads the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    In the following establishments oil-fired heating systems have been brought into operation since 1st April, 1961:

    *Ashford Remand Centre (Middlesex).

    *Bullwood Borstal (Essex).

    Cardiff Prison.

    Durham Prison.

    Exeter Prison.

    *Grendon Psychiatric Prison (Bucks).

    *Guy's Marsh Borstal (Dorset).

    *Haslar Detention Centre (Hants).

    Hewell Grange Borstal (Worcs).

    *Hindley Borstal (Lancs).

    Maidstone Prison.

    *Moor Court Detention Centre (Staffs).

    *New Hall Detention Centre (Yorks, W.R.).

    *Send Detention Centre (Surrey).

    *Swinfen Borstal (Staffs).

    At the following establishments work on an oil-fired system is in progress, or is planned to start within the next two years:

    *Albany Prison (Isle of Wight).

    *Blundeston Prison (E. Suffolk).

    Dorchester Prison.

    Ford Prison (Sussex) (Extension).

    *Hewell Grange Remand Centre (Worcs).

    *Kirklevington Detention Centre (N. Riding)

    Leeds Prison.

    Parkhurst Prison.

    Pentonville Prison.

    Portland Borstal.

    *Pucklechurch Remand Centre (Gloucs).

    *Risley Remand Centre (Lancs).

    Swansea Prison.

    Wakefield Prison.

    *Wellingborough Borstal.

    Winchester Prison.

    Wormwood Scrubs Prison.

    In all cases the most careful consideration was given to the use of solid fuel before oil was decided on.
    *New establishment.

    POLARIS SUBMARINES
    Viscount Lambtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will ask for an assurance from the President of the United States of America that every detail relevant to the production of the Polaris submarine and its firing mechanism will be communicated to the British Government before production of any part of the submarine begins in the United Kingdom.
    The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
    Any general assurance of the kind referred to by my noble Friend would not be so effective as what is proposed, namely, a detailed agreement about the transmission of technical information. This is now being worked out with the Americans and will be published in due course.
    Viscount Lambton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance, in his own wording, that we shall have the transmission of every technical detail before we start the production of the Polaris submarine in this country?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I understand that the transmission referred to by my noble Friend will be of the most detailed character. As I say, this is being worked out and will be published.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not of vital importance that we should be furnished with every possible technical detail in order to avoid a recurrence of what happened over the Skybolt missile? May we have a definite assurance that the House will be informed before any production occurs in respect of the Polaris submarine that we are wholly satisfied—that the Government are wholly satisfied—that we can proceed?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I think it vital to have the full information and, as this is to be published, I think it will be available to the House.

    CHINESE OFFICIAL MISSION
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate the activities of those members of Her Majesty's Government who are seeing the Chinese official visitors, so that they do not com-
    1534
    mit themselves to anything which will cause offence to India or any other Commonwealth country, and do not allow the sale to China of anything, particulary aircraft, which would help her in her as yet unsettled dispute with India.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
    My hon. Friend may rest assured that the members of Her Majesty's Government who are concerned are aware of these considerations.
    Sir W. Teeling: Can my right hon. Friend tell us a little more, in view of the fact that India must be very worried that some weeks ago this mission was postponed because of a possible invasion of India and, now it is threatened again, why are we still having the mission here?
    Mr. Butler: It is not a buying mission. It has come here to talk about the possibilities of future trade, and I cannot see that it can cause undue alarm.
    Mr. Snow: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that more than one Commonwealth country is doing extensive trade with the People's Republic of China. Is he aware that there will be support in many quarters for the initiative of the Government in inviting the Vice-Minister of International Trade to this country, and that we hope this will enable the domestic economy of that country to be improved, thereby reducing international tension?
    Mr. Butler: Yes. It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the expansion of trade with the People's Republic of China.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House to do everything possible to reduce unemployment in this country, will my right hon. Friend see that no unnecessary barriers are put up against British traders who wish to trade with China, especially in view of the fact that at the moment America refuses to trade, the Soviet Union is not trading and there is a grand opportunity for us to trade?
    Mr. Butler: I will discuss this with my right hon. Friend principally concerned.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Will the Minister advise us why it is that when another country,

    1535
    for example, Egypt, buys planes from the Soviet Union, we persuade ourselves that this is the first step to making that country a vassal of the Soviet Union because of its dependence on the Soviet Union for spare parts, electrical equipment and so on, but when we are to supply planes to a Communist country it does not have the same effect?
    Mr. Butler: That raises considerations rather wider than the question of trade with China.

    N.A.T.O. (NUCLEAR FORCE)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether the agreement he concluded with President Kennedy at Nassau about the formation of a multinational nuclear force in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation provides for incorporating his agreement with the President that neither will decide to resort to nuclear weapons anywhere in the world without first consulting the other, in the proposed international system of control over the use of this force.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend's arrangements with President Kennedy for consultation about the use of nuclear weapons are not affected by the Nassau Agreement. Arrangements for control over the proposed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear force remain to be worked out by the North Atlantic Council.
    Mr. Zilliacus: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he elucidate the matter a little further by saying whether his Answer means—as I believe it does—that even if and when the international control proposals which are being discussed are worked out, if ever, thanks to General de Gaulle, they will leave entirely unaffected the use by the United States Administration of its own nuclear forces? Will the United States Administration remain as unfettered as it is today, or as it was at the time of Cuba?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot answer for the United States Administration, but I can say that the understanding reached between my right hon. Friend and the President of the United States will prevail. If there are any doubts about
    1536
    this matter, the whole subject is to be discussed in May, at the next meeting of the N.A.T.O. Council.
    Mr. Grimond: If the Government were one of the supporters of this move to have N.A.T.O. nuclear weapons, is it not curious that they apparently have no proposals of their own as to how those weapons are to be controlled? Would it not be better to have some agreement about political and diplomatic consultations in N.A.T.O. before we begin running this hare of N.A.T.O. nuclear weapons, about which we apparently have no clear idea, and for the control of which we have no proposals?
    Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman was present when my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made a statement on this matter on 26th March. We then discussed and described what sort of control there might be, in relation to the future discussion which is to take place in May. This indicates that Her Majesty's Government have ideas on this matter and will put them forward at the N.A.T.O. meeting.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that this N.A.T.O. nuclear force has to consist of many nations, would it not be fair to consider all the nations in the force, rather than just two of them?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, certainly. There is the multinational force to consider, with all the complications of the mixed-manned force, or the multilateral force, as it is sometimes called.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 1ST APRIL AND TUESDAY, 2ND APRIL—Remaining stages of the London Government Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 3RD APRIL—As already announced, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will open his Budget on Wednesday, 3rd April.

1537
The general debate on the Budget Resolutions and the Economic Situation will be continued on Thursday, 4th April and Monday, 8th April, and brought to a conclusion on Tuesday the 9th.
FRIDAY. 5TH APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to know that it is intended to propose that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday, 11th April, until Tuesday, 23rd April.
Mr. H. Wilson: Would the Leader of the House tell us when it is intended to have a debate on the Beeching Report and how many days the Government intend to allocate for that purpose?
Mr. Macleod: Obviously, from the business I have announced, after Easter, but I would hope reasonably soon after Easter. Through the usual channels I am sure that we can come to an understanding about the amount of tune to be allotted.
Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: When can we expect a statement from my right hon. Friend the First Secretary about his recent talks with Central African leaders?
Mr. Macleod: My right hon. Friend will be making a statement as soon as the talks conclude. If that is tomorrow, as it may well be, the statement would be made in the House if the House is sitting. Otherwise, it will be made as soon as possible.
Mr. Grimond: When may we expect a further statement about Chief Enahoro? Further, does the Leader of the House intend to make a statement about any inquiry into the rating system before we rise for Easter?
Mr. Macleod: In reply to the first question, as soon as possible. Naturally, there has been an immediate and urgent follow-up of the situation that we discussed the other night.
On the question of rating, as the right hon. Gentleman will probably be able to see on the "tape" by now, I think, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has answered Questions on that point this afternoon.
Mr. Webster: Can my right hon. Friend say when we will have a debate on the Report of the Rochdale Committee?
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I cannot give a precise time for that. It is understood that we will debate it. Clearly, it is not practicable at least before Easter.
Miss Herbison: Can the Leader of the House find time for a Bill on intestate succession in Scotland? Is he not aware how strong are the feelings amongst women in Scotland that the Government have failed to honour their pledge in this instance?
Mr. Macleod: I have some interest in this matter. I was concerned with a Private Member's Bill on this sort of subject a few years ago. I should like to look into the point that the hon. Lady raises.
Mr. Tiley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is far more important to debate on the Floor of the House the Beeching Report for several days than it is the Committee stage of the Finance Bill? Only this week we had a debate on education, in which it was not possible for one voice from the North to be heard from this side of the House.
Mr. Macleod: It is, of course, important to have a debate on the Beeching Report. I will not comment on the point about the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, because, as my hon. Friend knows, we have referred that to a Select Committee, which is studying it at the moment.
Mr. H. Wilson: Did we hear the right hon. Gentleman aright? Did he say that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has answered Questions here today and that they are already on the "tape"? Since no one who has been sitting here has heard or seen the Minister of Housing and Local Government, would the Leader of the House explain what it is, or are these Written Answers which have been put on the "tape" before Oral Questions are even over?
Mr. Macleod: There is nothing in the remotest bit unusual about this. These are Questions which have been tabled for Written Answer which my right hon. Friend is answering.
Mr. P. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming on the possibility of a debate on the multilateral or multinational nuclear force? The House has been given varying inferences about Government policy on this in the past. Is there, in fact, to be a debate on this issue?
Mr. Macleod: There is no prospect of a debate on that very important subject before Easter, but I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said and discuss it with the Lord Privy Seal.
Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. It has just been announced that Written Answers have already appeared on the "tape". How is that possible if, as I understand, no hon. Member receives a reply to a Question tabled for Written Answer until some time after 3.30? Would you be good enough, Sir, to investigate this very unusual practice?
Mr. Speaker: I will find out whether any problem arises for me. At present, I do not control the speed with which things get on to the "tape".
Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the very firm assurances given by the Leader of the Opposition about leaseholds, is the Minister aware that I will not waste my time or his by pressing him any more for a debate on that subject?
But can we be told now when we shall have legislation dealing with teachers' salaries? How long have we to wait before we know when the legislation will be introduced?
Mr. Macleod: We will take the teachers' Bill as soon as possible after Easter.
If the House will allow me to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), I have not the slightest idea whether this is or is not on the "tape". What I said was that it would be possible no doubt to read this on the "tape", because, as he knows, they are released in the ordinary way after Questions.
Mr. H. Wilson: That is not what the Leader of the House said at all. He said that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) could have read it on the "tape" by this time. He can look his words up
1540
in HANSARD tomorrow, provided that nobody is sent up to "cook" it first. Will the Leader of the House—
Sir H. Butcher: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in accordance with the best traditions of the House that reflections should be made on servants of the House who are present, but who are unable to deny any of these regrettable accusations?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know of whom it was suggested that he had "cooked" something. It certainly was not anything related to the Kitchen Committee.
Mr. H. Wilson: At any rate, that is half-baked. We can see that.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement did appear on the television last night that something of importance was to be said on rates by the Minister of Housing and Local Government? If this has been put out to the Press, whether it has reached the "tape" or not—if it has been put out—in view of the widespread interest in this question, could we be told why the Minister of Housing and Local Government did not have the courtesy to come here and make the statement in the House? Since there have been many Questions on the Order Paper for several days, since the matter has been debated, and since the Minister of Housing and Local Government has said that he is not going to hold an inquiry, if he has now reached a fresh decision on this matter why did he not come and make a statement in the House?
Mr. Macleod: I am not going to take up the earlier point that the right hon. Gentleman made. I have not the slightest intention of altering what I said in HANSARD. Written Questions Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are down for Written Answer today and, as far as I know, the ordinary procedure has been exactly followed. There has been no change and I have not the slightest intention, naturally, of altering what I said. I do not see that there has been any departure in this from the ordinary procedure for answering Questions.
Mr. M. Stewart: The Leader of the House has not explained why the substance of the Minister of Housing and Local Government's reply to these

1541
Written Questions was available on the television last night? Will he apply himself to that point?
Mr. Macleod: I have no knowledge of that. But I will look into it if the hon. Member wishes me to.
Sir W. Teeing: As these three Questions which have been mentioned have a strange mark against them which shows that they were tabled only yesterday and could not possibly be answered for two days, in the normal event, if they were ordinarily answered, why is not my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government here? Why cannot he make his statement today?
Mr. Macleod: Of course, it is possible to answer all Questions that are put down either in the form of a statement, by leave of the House if necessary, at the end of Question Time, or in answer to Questions that are put, as these have been, on the Order Paper. But I am bound to say that I canot see that in any particular at all there has been a departure from what normally happens.
Mr. Grimond: The Leader of the House may not want to refer to this matter, but I certainly do. When I asked a question I was referred to the "tape". Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is pre-eminently a matter in which the House of Commons has an interest? Instead of referring hon. Members, who ask him whether he will make a statement, to the "tape", does he not think that a statement should be made in the House?
Mr. Macleod: Precisely that same argument could apply to every single Question on the Order Paper; all the Oral Questions which are not answered orally and all the Written ones. It would be obviously absurd to have an endless series of statements on all matters—some of which are regarded by those hon. Members who have put them down as being of the greatest importance—at 3.30 p.m.
Mr. H. Wilson: But since all the substance of these answers has been appearing with some regularity in the newspapers during the last two or three days, and on television last night, is it not more important that on a matter as vital as this—and there is a Motion on the Notice Paper in the names of many of his hon. Friends; and this subject has been raised
1542
frequently by hon. Members on both sides of the House—and having debated the matter, instead of it being answered in this way, this was important enough for the Minister himself to have come to the House and to have made a statement?
Mr. Macleod: That, of course, must be a matter of judgment [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course it is. It must be a matter of judgment on these matters as to whether or not one should make a statement at 3.30 p.m. We are sometimes criticised for having too many statements. On other occasions we are criticised for not having enough, so it is not a particularly easy balance to strike. I repeat that there is nothing whatever unusual, a Question having been put down, for a reply to be given in this way.
Mr. Emery: During next week would my right hon. Friend consider, on the matter of Written Questions, that when the Answers are sent to the hon. Members who have tabled the Questions, at the end of Question Time, they are not available to other hon. Members until they are published in HANSARD the next day'? It is not always satisfactory to rely on the "tape", so would my right hon. Friend consider making all Written Answers available, perhaps in the Library, for all hon. Members who want to see them before HANSARD appears the next day?
Mr. Macleod: That is an interesting suggestion, which I would be glad to consider. If the House should think it right to adopt something like that, then perhaps it can be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. If it would be of help to the House, I would certainly look into it.
Mr. M. Stewart: The Leader of the House said that it was a matter of judgment as to when statements should be made. Would he not agree that when a certain course of action has been urged on the Government by the Opposition for three years—and more recently by some hon. Members opposite, and when the Minister has said on several occasions that the Government would not take that course of action—when the Minister decides to change his policy, then surely that is worth a statement?
Mr. Macleod: No. I would not accept any such generalisation about answering

1543
Questions or making statements. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that this must remain essentially a matter of judgment as to whether a matter of this importance is of sufficient interest to the whole of the House, or is of sufficient importance as an announcement of Government policy, that it should form the subject of a statement after Question Time. This must remain a matter of judgment. Surely no one will disagree with that.
Mr. H. Wilson: I am sorry to have to press the Leader of the House, but what is not a matter of judgment—and the right hon. Gentleman has obviously got his priorities and ideas of judgment wrong here—is the question of the timing. Will he now tell the House—or if he cannot do so now will he find out and then tell us—at what time today the Answer about rates was given to the Press? It must have been given some time if the right hon. Gentleman knew about it and also knew that it would be on the "tape" before 3.30 p.m. At what time was the Answer given to the hon. Member who asked the Question and at what time will it be made available to the House?
Mr. Macleod: I have already said that I will be glad to look into these matters if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition attaches, as he does, particular importance to them.
Mr. Wilson: Of course I do.
Dame Irene Ward: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we could have saved a lot of time had we had a statement after all? Whatever may be on the "tape", or whatever may be given in a Written Answer, I am more interested in knowing whether we will have an opportunity to debate the question of rates when we know what is in the Answer.
Mr. Macleod: I agree that we might well have saved time. I must say that quite frankly. But I have not the slightest idea whether or not the matter is on the "tape".
Mr. II. Wilson: It is not.
Me. Macleod: The Leader of the Opposition tells me that it is not. I am grateful to him for having told me that; I wish that he had said it earlier. It might have saved a certain amount of misunder-
1544
standing, because some hon. Members are under the impression that I knew about it, although I genuinely did not.
As to my hon. Friend's question about a debate, clearly there is not an early opportunity.
Mr. Darling: Can the Leader of the House say whether we are to have a debate on the recently appointed, or to be appointed, Consumer Council? In giving me an answer, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the unsatisfactory way in which the announcement about this Council was made? Is he aware that on Monday, when we were debating the Weights and Measures Bill, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was asked to make a statement on this matter. Instead of doing that—and it would have been appropriate for him to have done so at that time—he resorted to this business of giving a Written Answer to a "stooge" Question so that we could not debate the matter then.
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member is giving another illustration of a matter which he thinks is of great importance—and, of course, it is—and is suggesting that another statement might have been made at an appropriate time; perhaps after 3.30 p.m. With respect, this reinforces the point that I was making to the Leader of the Opposition.
As to the rest of his question, I will discuss that with my right hon. Friend, but I cannot see a possibility, certainly in the period with which we are now dealing, of a debate.
Mr. Montgomery: When replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), did my right hon. Friend say that there was "not an early opportunity", or "at an early opportunity"?
Mr. Macleod: I said that there was not an early opportunity.
Mr. Montgomery: In that case, could we have a debate on this issue soon after Parliament reassembles?
Mr. Macleod: We shall have to take it up in the light of all the various claimants—a number of which have already been mentioned; the Beeching Report, the Rochdale Report, and, when we receive it, we shall want to debate

1545
at an early date the Radcliffe Report, and so on. We shall have to consider the different claims in view of the amount of time available to the House.
Mrs. Hart: With regard to private Members' business on Friday of next week, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday, at the Kingsway office of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, it was not possible for the public to buy copies of the Private Member's Bill on the employment of women? Is it not advisable that this should be reprinted as soon as possible, so that the public can he kept informed?
Mr. Macleod: We will certainly go into this matter and see whether we can make convenient arrangements.
Mr. Swingler: In view of the widespread interest in the House and throughout the country on the important subject of rates, and to allay all suspicions of evasiveness, is there any reason why the Minister of Housing and Local Government should not now apply to Mr. Speaker for permisison to make a statement on this subject?
Mr. Macleod: I suppose none, except that this matter was the subject of Questions for Written Answer and that in the ordinary way applications for statements to be made arise out of Oral Questions.
Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an early day to debate the Motion appearing on today's Notice Paper concerning an amnesty for Greek political prisoners? Would he take note that this Motion is backed by an impressive number of my hon. Friends?
[That this House, resolved to honour the solemn pledges, repeatedly given since 1945 by Great Britain and Greece, jointly to defend and promote democratic freedom and to challenge any denial of human liberty, asks Her Majesty's Government to urge the Government of Greece to grant now a general amnesty to the over-1,100 political prisoners, many of them veterans of the anti-Fascist resistance, including women, and many of whom, since their separation from their families and imprisonment up to 18 years ago, have reached an advanced age and are desperately ill in body and mind.]
Mr. Macleod: I have read the Motion, and studied it with great care as, no doubt, have those who are more directly concerned. Obviously, from the earlier answers I have given, it will appear that there is no immediate opportunity of discussing such a subject.
Mr. Pavitt: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to yet a third point about Written Answers—the Prime Minister's very long written statement on Monday about doctors' and dentists' remuneration? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friends this increasing practice, as evidenced on this occasion? A Question from myself on Thursday last, and a Question from one of my hon. Friends on Tuesday, would have enabled the Prime Minister to make that statement in the House? Will the House have an opportunity to discuss this very important matter?
Mr. Macleod: This is the third occasion on which hon. Members have suggested that there should have been an additional statement at 3.30. If all these suggestions were taken up we would not be able to make the progress that I am sure the House wishes to make with its ordinary business. If I may say so, how many or how few statements we should have at 3.30 presents a very considerable dilemma.
On the question of doctors' and dentists' remuneration, I can only note what the hon. Gentleman says, and consider it with the other claims.
Mr. M. Foot: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman describes as the normal practice of the Government as to where statements are made, can he by any chance tell us whether he thinks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement is likely to be delivered in the House?
Mr. Ross: I am sorry to deepen the right hon. Gentleman's dilemma, but he will be aware that the statutory authority of the Minister of Transport in Scotland is very limited and that responsibility for roads, and for transport apart from railways, rests on the Secretary of State for Scotland. As there is very considerable alarm in Scotland over yesterday's statement on the Beeching, Report by the Minister of Transport, is it intended to afford an opportunity for the Secretary of State for Scotland to

1547
make a statement in the House on how Scotland will be affected by these proposals? Will he take if from me that we are very much concerned about the coyness of the Secretary of State in the House and his volubility at Press conferences?
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman is adding to the requests for statements at 3.30 p.m. I will discuss—I know that I have said this before, but at least I do it—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the point raised by the hon. Member.
Mr. Fletcher: Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government propose to find time for a debate on the very important Report of the Royal Commission on the Police?
Mr. Macleod: The Government are very anxious that this matter should be discussed as soon as possible, but it is impossible to fix a precise time. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, there are a number of claims on time for discussion of subjects of, perhaps, even more urgent importance. But I very much hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Report. I shall try to find the opportunity.
Mr. Lipton: Without saying whether or not a statement on any particular subject should be made at 3.30, will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to this very serious and apparently growing practice of Answers to Written Questions appearing on the "tape" or in the Press before the hon. Member who has put down the Question has received the Written Answer? That is what has happened today.
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, I will. I thought that a very interesting suggestion was made by one of my hon. Friends, and it may be that we can improve matters for the convenience of all Members. I will certainly look at that suggestion.
Mr. Millan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect a debate on the McKenzie Committee's Report on Electricity Generation in Scotland?
Mr. Macleod: I cannot.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.55 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.
The Government considered very carefully the form that this debate should take, and decided to put this Motion on the Order Paper. The Leader of the Opposition, basing himself, I think, in part on a small misunderstanding of something I had said a few weeks earlier, suggested that it might be more convenient were the Government to come to the House either before, or at the beginning of, the debate with views on the various recommendations in this Report. I reflected a good deal on what he said, but I am convinced that this is the best form of debate, and I think that it will be convenient if we hold it in this way.
That is partly because the Report, although entitled "House of Lords Reform", is, at least in relation to its main recommendations, a suggestion for the reform of qualifications for membership of the House of Commons. Fifty years ago there were, I think, eight classes of citizens excluded from membership of this House: women, peers, ordained clergy, minors, aliens, lunatics, felons and bankrupts. We admitted women in 1918, and we are now, in effect, discussing the admission of peers. I do not think that many hon. Members would consider that we should travel much further down the list I have just read out.
I turn, first, to the question of action on this Report. Subject to one or two points of detail, our view is that the recommendations of the Report can be implemented, and the machinery set up, without much difficulty. Legislation will be necessary if any single one of the Committee's main recommendations is adopted. To give effect to all the Committee's recommendations, my estimate is that a short and fairly simple Bill of six or seven Clauses would be required, but the Bill, although short, could be controversial and consuming of Parliamentary time.

1549
I make it clear on behalf of the Government that we shall do our best to secure the passage of any legislation that may flow from the expressed resolve of Parliament. The House will not expect me to be precise on the question of timing, although it will clearly be difficult to fit such an important Bill into the timetable for this Session. But if such legislation were desirable, we would bring it forward in this Parliament so that it might be in operation for the coming General Election. The Government therefore intend, after giving the most careful consideration to the views that will be expressed today in both Houses, to put before Parliament, some time between Easter and Whitsun, a statement of our intentions, and this statement will cover the question of legislation.
Perhaps I could now just record the numerical effects that all these proposals, taken together, would have. The composition of another place at the moment amounts to a total of 930. That number includes 672 hereditary peers not of the first creation, 157 hereditary peers of the first creation, 43 peers created under the Life Peerages Act, 16 Scottish representative peers, 16 peers under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, and 26 Lords Spiritual—a total of 930. All these proposals, taken together, would add 34; that is to say, another 16 peers of Scotland, and 18 peeresses of England or Scotland, or, in one case, a noble Lady who is a peeress of both of those kingdoms.
Therefore, one would be adding a maximum of 34 to a total of 930, although one does not know what proportion of these 34 would wish to play a full part in the affairs of another place. The number, of course, would be reduced by any noble Lords who might surrender their peerages as a result of any legislation flowing from this Report.
I do not propose to summarise the proposals in the Report. Obviously, on a "take note" speech it would be desirable for me to be brief, and, in any event, those who wish to take part in the debate will have studied the Report. There are more Committee points here than Second Reading points and I shall mention only one. It is of particular interest perhaps to us Members of the House of Commons.
1550
It arises out of recommendation 6 (k), which reads:
"no nomination of a Peer as a Parliamentary candidate for the House of Commons should be valid unless such a person exhibits to the Returning Officer a duly certified copy of the instrument of surrender".
The difficulty I see in this is that it introduces a new element into the functions of the returning officer. Hitherto, under the 1949 Representation of the People Act—and, as we know, this was an important feature of the Wedgwood Benn case and the by-election in Bristol, South East—a returning officer has had no power to refuse to accept a nomination on the grounds that the candidate is ineligible, or the returning officer may think he is ineligible. Therefore, a new idea is being imported here.
If the nomination paper is properly filled and appears to contain proper particulars, the returning officer has to accept it. If we make the officer responsible for checking the eligibility of the candidate—and this is what it boils down to—it is hard to see why this should be only on the question whether the man is a peer and why he should not have to check whether the man is a bankrupt, a minor or an alien, or check whether his profession is correctly described on the nomination form.
In certain circumstances there might be a genuine practical difficulty because a returning officer would have to know whether a candidate was or was not a peer. Although that might be a matter of common knowledge in a great majority of cases, clearly, in certain instances, there might be difficulties or disputes arising out of this. I mention it as one illustration of the difficulties which I am sure all hon. Members will see. It is of some, although minor, importance and the sort of thing which, in due course, no doubt we could straighten out.
The key recommendations which will concern us mostly today are the group which deal with the question of the principle of surrender of peerages. As we know from the Report, this is a matter to which the Joint Committee gave a good deal of thought. One of the central recommendations, that is to say, that the right to surrender should be applied to sitting peers, was arrived at by 11 votes to 10, as the House will see from pages 14 and 15 of the Report.

1551
Arising from this general question of surrender, I think that there are three important issues. These are particularly the ones on which the Government would be glad to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members. The first is the whole concept of surrender for life. The Committee has evidently considered and rejected the solution of extinction of a peerage as a consequence of surrender. The Committee concluded that the continuity of a peerage and the enjoyment of it in due time by a successor was something which should not be signed away by the current holder of the title.
The second point, one of very much less significance, is the question of titles and the loss of titles. Again, the Committee traverses in its Report the considerations of the previous Committee. It considered that the title should not be retained, that the person surrendering should assume in all respects the status of a commoner, and that the courtesy titles used by his wife and descendants should also be dropped.
Two practical points occur to me here. The first is that it is a true courtesy title if such a title exists and is borne by the children of an heir, but the wife, of course, has a title by right. Therefore, if this recommendation is accepted it will be necessary in any legislation, as I understand the law, to include legislation to deprive her of such a right on the surrender of such a peerage.
Secondly, I am not very sure how this question of surrender works. If we consider it entirely from the point of view of our own problems here in the House, no doubt it will be possible in the Division Lists, and in the usual references which we make to each other by constituency names and whether an hon. Member is learned in the law or not, to lay down that the family name alone should be used, but it is a matter which seems to me to contain a certain number of difficulties.
Thirdly, and a much more important matter than the question of nomenclature, is one that I am sure that the House will wish to consider carefully, as the Committee did—the period for which this option should be open. The basic period for anyone who succeeds to a peerage after the law becomes operative is to be a year. There is an obvious
1552
exception to this when a sitting Member of this House succeeds to a peerage. It is clearly desirable that the period of doubt should be reduced to the minimum in the interests of the constituency which the hon. Member represents. The Committee, in this case, recommends a period of one month.
This leaves the question of those who are peers at the time when the law becomes operative. The Committee recommends a period of six months. This, of course, is a maximum figure. I dare say that it would be reasonable to expect that anybody who intended to stand as a candidate for election to this House would give as much notice as possible to enable the constituents concerned to know the position. Here again, these three different periods seem to me matters of great importance to us as Members of the House of Commons and particularly matters on which we would be anxious to hear the views of the House.
I therefore put these three main matters before the House as a matter of analysis and of asking the views of the House so that the Government may take them into account. I do not propose to comment on the other matters contained in the Report, although my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General would hope to reply at the end of the debate to any points raised on them. They are important but I, at least, do not see any particular difficulty for us in them.
The only other point which I wish to put to the House is one general reflection. I have been as precise as it is possible for me to be on future action and the timing of legislation. As I have said, the question of what the legislation should contain is a matter on which the Government must present the House with firm decisions as soon as possible, but I think that we all know that the Joint Committee had to tread a rather difficult path between conflicting points of view. I am sure that we are all deeply grateful to our colleagues in both House, and perhaps I can mention, in particular, the work of somebody to whom we all owe a great deal and who was in the chair for much of this time, the Earl of Kilmuir. I am sure that the House would wish to give the Committee full credit for the skill with which it has arrived at this solution.

1553
I feel that if very substantial amendments which would upset the whole balance of the Committee's proposals were to be put forward, it is more than likely that we should find changes asked for and pressed in the opposite sense to those which one House or the other might wish to urge. In that event it is possible that the attempt to find a broadly acceptable solution would fail. It would be a great pity if that happened.
It is desirable, if possible, that there should be the minimum of conflict and controversy between the two Houses on this matter and, if we proceed to legislation, that it should be as far as possible with the broad agreement of the three parties in both Houses. Of course, I do not mean for a moment that we cannot amend the Select Committee's recommendations. Of course we can. Indeed, it is our right and duty to do so if necessary, and I have indicated one or two minor matters which it may well be that we should want to look at again.
This is the only concrete advice that I feel I should give the House. I believe that the closer we feel we can keep to the general pattern of the solution which our Committee has put before us the more likely we are to make progress. I think that that may prove to be the case in both Houses. So we intend to take the views of this House and of another place, to be as swift as we can be in forming our judgments, and in coming back to the House with them.
Mr. Frank Bowles: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question before he sits down? There have been earlier debates in this House on the question of reform of the House of Lords and its future. Will he look up some of the older debates as well?
Mr. Macleod: I have not gone back very far, but I have looked up a number of recent debates. If the hon. Member wishes to draw attention to a particular point, perhaps he will mention it if he speaks in the debate today.
4.13 p.m.
Mr. George Brown: There is perhaps immediate evidence of the view of this House to be taken from the atmosphere in which the debate is already being held. Anything labelled "House of Lords Reform" is apt normally to give
1554
rise to some tension. The Leader of the House will have noticed that there is a lessening of tension which was not wholly due to the soporific nature of his speech. So, in a sense, he can already begin to assess the atmosphere and the feeling of the House on this matter.
I support the Leader of the House immediately in the very well-merited tribute that he paid to our colleagues who served on the Select Committee, not only for the skill and ingenuity with which they found answers to the problems involved, but for the thoroughness with which they did the job. That is of tremendous help and they fully merit the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman has paid to them.
One of the outstanding features of anything called "House of Lords Reform"—and I agree very much with the Leader of the House that, although that is the title given to this matter at the moment, it is not what it is—is that it is always very much later than the people's awareness of the need for reform. In discussing the 1911 Parliament Act, Mr. Asquith is reported to have said that reform of the House of Lords "brooked"—I thought the verb a particularly appropriate one today—"no delay". House of Lords reform has been brooking of nothing else since. This particularly modest measure of reform, which the Leader of the House once or twice came near to commending to us and then hastily shied away from in an engaging way, has been in the offing and thought of for a very long time.
We are not dealing with House of Lords reform in any real sense of the word. I want to make quite plain that in addressing ourselves to what is in these proposals there is not on our part, or anyone else's part, any reflection on what we may feel about House of Lords reform in any real sense. What I feel about a degree of radical reform of another place is that there is a much greater degree of agreement among us on what needs to be reformed than on the way to reform it. Not even all of us now will accept the need for a second Chamber. That makes the job of those starting to reform a second Chamber start under a handicap. Even if one can make that assumption, and I should be in the group to make it, there are a number of very considerable problems.

1555
Those who remember the speech which the then Leader of the Opposition made in the debate on 5th December, 1957, will agree that he set out in a very clear way the very basic approaches that this party has to any real question of far-reaching House of Lords reform. The first is that the membership of any second Chamber shall not be directly elected and shall not be based at all on the retention of the hereditary principle; and that whatever its composition, and however it is arranged, that place should not be able to overrule the directly elected House of Commons which represents the mood and the view of the people.
When we come to radical reform of the other place there will be ample room for debate and discussion about the methods by which those essential principles which we hold can be brought about, but that is not our purpose to-day and I propose to say no more about it than that. When we pressed the Government in April, 1961, to tackle this limited method of change we made it perfectly plain that the larger issues—if hon. Members like, the larger difficulties—had nothing to do with this and should not be allowed to inhibit us in tackling this long overdue, quite minor but very important, matter of reform.
Looking at the Report itself, I agree with the Leader of the House that there is no apparent reason why the implementation of the proposals put by the Committee, or the methods it suggests, should cause us a great amount of trouble. I had not thought of it before, but I was impressed by the point which the Leader of the House made about the returning officer's function. I agree that that would need to be thought about. I see no reason why we should extend his function for those purposes and not deal with other things which have landed us in trouble in the past. On the other hand, if we extended it to deal with those other purposes we would make a very important change which would need consideration. But that is a minor matter and need not cause us a lot of trouble or delay.
The main proposal is to deal with an issue which has been struggled for, as the Committee's Report reminds us, for over eighty years—the removal of the hereditary disqualification and compulsion on a man born heir to a title either to bury
1556
himself in another place, or have no active political rights at all. That is what it comes to. It is not only a matter of not being able to come here; he has no other active political rights which the rest of us have. This, for all those eighty years, has been a continual incitement to action.
I thought that the Leader of the House might have at least mentioned that, despite the eighty years' fight, we ought to bear in mind that this is very much associated with a gallant and distinguished fight, lasting over ten years, by one man, our colleague Wedgwood Benn. He has in this matter—I am sure that everyone, whether agreeing with him or not, will endorse this—shown a really outstanding example of what a determined man can do in modern times if he turns his mind to achieving one particular element of constitutional reform.
It is worth remembering that Mr. Wedgwood Benn is still, in fact, the elected Member for Bristol, South-East. There is a defeated Member sitting in this House, but, at a time when vastly increased Labour majorities and halved Tory polls were not as commonplace as they are now, the electors of Bristol, South-East nevertheless produced both those manifestations of confidence when returning Wedgwood Benn to the House at the by-election which was fought on this very issue.
However, although the subject matter of the Report and the Bill, when we have it—as I hope we shall very soon—is very much associated with his name, the campaign over the past eighty years has, for the most part, been carried on by distinguished Conservatives. In that sense, it is in no way to be regarded as a Labour move. The only thing which links my distinguished and honourable friend and those distinguished Conservatives over the years is that they have all been fighting the Tory Party machine at the time. We are very glad that success now seems to be coming.
I think that there will be hardly anyone outside the House, and, I imagine, very few inside, who would seek to defend in 1963 the anachronism which is involved in the hereditary principle being applied in such a way as to deny to an heir a choice in this matter. Hitherto, the Government have always said that the question needed careful consideration, and I got the impression that, at times, that

1557
was what the Leader of the House was still saying; but I should have thought that, in view of the all the discussions that we have had, all the indications of public opinion that we have had, from opinion polls, reflections in newspapers and the by-election in Bristol, South-East, and now the judgment of the Joint Committee, the Leader of the House ought by now to have been able to go even further than he went today.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that we should not have much difficulty in implementing the Committee's recommendation by a short Bill of six or seven Clauses. He said that the Government would do their best to secure its passage if—so I took him—no violent opposition to it was shown here today. He thought that it would be difficult to get the Bill in this Session and said that the Government were willing to arrange that it should be done in this Parliament. Since we are being told every weekend that the Prime Minister has not yet made up his mind when this Parliament will end, I think that the Leader of the House may find himself in the position of having to overcome the former difficulty if he is to meet his latter promise. He may find that it has to be done this Session in order to do it in this Parliament.
However, since we are coming towards the latter stages of this Parliament, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept from us that we believe that we ought to have a Bill quickly. It certainly ought to be brought in so that the reform will apply in time for the next General Election. It would, therefore, be much wiser to get on with it and bring the Bill in very quickly rather than run the risk of having it lost later on as pressure piles up and uncertainty grows. I shall come in a few moments to the question of what difficulties its passage through the House might involve.
Inevitably, in a Report of this kind, there is bound to be an element of compromise, a sort of "package" arrangement. In a way, this is a good thing. It is the way by which we have an agreed Report from a Committee the composition of which, when it began its work, suggested that there might be anything but an agreed Report. On the other hand, the compromise involves some things which will affect some people quite severely.
1558
From our point of view, the most serious issue in the agreed Report—serious in the sense that we find it hard to take—is the one which the Leader of the House picked out first, that is, the rejection by the Committee of the proposal that a choice by a peer should involve the extinction of the peerage and not be merely a choice for his own lifetime. I myself continue to feel very strongly about this. In my view, it should be a final choice. The retention by his heir of the right to revive the peerage in the next generation seems not only to be keeping a choice alive, but, in a way, is a rather serious re-emphasis of the hereditary principle which is at the very bottom of so much of our criticisms of the other place.
Viscount Lambton: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he say what the Labour Party's policy will be if the suggested proposal is not adopted?
Mr. Brown: If the noble Lord will allow me to continue, he will find that I shall be dealing with that. I feel that the way I deal with these points should be left to me, because, to some extent, it is linked with what the Leader of the House chose to deal with first—
Viscount Lambton: But will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether it is the intention of the Labour Party to do away with the hereditary peerage if it is returned to power?
Mr. Brown: I ask the noble Lord to wait. I shall come to that, also, before I conclude.
At the moment, we are dealing with an important measure of reform, limited though it may be, and getting it through—to which I attach much importance—will depend a great deal on the atmosphere which we create. Although it is quite right that I should state our views on issues arising out of this question, I am very anxious not to do it in a way which might add to the difficulties of getting this limited measure of reform through. That is why I prefer to tackle the matter in my own way.
It must be quite clear to anyone who may be upset by anything else in the Report that we on this side are considerably upset by that particular recommendation of the Committee. If there is a

1559
Bill and we have it before us in Committee, my right hon. and hon. Friends may well want to test the feeling of the Committee on that recommendation. However, provided that we have general agreement and provided that we proceed quickly, I do not for a moment suggest that we should wish to make that an occasion on which the Bill could either founder or be held up. However, in saying that, I do not wish to be misunderstood. We attach enormous importance to this question, and we reserve rights and certain other conditions to which I shall in a few minutes refer. This is, from our point of view, much the most serious weakness, to call it that, but there are one or two others.
We see the case for removing the sex disqualification, and we see the illogicality of the present Scottish position, but what the Select Committee proposes means a strengthening rather than a weakening of the hereditary influence in the other place because it would bring to it some additional Members who are not there now. Thus, taking that matter in conjunction with the one to which I have referred, it is obvious that, from our point of view, there is a considerable weakness in the whole Report on this question of hereditary influence.
There is another difficulty. I put these points frankly to the House so that right hon. and hon. Members may see that we have to swallow quite a good deal if we are to accept the Report and its recommendations in the form of a Bill. I refer to the proposal for possible subsequent ennoblement of a peer who has made his choice and has come to sit as a Member of the House of Commons. Clearly, the intention of the Committee, which rejected our proposal for extinction, was that the person concerned should make the choice for his own lifetime and, as it were, make it final. In the ordinary way, he does not have a second opportunity. He decides, and that is that. But, of course, the Committee decided to keep open the possibility of such a person subsequently being sent back to the other place with a new peerage.
Again, I can see the case for this. If a man chooses to become a commoner and to surrender his social standing, whatever it is worth, and his rights and
1560
title and those of his immedate family as a peer—I trust that there will be no weakening on that, because, after all, he could be getting it all ways—then, says the Committee, he must have all the rights of a commoner. One of the rights of a commoner is to be considered suitable for translation to the House of Lords.
As I say, I can see the case for this, but there is a danger. It could all too easily become a dodge. It may be that a man, having surrendered his rights as a peer, or a peer while he is a Minister, fights an election but does not get in and is sent up to the House of Lords for a new peerage later. That would defeat the entire spirit of what the Committee wanted and of what this House would regard as proper. It may be said that people do not behave in that way. The fact is that they could behave in that way if they chose to do so. Therefore, from our point of view, that is a considerable weakness and, to some extent, makes the prospect less attractive to us than it would otherwise be.
We may wish to test the feeling of the House on many of these points during the Committee stage of the Bill. I put them forward as serious weaknesses from the point of view of any Labour man, but not to create an atmosphere in which the Bill might founder. We will have to take into account the feeling of hon. Members when the Bill is here and also take account of other changes, if any, which other people try to insist on. Therefore, the almost final words of the Leader of the House in warning us about the pitfalls of trying to get substantial changes were wise, and I hope that those who are concerned about other matters will pay attention to them. I should have thought it was absolutely clear that we on this side and, I think, most hon. Members in the House would wish action to be taken as quickly as possible, at any rate on the main purpose of the Report. Despite what I have said, I should have thought that the broad proposals of the Joint Committee were right.
The Leader of the House recalled the categories of those who are disqualified from being Members of this House—lunatics, felons, bankrupts and clergy. All of them can get out of their state of disqualification. Lunatics can recover

1561
and get a certificate saying that they are all right again. It has been said of some that the only people who can prove that they are sane are those who have been lunatics. Lunatics can recover. Felons can purge their guilt and bankrupts can make themselves solvent. Even the clergy can become secular, and, judging from recent speeches of distinguished bishops, it looks as though that may be made even easier. People in these categories can, in one way or another, get round the difficulty. The only person who cannot is the son of a hereditary peer. Therefore, I should have thought that no one would quarrel with the view of the Leader of the House that this matter must be put right as soon as possible. I am sure that no one who holds that view would wish to delay any longer.
I understand the purpose of the Leader of the House in consulting both Houses first. He might very well have been open to the charge of not having consulted them if he had not taken this course. But, because this Parliament is nearing its end, I should have preferred it if he had announced today the decision of the Government and if he had been much more clear about the timing of the Bill. Because I understand about the pressures of business, I have put my criticisms in a reserved way. I wish to make it perfectly plain that we are willing to co-operate with the Government in securing the early passage of a Bill drawn broadly on the lines proposed by the Joint Committee.
I now answer the other point raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). Having shown the weaknesses from our point of view, I must say that we attach tremendous importance to this matter being put right as soon as possible. If we came to power before this measure of reform had been carried through, we would not only feel that that was an immediate priority, but, of course, if we had to deal with that we could not help facing the other and much wider issues of reform to which we attach much importance. Therefore, we would be dealing with a situation—and I want there to be no misunderstanding about this—in which immediate action would have to be taken and in which we should have to deal with the much wider issues. I
1562
hope that that makes our approach clear. We do not suggest that that is necessary today if the Government are willing to take it through quickly on this limited basis and to conform pretty closely with the Committee's proposals.
We need not drag out a debate on a matter about which, I imagine, there is a vast measure of agreement. I hope that not only my hon. Friends but hon. Members opposite will feel able to press the Leader of the House about the urgency of implementation of a Bill and will show willingness to co-operate in securing an early passage for it. By so doing we shall remove an anachronism which must make us look very silly to the world outside. Some of our distinguished colleagues would be able to come here. We on this side would be very glad to see the rightful member for Bristol, South-East seated in his place. If members of the Treasury Bench believe that the arrival here of certain of their colleagues may increase the competition for them at a particularly sticky time, I suggest that they should not worry. They can always change places and go up there and let the other chaps have a shot down here. I am bound to say that on recent performances I should not think that that would be any grave loss.
I support the Motion and express the hope that it will very soon be carried into effect by legislation.
4.47 p.m.
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Both my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) have, I think rightly, referred to the fact that the title of the Joint Committee on Lords Reform is in one sense a misnomer, because, as they both said, the reform proposed by the Joint Committee is not a reform in a very wide sense. Moreover, I agree that in many respects such changes that are proposed affect the Commons as much as they affect the Lords. The plain fact is that the terms of reference under which we laboured were very narrow, much too narrow to permit of any major reform. I am not complaining about that. In military jargon, what we were carrying out was "Exercise reluctant peer".
There are widely divergent views in this House and outside about the House

1563
of Lords. Some have already been expressed from the benches opposite. There are those who would wish to eliminate altogether the hereditary element in another place. There are those who would further wish to erode the powers of another place so as to leave it a second Chamber in name only. There is a third category of people who would like to abolish it altogether. There is yet another category of people who, so far from wishing to abolish it, think that the House of Lords is of very considerable value in our Constitution. They recognise its value, but they think that changes should be made in it from time to time by the process of evolution, as is the case with any other institution. None the less, those who take this view feel very strongly that the hereditary element is an important element which should be preserved in some way or other in the composition of the House of Lords.
The Joint Committee, inevitably, reflected in one degree or another nearly all these shades of opinion. Inevitably and quite correctly, as the right hon. Member for Belper said, the Report of the Joint Committee was naturally and, I repeat, very properly a compromise. I am one of those who believe that the House of Lords is the healthier for the hereditary element. If the House of Lords were composed solely of life peers, the average age would tend to rise. On the whole, life peers are created by reason of political or public distinction in various walks of life. They are created normally towards the end of a man's career. Thus, with a House of Lords composed only of life peers, there would be a rise in the average age, which I do not think would be a good thing. I am a great believer in leavening the age group by the inclusion of the younger generation. I am unashamed in thinking that it is desirable that a young peer should take part in the deliberations of the other place if he so desires and, perhaps, gain administrative experience in junior office.
Once the Joint Committee agreed, as we did, that some form of surrender of a peerage should take place, the big question arose, to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has referred, of how the surrender should be made. Should it be done by a surrender for life only on the part of the peer in ques-
1564
tion or should it be done by extinguishing the peerage for all time? This is a big issue. The Joint Committee recommendation, which was by no means a unanimous decision, was that the surrender should be for life only.
The right hon. Member for Belper has left the House in no doubt, as he was entitled to do, about the views of his party on the recommendation that the surrender should be for life only. We all recognise that there is a difference of view about this matter and that the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman is widely, although, perhaps, not wholly, held by a great many of his supporters. There are, however, other people on this side of the House, and outside, too, as well as in another place—and their views in this matter count—who take a different view.
My view is that it is not right in one generation that one holder of a title or one heir to it should have the right to extinguish in perpetuity what may well be an ancient peerage whose former holders have in their time played a quite considerable part in the country's history. I do not think it right that one man should be able to extinguish for all time a peerage of that kind, because he is compelled by overwhelming ambition to play a part in the House of Commons—although the right hon. Member for Belper said, or, least, implied, that if a peer chose to function in another place, he really retired from active political life. That was the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
I must remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman that with the exception of the offices of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, all the portfolios in the Cabinet are open to Members of another place. It is wrong to imagine that if a young peer on succession decides to function in the Lords instead of staying in the Commons, he is extinguishing himself from any kind of political career.
Mr. G. Brown: Obviously, I did not make myself clear. I was not thinking necessarily of the peer who decides to function in an active political manner in the other place. I also said that it was not only a question of the man who wants to function here. A man may not want to be a peer for all kinds of reasons. Even if he does not want to come here or to function in another place, he may still

1565
want to vote and to have the other political rights of a commoner, which involve not merely coming into one of these two Chambers. It is those rights which he cannot, and does not, get as things stand. One must remember that, too.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I take the point. I imagined the right hon. Gentleman to be referring to the peer who decided to undertake a political career in the Lords as opposed to the Commons. I do not think that any man should have the right to extinguish an old peerage either because of his violent political ambition in the Commons or because of much less worthy motives of spite or family feud, which could arise.
I do not consider it seemly that ancient traditions should be lightly swept away by the whim of one man, particularly where, by long custom, certain great officers of State, like, for instance, that of the Earl Marshal, have for centuries been linked with one family. I would be sorry to see those institutions and that tradition lightly swept away by the whim, whether good, bad or indifferent, of one man.
Moreover, I put another point to the right hon. Member for Belper. I for one, and, I think, a good many of my colleagues, could not contemplate such sweeping changes as the perpetual drowning of a peerage would involve unless it was accompanied by far more comprehensive alterations in the existing composition and powers of the House of Lords.
The Joint Committee was not entitled to embark upon this wider aspect. It was circumscribed within rather narrow terms of reference. We were not entitled to deal with pay, which is an important factor, or with the composition of the House of Lords. Our terms of reference were too narrow. Therefore, to suggest that within our narrow terms of reference, dealing with the main problem of surrender, we could conceivably have accepted with the extinction of peerages for all time would be to get the matter completely out of proportion.
If we were right in our decision to recommend to this House that the surrender should be for life only and not for complete extinction, the question then arose as to how that should be
1566
achieved and how the surrender should be made. The House knows our recommendations. I was one of those who favoured what I might call the minority solution. I favoured the minority solution because I considered that it was much the tidiest within our limited terms of reference and would result in the fewest anomalies. I favoured a solution by which a peer, if he wished to remain in this House or to stand for election to it, would merely decline the writ of summons to the House of Lords, thus divesting himself of Parliamentary status of the peerage only and that he would continue to sit in this House using his title. In other words, he would be in exactly the same position as an Irish peer now is.
I am well aware of the arguments against that minority but tidy plan. I am well aware that it can be argued, and reasonably so, that that solution would have left the individual peer concerned with the best of both worlds. That is a strong argument, and I accept it. None the less, the House should not be under any illusion about certain anomalies which are bound to arise in the other solution which we have suggested.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has referred to certain difficulties concerning titles, their surrender, how they should be surrendered and by whom. I want to go a little further along that line. As the House knows, an Irish peer can still sit in this House and retain his title. What about an Irish earl who holds a United Kingdom barony? All he would have to do to continue to be eligible to sit in this House would be to surrender the United Kingdom barony. He would still continue to sit in this House using the title of his Irish earldom.
There is, however, another kind of anomaly that could easily arise. I do not want to indulge in too vivid a flight of imagination, but I invite the House, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in particular, to follow my argument. Suppose that when the present Lord Sandwich succeeded to the earldom and left this House, his eldest son had been adopted as candidate for the constituency of Dorset, South in his father's place.
Mr. Charles Pannell: He would have lost just the same.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Supposing he had not lost or had been adopted for another seat and got in. The point is that he would have come into the House and sat as Viscount Hinchingbrooke, as the Member of Parliament for Dorset, South or whatever constituency it was. Supposing that later on as a result of legislation introduced by the Government following the Joint Committee's Report the Earl of Sandwich were to decide to contest another seat at a by-election or General Election. In order to do so, he would have to surrender for his life the Sandwich earldom. If he were to succeed at the election he could come back and sit in this House as Mr. Montagu. But his son, by reason of the courtesy title which he now enjoys, would no longer be able to sit as Viscount Hinchingbrooke but would have to sit alongside his father as Mr. Montagu. So we should have two Mr. Montagu's, father and son, sitting in the House.
But supposing for the sake of argument that the present Lord Sandwich had a sister who wished to contest a seat at an election. She could contest the seat and sit in this House, if elected, still retaining her courtesy title which would derive not from her brother but from her father. Therefore, we should have had three Members of the same family—a father, a son and the father's sister—one still holding a courtesy title, but the other two without either. This would seem to me to be a somewhat ridiculous anomaly.
Sir Peter Agnew: Who in that case does my hon. Friend think would complain?
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not think anybody would complain. The point I want to make is that it seems to me under these circumstances that the dividing line between who has a title and who does not is fairly tenuous.
Let us take another case—
Mr. C. Pannell: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that case, may I kill that one straight away? There is no question at all that if this had happened there would have been no Viscount Hinchingbrooke. The Committee makes it perfectly clear that all titles which spring from the father go. It is only titles which spring from the previous holder of the title which remain. For
1568
instance, the present Lady Stansgate would still be the present Lady Stansgate, but any sons of the present Wedgwood Benn would have no titles at all, though the hon. Gentleman thinks there is a Viscount Stansgate. So this curious idea of "Brothers and sons have I none, but that man's father is my father's son" is a continuing error.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: The hon. Gentleman has not followed the argument and has become muddled. In the hypothetical case that I was putting before the House there could have been, and still could be, a Viscount Hinchingbrooke sitting in the House of Commons because his father has not yet decided whether or not to renounce the earldom, and he would either sit here or contest a by-election as Viscount Hinchingbrooke.
There is a further anomaly. Let us take the case of a peer whose father was killed during the war and he succeeded to the peerage at the age of two. When he reaches the age of twenty-one he has a year in which to take the once-for-all decision whether to go to the House of Lords or to chance his arm in the House of Commons. If he decides to chance his arm in the House of Commons, he comes here and sits as Mr. So-and-So. But, as he has been for a very long time known by everybody in his own area as Lord X, I should have thought that it would be quite a time before anybody in the area remembered to call him by a different name. I put this out as one of the difficulties which could arise.
Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: My hon. Friend probably forgets that ladies are continually having to change their names when they get married. One gets used to it.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, it rather depends on who gets used to what.
There are two other matters in the recommendations of the Joint Committee to which I want to draw the attention of the House. The House will have seen that the Committee suggested that where a Member of the House of Commons succeeded to a peerage he should be allowed one month, and one month only, in which to make his decision. If this rule were applied very rigidly, it might apply singularly unfairly in certain cases.

1569
The House will recollect Sir David Ormsby-Gore—now our Ambassador in Washington—whom many of us remember with great affection, when he sat in this House as the Member of Parliament for Oswestry. In the early part of the 1951 Parliament he had a very bad motor smash and suffered severe concussion and head injuries and was in hospital well over a month and for a considerable part of that time nobody was allowed to see him. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that during the time he was unconscious and allowed no visitors his father died. Does anybody really suppose that within a month either Mr. Ormsby-Gore, as he then was, or his own local association, or anybody else, could conceivably have had a fair chance to decide whether or not he should continue as the Member of Parliament for Oswestry or become Lord Harlech?
Again, the one-year rule for other peers could be very hard in certain circumstances. A new peer might well not be able to decide whether he wished to go to the House of Lords or to stay in the Commons or stand for election to the Common's until he knew on succession to a peerage, particularly if his predecessor was not a near relative, what his financial position was likely to be. That might be an important element in his decision. I can imagine certain circumstances in which a rather complicated will would be involved with a number of trustees all over the place. It could well be more than a year before the unfortunate new peer or heir to the peerage could have any idea about what his financial position was likely to be.
We have, I hope, cleared up a number of anomalies which were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—those concerning the Scottish non-representative peers, the peeresses in their own right and one or two others as well. But I am sure that we ought not in our deliberations this afternoon to make the mistake of trying, so to speak, to inflate the Report and its repercussions into some major reform of the House of Lords when it is nothing of the sort. We have to put the Report in its right perspective.
We have not dealt with reform in its widest sense. We have not been able to deal with pay, which, I repeat, I regard as very important. We have not really
1570
dealt with composition. All we have dealt with, with a few minor exceptions, has been what I would call the tidying up of certain obvious anomalies when a peer has Parliamentary ambitions which lead him, quite rightly if he so wishes, to prefer the House of Commons to another place. If and when the Government are to introduce legislation along these lines, I suggest that the Measure should be called the Lords and Commons (Reluctant Peers) (Anomalies) (Amendment) Bill.
4.59 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: I served with the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) on the Select Committee. I thought that he was less than fair in his last sentence. If one turns to the last document in the Report, one sees that there is a cry from the heart from Lord Hailsham, and that cry was responded to by the Select Committee which, by a majority of one, recommended that any peer should be allowed to renounce his title. I suggest that by that vote the Committee turned what might have been a Wedgwood Benn (Enabling) Bill into a document that allowed general renunciation.
Therefore, if Lord Hailsham is to be taken as the man of honour he is, nobody could read that last document of his completely unmoved, because in the very last paragraph he puts his position as being that those who have taken on the obligations of peerage from, as they thought, a sense of public duty, should be allowed the same privileges and the same advantages as those who, like Wedgwood Benn, say that they will not respond to the writ of summons.
However limited these proposals would have to be, they would not be as limited as the hon. Member for Windsor has construed them. We Listened to most of his committee points in the Joint Committee, and I hope that I may range rather more widely. The terms of reference were very limited. I hope that no one on this side of the House will necessarily accuse Labour members of the Committee as being backward in the denunciation of the hereditary principle, for we had to conform to the terms of reference.
I can only say that the record shows our constantly being voted down on the rather more fundamental matters. Like

1571
my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I hope that we shall get this through, because there are wrongs to be righted and I do not want certain wrongs to be left unrighted simply because there are always people who will plead the wider issue. I am very suspicious of people who say that nothing can be done until everything can be done. Long political experience tends to make me conclude that the narrower the issue the sharper the weapon and the earlier one is likely to get reform.
I cannot start my speech without echoing the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper to my friend Anthony Wedgwood Benn. I played some part in the fight in Bristol, South-East. Let it not be misunderstood by either side. The result was far more resounding and more remarkable even than the result in Orpington. Everybody in the city responded.
The image among the young people of Bristol was not that of a Parliament where the hereditary principle takes precedence over the wishes of the electorate—and that is the issue we are deciding here. It is important that the ambitions—I use that word in no mean spirit—of an able man should not be thwarted in this way. But what is more important from the constitutional point of view is that the electors of Bristol should be allowed to choose whom they like to sit here and not be dictated to by accident of birth. This is the great issue of privilege. If we allow the House of Lords to claim a person who has been elected to this House to represent the people, then we elevate the hereditary element over the principle of election. That principle should not be breached.
I have great sympathy with the present hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. St. Clair). He is man of honour who would not wish to be put in his present position. I wish nothing better for him than that he may be able to contest some place in the future where he will come top of the poll. That seems unlikely, but I am sure that he would prefer to come to this place that way. He is related to a certain scion of the nobility, and if an accident happens he might find himself in the same position as Anthony Wedgwood Benn. Do not
1572
let it go out from this House that we are prepared to continue a state of affairs where the hereditary Chamber can usurp the place of the elected Chamber.
We have had quoted small cases such as the position of some hypothetical Irish earl with a United Kingdom barony. I find that hard to take. I do not know that there is any such animal. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] I can only say, "Show me the animal." For the purpose of our Report, we have treated the Irish peerage as a foreign peerage. There are far too many Irish peers to be considered at all.
The hon. Member for Windsor spoke of the difficulties of nomenclature and how we all get used to one thing or another. But after all, the Prince of Wales became King Edward VIII and then the Duke of Windsor almost overnight. Are we in any doubt as to who he was, who he is, or which is which?
The difficulty in discussing this subject is that one feels that it is an old battle, a burnt out case, and that much of the fire has gone out of it. One remembers many years ago moving resolutions to give women equal pay in the public service. One remembers the long battles waged over that issue. Yet, when the victory was celebrated a year or two ago, people asked, "Whoever opposed this?" Of course, one could then point to hon. Gentleman opposite whom the passage of time had made look less ridiculous. It is exactly the same in this case.
I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to look at the Report in that light. When people speak of the fact that we should be increasing the membership of the other place by including peeresses, who, in justice, should have sat there in their own right years ago, I reply that it is not that I want any man or woman to sit there, but that, having pleaded for equal status of the sexes in the past, I am in favour of women taking on the liabilities as well as getting the advantages. I think it reasonable, therefore, that women peeresses should be allowed to take their places in the House of Lords.
Another consideration is that of the tidying-up process. Some people say that we should let the House of Lords be so irrational that it will look ridiculous. I can understand the attraction of that argument, but we on the Joint Committee

1573
were given certain terms of reference and we had to try to find an answer.
I come first to the practical point mentioned by the Leader of the House—the difficulty of renunciation on election. Is that so insuperable? Perhaps we need not have put it forward in quite so many words. All that we were seeking to guard against was that a man who elects to stand as a candidate for this place should understand quite clearly that in so doing he is renouncing the peerage for his lifetime. That is all we are proposing.
If the Attorney-General says that by some other legal stratagem or device it is possible to do this sort of thing we will accept it. All we were concerned about, following the position in Bristol, was that the question there should not be posed again so that we would find ourselves in the curious difficulties of having a series of elections and by-elections.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I remind my hon. Friend, without traversing the arguments, that one of the problems was that if this occurred, as it might well do, at a General Election, the very natural person—Mr. Speaker—who might be suggested for receipt of the renunciation is technically not in existence. It is a genuine constitutional difficulty to find an appropriate person who is in existence at the time, but I do not think that anyone worries as to whether it should be the returning officer or some other appropriate person.
Mr. Pannell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who spent a great deal of time in the proceedings of the Committee on this aspect. I ask the learned Attorney-General to appreciate that this is a very real difficulty at the time of a General Election. We do not want to bring in a law that, either by inadvertence or otherwise, provokes a situation where a by-election has to be held later or where there is some dubiety. The Law Officers will have to find some other way. It may be that an heir to a peerage will by the very act of standing for election—and without the necessity to consult the returning officer—declare his renunciation. This is not a small point.
My right hon. Friend also spoke of the question of the drowning of a peerage. I hope that hon. Members opposite who may think that they have the right to
1574
wander from the Report will appreciate that this is a very difficult point for us on this side of the House. Nobody doubts that the Stansgate peerage was a matter of very great hardship for Anthony Wedgwood Benn. His brother was killed in action. His father never intended the peerage for him. He never believed that it would go to him, and if the eldest son had had political aspirations, the first Lord Stansgate would never have accepted it, as he did for reasons of State.
The hon. Member for Windsor spoke of casting away old traditions and wrecking long family lines. He should not forget that when a man assumes a peerage he condemns all his sons and his sons' sons to it. If a man can assume a peerage and so condemn the whole line—and although I use the word "condemn" and the hon. Member for Windsor might use the word "ennoble", they are both question-begging words in this context—then what it is good for a man to do in accepting a peerage it is reasonable for a man to do in renouncing it. That is all we are here considering.
I do not see much difficulty in this matter of titles. I thought that the Report made this perfectly clear. When a man renounces a title to become a commoner, he takes on a status as honourable as that of a peer and with certain advantages in becoming a Mr. instead of an Earl. If the then Viscount Hinchingbrooke, now the Earl of Sandwich, had become Mr. Montagu, his wife would have become Mrs. Montagu for the purpose. Any titles which spring from a man renouncing a peerage would die. We said that titles springing from the previous holder of the title, such as the widow, would remain. The Report is perfectly clear on the point.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I am not disagreeing with what the hon. Member says. What I was saying was that Lord Sandwich would sit as Mr. Montagu and his son, Viscount Hinchingbrooke, would also sit as Mr. Montagu but that if the present Earl of Sandwich had a sister and she wished to stand for Parliament, she would retain her courtesy title. There would therefore be a brother and a sister and son, two having surrendered their titles and one retaining her title.
Mr. Pannell: I am afraid that I cannot follow the hypothetical range of the Hinchingbrooke family. I happen to know its present members, because I have studied the family, but that position is not likely to occur. If a man wishes to become a commoner and to sit in the House of Commons, then it is because he prefers that status, and presumably his wife would prefer it as well.
Do not let us think that this position applies only to Members of Parliament. I know an heir to a peerage who does not want to sit in the other place and who finds the peerage itself a liability to him in his business. He does not want to be called up to the other place, and there must be other people of the same view.
The Leader of the House referred to the time for which a peerage should be available to an heir who was a member of Parliament. We gave careful consideration to this and thought that a constituency should not be disfranchised for longer than a month. I do not think that I would object in the rather outlandish case mentioned, the possibility of Mr. Ormsby-Gore or somebody who was unconscious for many months. There are many hon. Members here who are unconscious for periods longer than that. If it were necessary to have a medical certificate or show valid medical reasons, the case could be considered by Mr. Speaker.
I now come to the matter which causes more alarm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper than it does to me. This concerns the case of a man who renounces a peerage and then goes back to the Lords on a subsequent occasion. The Committee had in mind the convenience of the Prime Minister of the day. To fill the offices of State in the other place, including that of Lord Chancellor, it might be necessary to send up a person who had renounced a peerage. This is an outlandish example, but I know that the ex-Lord Chancellor felt strongly about it. We suggest that in all these cases any such person should go into the other place not as an hereditary peer but as a life peer. This is something which is not likely to arise. If the tradition were well understood from the beginning, and if it were understood that it was not to give a man two chances of ennoblement, the tradition could reasonably live on.
1576
This is now an old battle and much of the fire has gone out of it. It will go the way of so many other reforms on social issues. The present generation will look back, as we do on our fathers' and grandfathers' time, and wonder why so much fuss was made. It is to the advantage of both parties to remember that these outmoded attitudes find little sympathy among the young who cannot understand them. The image of both parties and the image of the House of Commons itself is elevated when we get rid of the dead wood and the medieval nonsense.
It is in that spirit that I commend the Report to the House. I notice that the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), who was on the Committee—
Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I apologise.
Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member should not register such indignation about words he cannot hear.
I was saying that it is in that spirit that I commend this Report to the House. The House makes itself more respected and more respectable when it acts in accord with modern times and modern themes and modern ideas of the worth of the individual, and the modern view that a man born free is not less noble than the man who happens to be the son of his father.
5.17 p.m.
Mr. Richard Stanley: Having, like everyone else, listened to the first two speeches today, I saw that this was not to be too much of a party battle but rather a commonsense battle. However, both the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said that they felt strongly on the issue and did not mind how we felt about it, because they were impartial. The right hon. Member ended his speech by saying that while he was not talking politics, if the Government did not alter the present situation, hon. Members opposite would blow out the brains of the House of Lords if the Labour Party were returned to power at the next election. I do not see that that is being terribly impartial.
I must declare my interest in this subject in that I am one of those who could

1577
go to the other place through the hereditary system. I think that I am slightly different from some of the others concerned, although there is one other Member who might go to the other place on the succession of a brother. As my brother is roughly my age, I hope that we shall both have reached the bath-chair stage by that time.
The Committee's Report is full of good points, but the important question seems to be the right of the individual to opt to go into the Commons and out of the Lords if he so wants. In considering this subject, I think that we should link the question of Lords reform with the whole question of the reform of government of the country. The Conservative Party has always fought about the House of Lords with the Labour Party or the Liberal Party, but it would be a good thing if all this fighting about the House of Lords occasionally included the whole structure of government in this country, down to parish councils and up to the House of Lords.
In the House of Commons we talk about whether we should provide better accommodation, whether we should go to Standing Committee, or whether we should be televised. I do not think that we get down to reality. If hon. Gentlemen opposite want to have a real "go" at reforming the House of Lords, I hope they will go into the reform of all forms of government, otherwise we shall just do what we have always done. If we accept this recommendation, we shall just do a small bit of pruning.
It is obviously right that Members should have the right to stay on in this House if they so wish, but we must remember that if we take away the best hereditary peers we shall damage the House of Lords very considerably. There is no doubt that if this becomes law the best hereditary peers will remain in the House of Commons, or try to sit here, and we shall be left with a second Chamber consisting of hereditary peers who cannot, or will not, fight an election. There will also be Members who have been made life peers because they have had distinguished careers and are given the honour at the end of their lives. I suppose there will also be some lawyers and bishops, and, of course, some peers who have really been kicked off the Front Benches on both sides. I cannot believe
1578
that this will be the best way of having a really good second Chamber, and I hope that if this Bill goes through we shall alter the whole structure of what the House of Lords is today with the rest of the system.
I come now to the question of Members deciding when they should be able to renounce going to the House of Lords or coming to the House of Commons. If they were Members of the House of Commons before they succeeded to their titles, I am certain that they must make up their minds within a month what they are going to do, because we cannot allow constituencies to be disfranchised for longer than that. But for the ordinary chap who succeeds his father or grandfather, I cannot see that it matters whether he makes up his mind when he is 21 that he wants to fight for a seat in the House of Commons, or waits until he is 40 before he makes the decision. As long as he does not take his seat in the House of Lords, as long as he takes none of the privileges of the House of Lords, I cannot see why we should say that he must have a year in which to make up his mind. It would be a difficult enough decision anyway, and at 21 a person is not really mature enough to know what he wants to do. If he is successful in business and wants to go into politics and wants to go to the House of Lords, I do not see why he should not go there, or come here if he wants to.
There has been some discussion between my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) and the hon. Member for Leeds, West, about whether or not people should be able to keep their titles if they sit here. I do not feel very strongly either way. I cannot see why they cannot keep them, but I think that the minority suggestion would be slightly tidier.
One question which has not been discussed is that of a person renouncing his peerage by taking a life peerage. I do not think that he ought to be allowed to do that. Once he says that he does not want to go to the House of Lords, he has opted out, and he ought to stay out. But, as far as I can see, there is an even more extraordinary case, and that is someone who opts out from the House of Lords and sits here. If he then succeeds to another peerage he is allowed

1579
to opt again. If by some extraordinary coincidence, someone were to come into five peerages, surely he could not be allowed to make five decisions about whether he wants to sit here or in the House of Lords? Once he has made up his mind that he does not want to sit in the House of Lords, that ought to be the end of it.
I feel that if we bring in these recommendations we shall certainly do justice to Mr. Wedgwood Benn, and we shall also provide a chance for other hereditary peers to give up their rights and fight by-elections. We on this side of the House have two notable peers in the other place. It has been said that they might come here and adorn our Front Bench. That would be all for the good of the Commons, but we must remember that if that were to happen it would harm the House of Lords.
If we do this, and it is a reasonable reform, let us not be stampeded by hon. Gentlemen opposite who always want to alter the House of Lords. If we are to have reform of government let us look at government as a whole, from the parish council to the House of Lords and go into it all and thus have a better system of government in this country.
5.26 p.m.
Mr. Dick Taverne: I propose to deal only with the question of a renunciation of peerages, and I welcome warmly the statement of the Leader of the House that the Government intend to introduce legislation on the lines of this Report in the course of the present Parliament.
I welcome the Report for some of the reasons which have already been suggested. First, it partially removes one of the worst anomalies of the Constitution which while it exists, can only lessen the respect of Parliament. Secondly, it widens the choice which can be made for this House, and that means that more talent will be available on both sides. Thirdly, it corrects an injustice in the case of Mr. Wedgwood Benn and the electors of Bristol, South-East. Fourthly, this is a reform which is long overdue but none the less welcome if it is shortly to be achieved. Fifthly, it is clearly in conformity with public opinion.
1580
There is no need for any traditionalist in the House to feel unduly perturbed that this is a great breach of the traditions of the past, because in a curious way tradition will be vindicated. The present legal position of the disqualification of peers from sitting in the Commons is based largely on the doctrine of the separate Estates. The doctrine of three Estates may be firmly established in some of the decisions of the courts, but it was nevertheless a load of historical nonsense, or, as the historians politely put it, a myth.
This doctrine was never clearly formulated, because there was a great deal of dispute about whether the three Estates were the Monarch, the Lords, and the Commons, or whether they were the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons, and at the very period from which this doctrine is supposed to be derived no such position ever existed. If one looks back to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, one finds that at that time there were many recorded cases—at least sixteen—of peers, or at any rate persons who received writs of summons to sit in the House of Lords, who were later to be found sitting in the Commons. Whatever the courts may later have decided, in the early years of our history there were also cases in which peers extinguished their titles and renounced them. So if there is anyone in the House who feels an undue respect for tradition, he can be comforted by the fact that we are at last catching up with the fourteenth century.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I did not know that in the fourteenth century a peer could renounce his peerage for his lifetime.
Mr. Taverne: That is true. It is only to some extent that we are now coming to the position which was already recognised in the fourteenth century. We have not quite caught up with it, but we are getting somewhere near.
The most famous case was that of Roger le Bygod in 1302, who renounced his peerage, although it was held by the House of Lords in 1907 that the Monarch of the time, the great law-giver and the Lord Chancellor of the time did not realise what they were talking about.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: In the fourteenth century a peer who renounced his claim could subsequently sit in the House of Commons.
Mr. Taverne: There were many cases which my hon. Friend will find set out in the evidence I gave to the Committee of Privileges two years ago of people who must, for practical purposes, be regarded as peers, and certainly had a writ of summons to the House of Lords, but subsequently sat in the Commons. The position was, therefore, much more fluid than now, and it seems admirable that we are returning to a certain fluidity today. This legislation will correct some of the errors of the law introduced by Lord Coke, who talked more nonsense about peerage law than any other lawyer has done since. It would have delighted the great historian Horatio Round, who fulminated against the historical blindness of lawyers in his essays on the peerage and to so little effect in his lifetime.
Mr. Hale: Disraeli said that after the Battle of Tewkesbury a Norman baron was as rare in England as a wolf is now.
Mr. Taverne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that anecdote. But at least on this occasion tradition and progress can go hand in hand if this proposed legislation is passed, as I hope that it will be, as soon as possible.
5.31 p.m.
Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: I am very glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as I think it would be a pity if this debate went by without my recording this particular fact. The question of the admission of peeresses in their own right was a point of discussion by the Joint Committee, and it was one which had no dissentient voice. It is rather nice to think that after some fifty years of struggling to get equality for women in both Houses this recommendation has been made unanimously by the Joint Committee.
I do not want so much to stress the advantage of having more peeresses in the House as the fact that this is really the last inequality which is left so far as political rights for women are concerned. I appreciate the fact that hon. and right hon. Members opposite were reluctant to see an increase in the hereditary principle, but their very nice sense of justice overcame this objection.
1582
It is also interesting to note that if these recommendations are accepted it will now be possible for us to sign the United Nations Convention on political rights of women. We have been unable to do that so long as women suffered any political inequality. Now that that is to be put right here at home, and now that we have so few Colonies left where we are responsible for political rights for women, it will, I hope, enable us at last to ratify the Convention which was passed ten years ago when I was at the United Nations in 1953.
I am quite certain that if this recommendation is accepted by both Houses it will give a great deal of pleasure, perhaps not to all, but certainly to some of the peeresses in their own right, and especially to the women's societies of the country which have been anxious to press this matter. I hope that this part of the Report will be accepted as unanimously in this House as it was in the Select Committee.
5.34 p.m.
Mr. Donald Wade: It has already been pointed out by hon. Members that the title "House of Lords Reform" is somewhat of a misnomer. That is certainly so, because if all these recommendations were carried out, the House of Lords would still remain unreformed.
The Committee was restricted to a very limited field. I shall later have a few observations to make on the terms of reference. Within this limited field, I think that the recommendations should commend themselves to the House. There is undoubtedly an overwhelming body of opinion in this country against the concept that anyone should be compelled to sit in the House of Lords unwillingly and thereby be prevented from sitting in this House, and also against the view that anyone who inherits a peerage should be debarred from standing for election to the House of Commons. It is surprising that this anomaly was not abolished long ago.
I appreciate the fact that there are some arguments in favour of the status quo. I think that there are only two that are worth considering. One is that some people are born into this world with special duties and responsibilities and they have a moral obligation not to give them up. I do not

1583
agree with it, but I am aware that there are some who hold that view. Surely, the logical conclusion to which this leads is that there should be an hereditary aristocracy which alone should have the task of governing the country; in other words, that there should be a small minority of people, chosen by birth, who have these special duties and responsibilities. There may be some who still believe that. I think that it is more in keeping with the ideas of the 17th and 18th centuries and earlier, and one does not expect to find it in the 20th century. But once one accepts the principle of a Parliamentary democracy, I think that the argument that anyone should hold a seat in the legislature by virtue of birth is untenable. It seems to me quite illogical that there should be any hereditary seats—I am not talking about titles—held in any part of Parliament solely by virtue of birth.
Viscount Lambton: Is the hon. Gentleman outlining the Liberal policy on reform of the House of Lords?
Mr. Wade: I hope that the noble Lord will bear with me. The views that I am expressing represent the views of the party to which I belong. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. I am expressing my own views, but it so happens that they coincide with the views of my own party. That does not always happen on the other side of the House.
Obviously, this affects one's view on this whole subject. I am not opposed to a second Chamber and I hope that is clear. I think that there is a strong case for a second Chamber as a forum for debate, as a place where errors of legislation in the House of Commons may be corrected, and as a place where some legislation, particularly of a technical nature, may be initiated so long as it comes back to the House of Commons I am not against a second Chamber. But none of these is an argument for an hereditary House of Lords. None is an argument for permitting or granting to anyone the right to sit in the House of Lords solely by virtue of birth. I think that is the fundamental point.
Another possible ground for objecting to any step that would affect the existing composition is that renunciation would reduce the numbers available to carry on the necessary work in the House of
1584
Lords. But surely the solution does not lie in compelling Members to remain in the Lords reluctantly. Surely the only satisfactory solution is to be found in reform of the method of replenishment.
None of the arguments which have been put forward for maintaining the status quo stand up to examination. In the deliberations of the Committee three main issues arose. The first was whether, if there is to be renunciation, it should be for all time or for life. We must remember that when a hereditary peerage is created the person accepting the peerage accepts it for himself and his heirs. He acts for himself and his heirs. He binds his heirs. Surely, therefore, the reverse should happen and where a peer decides to renounce it is right that he should renounce for all time. Certainly I should prefer that. It does not seem to me reasonable that any family should have this rather special privilege of moving from one House to the other, generation by generation. But I admit that I cannot get very excited about this, because, to my mind, the whole issue is somewhat unreal. If one accepts the view that no one should have the right to sit in the Upper House by virtue of birth, the question of renunciation for life or for all time does not arise.
The second controversial issue before the Committee was whether existing peers, other than life peers and those of first creation, should have the right to renounce. I think it would be unfair to deny that right to those who have accepted the writ of summons and taken their seats in the Lords before legislation was passed. I think it would be unfair to deny them the opportunity of renouncing, and if they so wish and are duly elected, to sit in the House of Commons. It is true that the decision of the Select Committee was reached by a very small majority. According to page 15 of the Report the voting was 11 to 10 and there was some cross-voting. But I think that the view of the majority was right, namely, that Members of the House of Lords, when this legislation is passed—as I hope it will be—should have this opportunity. I do not suppose that many will take advantage of that right.
The third issue before the Committee was, what effect renunciation should have on the privileges and other trappings of a peerage. If the heir to a peerage decides not to go to the Lords, or if a

1585
Member of the Lords decides to renounce, should he give up only his Parliamentary status or all the titles, immunities and precedence that go with it? Again, I think that the decision of the Select Committee was right and that anyone who renounces should have the status of a commoner and should give up all titles. It may cause some inconvenience and it may be a little awkward to use a family name which has not been used for a long time. But no doubt anyone considering renunciation would take all that into account.
I come back again to the same point. Most of the difficulties arise from the retention of hereditary Members so far as the legislature is concerned, and I think that is a fundamental point which has not been resolved by the Report of this Committee. I have been looking at the agreed statement of the three parties after the conference in 1948 and I must say that I consider that the conclusions of that conference are a good deal more radical than the proposals before the House today. That conference broke down only on a very minor point with regard to the suspensory period. On all the major points there was agreement between the three parties.
Mr. Michael Foot: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman ought to mislead the House by saying that the Labour Party agreed to the proposals. They may have been agreed by individual leaders, but the Labour Party certainly never agreed to the proposals.
Mr. Wade: I recollect that, although I was not in the House at the time. I should have said representatives of the three parties.
This leads me to make a few comments on the interpretation of the terms of reference of the Select Committee which has now reported. It was asked to consider the effects and consequences of any changes it might recommend, and it seemed clear to me that changes must raise the whole subject of the composition of the House of Lords. It is perhaps fair to point out that in a debate in this House on 28th March last year I referred to some of the wider aspects of composition and I said that I hoped that in its deliberations the Committee would be entitled to consider them. I still think that they should have been considered.
1586
Hon. Members will see from the Report of the proceedings of the Select Committee that when the Committee was discussing the paragraph entitled "Scope of Inquiry", I moved an Amendment, and, if the House will bear with me, I should like to read it in order to get it on the record because it is a point which I hold rather strongly:
"It became clear, however, in the course of the Committee's deliberations that the proposals under consideration by the Committee would involve on the one hand some depletion of the membership of the House of Lords and on the other hand some additions to it. The Committee is thus concerned inevitably with 'composition'. This is part of the effects and consequences' of the changes which the Committee was appointed to consider. The Committee, while recognising the need for and value of a Second Chamber, is placed in an illogical position in not being allowed by its terms of reference to consider the whole subject of the composition of a reformed Second Chamber, including the future of the hereditary principle and the selection or election of Members of a Second Chamber by some more democratic method than that which operates at the present time."
I regret to say that that Amendment was defeated by 19 votes to 1.
Mr. Hale: The reason that the Amendment was defeated by 19 votes to 1, so far at least as one hon. Member is concerned, is that the hon. Gentleman incorporated into it the existence of a second Chamber which made it unacceptable to those who agreed with his criticisms of the terms of reference.
Mr. Wade: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my other observations on the terms of reference. My own opinion remains unaltered. Even if one accepts the view that the terms of reference excludes composition, I think that the deliberations of the Committee clearly point to the need for some more radical reform.
In opening the debate the Leader of the House had a few general reflections to make, and I will conclude with a few general reflections on the Report of the Committee. It was asked to consider what changes should be made in the rights of peers of Scotland and peeresses in their own right to it in the Houses of Parliament. It recommended that peeresses in their own right and peers of Scotland be admitted on the same terms as peers of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Apart from the speech of the hon. Lady the

1587
Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) very little attention has been paid to this part of the Report, but the effect will be to increase the number of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. We must make it quite clear that that is one of the outcomes. It is not possible to calculate how many existing peers will decide to renounce.
Mr. S. Silverman: Oh, yes it is.
Mr. Wade: One can guess. It is possible to calculate the additional Members of the House of Lords who will be admitted as a result of these proposals and it seems clear that the latter will exceed the former.
Mr. Silverman: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it fairly obvious that no Member of the House of Lords would exercise the privileges which would be conferred on him if Parliament accepted these recommendations unless he was very sure indeed that, having done so, he would find a place in the House of Commons?
Mr. Wade: That remains to be seen. It merely adds weight to my point. The immediate result of the proposal of the Select Committee will be to increase the total number of persons who have the right to sit in the Legislature solely by birth, and I cannot regard that as even a modest step towards a more representative second Chamber. If the Government carry out the recommendation in regard to the reluctant peers they will certainly remove an obvious anomaly, but this should be regarded only as a step towards a more thoroughgoing reform.
Having expressed these somewhat critical views on the conclusions of a Committee of which I was a Member, I may be asked why I did not vote against the proposals as a whole. That is a fair question, but there is a simple answer. I supported Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn in his plea to be allowed to remain in the House of Commons. The proposal of the Select Committee provided a convenient solution of that anomaly, and I felt that it would have been inconsistent to register a vote against the proposals as a whole. But I emphasise that we must tackle the problem of composition. When Parliament con-
1588
siders more radical changes a decision must be made whether the composition is to be arrived at by selection or election. One of the objections that is always made to election is that it might lead to the creation of a rival to the House of Commons, whereas the second Chamber should be complementary.
I appreciate the weight of that argument. Unfortunately, the way in which the Life Peerages Act has been operated since it was placed on the Statute Book has not increased respect for the procedure of nomination. An analysis of the appointments made shows that they are quite inconsistent with the intentions that were expressed when the Act was passed, and they cannot be reconciled with any principle that the House of Lords should be more broadly representative of the opinions of the country.
It may be that the method of selection will have to be abandoned in favour of some form of election, simply because the Establishment apparently cannot be trusted to operate a system of selection fairly.
Whether or not that is so, the fact remains that many suggestions have been put forward for creating a Second Chamber on the election principle. This would not necessarily lead to a position in which the Upper Chamber was a rival body to the House of Commons, but it raises constitutional problems of considerable importance, and the sooner they are faced the better. Meanwhile, we have what has been called a package deal. The reluctant peers will be allowed to remain in or stand for the House of Commons and there will be an addition to the hereditary peerage in the House of Lords. It is not an entirely satisfactory package deal, but for the reasons that I have given I think that it would be the right course to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee. If they are to be carried out, the sooner the necessary legislation is introduced the better.
5.53 p.m.
Lieut-Colonel R. G. Grosvenor: I propose to confine my remarks to a comparatively narrow front. On studying the Report of the Select Committee I find that the Irish peers—that is to say, those peers who have no other title except an Irish one—hardly figured in

1589
the proposals of the Committee. I do not propose to take the House back further than 1800, although I could start at 1169—even farther back than an hon. Member opposite went. Under the Act of Union of 1800 there were approximately 100 Irish peers, and they had a representation of 28 in the House of Lords. That representation died out with the death of the last representative peer in 1961, and since then the Irish peerage, although entitled to sit in this House, has had no representation in another place.
Viscount Lambton: Is there not a question of differentiation between peers who reside in Northern Ireland and peers who reside in Southern Ireland, and who therefore live in, and get their titles from, a country now a Republic and not even part of the Commonwealth?
Lieut-Colonel Grosvenor: I am afraid that there is not. I am dealing with the Irish peerage. It is a question of the Irish peerage and not the geographical area from which these gentlemen originally came. In 1921 legislation passed by both Houses made a geographical alteration in the island of Ireland, but it made no alteration in the Irish Peerage. The fact that Ireland is now divided is not relevant to our argument.
Having read the findings of the Select Committee, and some of the Memoranda, it seems to me that considerable confusion has arisen because of the fact that the Irish peerage and Ireland have been divided into two parts. I hope to show the House that the partition of Ireland—
Mr. Hale: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will bear in mind the fact that the Princes of Ireland were partly exterminated by Cromwell, and never sat in the Irish House of Lords at all. The hon. and gallant Member referred to the number of Irish peers in 1800. Most of them had been made by Lord Castlereagh within the previous year or two, on the strict understanding that they agreed to vote for the abolition of the Irish House of Commons.
Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: The hon. Member is quite right. I did not want to go into remote Irish history, because if I did I am sure that both he and I would find such interest in it that we
1590
would probably occupy the time of the House discussing it for a long time.
Before that useful interruption, I was about to say that the partition of Ireland had no relevance to the Irish peerage. Neither is there any relevance in the question put to the Select Committee in paragraph 7 (g) of Appendix 5, namely,
"To what extent would any legislation involving Irish peers encroach upon the functions of the Eire legislature?"
That question having been posed, the Select Committee rightly ignored it, because it would not make any difference. But it may raise doubts in some people's minds, and give the impression that all Irish peers live in Ireland.
Irish peers, like the peers of England and Scotland, live all over the world. There are Scottish peers in Canada, Australia, Kenya and Nyasaland, and I am sure that there are Irish and English peers in those countries too. I have never heard it said that English peers should not sit in the House of Lords because they are resident, and even take part in politics, in other parts of the world. It has never been said that their taking seats in the House of Lords would encroach on their functions in those other countries. Let it be understood that Ireland is not full of Irish peers. I would say that there are probably more Irish peers in England than in Ireland.
Viscount Lambton: If there are no Irish peers in Ireland, why should they represent Ireland in the House of Lords?
Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: My noble Friend has again confused geography with the peerage. I tried to clear his brain before, but I must try to do so again. I did not say that there were no Irish peers in Ireland. I said that there are probably more in the United Kingdom than in Ireland—and they do not represent Ireland; they represent the Irish peerage. I am not a lawyer, and I am afraid that I cannot put the point more clearly than that.
Mr. Fletcher: Can the hon. and gallant Member explain why the Irish peerage is represented in the House of Lords?
Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: I shall try. I might also ask why the Scottish peerage should be represented—or even the

1591
English peerage. The Irish peerage has as much right to be represented as any other peers in the United Kingdom.
Viscount Lambton: Ireland is not in the Commonwealth.
Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: A lesson in geography is required, but I do not intend to take up the time of the House. I should like to explain to my hon. Friend afterwards how that sort of thing works.
I will try to re-gather the thread of my argument and return to the confusion which more people have made confounded. That is the idea that we are dealing with Ireland and the possibility of interfering with the processes of Eire, which is a foreign country. On page 35 of the Report, in paragraph 9 of the Memorandum submitted by Lord Hailsham, there are these words:
"I sympathise, but do not agree, with the desire of Irish peers to be again formally represented in the House of Lords…I believe their presence would tend to spoil our relations with the Republic of Ireland."
I cannot see that their presence would tend to do anything of the kind. In fact it does not really come into it, particularly as an Irish citizen can stand for the Westminster Parliament and can take his seat and sit here, a point which a number of people have overlooked. A southern Irish peer domiciled in the south of Ireland can do exactly the same, with no inconvenience to the Government of the south of Ireland.
The Committee's recommendations as set out are three very small crumbs, the principal one of which is—

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

  ROYAL ASSENT
  6.0 p.m.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
  The House went: —and, having returned;
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1963.

  2. Purchase Tax Act, 1963.

  3. Drainage Rates Act, 1963.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
Question again proposed.
6.12 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: I had reached the point in my remarks when I was going to refer to the recommendations of the Joint Committee relating to the future—or the Committee's considered future—of the Irish peers. Paragraph 10 states that the Joint Committee
"…considered, however, that Peers of Ireland should be accorded the same status as commoners with regard to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom".
That was very good of the Joint Committee, but it is the status quo ante, because they already can be elected and take their seats in this House. The Committee went on to make three small recommendations, the most important of which, I suppose, is to the effect that an Irish peer who desires to be a Member of Parliament can stand for a constituency in the north of Ireland instead of having to travel by air or boat to represent a constituency in England. I do not think that that is a great concession to these gentlemen who wish to become Members of Parliament.
Why should Irish peers find themselves, under these proposals—and I am not going to argue wider than this—in a position inferior to the English peers and the proposed situation of the Scottish peers? If this goes through in a form fairly similar to that proposed it will mean that Irish peers cannot have the same option as English and Scottish peers. They can come to the House of Commons but they can have no representation in the House of Lords. I know of no good reason why the members of the Irish peerage should be put in that position, tucked away and not given the opportunity to resign their titles, or whatever one might like, and can come here only, but cannot go to another place. This is scandalously unfair, because I am sure that, as peers, they are just as good as any other peers.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will consider these matters favourably when the Bill is being drafted. I consider that those Irish peers who are domiciled within the United Kingdom should have the same rights and privileges as English and Scottish peers.

1593
I further propose that those Irish peers who are domiciled without the United Kingdom should send four representatives to the House of Lords. Four is a very small number and when one compares it with the 16—the Scottish peers who may come down from Scotland to London—it is not very much to ask. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will consider this favourably and will, thereby, rectify a very obvious injustice to these 70-odd peers of the peerage of Ireland.
6.17 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor) into his inquiries into Irish history, despite the fascination which that subject undoubtedly has.
He said that Irish peers lived all over the world. That reminded me of the reply once made by H. G. Wells to Hilaire Belloc in the controversy they had. Hilaire Belloc was accusing Wells of being "a little provincial, born in Kent", to which Wells replied, "Yes, I was born in Kent, as opposed to Mr. Belloc who, apparently, was born all over Europe." It seemed to me while the hon. Member was speaking that the Irish peers have the same facility for moving around. I regret that I cannot give the hon. Member any satisfaction, except to say that while he is complaining that the Irish peers under these proposals are being treated scandalously, if it is any satisfaction to him if I had my way—which I rarely have—I would treat the English and Scottish peers as scandalously as he thinks the Irish peers are being treated. Then there would be a proper equality of treatment.
The proposal made by the Government has been said by some hon. Members to be "a little pruning Measure" and my right hon. Friend the Member for Helper (Mr. G. Brown) has remarked that the temperature of today's debate is very low. I agree that it is a modest little Measure but, whatever anyone may think of it, it is rather remarkable to consider what a gigantic amount of Parliamentary time, money and energy has been expended over the years in order to bring this modest little Measure before the House; and even yet we have not really got it before us, so we cannot say that we have finished the job.
1594
If the House of Commons cannot deal with some other matters more expeditiously than we have dealt with this one, we cannot claim to be dealing with the problems facing the nation in a proper manner. Whatever else may be said about the proposal, does deal with one palpable injustice; the injustice to which Mr. Wedgwood Benn has drawn attention, the injustice to himself and the injustice to the constituents whom he has every right to represent in the House if they want him to be their representative.
We ought to take note of the fact that this is a day which, whatever else it may be, is a tremendous triumph for him, because in the announcement made from the Government Front Bench and in its acceptance by the official Opposition, it is now established that Mr. Wedgwood Benn has won his fight. Whatever view one takes of the House of Lords, the greatest possible credit is due to Wedgwood Benn for the diligence, the energy and the imagination with which he has fought this fight. Even the Government pay tribute to him.
We should, however, remember some of the things that happened. I do not want to rub any salt in the wounds, or upset the Government in any way when we have got them this far, but on 13th April, 1961, an Opposition Amendment calling for precisely this kind of legislation, or part of it, was not only defeated after a furious debate but Mr. Wedgwood Benn was denied the right to speak at the Bar of the House. I do not know whether any hon. Member who then voted for that proposition would justify it today. Perhaps if we had listened to Mr. Wedgwood Benn then instead of rejecting his right to put his case—and putting on the Whips to make sure that the Government got their way—we might have reached this conclusion a good deal earlier and so saved a good deal of time and trouble. Therefore, the Government should have a little humility in the way they present this proposition.
Moreover, stories were told, though I cannot entirely vouch for them, when the proposition was originally made by Mr. Wedgwood Benn, and others in recent years, that a peer should be enabled to renounce his title, that: it would threaten the whole hereditary system. Many of us, of course, wish that it would. We were even informed, though I cannot vouch for the truth of the information, that at

1595
a meeting of the 1922 Committee—and I do not know whether that Committee has another meeting on at the present time—the First Secretary, who at that time was in charge of business—the Home Secretary—had told the members of the Committee that if this step were taken of allowing peers to renounce their titles the Monarchy itself would be in danger. That was only two or three years ago—
Sir K. Pickthorn: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) began by saying that we were told something or other, adding "I don't know whether it's true." The next part of his argument began" That happened only so many years ago "—one or two. The first was a piece of hypothetical gossip, and the second was an assumption that it was fact.
Mr. Foot: I am sorry if I did not get the statement as pedantically correct as the hon. Gentleman would wish, but I was saying that the report that these statements had been made by the then Home Secretary to a meeting of the 1922 Committee was made some years ago. If I did not state it accurately, I thank the hon. Member for correcting me, though it does not seem a matter of tremendous substance. As far as I understand it, it was the case that wild prophecies were made about what would occur if this simple measure were adopted, and only two or three years ago very fierce debates took place. I am not sure how the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) voted then, but I have a suspicion that he voted against a proposal that he will be prepared to accept at the end of this debate.
There has been a movement forward in this respect but, even so, what is suggested is a most clumsy way of doing it, because even if we adopt this measure we find it surrounded by reservations and qualifications concerned with the refusal of the idea that a peerage should be extinguished if the holder of the title chooses to come back to this House, or chooses to stand for this House. I think that such anomalies could be swept away at the same time. Even so, as a modest measure aimed at remedying this one disease, it has some value, because it does remove the gross injustice that has been done to Mr. Wedgwood Benn and could be done to some other hon. Members, and a gross injustice that has certainly been
1596
done to the great mass of the electors in Bristol, South-East who have been denied the right to have the Member of their choice. In that sense, it is a day of triumph, and a day of triumph for Mr. Wedgwood Benn in particular.
Many hon. Members have argued that there are dangers in dealing with the matter in the way suggested. Previously, it was part of the Government's argument that the whole edifice of the House of Lords was so rickety that if we removed one little part—the right of a peer to renounce his peerage—the whole thing would collapse. Therefore, they would not do it. That was the Government's argument a few years ago, and some of my hon. Friends have argued, I understand, that if we remove this particular anomaly we give sufficient credit to the House of Lords to enable it to survive for a good deal longer. Therefore, they do not like it.
I think that this is still such a modest little measure that it will not achieve that result, but we should make it clear today that we do not regard this proposal as a reform proposal for the House of Lords at all. It is not. It does not deal with the situation in any radical manner. There is a tremendous amount to be said for the argument that if we are to deal with the House of Lords at all we must have a radical reform. These questions do not become so urgent, so apparently urgent, when we have a Conservative Government. Nobody worries about the House of Lords when there is a Conservative Government in power—the place does not really operate. When we get a Labour Government, the House of Lords does not immediately proceed to take action, but it does so after a period.
The other place did that last time. People say that not for years, perhaps not for 20 or 30 years, has the House of Lords done anything effective to interfere with the will of the House of Commons. But that is not so. It interfered with the introduction of the Steel Bill in 1950, and it has interfered on a number of other questions. It is, therefore, a very serious matter, because we could within a very short time have a real clash between the House of Commons and the House of Lords—a clash that, I hope, would lead to the full radical reform that is really desirable.

1597
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), the spokesman for the Liberal Party, said that in the Select Committee he had made suggestions for widening the terms of reference in order to secure this result. With some of his comments today I agree, but there is a tremendous danger, which has been illustrated partly by what was said by the right hon. Member for Belper. He said that we cannot have an elected House of Lords—presumably because it would interfere or clash with the powers of the House of Commons. He also said, and I agree with him, that we must do away with the hereditary principle, because I do not think that it can any longer be defended. There are certainly very few hon. Members on this side of the House who would wish to defend it.
If we rule out election and if we rule out the hereditary principle, we are left, apparently, with a third proposition, which is a House of Lords established by appointment—the principle introduced, of course, in the Life Peerages Act, and which some now want to see extended. In some respects, I regard that as the most dangerous principle of all. Who is to do the appointing? Everyone knows that the appointments will be made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—advised, no doubt, by the Whips department but, whoever gives the advice, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have the power —possibly the Leader of the Liberal Party may have a few appointments in his disposition—when that arrangement is made.
It is bad enough when we have the system operating for life peers, but if we are to have a situation in which two people in this House—the Prime Minister who already has sufficient power to use and exert his influence over the whole House of Commons, and the Leader of the Opposition, whoever he may behave within their grasp enormous capacities of patronage, and if, in addition, peers are to be paid, which, no doubt, will soon be the case if this proposal goes forward, we will then have a situation in which the two most powerful figures, in one sense, in the House of Commons, will have tremendous power to influence not merely the people who are to be in the House of Lords but this House as well.
1598
We could have this House of Commons, and not merely the House of Lords, being a very bad place if the House of Lords were composed by appointment, because the very fact that leaders in this House were able to hand out political pensions—and that is all that these appointments would be—could corrupt the House of Commons as well. It was once said by Walter Bagehot, when there was an argument about the alleged virtues of the House of Lords and it was said that the people in the House of Lords were independent, that they were above corruption because they were the corrupters. That was true. He said that they did not accept social bribes because they were the people who dished them out. That is what used to happen. People in the House of Lords used to own the constituencies and own Members of Parliament. They had tremendous powers and they exercised them. The independence of Members of this House was corrupted by the power of the House of Lords.
If anyone thinks that, maintaining a second Chamber, to do away with the hereditary principle and to constitute the House of Lords by appointment is an advance, I would answer that it is an even more retrograde step. No sane person can defend the hereditary principle in another place, and the proposition that for the purposes of drafting and revising and giving independent advice to the nation the people who happen to be the sons of their fathers are the best possible people is a proposition that I think nobody in other parts of the world would dream of defending. We therefore have to find another solution which, above all, does not injure the House of Commons. This should be the first test. It should be a solution which, so far from injuring it, strengthens the House of Commons.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member has dealt adequately with the constitution of another place by nomination, but could he amplify his objection to the principle of election and say whether it is not possible for another place to have more restriction on its powers if it is elected and not nominated?
Mr. Foot: I would do away with all the powers which peers have to interfere with this place anyhow. But it

1599
might be said that we may have to return after all to the idea of a House of Lords elected by some other system. It has been seen in the development of the history of many other lands that we can never tell what will be the future prestige of a body elected by alternative methods. It will be seen from a study of constitutions established in other countries that in some cases the second Chamber has become much more powerful than people originally intended, and when two Chambers are elected by different methods the prestige of one Chamber, unforeseen by the constitution makers, becomes more powerful than that of the other. These are the dangers.
There is a better solution—abolition of the House of Lords and full reform of the House of Commons, and if we are to reform the House of Commons properly we need some system for revising our legislation. But I think that the matters which the House of Commons was talking about in the debate on procedure the other day should be discussed at the same time as we decide to remove altogether this hereditary anachronism and put in its place some body of experts which this House will tell what to do in revising legislation.
The whole existing proportion is complete rubbish. We have had an instance today. It is an insult to the House of Commons that we should have Black Rod trooping in here to tell us where we should go. It is an absurd piece of flummery. Is it a tradition which people want to defend? Surely traditions worth defending must have some purpose and meaning. This is not a tradition that has meaning.
We know the real reason why it is defended and why the Government and the Conservative Party have always fought to maintain it. It is not because they are fools. They are occasionally, but they are not in this respect. The real reason why they want to maintain the House of Lords is that they know that it still has a great deal of power and they know that the power there is secure in their hands. It was therefore very childish when an hon. Member opposite complained that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper was alleged to have used blackmail because he dropped the hint that when the Labour Party came into power we should
1600
want to reform the House of Lords, though it would not be the reform that I would suggest. It was feared that when we have the majority of the people voting for us we might lay our rough hands on the House of Lords and do something to alter the position of those who accupy it and the power they exercise.
This is regarded as offensive by the party opposite, and this comes from the people who through the centuries have had the power in the other place which they can use whenever they want for their partisan purposes. We should make up our minds and put the case to the country of the difficulties involved in anything other than total abolition of the House of Lords. A few years ago it might have been sufficient to say that the thing was fading away anyhow. There was no need to assassinate it, because it was atrophying anyway. But let us now do the job in good clean fashion. Let us cut its throat. Let us make up our minds to have no further bother from it in the future.
6.38 p.m.
Mr. M. A. J. St. Clair: I hope that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) will forgive me for not following his remarks too closely in my speech, but I should like to have an answer from the Opposition Front Bench on whether right hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with all the hon. Member's proposals or whether they do not wish to go so far. The hon. Member's remarks may meet with success in the Chamber, but I am not sure that the other place is held in such low regard in the country as some hon. Members may think.
I have been closely involved in this question of House of Lords reform ever since I came to the House two years ago, and perhaps before that time. I might say that I am involved, as it were, on both sides of the penny. I should like to congratulate Mr. Wedgwood Benn on achieving his object. He adopted methods which I do not approve, and I made no secret of my disapproval at the time. One should not involve 59,000 citizens in the by-election merely to decide whether the House of Lords should be reformed. That is not a fair question to ask the electors. However, Mr. Wedgwood Benn asked them and they gave him an overwhelming success.
Mr. Richard Marsh: The electorate, having been presented with the question, gave the answer. Does the hon. Member object to the answer?
Mr. St. Clair: Not at all. I was coming to that. It is a fairly open secret that I have always been in favour of some sort of reform of the House of Lords, and I will go into that in greater detail in a moment.
The gentleman concerned complains that he has been harshly treated. I think that four days of Parliamentary time have been devoted to his case, and I was a little surprised when the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said that the Government had been obtuse. It brought to mind the case of my noble Friend the Minister for Science. He made a precisely similar request to the then Prime Minister, Earl Attlee, and, as far as I can remember, he got a pretty sharp brush-off. There was no prospect then, despite what hon. Members opposite may say now, of any reform of the House of Lords. Therefore, I do not think that Mr. Wedgwood Benn can complain of the treatment which he has received. Indeed, I am very glad that this proposal should be before the House now.
I wish to address myself to two points in particular. One is the question of Scottish peers. As most hon. Members know, Scottish peers are in a much worse position than that of any other peers of the United Kingdom. They cannot go to the House of Lords unless they are representative peers, and if they are not representatives in another place they can neither vote nor come here. I know that there are not many of them—there has been no Scottish peerage created since the Act of Union—but those few are in a much worse case than the case of an English peer who did not want to go to another place because he at least had the option to go there while the Scottish peer had nowhere to go at all. He was suspended between heaven and hell. Whichever may be the one or the other, that was his position. In addition, he was not allowed to cast a vote at any Parliamentary election.
One really cannot draw an analogy between Irish peers and Scottish peers. Here, I take issue with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for
1602
Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor). He said that geography did not come into it. As far as I know, the Republic of Ireland is no longer a part of the United Kingdom. If one is a peer of the United Kingdom, of Scotland or of Ireland, one's raison d'àtre is that one is a peer of State of the particular country. If geography does not come into it, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, then, as a sequitur, certain French noblemen ought to have the right to come to another place because at one time the Monarch had possessions in France. If it its suggested that we should allow Irish peers to come to another place because Ireland was once part of the United Kingdom, we should allow in certain Roman and French noblemen. I do not think that anyone in this House or in another place would suggest that that should happen.
Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: My hon. Friend accuses me of getting my geography muddled. Under Article 4 of the Act of Union, it rests with the House of Lords here to decide how Irish peerages should be arranged, and it is not a question of whether they come from one part of the country or another. The decisions still rest with the House of Lords under an Act which has not been repealed. I think that that should clear up the point.
Mr. St. Clair: With respect, the Act of Union was passed while Ireland was still part of the United Kingdom, but since 1922 this has not been so, and it follows, therefore, that their position must have altered radically.
Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: Not the Irish peerage.
Mr. St. Clair: There I must beg to differ from my hon. and gallant Friend.
If I criticise this Report, I criticise it for omission rather than commission. On 13th April, 1961, my right hon. Friend who is now the First Secretary of State said that he wished to advance reform of another place on a wide canvas. One could not call this reform a reform on a very wide canvas. However, with due deference to my right hon. Friend, the reason why it is not on a wide canvas is that right hon. and hon. Members opposite declined to take part in any Joint Committee unless it worked on a narrow

1603
canvas. Again, I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Member for Belper wants to have it both ways; he complains that the canvas is too narrow, but he was not prepared to agree, or the then Leader of the Opposition was not prepared to agree, to enter into discussions on a wider canvas.
I radically disagree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I believe in two-Chamber government. What would be the consequence of putting his theories into practice? A Government such as the Conservative Government before the war, with a majority of 150 or so, could, without a second Chamber, more or less steamroller through anything they wished. The Labour Government of 1945 was in this sort of position. There would be no revising Chamber except a lot of civil servants. The right hon. Gentleman may criticise the House of Lords, but it got the Labour Government out of an awful mess. As far as I remember, there was at that time a Bill to abolish hanging passed by this House, much against the wish of the Labour Government. A certain criminal, by the skin of his teeth, avoided being executed at that time. However, the House of Lords returned that particular piece of legislation, and then the Labour Government were able to put the Whips on and have their will so that the Bill to abolish hanging was thrown out. That is a smallish example, but one can well envisage a Government with a very large majority being able to push through anything without brake on its legislative power. If for no other reason, I think that the Second Chamber, however composed, is a very valuable asset.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale when he says that these proposals do not go nearly far enough. I should have liked the whole question of the composition of the other place—and of pay, too—to have been gone into and recommendations made. One can only call the proposed amendments tinkering amendments. We have been tinkering with the House of Lords now for 70 years. By tinkering with it all one does is to weaken it, and I do not want to see the Second Chamber weakened, however it may be composed.
I should like to see some really widespread improvements or reforms made
1604
in the other place. Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George were, I think, the first people to suggest this, and their views were expressed before I was born; yet we are again only tinkering and knocking on the outside.
Nevertheless, I welcome the Report. It is as good as we are likely to get in present circumstances. I hope that the Measure adopting its recommendations will be expedited as quickly as possible. There is, however, one question I must put to my right hon. Friend. If he has now decided that this change should be made, could it not have been done two years ago to save all the trouble and the expense it has caused the country in by-elections, court cases and the rest? Could not my right hon. Friend have consulted his friends in another place and hon. and right hon. Members opposite? If he can do it now, he surely could have done it two years ago.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. St. Clair) fails to understand that there are times when principles have to be fought for. If he had realised that he would not have made his last observation.
Mr. St. Clair: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he says that?
Mr. Wilkins: The hon. Gentleman spoke of a constituency and the country being put to the expense and trouble involved in the fighting of a by-election. I shall come to why that election was fought in that way, but before I do that I wish to comment on the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). My hon. Friend's speech was, of course, very illuminating and very forthright. I always enjoy his speeches, but I thought that he was today travelling a rather wider field than we are concerned with now. We are concerned with the rather narrow question of the right of individuals to stand for election to the House of Commons.
Viscount Lambton: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not agree with the policy expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that if we do not have the Measure foreshadowed in the Report there should be a radical reform of the second Chamber?
Mr. Wilkins: No; I was not expressing any disbelief or disagreement about that. That is a matter for another time. As I understood it from the speech of the Leader of the House, we are concerned now solely with the recommendation of the Joint Committee foreshadowing legislation, which we hope will be brought in, to make it possible for certain noble Lords to renounce their peerages and stand for election to this House. I thought that we were dealing with that specific, narrow point today.
Mr. Marsh: This is an important point. As I understand it, what we are discussing is the Report of a Select Committee set up by this House to discuss what changes
"should be made in the rights of Peers of England. Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, and of Peeresses in their own right, to sit in either House of Parliament.."
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, with whom I agree all too infrequently, made a valid point which was based on the fact that these people did not, or should not, have these rights. It is a much bigger question than whether one man should sit in this Chamber.
Mr. Wilkins: It is easy to be misunderstood when trying to speak on a point like this. I hope my hon. Friend does not want to draw me into saying whether I agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, because I have strong feelings about the functions of the House of Lords, which I should wish to express on what I would consider to be a more appropriate occasion.
May I come to the principal point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East? I understood him to say that it was not fair to ask the electorate—that is the electorate of Bristol, South-East—to decide on the reform of the House of Lords. I took an active part in the Bristol, South-East by-election. I happened to be a constituent and naturally I was anxious that the Labour candidate should be returned to this House. I had what was at the time the privilege of sharing the platform at the first meeting held in that by-election with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). I am sure that he will corroborate that it was made
1606
abundantly clear at that first meeting that the point at issue in this by-election was the right of any individual in the land, irrespective of who he was, to stand for election to this honourable House, provided he was otherwise qualified to do so. Throughout that by-election campaign this issue was always in the forefront. Indeed, politics entered into the matter to a very small degree.
That it captured the public's imagination is to be found in the fact that all sorts of people of different political opinions took part in this by-election and, indeed, helped us in every conceivable way to try to sustain once and for all what we believed to be the right of an individual. That is why I say that this was an election fought, rightly in my judgment, on a principle. I believe that the figures which were revealed as a result of that by-election amply justify our belief that the people thought that it was time that this anachronism was removed. There was no dispute about the verdict of the people in the clear knowledge that this was what they were voting for. This is a reflection of the general attitude of mind of the people of this country, particularly of the young people, to disqualification from sitting in this House and to the assertion of the rights of individuals to stand for Parliament.
I wish to express my thanks to the Leader of the House for the statement which he made this afternoon foreshadowing legislation intended to rectify this situation. I was naturally very pleased to hear of this proposed legislation. For too long I, as a voter in the Bristol, South-East by-election, have been deprived of the services of one of the most brilliant young politicians this generation has thrown up. I hope that the time is not far distant before this House has the benefit of his valuable services again.
The Leader of the House said that there were matters on which the Government would like to hear hon. Members' views before they came to their final decision about the kind of legislation which might be brought forward, such as about the concept of the surrender of a peerage for life, the period for which option should be exercised, and so on. He expressed certain doubts in the matter. He said that progress of the Bill might be impeded if the Opposition

1607
suggested too many Amendments which encouraged hon. Members opposite to table other highly controversial Amendments. He thought that if that were to happen the possibility of getting the legislation through in reasonable time might be jeopardised. I hope that the House will respond to the appeal of the Leader of the House that we should restrain our views, feelings or desires for wider reform of the House of Lords than that which is foreshadowed and that we will make it possible for the Bill to pass quickly through the House.
I propose to say only one other thing because the ground has been fairly substantially covered. I believe that it would be the wish of the people of Bristol, South-East, among whom I have lived for about forty years—perhaps it is longer than that, but I had better not say too much about that—that I should express appreciation of what the Government are proposing. I believe that the day that the Government lay this Bill on the Table for our consideration will be one of great joy for the people of Bristol, South-East who feel deeply and keenly about the fact that they have been denied the services of Anthony Wedgwood Benn in this House. Therefore, I for one express the hope that the proposed legislation will not be long delayed and that when the Bill is before us every effort will be made to ensure its rapid passage so that when the General Election comes along—and it may not be too far distant —Anthony Wedgwood Benn will be able to take his seat in the House.
I am sure that the House would have taken a stand if the present Lord Hail-sham had had the same courage to resist that Anthony Wedgwood Benn has shown. As I say, we object to this in principle and therefore it would be not have mattered from what part of the House objection came. I hope that the Bill will soon be forthcoming and will soon pass into law.
6.59 p.m.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I do not know whether I can extend such a cordial welcome to this Report as most hon. Members have extended to it. I think that there is, perhaps, a tendency to look at the problem of surrendering peerages from the point of view of fairness to reluctant peers rather than from the point of view
1608
of any effect that it may have on the efficiency of Parliament.
There is a natural tendency to feel that it is not right that a Member should give up his seat here and go to another place against his will just because somebody has died. This is a very understandable attitude with which it is easy to sympathise, but hard cases make bad laws, and, as well as trying to be fair to individuals, we here have a duty also to consider where the public advantage lies.
If the proposals in the Report are implemented, it seems to me that young men who succeed to a peerage and who wish to serve the public in a political capacity may well decide to opt for the Commons rather than the Lords. If the choice did not exist, the vast majority would, I believe, be happy to serve in the Lords, as they have done for generations. But when the choice is available many may choose the Commons rather than the Lords, because in the public mind a greater aura of glamour and drama attaches to this House than to another place.
I often wonder what choice present Ministers in another place would have made had it been possible for them to surrender their peerages when they succeeded to them. I calculate that, excluding Whips, there are 15 Ministers in another place, three of whom succeeded to their peerages while they were Members of this House and while they were still in their forties, which is a comparatively early age for politicians. Had it been possible for them to opt to stay here, it is quite likely that some of them would have decided to do so. We in this House would undoubtedly have benefited from this, but it would also have been a loss to the other place.
In considering this problem, we have to be careful to remember that this House and another place are not in competition with each other. We are both parts of Parliament. We are both important in our different ways and, therefore, we should try to resolve the problem in a manner which will benefit Parliament as a whole. Something that weakens the other place cannot be good for us here.
Of the 12 other Ministers in another place, six are still in their forties. Most of these six succeeded in their early

1609
thirties, which is just about the age when people with political leanings are thinking of trying to get into Parliament. Again, therefore, had the option existed, it is quite possible that some of these peers would also have chosen to seek election to this House rather than go to another place.
If that sort of process is to continue for long, it could not fail to be harmful, because although there are plenty of people of wide experience and great ability in the Lords, young people of ability are inevitably scarcer there and yet these are the very people who are needed to carry out much of the routine work of legislation. It therefore seems to me that if the Report is implemented, there is a distinct danger that the effect will be to weaken the Lords where it tends to be weak and to strengthen the Commons where it is already sufficiently strong.
Mr. Wilkins: This is the second time that this theory has been put before the House. It was advanced by the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyfle). On what sort of evidence is the suggestion based that if we allow people to renounce their peerages, they would probably prefer to stand for the House of Commons and that this would weaken the House of Lords by depriving it of young people? Every time I have gone to the other place, I have been rather interested in the number of old people there. From what I have seen, the present young hereditary peers do not put in an appearance at all.
Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member cannot have been listening to my speech. I said that six of the 15 Ministers in another place are in their forties, which for a political career is a comparatively early age. Thus, there seems to be a kind of clash between what Parliament needs, which is a constant source of supply of young recruits in the Lords, and what is fair for the individual, which is to have freedom of choice.
I wonder, however, whether that clash of interest is in practice as great as at first sight appears. The picture which we have of reluctant peers is of bright young men torn from their adoring constituents, forced to abandon a brilliant career here and to undertake a dull and rather useless life in another place. The right hon.
1610
Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) used the phrase "burying himself in another place".
That is the picture which exists in the public mind, but to what extent is it true? I am sure that the constituency angle is overdone. There may well be some personal feelings, but generally it is the party nomination that counts and it is rare indeed for anyone who lacks the party nomination to be elected on a purely personal vote. If we are all honest with ourselves, we would admit this to be true.
It is true that the Commons appears a more lively place than the Lords and, therefore, perhaps more attractive to young people, but this very liveliness can be a possible disadvantage, for it may make it harder to concentrate on longterm problems here than in the relative calm of another place. At least, it is noticeable that many who make the journey find the other place more congenial than they expected when they were serving this House.
As to the career angle, now that it has been shown that even a Foreign Secretary can sit in another place, the possibility of attaining such high office should be sufficient to satisfy even the ablest and most ambitious of politicians.
Viscount Lambton: My hon. Friend's argument appears to be based upon the necessity for having young men in the House of Lords. As the Government now have the opportunity of making as many young men as they want life peers, why should a very small number of people be selected to be barred from this House?
Mr. Galbraith: The answer is that a life peerage is a form of honour which normally comes to people only after considerable years of service.
To continue with my argument, it seems to me, therefore, that apart from any possible doctrinaire dislike which hon. Members opposite may have of having anything to do with a partly hereditary Chamber, there are just as satisfactory opportunities of public service at the highest levels in the other place as exist here. The only disadvantage that I see—I admit that it is a serious one—is that politicians in the Commons are paid an annual salary whilst those in the Lords are not.
That is where a great deal of the unfairness lies, because it is obviously unfair

1611
that somebody who wishes to devote his life to politics should be paid for doing so as long as he is a Member of the House of Commons but that when he is compulsorily transferred to the House of Lords, he gets nothing. Indeed, the lack of a salary on succeeding to a peerage can easily mean the end of a political career. This is something which I do not consider to be right. If this financial difficulty could be overcome, however, I do not believe that it is unfair to ask those who succeed to peerages to serve Parliament in the Lords rather than in the Commons.
Of course, it would be wrong for all peers to be paid a salary merely because they were Members of another place. Payment would have to depend upon whether their service was full-time or part-time. The full-time peer, of whom, I imagine there would be a couple of hundred or so, could be chosen partly by an election from among themselves and partly by appointment from an all-party Committee under the chairmanship of the Lord Chancellor. The whole-time peers would be paid on the same scale as we are paid in this House and the part-time peers would be paid on a daily basis proportionate to the annual salary. In this way, the financial disadvantages of membership of another place could be removed. For the whole-time politician who is anxious to do a useful job of work, the financial aspect is quite as important as the particular House in which he happens to perform his public duties. At least, I think that a financial adjustment on the lines which I have suggested should be tried out first before we commit ourselves to the more radical changes proposed by the Joint Committee, because if these changes are implemented, they are bound to draw away from another place young peers whose absence it could ill afford.
If, however, the change recommended in the Report takes place, there are two minor suggestions that I should like to make on points on which the Leader of the House asked for the views of the House. In the first place, I think it would be better for a peer who surrenders his peerage to be called by whatever name he had before succeeding. For example, if the former Member of Parliament for Dorset, South had surrendered his
1612
peerage on succeeding to the Earldom of Sandwich, I think it would have been quite ridiculous for him to be called Mr. Montagu instead of Viscount Hinching-brooke, under which name he had been known in this House for over a generation. Therefore, I think that the old name, the name at the date of succession, should be retained.
The other suggestion that I have to make is perhaps rather more important. It concerns the time limit for surrendering a peerage. For older people the period laid down may be perfectly satisfactory, but to expect minors without any experience of life to make a wise decision when they reach 21 is not, I suggest, very sensible.
If it is finally decided that peers should be able to sit in the Commons, I would have preferred the method to have been based on the Irish model; that is, those who are not full-time members of the Lords could stand for election to the Commons. Alternatively, there is something to be said for the Lord President's proposal that decisions should not be irrevocable but should be only for a reasonably foreseeable period of years. Another alternative is my own idea. Since the Report proposes that existing peers, in spite of having sat in another place, should come to join us here, I do not see why those who succeed to peerages in the future should not also be able to come to the Commons even after having sat in the Lords. They would then be choosing after some experience of Parliament. It is just possible that this might reduce the drain of young men away from the Lords which may occur if they are forced to make a choice at a very early age.
At any rate, whatever we do, we want to try to be fair to individuals, and I believe that the financial adjustments which I have suggested would largely secure this. At the same time we want to be fair to Parliament and not to damage the institution either by undue softness for reluctant peers or by undue harshness which forces an irrevocable decision too early in life for fear of conferring the advantage of what I believe is called "having it both ways" upon a small number of peers. I think that in this matter we want to be neither too soft to individuals nor too harsh, and that our guide all the time should

1613
be what is in the public interest, whether that happens to be absolutely logical or not.
The Report's proposals, I know, seem slight and at first sight obviously fair, but in the long run this modest change might well have the most damaging effect upon the vitality of another place and upon the effectiveness of Parliament as a whole. This possibility, rather than fairness to individuals, is to my mind the real issue before the House, and I hope that the Government will consider this aspect of the matter very carefully before embarking on changes the outcome of which none can foretell.
7.14 p.m.
Mr. Richard Marsh: I think that many listening to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) must have felt a tinge of nostalgia, because my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) had suggested earlier, in a moment of optimism, that there could be no one left in the twentieth century to make that sort of speech. The hon. Member seemed quite incapable of drawing any distinction between the rights to govern of those who are elected and the rights to govern of those who are ennobled. He talked as if the Lords and the Commons were very similar to each other and as if we should treat them equally.
This is where I disagreed with an hon. Friend of mine who spoke earlier. I do not think that the debate has anything to do with whether one man has a right to come into the Chamber or not. It is not a question of whether any one person has been badly treated or not. In company with all my hon. Friends and many hon. Gentlemen opposite, I felt a great deal of sympathy for the appalling and quite inexcusable position with which Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn was faced on the death of his father. His personal difficulties were very real. But a debate on this issue goes much wider than this. What was wrong about the position of Anthony Wedgwood Benn was not that any one man was treated badly but that the declared will of the electorate was deliberately flouted.
What is fundamentally wrong in the present position is not that Anthony Wedgwood Benn is precluded from entering this Chamber. That is something
1614
which I myself think is wrong so far as he is concerned, but it is a personal misfortune and one which we all hope will be remedied. But what is obnoxious in a democracy is that a man who has placed himself before the electors of a constituency and has been overwhelmingly rejected by them is still, by Governmental action, able to come into the House and speak from the benches opposite. As a democrat, I find that indefensible.
Mr. Robert Cooke: As one of the other hon. Members representing Bristol, might I point out that the reason why Mr. St. Clair sits for a Bristol constituency is that Lord Stansgate stood as a disqualified person and the seat went by default to Mr. St. Clair, who has no real wish to be here and is in a very embarrassing situation?
Mr. Marsh: Any hon. Member who has no wish to be here need not come here. Any Member who is in the Chamber is here because he decided that he would attempt to get here. The hon. Gentleman still misses the point. To me it is that in a democracy the will of the electorate must be supreme. The electorate has a right, overriding ties of blood, to choose to represent them whomsoever they wish. The electorate of Bristol, South-East had two candidates nominated. One of them polled 23,275 votes and the other 10,231, and the one polling a minority of more than 13,000 was the one who was elected.
Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is differing rather from my opinion. I have great admiration for Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn or Lord Stansgate. However, does not the hon. Gentleman think that in the election what really counted was the fact that Mr. Wedgwood Benn had the party nomination and that if he had stood as an Independent he would not have been elected?
Mr. Marsh: I seem still not to be getting the point across. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the electoral power of Members of Parliament or candidates is very marginal, but this a different argument. If one believes in democracy, and if the declared will of the people is for a certain person to be their representative, no matter for what reason, to argue that an accident of birth can override that is precisely the Herrenvolk argument put forward by Hitler. It is the argument

1615
which claims that the blood and the birth of some gives them rights over others even against the declared will of their fellows. That is indefensible. I do not care for what reason the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. St. Clair) was defeated; to me, the important thing as a democrat is that he was defeated.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I shall not interrupt him again. But will he not agree that when Lord Stansgate stood at the election, he knew that he could not be elected and sit in this House for that constituency, he knew he was a disqualified person, and, as such, could not represent it, and he knew that Mr. St. Clair was bound to end up as the constituency's representative in this Chamber?
Mr. Marsh: I am sorry to pursue this point. Mr. Benn, in company with another candidate, was nominated for the seat. That nomination was accepted as valid by the returning officer, and an election took place. Only one thing prevents Mr. Benn from sitting in the House instead of the hon. Member opposite, and that is a belief that in some circumstances a man's birth takes precedence over the declared will of the electorate.
Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has missed the point. This was not put beyond peradventure until the Electoral Court had decided after the election. Neither the hon. Memer for Bristol, West nor the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) could say with certainty beforehand what the result was going to be.
Mr. Marsh: I was about to make that point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. The purpose of the court action was to determine whether this was a valid contest. We seem to be moving in circles. I come back to the fundamental point. To me, as a democrat, the people are entitled, for whatever reasons they wish, to choose whomsoever they wish to represent them, and no one for no reason should have the right to prevent them from making their choice.
Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: I only intervene because I was concerned in a simi-
1616
lar case. My opponent at the election in question was a convicted felon and therefore the law held that he was not able to come here. I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument that because a constituency votes for a man knowing that he is ineligible by law he should therefore be allowed to take his place here. We would have to change the law first. The law cannot be changed by a constituency at an election.
The hon. Gentleman has also mentioned the nomination of Mr. Benn. But the returning officer has only to receive the candidate's name supported by twelve electors. He can only accept the papers. He cannot refuse them.
Mr. Marsh: There is a fundamental distinction between a man rendered ineligible by an offence for which he is tried in the courts before the election and a man who stands for election with no obvious drawback other than the fact that he is his father's son. That is the thing to which I object and why I feel that we cannot deal with this debate merely in terms of one individual. But there is obviously a fundamental disagreement between me and hon. Members opposite. I am not surprised. Indeed, I am rather reassured by it, and it convinces me that I am right.
We have tended to talk as if the problem is that people are forced into another place when they would rather be here, and that in doing so we cut them off from their avenues of advancement. But the reason why Mr. Benn should be permitted to sit in this Chamber is not so that he can join the line of potential Prime Ministers and stand more chance of advancement. It is because Parliament is entitled to have anybody in this place whom it thinks it should have and the electorate is entitled to place anyone here whom it thinks it should have here.
It is wrong to look at this as a charitable move on behalf of an individual rather than a measure—a very inadequate one—,to remedy an injustice not to one man but to a whole constituency which declared its view and was promptly thwarted. The purpose of membership of this place is that the electorate can be represented and not merely that people can come here if there is any advantage to them. Mr. Benn would probably stand far more

1617
chance in the House of Lords, particularly under a Labour Government, of Ministerial office. But that is not the issue. That is not what we fought for. I fought in his campaign, as many of my hon. Friends did. What he was fighting for was not the chance of personal advancement but something which many of us on this side regard as a fundamental principle.
I do not know the reasons for it, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) will tell me, but I cannot understand why the Report of the Joint Committee was so narrow in its recommendations. The terms of reference were that it should
"… consider … what changes should be made in the rights of Peers of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, and of Peeresses in their own right, to sit in either House of Parliament …"
I do not think that it is possible to discuss this particular case except in the context of the House of Lords as it is.
I was attracted by some of the remarks the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead made about the House of Lords. One of my hon. Friends reminded me of the Biblical reference
"There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest."
Mr. S. Silverman: They do not cease to trouble.
Mr. Marsh: I think that its capacity for trouble is limited, and one might talk of the reform of the House of Lords without talking also of whether its capacity for trouble should be circumscribed or not.
I make no bones about this. I hope that it is apparent that I am completely opposed to the hereditary principle in any way, shape or form. I do not see how the Labour Party can support it for the House of Lords or for anywhere else. It is an argument which can be pursued only on the ground that some people, purely because of birth, have privileges which are denied to others.
I am not an egalitarian. I accept that there are bound to be gradations of society and of power in Parliament. But I do not see how one can justify, in the second half of the 20th century, a situation where a man's right to govern and to participate in govern-
1618
ment, in this place or in any other place, can be argued solely on the basis that he is the son of his father or the grandson of his grandfather. It is, I repeat, exactly the argument pursued by other people internationally before the last war. It is the argument that some people are by birth superior to others. It is not only obnoxious to democrats, but it makes for exceedingly bad Government.
The case has been made that we must not tamper too much with the House of Lords because if we do we shall weaken its strength and therefore lose some of the great assistance it gives to this Chamber. There is perhaps a case for a second Chamber composed of people who have considerable experience of various activities in our public life—former trade unionists, former statesmen, former bankers, former industrialists and others. But that is a case more for a sort of human correspondence column than for a second Chamber with power.
There is a good case for a second Chamber or a forum which meets to discuss what Parliament is doing and to express a point of view from which the electorate can make up its mind. There is no case at all for a situation where those who represent no one other than themselves—apart from some Scottish peers who represent other Scottish peers who represent no one but themselves—have authority over the deliberations of this House.
I am pleased that we have at last produced a measure, or what seems to be likely to produce a measure, which will enable us to remedy this one injustice. I do not agree that we should be particularly grateful to the Government for it.
Instead of expecting our gratitude, the Government ought to apologise for the way in which they have deprived an entire constituency of the man it wanted. It looks as though we will be able to get over that and that it will be possible to welcome Wedgwood Benn back here after the next election in Bristol, South-East. That is a good thing. But more important, we will have established, or at least begun to establish, that this House has the prior call over any other House. I hope that that will be only the first step in waking up to the fact that in the twentieth century we cannot justify a

1619
form of Parliamentary representation which was getting out of date 300 years ago.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Lambton: We have had an interesting debate with every point of view put forward and with a surprising unanimity which was not present among hon. Members on this side of the House a year or two ago, when it was not agreed that there should be a considerable measure of reform.
I suppose that it is always right to declare one's interest. I have one interest which is rather obvious and one which is rather peculiar. I am now being sued for libel because of my actions about the House of Lords. I wrote a paragraph about Irish peers and said that it was a pity that one of them wrote like a lawyer. Apparently, that is libel. I was always brought up to believe that the law was by necessity respectable, but that peers were not always so; but apparently it is libellous to liken peers to lawyers.
Mr. Speaker: May I find out whether the action has yet been set down for trial?
Viscount Lambton: I am sorry that I have unwittingly offended against the rules, Mr. Speaker.
I should like very much to welcome the Bill which I hope that the Government are to bring forward. Some hon. Members opposite have said that this is not enough, but surely it meets the basic case which was brought about by the absence from this House of Mr. Wedgwood Benn. Before my hon. Friends go against the Government in this matter and say that any reform would be wrong, it would be wise to see what the position is.
A very able Member of the House was disqualified by birth from sitting here. He was not only an able but a very active Member and there is no doubt that at the next election he would have made this a very considerable issue. Whether we like it or not, the Conservative Party, without reform, has no choice but to make him a martyr at the next election. Nothing would be sillier than that, and that is why I think that not only from the national advantages of allowing
1620
Members to sit in the House of Commons, but from party and tactical advantages, it would be almost suicide for the Conservative Party to deny him entrance to the House of Commons.
Whether the proposed Bill goes far enough at the moment is very much a matter of opinion. I am not sure whether hon. Members opposite who condemn the hereditary system with such great spirit are not making a mistake in some senses. I think that it was Bernard Shaw who argued that the House of Lords was the most democratic system in the world because it was sheer luck who was there. Everybody was born the same, and the very oddest sort of people found themselves in the House of Lords.
In these days, when there is such a very large centralisation of power, when there is such great authority and an overwhelming number of professional politicians and so little individuality, to have a second Chamber containing a number of totally disinterested politicians—except on certain occasional issues when they can come up from the country and vote—is of distinct advantage. Hon. Members opposite will not agree with me about that, but I think it is so.
I conclude by congratulating the Government, if somewhat belatedly, on proposing to put forward a Bill. I hope that it will get universal blessing for a speedy introduction from both sides of the House.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am in the unfortunate position of not agreeing with any speech which has been made in the course of the debate. I regret it very much because this is a matter of great importance to the House of Commons and because it gives one cause to raise a lone voice against what seems to be the otherwise unanimous view of the House of Commons. Naturally, I will not carry my opposition very far. Indeed, there is no reason why I should, because we are not being asked to decide anything tonight. We are being asked only to take note of the very important Report of a very important Select Committee, and of course we must take note of it.
It is therefore not necessary to do more than indicate—I hope shortly and I hope modestly—why I think the House would be ill advised to proceed further

1621
along the lines recommended by the Select Committee. In particular, I regret differing from my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) who made a powerful and eloquent analysis of the evils of the hereditary system in a second legislative Chamber, an analysis with whose every word I agreed. My difficulty is that I cannot see how the proposals which are made in the Select Committee's Report will effect any improvement of any kind.
I quite understand the position of my right hon. and hon. Friends. They were, as we all were and as I am, almost morally revolted by the notion that a young and able Member of Parliament who, like his father before him, was rendering very great service to the House of Commons, should have his career broken off so far as the House of Commons is concerned not by the fortune of birth, as has been said, but by the misfortune of death. I have more than ever sympathy—I am completely and enthusiastically with them—with all those, and I believe that they now include many hon. Members on both sides of the House, who think that that was an unfortunate situation which ought to be corrected. I have no dissent from that of any kind whatever.
The question is whether, out of the deepest and sincerest sympathy with the hardship of a particular case, or three or four cases, or half-a-dozen cases, we can make any impact on the anomalies of our legislative system. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were content to accept it not on the basis that it made any wide or deep or extensive reform, but that it was worth while to correct a particular anomaly as long as one reserved one's position to deal with the whole question when one was in a better position to do so.
No doubt that is a view which commends itself to many and which has commended itself to many. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale made a point with which most of us would agree—whereas a few years ago the House of Lords could fairly have been called obsolescent, it had lost status and prestige and was beginning to be, if not ignored, at any rate just tolerated with indifference by the electorate, it is now no longer in that position.
1622
Is not that because during the last few years we have accepted this principle that if one cannot have a loaf, take half a loaf; if one cannot have half a loaf, take a quarter of a loaf; if one cannot get a quarter of a loaf, take a slice; if one cannot get a slice, take a crust; and if one cannot get a crust, be satisfied with any crumb which may fall from a rich man's table? In this way one lops off an anomaly here, and an inadequacy somewhere else, and so as it were lowers the impact on the public mind of the real anomaly of having a second Chamber on a hereditary principle in existence at all. It is that which caused the interruption—I hope it is no more—of Anthony Wedgwood Benn's career.
What effect do these proposals have on the hereditary principle? My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) said that what we were really doing was to defend the right of a constituency to elect anybody it liked. We are doing nothing of the kind. All the categories of disqualified candidates remain exactly as they were. Supposing Anthony Wedgwood Benn's father had been alive and a Member, as he was, of the House of Lords, and either this constituency of Bristol, South-East, or some other constituency, had wanted to elect him to the House of Commons. Does my hon. Friend think that they should have had that right? If he does, then any peer can do it. All that is being suggested here—I am not seeking to be offensive about it, but merely realistic—is that there should be a new privileged class based on the hereditary principle. Is that helping our position with regard to the House of Lords?
Mr. Marsh: I should not like to be misunderstood about this. I do not think that the Select Committee in any way meets that position. I said that I thought the answer was the abolition of the hereditary principle, and it is this which is obnoxious. In one man's case—and probably in two or three men's cases—this does at least enable him to come back here, but I do not think that it solves the problem.
Mr. Silverman: I fully understood that, and if I said anything which might have appeared to cast doubt on it let me put it right. Of course that is what my hon. Friend is saying. That is what my right

1623
hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was saying. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale was saying. It is what everybody who supports these proposals is saying. What I am asking is whether, to achieve that, it is wise to adopt a principle which means reaffirming the hereditary principle and creating a new privileged class based on it?
Viscount Lambton: A new privileged class?
Mr. Silverman: Yes, a new privileged class. The exemptions which we would be making if we legislated to give effect to these proposals are limited, on one view of the matter, to those who succeed to peerages already existing. It does not apply to anybody else, and if we stand by the retrospective principle contained in the recommendations, and passed by one vote, we shall confer this new principle on the whole House of Lords. We shall give the whole of the House of Lords, whose Members have the right in any case to be Members of the Legislature, the right to choose whether they will be Members of the House of Lords or Members of the House of Commons, and we shall do that in the name of equality.
What equality? Is a Member of the House of Lords to be given the right, on the ground of hardship, to retain, if he wants, the privilege to be in the House of Lords or to choose instead to offer himself for election to the House of Commons? I suppose that if that is supported on the principle of equality, then any elected Member of the House of Commons should have the right to choose to be a Member of the House of Lords, otherwise we shall do what I said—create a new privileged class on the basis of the hereditary principle.
Viscount Lambton: Is the hon. Gentleman making too much of this? What we are really doing today is introducing special legislation to enable the former Member for Bristol, South-East to sit again. If at some other time the hon. Gentleman wishes to make an attack on the hereditary system let him do so, but is this the moment for it?
Mr. Silverman: If the noble Lord were right in that I should not be making this speech. If the Government had
1624
chosen to introduce a Wedgwood Benn enabling Bill, I should have voted for it cheerfully and enthusiastically.
Viscount Lambton: And for a Bill for me?
Mr. Silverman: No. This is what the noble Lord overlooked. To bring in special legislation to do what I would truly like to do, to bring back Anthony Wedgwood Benn to the House of Commons, look at the price I have to pay. It is not only the noble Lord. There is also Lord Hailsham and Lord Home, and heaven knows how many more out of the 900 of them.
Mr. M. Foot: They have to be elected.
Mr. Silverman: I know, that, and I shall make a point about that in a moment.
I suppose it could not be contested by any serious student of politics that if it were lawful for Lord Hailsham to sit in the House of Commons he would have no difficulty in persuading his party to find him a safe seat. What the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House might think about it I do not know, but I do not think that either of the two noble Lords whom I have mentioned would be under any serious difficulty in finding some misguided Tory constituency to do what a well-advised constitutency in Bristol did for Anthony Wedgwood Benn, and I say that that is far too high a price to pay.
It is not the noble Lord alone. One might tolerate an occasional one, and perhaps one could do it in the case of the noble Lord, because, after all, if we were to put Anthony Wedgwood Benn into one scale on our side, and the noble Lord into the scale on the other side, I think that the Establishments on both sides would agree that the advantage would be with us and not with them, and therefore one might tolerate the noble Lord. But this is not a Wedgwood Benn enabling Bill, and to make it so the Select Committee had to adopt a number of principles that went far beyond that.
I come now to the question of hardship. In the individual case it is very easy to see what the hardship is, and to sympathise with it very deeply, but the hardship arises out of a question of status. I really do not understand the attitude of the Conservative Party to

1625
these proposals. What is the hereditary principle which they have always defended and which they defend now, apart from the partial exception which they are ready to make? It is the principle that there are certain members of society who are so useful, so loyal, who contribute so much to its general welfare, or have contributed so much, that they ought to form a select cadre among our citizens. They are to be given a status which not merely applies to them but to all their children through all generations unto eternity. It was not conferred upon them as a hardship. It was conferred on them as, in their view, a well-deserved tribute—a reward, an honour giving practical power to themselves and their families for ever. It is on that principle that the hereditary principle in the second Chamber has always been defended.
Viscount Lambton: That is not the case. The case is that Mr. Wedgwood Benn's father went to the House of Lords in order to build up the Opposition there.
Mr. Silverman: The noble Lord is less generous than usual. Anthony Wedgwood Benn's father was sent to the House of Lords because he was, like all others who are sent there pretend to be, a distinguished servant of a democracy. He was content to go. I do not say that he liked it. I cannot say that he enjoyed it, but it was not conferred upon him as a hardship. It was said to him that he was so valuable, so useful and could defend the Socialist cause so effectively in the House of Lords that he ought to go there.
We are not dealing only with recent creations, because in the proposals of the Select Committee the new privilege of being able to choose, subject to finding a safe constituency, does not apply to first creations, and the general principle that I have enunciated is one which I am sure no genuine Conservative would reject. It is on that basis that the whole of the hereditary principle has been defended.
What are the Conservative Party now saying? They are not saying that this is an honour, a privilege, a right arising out of status that ought to be defended to the death. They are saying that it is a hardship, that it is oppressive, that a man is being deprived of something by reason
1626
of the consequences of the status conferred upon him.
Viscount Lambton: So he is.
Mr. Silverman: If he is, the noble Lord ought to abandon the hereditary principle altogether and not create a new class of privileged people dependent on an acceptance, a confirmation and an extension of the hereditary principle.
I should have thought that, from their point of view, by doing this they were abandoning the outposts of the privileged society that they defend. They cannot, having done this, ever again defend the hereditary principle as the status which any democracy ought to retain. What I am saying is that from the point of view of my hon. and right hon. Friends they are putting new difficulties in our way and not rendering it easier to abandon them. What harm would there have been if this position had been allowed to ride for a year or two?
There will be a General Election shortly. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will win it. I have no doubt that in the next Parliament we shall have an adequate majority and that we shall be able to pass through the House of Commons any reform that we want.
There is no doubt about the reform of abandoning the hereditary principle and perhaps the second Chamber altogether —certainly a second Chamber maintained and founded on the acceptance of the hereditary principle. There is not a member of the Labour Party who is not against that. I do not say that those who legislate for these improvements will inhibit anybody—and I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper expressly saying that it would not—proceeding to an adequate and radical tackling of this whole anomaly, which the House of Lords is.
But it seems to me that it was not worth while to give hostage to fortune in that way to bring Wedgwood Benn back to the House of Commons a year or 18 months earlier. That seems to me to be the position. That is why I think that it is a pity to play about with it, to take off an anomaly here or an inadequacy there, a contradiction somewhere else, dealing with them one by one so as to push into the background what is the real anomaly that we are against and which we should like to

1627
cure. So I should not advise the House of Commons to proceed any further with these recommendations, but to wait—we shall not have to wait very long—until we are in a position to deal with the whole matter.
7.57 p.m.
Sir William Teeling: I do not want to be drawn into following the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in the detailed criticism he has made of the House of Lords as such. It seems to me that today we are dealing with two or three worthwhile points which could be cleared up. Mention has been made of Mr. Wedgwood Benn's father. I remember very well when he became Lord Stansgate. I remember working under him for some time at the Air Ministry during the war. I got the impression that he went to the House of Lords because he felt it was his duty to do so in order that the Labour Party could be properly represented by a person of his standing. In those days there was no such thing as life peerages, other than life peerages for lawyers; and I am certain that if there had been that would have been what Lord Stansgate would have tried to obtain. Therefore, it seems to me very bad luck that his son should be in this position. Having obtained a peerage, Lord Stansgate did his level best for his party.
Afterwards we made the first step, admittedly, towards weakening the hereditary principle by allowing life peerages. Now we are going a step further. But there is also a little more in this Report than just dealing with the one question of elder sons and heirs being entitled to sit in this Chamber. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the question of young peers—"minors", shall we say—when they come of age getting the opportunity to make up their minds in which Chamber they will sit. I agree that one year after 21 is far too early for them to make up their minds. Most people, if they have anything to leave to their children in their wills do not want the children to benefit until some time after the age of 21, sometimes as late as 25 and 30. Certainly much later than 21.
There is also the recommendation that people who decide to sit in the Commons
1628
should not take on the titles which they have inherited from their fathers. I do not see that there is any particular need for that. For many years we have had the question of the Irish peerages. Many hon. Members will recall Earl Winterton. He came to this House as Lord Turnour and succeeded to the Earldom and became Earl Winterton. He could have given up—there was no need why he should—his seat in the House of Commons and been elected an Irish representative peer in the Lords. Any Irish peer in those days could have done the same or could have sat in this House. But they did not have to give up the title of an earldom, marquisate or dukedom to which they might have succeeded. As one newspaper pointed out today, any subsidiary title which came to other members of their families in that way need not be affected.
We seem to be in quite a muddle over the whole question of the Irish peerages. I think it a little unjust that they should be treated in the way in which they are being treated at present. An Irish peerage is very different from a Scottish peerage in that the Irish peerage was started shortly after the English peerage was started, in the twelfth or thirteenth century, by the kings of England for those people who were in those days representing them and working for them in Ireland. The Scottish peerage came into the hands of the English kings—shall we say—at a much later period. The Irish peerage has been as much a gift of the kings of England as has the English peerage right from the very start.
Then we come to the time of the union with England to form the United Kingdom and X numbers of representative peers were allowed to be chosen from Ireland to continue working under the king in the United Kingdom. Many Irish peerages were given to people who had nothing whatever to do with Ireland, and this occurred not only in the nine-tenth and the twentieth centuries but also in the eighteenth century and earlier. Lord Clive is one example. People of many types and generations were given these peerages either because they were not rich enough to take on a peerage in England or in the United Kingdom, or, for one reason or another, they did not want one. In some cases the peerage was given as a form of lesser honour than having a United Kingdom peerage.

1629
There are many of the descendants of these people still living in this country whose ancestors got their reward for some reason other than that which required them to sit in the United Kingdom Parliament though they could be elected as representative peers if they chose to stand.
Why should they be barred suddenly since 1922? There were people like Lord Curzon. He became Viceroy of India and it was considered necessary that he should have a peerage when he became Viceroy. But he did not want to be debarred from coming back to the House of Commons. Later when he ceased to be Viceroy, for one reason or another he decided that he had better be in the House of Lords and he was elected a representative peer. Later on he took a United Kingdom peerage. Lord Winterton decided to remain in this House, and in the nineteenth century Lord Palmerston also remained in the Commons. But for some reason, in 1922, when the Treaty was made with Ireland the whole of this question of the election of the Irish peers was forgotten. It was not the case that it was deliberately never mentioned; it was, I understand, completely forgotten.
When one or two Irish representative peers died and it was decided once again that someone had to take their place, it was found that there was nobody who could act for the election and call the representative peers together. The person who should have done so was called the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper. It was also a question of the Lord Chancellor of England informing the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and getting the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper to call the Irish peers together. The Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper had ceased to exist or to be appointed. The English Lord Chancellor could have asked the Irish Lord Chancellor to find someone else to call the peers together. But within a year or so as, gradually, Ireland drifted into further independence, the Irish Lord Chancellor also ceased to exist and there was no one for the English Lord Chancellor to write to.
I understand that until only a few years ago—certainly after the war—as a matter of form the English Lord Chancellor wrote to the office of the Irish Lord Chancellor announcing that there had been a General Election and that it was time
1630
to elect Irish peers for life. The letter was returned as address unknown because nobody knew where to send it. That happened up until not so long ago. It is my personal belief that today some Irish peer should take up the case himself in the Law Courts. It would be better were this done in the Law Courts, or even through the House of Lords. There seems no reason at all why they should not, even today, elect some representatives. There has been no Act of Parliament passed to stop it and nothing has been done to make that illegal. It is only that there was no one to write to, and I should have thought it would be quite within the power of the courts of this country, or the House of Lords, to put the matter right at no very great cost.
After all, the Irish peers are in no very different position from many others. We refer to the Irish peers as being in another country and regard Ireland as an independent country and a Republic. But there are United Kingdom peerages held by foreigners living abroad. There is the Countess of Newburgh—of whom one thinks straight away—from Italy. Hon. Members will remember that after the First World War a special Act of Parliament had to be passed to deprive two peers of the United Kingdom of their peerages—the Duke of Cumberland and the Duke of Albany—because they had fought against Britain during the First World War and had therefore committed high treason. In the same way other peerages were lost for high treason all through history. There was the Irish peerage of the Earldom of Carlingford. This Parliament passed an Act in 1921 or 1922 depriving him of his earldom because he fought in the Austrian Army against the Allies.
All these peerages have been held by foreigners, and so for a foreigner in southern Ireland it would be nothing new to have a peerage. All he would have to do when he came to the House of Lords would be to take an oath and become a United Kingdom citizen. It would be interesting to know what is the position of Irish members of the House of Lords. There are several United Kingdom peers who live in southern Ireland and who are Irish citizens. When they take the oath here before sitting in the House of Lords, do they give up their Eire citizenship?

1631
One must not forget that Irish peers are peers of the whole of Ireland, including Ulster, which is a part of the United Kingdom, and there are many peers in Ulster. There are several Irish peers who live in this country. There are others who have property in southern Ireland, and some who go backwards and forwards across the border. It seems to me grossly unfair that these sixty or seventy people—if we are talking of the hereditary principle and admit that their ancestors were given these titles—for one reason or another should be deprived of their rights, whereas other people are not. I think this matter should be considered again to see whether future representative peers from the Irish peerage should not be brought back into the same position as those of the Scottish peerage.
8.10 p.m.
Dr. Alan Glyn: As a protagonist of a bicameral system, I look upon the Report of the Select Committee in two ways. I ask myself in what way it strengthens the other place and also in what way it weakens it. I am pleased to find that the Scottish peers will have full representation, rather than being limited to 16 in number, as at the moment. I am also pleased to see that the other place will be reinforced by peeresses in their own right. That anomaly should not have been allowed to exist when life peerages were first given to women. It was a pure anachronism, and I welcome the inclusion of those peeresses in another place.
As I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), it occurred to me that when we consider the question of renunciation of peerages in order to enable peers to sit in this House we shall have to remember the effect that it will have on the younger Members in another place. This is a matter in which the considerations are unfortunately balanced between the needs of the other place and the popular demand which was worked up over the Stansgate case. It will be extremely difficult to resist the demand that peers placed in the position in which Mr. Wedgwood Benn was placed should not be barred from remaining in this House. This will unfortunately mean that many young men in another place may be tempted to sit in the House of Commons.
1632
I have never been able to understand the reason for choosing to sit in this House, because the scope which the other place offers to a young man who comes into a hereditary peerage is immense. He has an opportunity of serving his country as well in the other place as he could serve it here. In fact, there may be even greater advantages in the other place. Whatever may be the effect of allowing renunciation, I hope that it will not denude the other place of real talent.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) said about the Irish peerage. From a constitutional point of view my hon. Friend has a case, but that case really has gone by default. Since 1921 there have been no new elections, and the final string was broken by the death of the last remaining Irish representative peer last year. It will be very difficult to re-establish the connection, even though these peerages were given to a great extent to English people, and theoretically they should have the same rights as Scottish peers, or peers of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House asked us for criticisms of certain points. In paragraph 6 (p) of its Report the Select Committee is being a little hard on those people who have enjoyed the privileges of courtesy titles referred to in the second part of that paragraph—in other words, privileges inherited from an ancestor. It is a little hard to say that after a person has enjoyed those privileges for ten, fifteen, or twenty years they should be taken away from him simply because his father chooses to exercise his undoubted prerogative of renouncing his peerage. We ought to look into this question before we finally draft legislation on it.
The question of name should be one for the person who renounces his peerage. Presumably he would choose the name by which he was popularly known before he came into his peerage. I would have thought that that was something which the holder of a title had the right to decide. But I would not favour the idea of his being allowed to retain his title. If he wants to renounce his peerage he should renounce his title as well. He should sit in this House as a plain Mister. I see no reason why he should have it both ways.

1633
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), whether we admit it or not we are giving people a dual advantage in enabling them to choose in which House they shall sit. Nevertheless, we have no choice in the matter, because it has already been clearly shown that the people would prefer that persons like Lord Stansgate should be allowed to sit in the House of Commons.
I would have preferred it if we had taken a wider view of the matter. My solution would have been to provide that the House of Lords should be constituted as to 50 per cent. hereditary and 50 per cent. life peers, hereditary peers electing a fixed number from their own ranks, like the system which operates now in relation to the Scottish peers. That might have overcome the necessity for renunciation.
We have had a long debate, and it appears that I am the last speaker. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I believe it is the view of our people generally that since the war the prestige of the House of Lords has tended to increase. If, by implementing the recommendations of the Select Committee, we can further enhance that prestige we shall be doing a service to both Houses of Parliament. I hope that as time goes on the House of Lords will continue to be a strong second Chamber, which our people will increasingly tend to regard as being an important part of our Parliamentary democracy.
8.17 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) for the election of Scottish peers. Scotland has many grievances. They crowd upon us day by day and hour by hour. But this is not a matter that is causing one citizen of Scotland from John o'Groats to Dumfries to lose one night's sleep. If this had been an injustice to Scotland these benches would have been crowded by my colleagues, anxious to protect the interests of Scotland. The majority of Scottish people regard the House of Lords as an anachronism, and would like to see it abolished, or at any rate to see it rendered harmless to arrest the will of the elected democracy.
1634
As far as I can recollect, I represent three peers in this House. First, I represent a famous shipowner, who lives in a corner of my constituency. I sometimes travel to London with him. He is greatly interested in shipping affairs, and no doubt gives the benefit of his experience to some shipping company, but I have yet to hear that he has delivered a speech in the other place. I am sure that he has not the slightest intention of spending any time in that Chamber, even on a discussion of shipping.
I also have in my constituency a hereditary landlord, whose title goes back to ancient history. One of his ancestors must have been one of the noble Lords who fought with Macbeth, or Macduff. He must have been contemporary with them. Although he is a great landlord and draws a considerable revenue in rent, I fail to see why he should go to the other place—which, fortunately, he very rarely does.
Then there is the noble Lord who is the father of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, (Mr. Galbraith), who renders very distinguished service and is a backbone of democracy. I do not think that the House of Lords has done him any harm. When he was in the House of Commons he was a very strong supporter of private enterprise and private interests. Then he became the Chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board. Overnight he became converted to Socialism. Now he defends this nationalised industry with all his force. Personally I should like to know what he says in private about the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro), who normally occupies the place now occupied by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead. I take a liberal and tolerant view of these people. In our history their ancestors may have performed some public service, but I believe that in the modern age their place is not—
Sir W. Teeling: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is a terrible thing that none of these three noble Lords is allowed even to vote for him?
Mr. Hughes: I cannot disclose the secrets of the ballot. I do not wish to discuss that. I do not know whether they do or not.
Sir W. Teeling: They are not allowed to vote.
Mr. Hughes: I know that they cannot vote. All I want to point out is that I frequently meet these noble constituents of mine—
Mr. Thomas Fraser: They were not always disfranchised.
Mr. Hughes: I do not care whether they are disfranchised or not. These three gentlemen have certainly never canvassed me on what I am going to do about the terrible iniquity, anomaly and injustice which the hon. Member for Clapham says is felt in Scotland about this matter.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Perhaps I did not put it clearly. I said that I was very glad that the other place is to be reinforced by increased representation from Scotland.
Mr. Hughes: I was provoked into entering this debate by the allegation that there was some injustice to Scotland. If there had been some injustice to Scotland, we would have seen it. I believe that this injustice is non-existent. I believe that in my constituency, even among the noble Lords there, there is no enthusiasm for this proposal. I look forward to the time when the House of Lords will not be called upon to have any kind of say in our affairs. I therefore suggest that the hon. Member for Clapham is not justified in his statement. However passionate the feeling may be about this injustice to Scottish peers in the part of London that the hon. Gentleman represents, it is not shared by the people whom I represent.
8.23 p.m.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I do not intend to speak far very long, because the House is obviously in very general agreement with the proposition before us. Only my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has sounded a discordant note. I know that he is not unaccustomed to finding himself in a minority, and even sometimes in a minority of one.
Within the very narrow field covered by the Report of the Joint Committee—it is a very narrow field that we have been debating—there is no dissent from the view, apart from that of my hon.
1636
Friend, that the package Report is generally acceptable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) stated our views this afternoon. There are parts of the Joint Report we should have preferred to see handled differently. There is particularly the question to which my right hon. Friend referred of extinction of the entire peerage when a succeeding peer renounces his right to the title. We ourselves attach great importance to the total extinction of the peerage in such circumstances. If we had been writing the Report, or if we had had a majority on the Joint Committee, I think that different conclusions would have been reached. As my right hon. Friend said, we reserve the right to table an Amendment when legislation is introduced, if, as we hope, it is soon introduced, so that we can test the feeling of the House on this issue. I want to make it quite clear that on this, as on other issues where we have reservations, we do not press, and shall not press, our opposition to the point where we would oppose, or indeed where we would fail to give the fullest possible facilities to, a Bill to give effect to the Report.
Again, we have some anxieties about the provision which allows a Member who has renounced his peerage to be ennobled by a separate creation, whether as a life peer or as an hereditary peer. I recognise the arguments for this section of the Report. As has already been argued more than once today, a person who renounces a peerage becomes a commoner and should have the same rights as a commoner, including the right of ultimate ennoblement.
Again, a Prime Minister, seeking to appoint the best man to each position, may find that he wants a particular renouncer in the other House. He might be having difficulty filling the position of, shall we say, Lord Chancellor, a position which cannot under our constitution be exercised in this House. There may be some other Ministerial position where, on the principle of horses for courses, a particular individual is the right choice but where for one reason or another it is desirable that that Minister should function in another place and not in this House.
I recognise those arguments. I think that the Joint Committee had this type of argument in mind when it made the

1637
Report it did, though as drafted it leaves a loophole open. Reference has been made to it today. There could be a situation in which one of the hereditary peers in another place renounced his peerage within a few months of the passing of the recommended legislation so as to fight a Parliamentary election, whether a General Election or a by-election. He might then fail to win. He might then get himself re-ennobled by a creation as either a life peer or an hereditary peer. I do not think I can think of any possible Prime Minister who would be likely to engage in such a fiddle.
Mr. S. Silverman: No?
Mr. H. Wilson: No. If anyone did, I think that it would be widely regarded by the whole House and by the country as something extremely undesirable. Nevertheless, that possibility does exist and it might be necessary to take account of it in the legislation and to provide some time limit, or whatever it might be.
There is the other problem whether there should ever be any ultimate right of ennoblement. This is perhaps difficult and arguable. For example, I ask hon. Members to suppose that someone like the late Lord Dalton had in fact inherited a peerage in his youth and renounced it on reaching the age of 21 if the renunciation principle had been in force then. There might be justification for someone like that, having served in this House for many years and having finally become ready to retire with honours thick about his head, to be re-ennobled and enabled to take his place in the other House. So one recognises that there is a case for this, but one must watch out for that particular abuse.
The Leader of the House referred to the recommendation that the returning officer must satisfy himself about the eligibility of a candidate—satisfy himself that he is a genuinely renounced peer—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman has a point here and that further thought should be given to the machinery in this regard before legislation is considered.
What is the general aim of the Report, assuming that legislative effect is given to it by an early Bill? It means that no man is denied, by accident of birth, the free and equal right to stand for and be elected to and—and we attach great importance to this—take his seat in this
1638
House. It means, equally, that no constituency is fettered in its democratic right of choosing a candidate of its own choice.
References have naturally been made to Anthony Wedgwood Benn and to his tremendous and, we trust, after this debate, what will turn out to have been successful fight for a constitutional principle. If this debate is followed, as it should be, by speedy legislation, it would not only be in order to offer personal congratulations to him. We would wish to go further, for this House owes him a tribute for what he has done in isolating and proclaiming a not unimportant constitutional principle and for fighting it through with great skill and ingenuity, at great risk and at great personal cost, to the point where finally the whole Establishment and the whole constitutional machinery accepts that he was right and that legislation is needed.
Equally, I would pay tribute to the voters of Bristol, South-East for their loyalty and steadfastness and for the manner in which they turned out to vote on what I understand was a pouring wet day. They were voting not only for a man in whom they had every confidence, but also for the principle on which he had fought that election. It showed when they voted not only that they wanted Anthony Wedgwood Benn to represent them, and no other; it showed not only that they were supporting the principle on which he had taken his stand, but also that they wanted to see the constitution of this country brought into the 20th century and not remain encumbered with the last relics of medievalism.
I understand that the hon. and temporary Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. St. Clair) made some reference—and I regret having missed his speech—to that by-election and suggested that the action of Anthony Wedgwood Benn in standing involved trouble and expense for the electors and others of Bristol, South-East. Personally I regret that he is even here to make that speech. It might have been more decent if we had not had to listen to him. The fact remains that Mr. Wedgwood Benn, as I said, was right to stand. It was right that the electors of Bristol, South-East were able to give the decisive majority they gave, and it was because of that that the Joint Committee of both Houses presented the Report we have before us today.

1639
Of course, this is not an Anthony Wedgwood Benn enabling Measure, although I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne suggested something of that sort. It in fact makes a minor but not important change.
Mr. S. Silverman: I should not like to be misunderstood on this point. I said that if it had been, in my opinion, an Anthony Wedgwood Benn enabling Bill I would not have been making the speech I made and I would have voted for it with cheerfulness and enthusiasm.
Mr. Wilson: I am sorry that I misunderstood my hon. Friend. He got so tangled up with a noble Lord opposite that I must have misunderstood him on this point. However, I readily accept his correction. At any rate, no one has said that it is such an enabling Measure and, as I was saying, it makes a minor but not unimportant change in the conditions of admission to this House.
Because this is a constitutional change the Joint Committee decided to recommend—and I think rightly—that provision should be made not only for newly effected successors to the peerage, but also for those who have already crossed the great divide which lies between this House and another place and, of course, also for those who have never sat in this House but have taken their places as hereditary peers in another place.
So we agree with the proposal that not only new hereditary peers but those already there should have a once-and-for-all right of renunciation. I do not know how many would take advantage of this. It has been suggested that the noble Lords Hailsham and Home have been so knocked about by our noble Friends in another place that they are anxious to seek political asylum here. I do not know if that is true or what they expect to find when they get here. But whoever seeks to take advantage of this provision will have to get himself elected. Some noble Lords may not find that quite so easy as they think, but that is a matter for them and for the working of party democracy in constituency and selection conferences. At any rate, we agree that they should have the right, and we agree that this right should not be extended to life peers or to hereditary peers of the first creation.
1640
That raises one very special case—the case of my noble Friend Lord Longford. It is a difficult case, and it is right to draw attention to it. Here we have a distinguished man, not a member of this House, who had reasonable expectations of becoming an hereditary peer—not certain expectations, of course, but expectations that turned out to be well-founded in the event. There was, of course, no suggestion at the time he became Lord Pakenham of any possibility of renunciation. He was asked by the then Prime Minister to take the peerage and become a Minister—Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister responsible for German Affairs. In this, and in other Ministerial posts, he rendered very distinguished service to our party, to the Government and to the country. If the proposed Measure goes through, my noble Friend will be free to renounce the Longford peerage but will not be able to renounce the Pakenham peerage. He will still be a member of the other House, because the Pakenham peerage is a peerage of the first creation.
As I say, it is a very difficult case. It is a peerage of the first creation, but I think that it could well be argued that my noble Friend took it only because he assumed that, in any event, he would become an hereditary peer and, looking to the future, could see nothing other than ultimate ennoblement with no power of renunciation. I think that I am right in my recollection that Lord Attlee who, as we all know, disliked creating an hereditary peerage and never liked to recommend the ennoblement of a man with male heirs, had very much in mind that in sending Frank Pakenham, as he then was, to the House of Lords, he was not creating a net additional peerage but an additional one for the time being; that, at the end of the day, he was not creating an additional one. I believe that explanation was given at the time.
It is a very difficult case, and not one on which it is easy to reach a fair decision. It may be that some hon. Member, on either side—or it may happen in another place—may move an Amendment to any Bill that comes forward in order that the House can be given an opportunity of considering where justice really lies, but, certainly, on this question as on the other questions I have mentioned, no one would want to press the matter in opposition to such a Bill.

1641
I repeat: this has been a narrow debate on a narrow Report. It does not raise, and has not raised, the whole question of Lords reform on the wider front. It does not deal with the main question of either the constitution or powers of the other House, and in case there is any doubt about it, I must make it clear that a Labour Government will entirely reserve the right to propose legislation on these questions. However, these are not the questions that are the issue tonight, but the questions that will be raised in the legislation we are expecting to be introduced.
On the wider questions, may I say that Hugh Gaitskell, in the Queen's Speech debate on 5th November, 1957, which contained the first announcement of the Life Peerages Bill, set out our position quite clearly. He said that there were three conditions in relation to the second Chamber:
"First, it should not be an independently elected body, elected according to some other system than that of the House of Commons. That, of course, is the case with a number of second Chambers in other countries. We believe it would not be suitable for this country, nor indeed consistent with the way we run our affairs here. Secondly, we say that membership of such a second Chamber should not be based at all on the hereditary principle, Thirdly, if such a second chamber is not to be independently elected—I have already made that plain—it follows I think clearly that it must not be able to overrule this House, which is properly elected by the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1957; Vol. 557, c. 19.]
That was the statement he made then, and that statement equally represents our position today.
On the powers of another, place, I think that the position was clearly put in words more eloquent than mine by William Schwenk Gilbert 80 years ago when, through the mouth of the Earl of Mount Ararat, he said:
"And while the House of peers withholds its legislative hand,
And noble statesmen do not itch
To interfere in matters which
They do not understand
As bright will shine Great Britain's rays
As in King George's golden days."
I do not think that any of us could put it better.
Mr. George Darling: Sing it.
Mr. Wilson: I nearly did sing it, but I thought that I had better not, and we are a little short of sopranos and contraltoes for the last two lines.
In practical terms, our anxieties and criticsms today relate to two things. The first is the delaying powers of the other place, despite the fact that they were severely reduced after the war. The second is the right of the other place to reject Statutory Instruments. Although it has been said that this power has not been used, it is there and it is something which any democratic Government must be very worried about, because so much legislation, whether under a Labour or any other Government, requires extensive use of delegated legislation.
I must therefore make clear that our position in relation to the next election will be what it was in 1945. We set it out in Let us Face the Future when we said, having stated our programme, that we shall not allow the House of Lords to interfere with or frustrate the decisions of a democratically controlled House of Commons. That remains our position today but, as I have said, there is on the issues before us very general agreement in the House.
I have only one worry about the speeches we have heard today, and that was about one passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. We found ourselves in very warm agreement with everything else that the right hon. Gentleman said. The passage which worried some of us was where the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate the possibility, and even the likelihood, of delay in introducing the legislation. I hope that after today's debate he will think again about that and that today's debate will give the right hon. Gentleman the courage he needs.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Not courage—time.
Mr. Wilson: Then perhaps we could help the right hon. Gentleman on that. I could give him a good deal of advice on how he could save time in the legislative programme. He is wasting two days on Monday and Tuesday for a start. However, that might strike a somewhat controversial note on a day when otherwise controversy has been conspicuously absent. I hope that we can

1643
expect the legislation in this Session, and early enough in the Session to ensure that it is passed into the law in the very near future. It is clear that the whole House wants it. I hope that the Government will now act upon the pretty clear view of the House. We on our part pledge the Leader of the House all possible help and facilities in getting that legislation through.
8.43 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said at the start of his speech that there had been a wide measure of agreement in the House. He also served his notice. I am sorry that the House was prevented from hearing that notice in song, as the right hon. Gentleman thought at one moment he might present it. But, despite the measure of agreement throughout the House, a wide range of opinions have been expressed, extending from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who is not in favour of any change, to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), who wishes to replace the House of Lords by a collection of civil servants.
Generally, however, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, there has been agreement on both sides of the House on the narrow issue presented here, and I should have thought that where one is starting or instituting any constitutional change it is obviously desirable that there should be as wide a measure of agreement as possible. After all, we are discussing the possibility of changing, perhaps for the better in the view of many people, the rules under which we conduct political controversy and political life. Although complete agreement and indeed sometimes on these occasions any agreement is rarely possible, the wide agreement expressed today is surely welcomed on both sides of the House.
I join with the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in thanking the Joint Select Committee and the Members of the House who served on it. I think that nearly all of them have spoken today. I thank them for the Report which they have produced and for the researches which they have done. Issues which appear simple on
1644
the surface always lead to considerable complication, and to conduct research as they had to do involved them in much patient endeavour and a great deal of labour. The whole House congratulates them on the task which they have performed in the interests of the House.
The debate has illustrated the wisdom, the rightness and the propriety of the Government's action in deciding to listen to the views of all hon. Members before coming to the House with their own suggestions. Our political system is often criticised by critics and commentators of very varying weight who say that the Executive too readily imposes its will on the Legislature. This criticism cannot be made of the course which has been followed here. It would have been wrong and, indeed, unwarrantable for the Government to have presented definite views to the House without first hearing the opinions of the House on a matter which affects the very membership of it. These are matters on which there is a considerable amount of cross-opinion. Constitutional change is a subject upon which many people have views and ideas, as they have had for decades.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) referred to the Command Paper presented in 1948 which arose from the debates on what became the Parliament Act. It is interesting to see that it was entitled an "Agreed Statement on Conclusion of Conference of Party Leaders", and it ended by saying:
"… the Parry representatives concluded that there did not exist between them that basis for further discussions. …"
Perhaps this has been the history of issues of this kind in the past.
My purpose is merely to point out the consequences of some of the matters raised by the Committee's recommendations and to remind the House of particular points of difficulty which could conceivably arise, which, of course, were well in the mind of the Committee itself. I hasten to emphasise that all the matters to which I shall refer are matters of detail, although they must be carefully considered before legislation is introduced.
The first and major point is, of course, the right to surrender. A substantial body of opinion both inside and outside the House has always felt that a peer should be permitted to rid himself of the incidence of his peerage, the privilege,

1645
rights, titles and amenities. Many who have been unwilling, and who are still unwilling, to see any grave change in our constitutional practice have, nevertheless, always thought it anomalous that while a Monarch could abdicate a peer could not. The Joint Select Committee has now recommended that surrender should be permitted.
This does not give rise to any grave legal or practical difficulties. The proposal is that there should be this power in persons who do succeed. The main point for discussion which might, perhaps, arise is the setting of a reasonable time for a Member affected to declare whether he will renounce or accept a peerage. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) both mentioned this in their speeches. The period of one month suggested by the Committee might conceivably give rise to difficulty in the case of a Member who, for instance, was abroad or was suffering from some illness. But that is certainly something which could be provided for in any legislation.
Attention has been directed by the hon. Member for Leeds, West to the rights of persons to surrender, quite apart from those of politically-minded potential peers. This is brought out by the Memorandum of the Lord President of the Council, that there may be nowadays, and certainly are, some who wish to avoid the responsibilities of being a peer. They have no ambition to enter public life, but lack of means, or personal attitude, or even conviction for some offence, as is pointed out in the Memorandum, may cause a man to prefer to surrender his peerage on succession. It might be that the House would agree that that should be permissible.
With regard to the machinery for surrender, to the investigation of which the Committee gave considerable time, the recommendation is the deposit with the Lord Chancellor of a formal instrument of surrender, but it does not appear to be clear whether the Lord Chancellor should accept it only if he is satisfied that the person concerned has succeeded to a peerage. Again, strict time limits which are proposed by the Committee might make that impracticable. It might be difficult for someone to prove within a month of succession that he has, in
1646
fact, succeeded. Difficulties arise in these circumstances.
There is a considerable number of cases—about seventy in all—of persons who are entitled to writs of summons but have never bothered to prove their claim. No insuperable difficulties occur when their successors wish in turn to claim. I hope that a simple solution which might be considered when legislation is brought forward is that the surrender should be effective on the deposit with the Lord Chancellor of a formal document without more. Then if the person has succeeded the instrument will be effective. If not, the instrument will be a nullity and no harm will have been done. It is purely a matter of machinery to carry out what the Committee recommended.
One matter of difficulty to which reference has been made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition arises from the candidature of a person who might succeed between nomination and the date of the poll. I must reinforce what my right hon. Friend said about the difficulties which could arise. These cases will be extremely rare, but, as all hon. Members will appreciate, legislation has to provide for the rare and the unusual. I must advise the House that this is not altogether an easy problem to solve. I think that other Committees of this House which have been set up to examine similar problems have found that there are difficulties and complications. It is clear that this Committee gave a great deal of thought to it, and its proposal is that anyone who takes the step of accepting nomination as a Parliamentary candidate must commit himself irrevocably to renouncing any peerage to which he might succeed between nomination day and the declaration of the poll.
It seems that the Committee had in mind in this recommendation the wish that perhaps some Members have that a person embarking on a political career should have to choose at that stage which House he wishes to serve. There is also the purely practical point that there are considerable difficulties of an administrative character about any other solution. While I appreciate the principle underlying that recommendation, anomalies could arise from that system, but it seems strange that a man who opts for

1647
a Parliamentary career should be obliged permanently to renounce his succession to a peerage if he succeeds before the election campaign is completed. But he is given a choice—whether to accept or renounce—if he succeeds after the campaign is over and he has been returned to the House.
The view of the Committee, which appears to be the general view of the House, is that a sitting Member should be given one month in which to make up his mind, as recommended in the Report. There are two alternatives which may be considered. It may be that it could be provided that the law should act as though the candidate had died, although this, too, presents grave difficulty apart from the involving of expense, because the returning officer must be satisfied that the person has actually succeeded. It may be that the best or the easiest solution would be to allow the election to proceed as if nothing had happened, the candidate then being given whatever period might be appropriate—possibly a month—in which to make up his mind.
If he is unsuccessful in the election, he would have the ordinary twelve months and there would be no need for a by-election. If be is unsuccessful be would succeed to the peerage and then would have the twelve months to make up his mind. If he is successful and he becomes an elected Member, he would be given a limited time, perhaps a month, as the sitting Member to make up his mind whether to surrender. These are possible solutions, but certainly difficulties face us when we consider legislation in this matter. It is one to which the House clearly has to give considerable attention.
I made it clear when opening my reply to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that these are all matters purely for consideration. They are technical matters only on the fringe, as it were, of the main recommendations which have been made by the Joint Committee. I think it right that the House should be aware of some of the legal implications of the recommendations in the Report of which we are invited to take note.
Hon. Members may not consider those legal implications to be of sufficient substance to cause supporters of the recommendation to shift their views or to alter the balance of the proposals. As has
1648
also been widely accepted, perhaps the general pattern of the solution presented to the House in the recommendations generally could be what has been described as a package deal, despite minor points of criticism.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor) raised the matter of the Irish peers. It is right to remind the House that they made their representations to the Committee and the Committee rejected their arguments. Thus an Irish peer will remain eligible for election to this House. Thus an appropriately Irish situation arises that whereas an English or Scottish peer or a peer of the United Kingdom would, if legislation was introduced, renounce his peerage, become a Member of this House and he and his wife would revert to or remain plain Mr. and Mrs. Brown, acceptance of the recommendations will mean that, as is the position now, an Irish peer can be elected to this House and he and his wife will obtain all the glory of "his lordship" and "her ladyship".
Mr. C. Pannell: Surely, this is not such an anachronism. There is a Republic in Ireland and we could hardly bring its peerages into the same category as the United Kingdom or Scottish peerages. Surely, the position is no more than if a man used a French title. It is a matter of nomenclature. If it is not something which is represented within the compass of the United Kingdom, there always has been a general rule that people can call themselves anything they like.
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member will, of course, be aware that certainly not all Ireland is a republic. Indeed, part of it is part of the United Kingdom. I merely bring that position to the attention of the House. The position of the Irish peers was emphatically laid before the House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I assure him that his suggestions will be carefully studied, as will the views of all hon. Members who have spoken today.
No one, whatever his views or whether or not he seeks change, will underestimate the value of the Report. Some hon. Members have said that if carried into legislation it would have grave effects upon the lives of individuals, but above

1649
all and, perhaps, more important and preeminent are the membership and the rules for membership of this House.
I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, that the closest consideration will be given to all the views which have been expressed. That was the purpose of the debate. But any ultimate action in this field will affect the service which both Houses can command, and will affect the conditions under which some individuals can continue to give service to the public. I think that few present will quarrel with the view that there have been many who have given great public service to the State by first serving in this House before succeeding to a peerage or being ennobled and serving in another place. Many here tonight may also think that inclination and talent for service in one House should not be prevented by the accident of succession from continuing.
This Report and the views of the two Houses which have been expressed today merit, and will most certainly receive, the urgent attention of the Government on this matter which so closely affects this House and also the service which this House is entitled to receive.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.

LOCATION OF OFFICES BUREAU
9.1 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Location of Offices Bureau Order, 1963 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 21st March.
The Location of Offices Bureau which will be set up if this draft Order in Council be approved by the House is part of the general strategy of the Government for decentralising employment from London. Its purpose is threefold, as was announced in the recent White Paper on Employment, Housing and Land.
The first of its purposes is to use every possible means to bring the advantages of decentralising office employment to the notice of firms working in Central
1650
London and also of those firms which might contemplate setting up or adding to employment in London.
The second of its purposes is to serve as a centre from which information can be obtained about the implications both of working in Central London and of seeking to move employment out of London. That is to say, it will assemble and make available all the facts that employers will need to know about the availability of land, office space, staff, housing, and the accessibility of transport of all such potential office centres, so that those who are employing office staffs in London or are thinking of doing so will have readily available to them the implications of changing their minds and setting up offices for part or all of their staff outside London.
The third of its purposes will be, of course, to keep in close touch with Government Departments, local authorities, new towns and transport undertakings so as to have all the relevant information available.
To be effective, the Bureau will need to be in close touch with the practical thinking of businessmen, and that is why I am proposing, if this Order be approved, to invite a man with considerable business experience to be the first chairman of the Bureau. I am lucky enough to think that such an invitation will be accepted if offered to Mr. E. J. Sturgess, who has had a long and distinguished career with Shell, first as its chief engineer and latterly as the resident manager of its training college.
The Bureau will consist of a relatively small number of staff—probably between 10 and 20—mostly administrative, though some with publicity functions, and most of them will be seconded from the Civil Service. This small number of people will have to work in Central London since it will be their duty to be in constant touch with employers in that area, and I hope that if the Order is approved the Bureau will be able to start functioning in the very near future.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. James MacColl: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his skill in finding, tucked away in a not very well-known Act, power enabling him without further legislation to produce this Bureau.

1651
I approach this proposal with cautious interest and qualified optimism. I do not think that it will be a very fundamental contribution to decentralisation, but I hope that it will be. It is not that I do not want it to succeed but that I do not think that these powers, which are entirely persuasive, will be enough. I am not at all sure that some system like that of industrial development certificates would not be more effective.
I understand that this Bureau will not be an estate agency. It will not let any accommodation. But I am not clear about how it is to be linked with the job of securing accommodation. I understand that a firm which wants to set up offices, having started probably by an unhappy encounter with the planning authority over proposals for extension or rebuilding, will be referred to the Bureau, that there will be discussions as to where it might go and that it will be shown a certain number of alternative possibilities.
At what stage does the Bureau, when it looks as if the customer is on the hook, refer him to an estate agent? Will it be in close touch with agencies or will it be quite apart from them in case it may be accused of giving preferences to certain agencies? It would be interesting also to be told a little more about the detailed working of the Bureau. Will the chairman be part-time?
Sir K. Joseph: About half-time.
Mr. MacColl: I notice that there is to be a chairman, deputy chairman and only two other members. That seems to be rather over-weighted. What sort of people will the other members be? Will they be from commerce?
Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.
Mr. MacColl: Will they be drawn from people who are not involved in the sense that they want or are interested in office accommodation but who are experts taking a detached view?
Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.
Mr. MacColl: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman said anything about remuneration. These are part-time jobs. Will the chairman be paid at the same rate as the chairman of a
1652
development corporation? I think that should be about the level.
It will be interesting to see whether this kind of informative work produces practical results. I do not want in any way to appear to cavil at this. I hope that it will be successful. But I am cautious and rather doubtful about its success. Its success would certainly be warmly welcome.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I have taken an interest in the question of office development in London for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) adopted the method, which we usually adopt on the Scottish Committee, of going through legislation almost line by line and asking questions on each, but there was one question which he did not like to ask and which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman concerning the membership of the Bureau.
There are to be a chairman, a deputy chairman and two members. I suggest that one of the members should be a Scotsman. I do not do this from any nationalistic point of view, but because we should have someone on this Bureau aware of Scotland's need for office development and employment, someone familiar with the circumstances and conditions of Scotland and able to see that Scotland's interests are safeguarded and that it is represented.
It seems to me that there will be pressure from all parts of the United Kingdom for office development in the respective areas. If all the members of the Bureau and the staff who are to be seconded from Government Departments are English—and I say this as an Englishman—they will tend to think in terms of England, of the more salubrious districts of England, and not of Scotland, and that would be deplorable.
It would be a good thing if someone on the Bureau, preferably one of the four members, came from Scotland. He could be a business man, with a knowledge of this type of accommodation and of the problems concerned with office development and with knowledge and experience of the needs and requirements of industry, but at the same time he could have that Scottish background which would enable him to put Scotland's case so that it

1653
would stand a chance of obtaining some of this office development.
I appreciate that the Bureau will collect information about various sites which are available, and I have no doubt that Scottish local authorities would keep the Bureau well supplied with information about their respective localities, but I should nevertheless like to think that the overall policy of the Bureau will be one in which the views of Scotland will be represented and will receive the attention which they deserve.
9.16 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Bence: I rise to make a complaint about paragraph 3 (1) of the Schedule to this Statutory Instrument:
"The Minister may pay to persons holding office as chairman, deputy chairman or member of the Bureau such remuneration in respect of that office as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine …"
This is not good enough. Here is a Statutory Instrument setting up a Bureau, and yet we are not given the slightest idea of what is to be paid to its members.
I am a member of the Standing Committee which is considering the Contracts of Employment Bill. This morning that Committee debated the terms of employment of people and the presentation of a document showing remuneration and hours of labour. If we are to agree to the appointment of these people to the Bureau, we ought to know what they are to be paid.
I see that their expenses are also to be paid. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) suggested that a Scotsman should be a member of this Bureau. He should not be a Scotsman who left Scotland to go to a public school in England, from there on to a university, and has since lived in London. That would not be good enough. He would be an Anglicised Scot and would apply an English attitude to the problem. What we want is a Scot who is resident in Scotland, whose experience is in Scotland, and who understands the Scottish problem. Perhaps he might be someone connected with the Council for Industrial Development or the Chambers of Commerce, or the Chambers of Trade. He must be someone who is resident in Scotland, whose business is there, and whose investments are in Scotland. He must be someone who is interested in seeing the decentralisation
1654
of office accommodation from this metropolis to the metropolis of Scotland, to Edinburgh, and, so that I do not conflict with my hon. Friends on the West Coast, as an alternative to Glasgow.
Merely to decentralise from London is not good enough. The Order says that the Bureau will
"encourage the decentralisation and diversion of office employment from congested areas in central London to suitable centres elsewhere …"
The most suitable centres outside London, the South-East and the Midlands, are in the North-East and Scotland. I hope, therefore, that on this Bureau there will be people who understand what is happening in Scotland so that some of the empty spaces there are taken up by this decentralisation. Two railway termini in Glasgow, Buchanan Street and St. Enochs are to be closed. There are tremendous properties there which would provide excellent accommodation. I do not know which railway termini will be closed in other parts of Scotland, but there is bound to be a great deal of accommodation available as a result of railway closures.
There is one aspect of the Order on which I compliment the Minister. The Order says that a member of the Bureau must not be someone who
"has become bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors."
This is an excellent proposal, and when any other organisation is being set up by statute I shall look to see whether other Ministers have followed the right hon. Gentleman's example in laying down this provision.
I conclude by supporting the hope expressed by my hon. Friend, that we shall be given some indication of what the phrase "suitable centres elsewhere" means. I hope that priority will be given to the vast open spaces in Scotland and the North-East. We do not want to exclude the North-East, but in view of the heavy unemployment that we have in Scotland and the decline in industrial activity there we hope that the phrase "suitable centres elsewhere" means that priority will be given to Scotland.
9.20 p.m.
Sir K. Joseph: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the questions which have been asked.

1655
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), whose qualified welcome I was glad to hear, was right in stressing that this Bureau will not be an estate agency. Its main function will be to direct the attention of employers to certain areas, or to a choice of areas, where they will make contact with the local authority and follow up any opportunities which they see fit to choose.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the pay of the chairman. It is proposed that his pay will be £3,500 per annum. The pay of the other two members, who are yet to be appointed, and who will also probably be part time, has not been fixed since we have not decided whom to invite.
In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), no group of men ever suffered by having a Scot among them, and I shall consider that without committing myself, since I have to find people with vigour and experience and yet able to take on a job which cannot be a career, because I would not have thought that this Bureau would remain in full action for many years. I hope that it will carry out its main function over a few years. Therefore, I am looking for people with energy, experience and part of their lives to devote to this. I shall certainly remember the suggestion.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) came to the support of his colleague and urged that attention should be paid to decentralising offices to Scotland. If there is to be such stress on moves of such distance from London, I shall have to put in a word for Wales. We must not exaggerate the prospect of moving firms, that start off by being in or wanting to be in London, very far when it comes to their offices. We shall certainly do our
1656
best to get such employment as we can to areas of relatively high need, but we must accept that the bulk of any employment that is decentralised will want to be within relatively easy travelling distance from the London area. I certainly undertake that we shall do our best to serve both Scotland, the North and Wales.
Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman recognises that there are vast offices even at the present time in London, insurance offices and the like, which employ staff who do not need to be employed near London. Provided the executives are in London the staff can quite well be in Wales or in the North-East or Scotland.
Sir K. Joseph: If it were not that it is suggested that employment in this Bureau should disqualify from membership of this House I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give part-time service. He is speaking exactly in the language that is so important. I quite agree that there is plenty of employment in London that need not be here, but we must not exaggerate too much the prospects of moving it 200, 300 or 400 miles away. I undertake that we shall do our best.
Mr. Bence: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the number of the staff?
Sir K. Joseph: I said that it would have a small staff of ten or twenty in London.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Location of Offices Bureau Order 1963 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 21st March.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY] (No. 2)
  Resolution reported,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue with amendments the provisions relating to the payment of Exchequer Equalisation and Transitional Grants to local authorities in Scotland and for other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962.
  Resolution agreed to.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the remainder of the present Session, a second Standing Committee shall be constituted for the consideration of Bills certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively of Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee.
That the said second Committee shall, in respect of each Bill allocated Ito it, consist of not less than twenty nor more than fifty Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, of whom not less than twenty Members shall represent Scottish constituencies; and in nominating such Members the Committee of Selection shall have regard to their qualifications and the composition of the House.
That all Bills certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee shall be distributed between the two Committees by Mr. Speaker. —[Mr. Noble.]
9.26 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: I hoped that we might have got some reasonable and short explanation of this Motion from the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is, after all, a very considerable departure from our normal procedure. Indeed, when we bear in mind that there is no section of Parliament so stretched in respect of the amount of work it is asked to do, and which it willingly does, it merits some explanation when we find that we are dealing with a Motion which means that instead of having one Scottish Standing Committee we shall have two.
We should also have a certain amount of explanation about the wording of
1658
the Order. I do not expect the Secretary of State for Scotland to realise it, but an Order of this kind is subject to Amendment. It is very difficult to amend an Order when it appears on the Order Paper and is disposed of the same night. While this is more or less an agreed Measure, as the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us, we should not take or granted the rights of the House and of hon. Members other than those who represent Scottish constituencies.
After all, every Committee is a Committee of the House. It may well be a misnomer to talk about the "Scottish Committee". Every Committee is a Committee of the House of Commons and that is why there are added hon. Members on the Scottish Standing Committee. That is not just a matter of improving the education of hon. Members from South of the Border, it is a constitutional rule. I should have thought that we would be concerned about the niceties of things and give hon. Members the right, if they thought fit, to amend these words which I, for one, did not see until they appeared today on the Order Paper.
The Secretary of State for Scotland knows what is behind this. It results from a mood of generosity on the part of the Opposition. It stems from my-self, as a matter of fact, and a suggestion which I made in a debate during last Session. It is as well to bear in mind what in happening. There are a lot of people outside this House who talk glibly about Members of Parliament being full-time and how undesirable that is, and all the rest of it. But hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have been at work in Standing Committee since the start of the year.
Even with this Order, Scottish Members are likely to be in Committee until the beginning of August without a morning off on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Yet we are here suggesting that from our scarce resources—there are 30 hon. Members—this Order should be implemented. We have just finished discussing the Local Government Bill and we are in the middle of a Scottish education Bill, and we know that we shall have to discuss an important Bill relating to criminal justice. We also have our rights in respect of certain Supply Days and Motions, so that the whole year is

1659
fully taken up. I do not know how many Committees the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) attends, or whether he has been on a Committee since the beginning of the year.
Mr. John Rodgers: The Welsh Grand Committee.
Mr. Ross: We suggest that we are prepared to accept the Order for these reasons. If a Scottish private Member sponsors a Private Member's Bill which affects Scotland it is referred to the Scottish Standing Committee. An English private Member or an hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency, or a Scottish Member whose Bill deals with a United Kingdom subject, will have his Bill take its place to be dealt with in Standing Committee C, which meets on Wednesdays and deals seriatim with Private Members' Bills. But a Bill which relates exclusively to Scotland goes to the Scottish Standing Committee which has so much business to deal with at present that there will be far less chance of a Bill reaching the Statute Book from that Committee than would be the case in respect of Bills dealt with by other Committees. We suggest that we should have this second Committee for the very special purpose, to deal with these matters respecting Private Members' Bills.
We have suggested that the Committee might deal with non-controversial and small matters of importance which might be held up in the long queue waiting to be dealt with by the Scottish Standing Committee. Certain necessary reforms in respect of Scotland wait for years to be brought in. Eventually the Government make it clear that they are unable to find time, and a private Member then sponsors the necessary Measure. If it is lucky it manages to squeeze through. We thought that this procedure might be a way of overcoming these difficulties.
But when we read the words of the Motion we see that you, Mr. Speaker, allocate these Bills to one or other of the Scottish Standing Committees. We must have an assurance that the limitations which we have in mind will be abided by, and that this suggestion of ours will not be used to push through what are really Government Measures. With due respect, they are matters for what we now consider to be the main
1660
Scottish Standing Committee. It would be very unwise and unfair if this new Standing Committee met on the same days as the present one. The existing one now meets on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The Secretary of State will not be aware of this, because he is never there. He must be the first Secretary of State for Scotland who has not appeared on a Scottish Standing Committee. He has been on the Scottish Grand Committee, but not on the Scottish Standing Committee, dealing with a Bill.
The present Standing Committee meets every Tuesday and Thursday, and we shall consider it a considerable breach of the understanding arrived at in the discussions we have had if we discover that the second Scottish Standing Committee proposes to sit on the same days as the existing one. That would be absolutely impossible.
That is why I thought fit to make a speech about this proposal. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that this matter should merely wander through the House on the nod. It is far too important a matter to be dealt with in that way. Hon. Members on this side of the House have sponsored this suggestion as being a way out of the Government's present difficulties, and it would be far too generous a gesture on our part to let the matter go through without a word.
Apart from the Bills that I have mentioned, and the Scottish Members who are tied up on the Scottish Standing Committee, other Scottish Members are serving on every other Committee of the House. For instance, there is the Children and Young Persons Bill, into which the Secretary of State dragged Scotland, under the provisions of Clause 1. We had expected that Scotland would not be concerned until the Committee had reached Clause 31, and we had arranged our memberships of the various Committees in such a way that certain of the Scottish Members would have been able to duplicate their attendances. Three Labour Scottish Members are serving on that Committee, and the Government have one—the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for agriculture. He is now on the Bill which is looking after the welfare of children and young persons. This only shows the extent to which the pressure of Scottish business is now extending even the Government. Let

1661
them remember that they have the whole Civil Service behind them, together with batteries of secretaries. We have nothing like that.
Furthermore, when a Bill leaves Committee it is not finished with. The Local Government (Scotland) Bill has left the Scottish Standing Committee, and that Committee is now dealing with an important education Bill, but Scottish Members will have to marshal all their arguments again when the Local Government (Scotland) Bill appears on the Floor of the House on Report. This all adds to the tremendous amount of work which Scottish Members are doing. They are dealing with Scottish Bills, the Children and Young Persons Bill, the Television Bill and the Contracts of Employment Bill, apart from the day-to-day business of the House—and we do not tend to neglect that aspect of our work, either.
I hope that the Secretary of State will fully appreciate the weight of work that we are prepared to take upon our shoulders in order to see that justice is done to Scottish legislation and also to private Members in respect of the Bills that they sponsor. I should like an appreciation From the other side of the House of exactly how generous we are in our attendance to Scottish business and helping the Secretary of State in the battles we hope he will be having with the Cabinet to secure for Scotland its due share. He can call on our aid at any time if he wants further help.
I hope that the Secretary of State will give us assurances in respect of the limited nature of the Motion, equally the fact that this Committee should meet, as does Standing Committee C, on a Wednesday forenoon and be limited purely and simply to that, and that it will not be used for pushing through controversial Government Measures. If it is used for that, we shall have a certain remedy, because no Bill can go to a Standing Committee until it has had a Second Reading. If the proposal is to have the Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee, thus saving the time of the House, I remind hon. Members that there are ways and means of circumventing and obstructing that by the simple process of 10 Members standing in the House. Then the Bill has to be taken on the Floor of the House. We do not want to go to that extent. What
1662
we want from the right hon. Gentleman is the simple assurances we have asked for, especially that the Measure will be used to the limited extent I have referred to, which is the basis on which it was agreed that the Motion should not be opposed.
9.37 p.m.
Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: No one could possibly accuse, or would ever think of accusing, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) of neglecting his duties, either in the House or in Standing Committee. He would not wish—none of us would wish—to delay the passage of the Motion. The hon. Gentleman spoke not once, indeed not twice, but three times, of the generosity of the Opposition in proposing and approving the Motion. I am not quite so sure about that, because not only is the Motion, as understand it, necessary for the Government if we are to hope to get through the Scottish legislation which has presently been approved in principle by the House; it is also essential if two or three Private Members' Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and sponsored by hon. Members opposite are to be approved.
Mr. Ross: And by Tory Members.
Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: And by us. As I understand it, there are at present three Private Members' Bills relating exclusively to Scotland which have received Second Readings. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) has the Forestry (Sale of Land) (Scotland) Bill, a Bill of some importance in a limited sphere. There is a Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) relating to an indemnity for the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is the Sheriff Courts (Civil Jurisdiction and Procedure) (Scotland) Bill, sponsored by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson). Two out of the three Private Members' Bills are sponsored by hon. Members opposite. Further, as recently as this afternoon, the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) urged my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to find time to promote a Bill dealing with intestacy in Scotland. If that Measure which, I think, would

1663
be welcomed by all hon. Members, is to secure a passage on to the Statute Book in the current Session, it will certainly be necessary to have a Second Standing Committee.
Mr. Ross: I would regard it as a considerable breach of any agreement if this new Committee were used for a Bill as technical as that one; a Bill with so many Clauses that Scottish hon. Members would be tied up on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays from now until the beginning of August.
Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock must fight that out with his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North, because he will recall that this afternoon his hon. Friend urged the Leader of the House to find time for such a Bill.
I believe that the Government could not, even if they wished, use the second Scottish Standing Committee to give precedence to Government legislation above Private Members' Bills which have already been committed to a Scottish Standing Committee. I have not had time to look this up, but the fact that certain Private Members' Bills have received Second Readings and have been committed to a Scottish Standing Committee would, I am sure, give them the right to go to that Committee in advance of Government legislation which may not yet have received a Second Reading. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will deal with this when he replies and I would like to give my warm support to the proposal.
9.42 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I was delighted to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about the generosity of Scottish hon. Members of the Opposition. I feel even more worthy because I was in favour of altering the Standing Orders to permit a second Scottish Standing Committee to be set up. My hon. Friends did not oppose that. In fact, we not only accepted the idea that it should be set up, but we said that its conception would help to deal with Private Members' Bills, for we thought that hon. Members introducing Private Bills should have a chance of getting them through.
1664
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, I was rather puzzled when I read the Motion under discussion. I was not clear what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind in the statement in the second paragraph, which states:
"… the said second Committee shall, in respect of each Bill allocated to it, consist of not less than twenty nor more than fifty Members … "
I do not think that we need a Committee of that size to deal with Scottish Private Members' Bills, for I would have thought that one consisting of 20 to 25 hon. Members would have been sufficient. From my experience of the activities of one particular Standing Committee, it has been comprised of about 20 hon. Members, so I do not see the need for the phrase
"… not less than twenty nor more than fifty Members …"
Mr. Speaker: I do not know if I might be able to assist the hon. Member, but the only proposition I have put to the House, or have yet been able to put, is, of course, only the first paragraph of the Motion.
Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that after we have discussed the first paragraph we can discuss the second?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member desires to do so, most certainly. All he can discuss at the moment is what I have put. The hon. Member can relate what he was saying to what I have put, but he did not appear to be doing so.
Mr. Willis: It is rather difficult to decide whether or not we should appoint a Standing Committee without discussing what it is for, particularly when the right hon. Gentleman has indicated the size of the Committee he proposes to set up. However, I shall reserve my remarks on the second paragraph until we come to it. Meanwhile, we ought to have some undertaking from the Government as to what it is proposed to remit to the second Standing Committee, because although I am willing to agree to the second Standing Committee for the purpose of considering Private Members' Bills. I shall greatly hesitate to agree to setting up a Committee which might be meeting on Tuesdays and Thursdays at the same time as the present one is sitting—
Mr. Cyril Bence: They never do.
Mr. Willis: I do not know about that. We do not know whether it will be done, but it is possible for it to be done by the addition of very large numbers of English Members. Already, because of the failure of the Scottish Tory Party to secure adequate representation in this House, we are subjected to our legislation being discussed and voted on by considerable numbers of English Members. Decisions are now being taken in the present Scottish Standing Committee in accordance with the will, not of Scottish, but of English Members—
Mr. J. A. Stodart: Can the hon. Member say how many English Members are sitting in the present Scottish Standing Committee? I have not observed any.
Mr. Bence: They have not turned up.
Mr. Willis: I have as much experience as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), probably more, and my recent experience has been that even now our Scottish legislation is being determined by the English majority in that Committee. While appreciating the Government's position, it would be most undesirable to have two Scottish Standing Committees dealing with two major Bills at the same time. We should object to that most strongly, and that is why I hope that we shall be told that it is intended to confine the proceedings of the second Standing Committee to Private Members' Bills, and that it will be a small Committee, so that it may consist, in the main, of Scottish Members.
9.50 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Millan: In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), I think that anyone reading the proceedings of the Scottish Committee would come to the conclusion that not only were there not any English Tory Members on it but, for all the contribution they make to our discussions, no Scottish Tory Members either.
Like my hon. Friends, I should like an assurance from the Secretary of State on this extremely widely-drawn Motion. Like them, I should consider it very much a breach of any sort of formal agreement there may be if the second
1666
Committee were to be used for Government legislation, even for uncomplicated Government legislation, but particularly for complicated and technical Government legislation.
I hope that we shall also have an assurance about the time of meeting of the Committee, because it will be intolerable if we had two Scottish Committees meeting simultaneously. The burden on Scottish Members, particularly in this Session, is extremely great. The last major Bill we had before us, the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill would have gone through our Committee a good deal quicker if the Government had been better informed about many of the provisions of the legislation which they were proposing. We now have the long and complicated Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill coming along, and again I would consider it extremely undesirable if, because of the strictness of the timetable to which the Government are now working, the Government were to suggest early in our proceedings in that Committee that we should meet not only on Tuesday and Thursday mornings but perhaps on an afternoon as well. I hope very much that the Secretary of State for Scotland has nothing like that in mind.
I quite understand that if the timetable were to get too tight then obviously the Secretary of State could not commit himself at this stage to saying that there could not be afternoon meetings in any circumstances, but, in view of the work done so far in the Session, the setting up of this second Committee, and the work we shall have to do on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing like that in mind. I should be extremely reluctant to allow the Motion to go through if I thought that he could not give either the assurances for which my hon. Friends have asked or the additional assurance for which I have asked.
9.52 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in asking for some explanation of the Motion, referred to the generosity of the Opposition. This occasionally I might be prepared to concede. In this case, as in a number of others, the problem which faces many of us as Members of Parliament from Scotland is that we have a considerable

1667
amount of legislation to deal with, and I entirely agree with those who have said that Scottish Members are in some ways more continuously occupied in Committees than any other hon. Members. We realise, however, that in many cases there are desirable forms of legislation which it would be of help and benefit to Scotland to get through.
I appreciate that in bringing the Motion before the House it has been with the consent if not the detailed approval of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and of the Opposition through the usual channels. As the House knows, I have been part of the usual channels myself and therefore I know the importance of trying to do these things by co-operation between both sides of the House, particularly when they are for the benefit of Scotland as a whole.
The Motion is for this Session, and this Session alone. I entirely accept the fact that this is not attempting to set up a pattern of what should happen after this Session. It certainly is my intention that for this Session this second Committee, if it is set up, should sit on Wednesday mornings. I should not like to commit myself for the future, if some similar arrangement were made, that it will always be so. There may well be occasions when two small Bills are being taken together, and then perhaps they could both be taken together in a Standing Committee on a Tuesday or a Thursday. In this Session this is certainly my understanding of what is likely to happen. I do not think that anybody in the House today would expect the Scottish Committee to be debating two major controversial Government issues at once.
The question of the numbers was raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). This is set down in the Motion in this way largely to follow exactly the same form as Standing Order No. 58 which governs Standing Committee C for the House which deals with minor and private Members' Bills for English Members.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Milian) asked that the Committee should not be used for complicated legislation. It is rather difficult to give such an undertaking because what may seem simple to some may well seem complicated to others.
Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that we do not have a Lord Advocate at present, so matters are unlikely to become so complicated.
Mr. Noble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that admission, which, I am sure, he will be only too happy to play the other way when opportunity arises.
It is not intended to use this Committee for complicated Government legislation such as, I think, the hon. Member for Craigton had in mind, undertake that, before any Measures of the type we have in mind are suggested for this second Committee, the usual channels will be fully consulted. I am certain that agreement can be reached.
I imagine that the House will not expect me to give the undertaking for which the hon. Member for Craigton asked, with reference to later stages of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, that there would never be any metings in the afternoon. I believe that, with luck, this will not be necessary, but these matters are discussed through the usual channels. The Bills which we have in view for the second Committee are. Broadly, uncontroversial and ones which, I believe, the Opposition and the Government can discuss together in order to make the necessary arrangements for the convenience of the House and the benefit of Scotland.
I hope that these undertakings are satisfactory, and I recommend the House to accept the Motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, for the remainder of the present Session, a second Standing Committee shall be constituted for the consideration of Bills certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee.
That the said second Committee shall, in respect of each Bill allocated to it, consist of not less than twenty nor more than fifty Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, of whom not less than twenty Members shall represent Scottish constituencies; and in nominating such Members the Committee of Selection shall have regard to their qualifications and the composition of the House.
That all Bills certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee shall be distributed between the two Committees by Mr. Speaker.

ST. GEORGE'S HOSPITAL, HORNCHURCH
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]
9.58 p.m.
Mr. Tom Driberg: We have just a minute or two extra for our brief Adjournment debate, but I want to allow plenty of time for the reply by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I know that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) is also hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I shall, therefore, compress, so far as I can, the points which I wish to make.
The matter with which we are concerned —the conditions and treatment for aged patients at St. George's Hospital, Hornchuroh—arose late last summer, when a constituent of mine, Mr. C. E. Vidler, came to see me in great distress because his wife had died at this hospital in circumstances in which, as he contended, she should not have died. Lest it be thought that, in his natural grief, Mr. Vidler overstated his case against the hospital—I cannot, of course, vouch personally—
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]
Mr. Driberg: I cannot vouch personally for every detail of what he said —I must emphasise, as I said in a letter to the Minister on 2nd August, 1962, that Mr. Vidler may be regarded as a witness of more than average credibility on this kind of matter, for the simple and unusual reason that he is himself a qualified nurse. He served in the R.A.M.C. and worked at St. Bartholomew's Hospital for 31 years, retiring laden with testimonials and honour.
Mrs. Vidler, who was 80 years old, had a stroke some time before her death. Her husband managed to get her a bed at St. Bartholomew's. Then she had to be transferred to St. George's. On his first visit to her at St. George's, Mr. Vidler was struck by the contrast between the resources and amenities of Bart's—if I may so call it—which is, of course, a great teaching hospital, and the lack of them at St. George's. Worse than this,
1670
however, was what seemed to him the attitude which he says he found among some—not, of course, all—of the staff. As he put it, some of them seemed to assume that he would realise that St. George's was "simply a hospital to which old people were sent to die".
Mr. Vidler's wife had been making good progress at St. Bartholomew's with the help of trained physiotherapists. At St. George's her condition got steadily and rapidly worse and, rightly or wrongly, he formed the opinion that she was dying for want of proper geriatric attention and of proper care in her feeding. I cannot go into all the details. The Parliamentary Secretary will be familiar with them from my original letter and Mr. Vidler's numerous letters.
As I say, I was impressed and disturbed by Mr. Vidler's obvious sincerity and by the detailed and, to some extent at least, informed nature of his allegations; and I was confirmed in my view that this was a matter which had to be taken seriously by a letter, dated 13th August, from the Parliamentary Secretary. He wrote to me:
"From one or two recent complaints it seems that the service which this hospital is able to give to elderly patients may not he as good as it should be. You may like to know that our officers and the North East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board are considering what can be done to improve matters. As the complaints about the treatment given to Mrs. Vidler ought to form part of the wider investigation it may be some time before I can let you have a full reply to the points raised in your letter; but I can say in spite of difficulties which I know exist in St. George's I am most anxious that it should provide the hest possible service. I am glad that you have brought this matter to my attention."
Hon. Members will note that in this remarkably candid letter—much more candid than Ministerial letters sometimes are—the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that there was to be, apparently, a full-scale investigation of this hospital and its services. The matter had by this time attracted some attention in the local Press, and I received a number of letters from people who were or had been patients in St. George's Hospital, or their relatives, or, in two cases, former employees. Almost all these letters contained information tending to confirm what Mr. Vidler had told me. Some of them were expressed in very strong language.

1671
One lady who had visited an old man of 80 every week for two years, after he had had a major operation, said that she was "disgusted" by the treatment he had received. Unfortunately, she complained to somebody in authority and although she did not mention the patient's name, she said enough to enable him to be identified. She wrote to me:
"He was sent for into the office and questioned before several V.I.P.s, matron, secretary and others, and scared out of his life, he had to answer so many questions. They said that if he was not satisfied with the treatment he was getting, he could be moved to another hospital—well out of visiting distance."
So, inevitably, in due course a reassuring letter was sent to the tiresome visitor telling her that she was quite wrong and that her old friend was as happy as he could possibly be.
I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does not want to engage in any whitewashing exercise, but the main point that I wish to put to him tonight is this: I sent all these letters to the Minister on 27th September with a request that they should be passed on to those who were conducting the investigation into the hospital and asking particularly that ex-patients and relatives, such as the writers of some of these letters, should be interviewed personally.
As it happened, that letter of mine crossed with one to me from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replying to some of Mr. Vidler's complaints and vigorously repudiating, as the hon. Gentleman was entitled to do, some of the language which Mr. Vidler had used publicly about the hospital. No doubt, if he so wishes, the hon. Gentleman will tonight repeat his explanation of the very real difficulties that, I do not deny, have existed in the staffing and management of the hospital.
In this letter, however, the hon. Gentleman also said
"Our officers have now had full discussions with officers of the Regional Hospital Board and the Hospital Management Committee."
Was this the full-scale investigation that had been promised? Was this all—" full discussions "at official level? Were there no personal interviews with actual ex-patients or relatives—with Miss Relton, for instance, who gave a most circumstantial and detailed account of
1672
conditions in the ward in which her mother had died, two days, as it happens, after Mrs. Vidler's death?
The hon. Gentleman may recall that Miss Relton alleged that the conditions in her mother's ward were deplorably squalid, that there were eight open sores on her mother's back, that the patients' lockers were, as she put it, "alive with ants and mice", and that on the very day before her mother died, she was told that there was "nothing to worry about" and was promised that she would be notified of any turn for the worse—a promise which was not kept.
On this and other specific cases, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied to me on 4th January—a lapse of more than three months, which, I hope and believe, indicates that some fairly searching inquiries were made. I am bound to say that in this case I did not find the hon. Gentleman's reply as convincing as Miss Relton's allegations, but it was again, within the limits of what was possible for the hon. Gentleman, an honest and candid reply. He wrote, first, on the general issue, that he had not been able to substantiate any of the serious complaints; but, he added:
"this does not mean that we are complacent about the situation at the hospital. The relatives who have made statements seem sincerely to believe them to be true just as the staff are sincere in their belief that they have done all they can for the care of the patients. The only certain thing that we can say about the cases you have brought to our attention is that the hospital has failed to assure the relatives that the patients were being properly looked after. This in itself is a serious situation."
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that in cases such as this, where there is sometimes rapid deterioration in the condition of aged patients,
"the relatives as well as the patients need much more than the usual attention from nursing staff."
He explained, very fairly, about the immense difficulties caused by the shortage of nursing staff at St. George's Hospital. He wrote:
"…the staff are carrying a very heavy load of particularly difficult nursing."
They
"… have less time than they would like to give to worried and often distressed relatives."
Then the Parliamentary Secretary came on to the particular case of Miss Relton.

1673
Here, as I say, I found his reply less convincing. He said:
"I am told that Miss Relton was frequently distressed during her visits"—
That is quite natural, after all.
"—and could not believe that her mother was unlikely to recover. The burden of much of Miss Relton's complaints is that she was told insufficient about her mother's condition. In retrospect we must admit that, in so far as it is true, this may have been a mistaken act of kindness to save Miss Relton from further distress. The final deterioration in Mrs. Relton's condition was unfortunately so sudden that it is true that the sister was unable to keep her promise to let Miss Relton know about it. Miss Relton also quoted some remarks said to have been made to her by members of the hospital staff. It is, of course always difficult to investigate this sort of allegation. All I can say is that the Hospital Management Committee would not expect the remarks to have been made."
A little later in this very long letter the hon. Gentleman says:
"It is in the nature of the kind of complaints which you have received about St. George's Hospital that to some extent their investigation should be inconclusive."
But might the investigation not have been just a little less inconclusive if there had been personal interviews with such people as Miss Relton and Mr. Vidler? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear tonight that, as I gather from his letters and his Answer in the House on 11th March, there were no personal interviews. If this is the case, I should like to know why not, and should like to have a really convincing reason.
How can an investigation be thorough and impartial, how can justice be seen to be done, when only one side of a case is heard? It may be said that the letters which I passed on were taken into account by the officials conducting the investigation. Would it not have been better if they had taken the trouble, as I asked in advance that they should, to see the writers of the letters, or some of them, so that they could judge for themselves of their credibility? This is the most unsatisfactory aspect of the whole case.
Much more satisfactory is the news contained in the hon. Gentleman's Answer on 11th March that the nursing staff of this hospital is to be increased and a whole-time geriatrician appointed. May I ask whether these desirable improvements have yet been effected? Of course there ought to be a whole-time geriatrician at such a hospital. Had there been one there before, last July, it
1674
may be—this is, of course, only speculation—that Mrs. Vidler would have lived for some months longer. At least, I hope that the widower may derive some slight consolation from the knowledge that the action that he has taken even though in his grief he may have used, now and then, language which was rather too strong—may ensure better treatment in future for other aged patients in this hospital.
Having spoken, necessarily, with some severity, I cannot end without saying that I realise fully that whatever has gone wrong at St. George's in the past is not primarily the fault of the nursing staff. Too few of them have had too much to do, too much of a kind of work that can be exceptionally trying and unpleasant, demanding a real sense of vocation in those who undertake it, for such very modest pay. Some of them may well not have had a special training in geriatric nursing. That is not their fault, either. But I should like to know to what extent the under-staffing of the hospital has been related to the general policy of the Minister and of the Treasury, which has tended to restrict recruitment of nurses.
I am most anxious that nothing should be said in this debate, and that nothing that I have had to say, in the fulfilment of my duty to my constituents, should in any way act as a damper on the recruitment of nurses, especially for this hospital. I do not think that it should do so, for a thorough shake-up such as the hospital must have had in the last few months should lead to considerable improvements for both patients and staff. To provide the best possible conditions, the best possible services and amenities, is the least we can do for our old people when they are sick and for the devoted young women who care for them.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I know that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will want as much time as possible to answer this debate, and I shall therefore briefly put three points. First, I am sure that he is aware that this hospital is in my constituency. Secondly, can he assure me that the accusations made by Mr. Vidler are without substance? Thirdly, can he tell me that any disguised or indirectly made accusations against the staff, many of

1675
whom are my constituents, are unfounded? From my personal observations in visiting this hospital, I find them a very devoted set of people.
10.16 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) for the opportunity he has given me to clear up any misunderstandings about conditions at St. George's Hospital, Hornchurch. There has been a great deal of publicity about this hospital which most unfortunately has left an impression of criticism of the staff which is unjustified and which they have not been able to counter. I hope that I shall be able once and for all to remove any misunderstanding on this score.
The hon. Member wrote to my right hon. Friend on 2nd August last reporting some complaints by Mr. Vidler about the treatment of his wife in St. George's before she died in the hospital on 5th July. Some short time before this officers of my Department had visited the hospital. They shared the Regional Hospital Board's view that the service which the hospital was able to give its elderly patients was not as good as it should be. This was something that I told the hon. Gentleman in the correspondence to which he has referred.
We were already considering with the Board what we should do to effect improvements. I therefore felt that even before we looked into the particular case of Mr. Vidler's complaints that I should explain this frankly, candidly and fully to the hon. Gentleman in order to reassure him that Mr. Vidler's complaints would not be dealt with in any routine fashion but would be given the most serious consideration.
My letter to the hon. Member had some unfortunate consequences. He released it to the Press, as he had a perfect right to do. But unfortunately it was reported in the same context as some further statements by Mr. Vidler which had formed no part of the complaint which the hon. Member had relayed to me.
The juxtaposition of my letter and the further statement by Mr. Vidler gave the impression that we at the Ministry and the Board already knew about the new
1676
allegations that Mr. Vidler was now making and were taking them seriously. I say quite firmly that this was not so. Part of Mr. Vidler's statement as reported in the Press—I quote from The Guardian of 27th August—went like this:
"The hospital is like a prison, the staff are like warders and the patients are treated like criminals. My wife did not receive the proper medical attention and care; she was neglected and her death was hastened by the lack of oxygen at the proper time."
These are very serious allegations. They did not form at that stage any part of what the hon. Member had sent to me. If they had been, I would certainly have refuted them at once because our knowledge of the hospital would certainly have enabled me to deny emphatically that it was like a prison and that the patients were treated like criminals. On the contrary, while battling against admitted difficulties, the staff there bring great devotion to their task, as the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have testified and as I am glad to confirm.
When we investigated the specific complaints contained in the hon. Member's letter, we found that there was a considerable conflict of evidence. Mrs. Vidler was admitted to St. Bartholomew's Hospital in January, last year—she was about 80 at the time—and she was transferred to St. George's Hospital on 7th March, where she stayed until her death. Mr. Vidler stated—and the hon. Member repeated it tonight—that while in St. Batholomew's she had been making good progress and, with assistance, was walking about and sitting up. He then said that at St. George's Hospital her condition steadily and rapidly worsened owing to lack of proper nursing care.
The medical report from St. Bartholomew's, however, stated that during her stay there she had remained out of touch and unresponsive and that there was no sign of improvement. While I have, and we must all have, every sympathy with Mr. Vidler in his sad loss and must make every allowance for the strain and stress which he must have experienced during the illness of his wife and after her death. I must accept the independent report of St. Batholomew's medical staff which refutes the statement he made on this point.
Mr. Vidler made no complaints to the nursing staff at St. George's, although, as a former nurse, he would find it easier

1677
than most to establish an easy relationship with nursing staff. The hospital staff were therefore rather surprised when Mr. Vidler wrote letters of complaint, and arrangements were made for him to talk with the matron and almoner. The talk took place on 23rd May.
Mr. Vidler stated that he realised that nothing could be done for his wife and that her condition was gradually deteriorating. In view of his later complaints that he was forced to bring food to his wife because she was starving—this is what appeared in the Press—I should mention that at this meeting matron agreed that he could feed his wife, making it clear that this was because he wished to do so and not because the hospital did not provide her with sufficient food. Matron thought, not unreasonably, that as a former nurse Mr. Vidler could be given this responsibility. Mr. Vidler left saying that he much appreciated what was being done for his wife. On the same day he wrote a warm letter of thanks to the matron and a letter of appreciation and apology to the Regional Hospital Board.
On 2nd June, Mr. Vidler sent 12 boxes of sweets to the nursing staff of the ward where his wife was being treated and a letter expressing his gratitude for the way in which his wife was being cared for. With Mr. Vidler's permission, these sweets were distributed to patients and Mr. Vidler wrote again to matron on 6th June reiterating in warm terms his gratitude for the care his wife was receiving. This makes it all the more difficult to understand the bitterness of Mr. Vidler's later complaints about the treatment which his wife had received up to that date, although I appreciate, as I have said, that he must have been under considerable strain and stress.
One of the specific points, however, refers to the time, somewhat later, just before his wife died, and we went into this very thoroughly. Mr. Vidler alleged that on 1st July he went to see his wife and was shocked to see her gasping for breath and obviously suffering great distress with nobody paying her any attention. He went on to say that he went to fetch the sister, who sent two orderlies to see his wife, and that after further representations sister said that she would telephone the doctor when the visitors had gone.
1678
The hospital's version of this event, however, is that Mr. Vidler told the sister that he did not think that his wife looked very well. Sister found that Mr. Vidler had been giving his wife liquid, which she thought the patient had had difficulty in swallowing, and she considered that her condition was such as to cause no immediate anxiety. Later, when Mr. Vidler was leaving, he again stated that he did not think that his wife looked very well. Sister immediately went to Mrs. Vidler again and found her suffering from cyanosis. She at once telephoned the doctor on duty and arranged for Mr. Vidler to be recalled before he left the hospital.
I have dwelt on this sad story and Mr. Vidler's complaints in some detail, because his statements have received a great deal of publicity and none has been given so far to the replies of the hospital staff, although I told the hon. Member for Barking about them when I sent him a full reply to his original letter.
Not surprisingly, the publicity given to Mr. Vidler's statements brought further letters from the public. The hon. Member received a number of further complaints about experiences in the hospital. We in the Ministry, on the other hand, received a number of letters commending the work of the hospital staff. We looked into the further complaints made by the hon. Member's correspondents, and again we could find no evidence of inadequate nursing of patients.
We have always been ready to concede that conditions at St. George's are not as good as we would wish. This is a hospital for old people, and the nursing of old people calls for particularly hard and heavy work. In all geriatric hospitals the average age of the patients is getting higher. At St. George's the average age is nearly 80, and a considerable number of patients are much older. An increasing number are incontinent, some doubly so, a number are inevitably somewhat confused in their minds, and quite a high proportion need help with feeding at every meal. I do not need to elaborate on the devotion that this calls for from the nurses. The hospital buildings are quite attractive but when they were built in the late thirties they were not of course intended for a hospital of this sort. The layout causes the nurses to have a great deal of running

1679
about, more than they would do in many other hospitals. As my hon. Friend said, he knows this hospital which is in his constituency. In addition, the hospital is understaffed, for Hornchurch is an area where there are plenty of competing jobs and efforts to recruit enough nurses have failed.
The hon. Gentleman quite rightly asked whether the shortage of funds was hampering the recruitment of nurses. It is true that we have recently had cause to remind regional hospital boards of the need to keep within their financial allocations but, this could not be relevant to the case of Mrs. Vidler who died last summer. The position is that despite efforts to recruit nurses there has been a staff shortage at this hospital arising from the nature of its work and the amount of competing employment in the area.
Inevitably with such a load the nurses have less time for the patient and sympathetic handling of relatives—this goes to the core of many of the complaints—which is an important function in a hospital like this. Although the hospital is doing good work in getting many sick old people back on their feet, it is a sad, though natural, feature that a number of the patients are coming to the end of their lives and we know that relatives in these circumstances are often distraught and frustrated at their own impotence to do anything for their loved ones.
It is a truism in any hospital that relatives as well as patients are themselves often in need of nursing attention. How very true this is in an old persons' hospital. At St. George's, to make the best use of staff, nursing time is concentrated when it is most needed for active treatment, and this is not during the hours when visitors are expected. There are, therefore, fewer staff on duty during visiting hours and these still have nursing duties for the more seriously ill patients. In these conditions relatives may not always get the careful attention which they ought to have to their inquiries.
This I think goes quite a considerable way to explain the complaints which the hon. Gentleman has received. Complaints about hospital staff are almost inevitably inconclusive. It is rarely possible
1680
to confirm or refute that a certain statement was made or that a nurse took up a certain attitude. I accept that the relatives who have complained are quite sincere in their beliefs, and I am sure that the nursing staff are just as convinced that they were doing their best for their patients. This is a failure of communication, and the first thing we must do to improve it is to increase the staff.
The Regional Hospital Board is at present advertising for a full time geriatrician for the Romford Group. We have not yet got one. He will be engaged for most of his time at St. George's, and he will be able to ensure that the efforts of the hospital are well directed. I am convinced that this appointment will bring great benefit. But shortage of nursing staff is proving very difficult. It is particularly unfortunate that the misleading publicity—I use that term deliberately—about the Vidler case has made matters worse. It is not surprising that people have not come forward to work or to send their daughters to work in a hospital which has been described as "like a prison", particularly when this comment appears in the same context as a letter from me to the hon. Gentleman explaining that we were not satisfied with the hospital—not, I hasten to add, dissatisfied with the staff who work there. In my letter to the hon. Gentleman giving a full reply to Mr. Vidler's complaints I explained this and expressed the hope that I could have his help in removing false impressions.
I am asked what was the nature of the inquiries? Our object has been twofold. First, to look into the difficulties at St. George's, which we had identified before the hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend, and also to look into the specific complaints brought to my attention. Officials of my Department have visited the hospital with officials of the Regional Hospital Board and of the Hospital Management Committee. I have already explained the conclusions to which they came about the difficulties of the hospital. In looking at the specific complaints, we have had statements from the hospital staff involved and from the Hospital Management Committee and the Regional Hospital Board.
The hon. Gentleman expressed dissatisfaction with this method of dealing with

1681
complaints, and suggested that it is one-sided. I cannot accept this. Full statements were made by the people who were complaining, and we have had the reply of the staff involved, together with the evaluation of the senior officials of the Management Committee who know their staff. I cannot see that we could have done any better by doing what the hon. Gentleman has suggested from time to time that we should do, that is, interview the complainants. I think it will be obvious from what I have said that there were no grounds for thinking that there was any serious lapse on the part of any individuals, or any need for a formal inquiry.
Our objective throughout has been to find out what was wrong and to put it right. I am convinced that the Board and we have found out what was wrong, and we are now setting about putting it right by trying to recruit more nurses
1682
and by trying to secure the services of a full-time geriatrician. We have also made a number of other suggestions to the Board. But to achieve this object the most urgent thing is to raise the morale of the staff which has been badly lowered by the unfortunate publicity which has been given to them, and then to convince the local community that St. George's is doing devoted work for old people and that they can gain great satisfaction from sharing in this work. The work of a hospital like this sometimes appears to the staff to be thankless. We have a duty to see that it is not misrepresented, and that it receives the recognition that is its due.
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

COAL
  Smokeless Fuels
  Smokeless Fuels
  Private Coal Mines, Scotland
  Private Coal Mines, Scotland
  Synthetic Resins
  Synthetic Resins
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Pipelines
  Pipelines
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Electric Fan Heaters
  Electric Fan Heaters
  Electric Blankets and Bed Warmers
  Electric Blankets and Bed Warmers
  Jury Service (Committee)
  Jury Service (Committee)
  Suffolk and Ipswich Fire Service (Wireless)
  Suffolk and Ipswich Fire Service (Wireless)
  Discharged Prisoners (Personal Property)
  Discharged Prisoners (Personal Property)
  Cremation Regulations
  Cremation Regulations
  Crime (Impersonation of Police)
  Crime (Impersonation of Police)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Deportation)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Deportation)
  Severe Weather Conditions
  Severe Weather Conditions
  Prisoners (Rehabilitation Hostel Scheme)
  Prisoners (Rehabilitation Hostel Scheme)
  Young Persons (Prison Remand)
  Young Persons (Prison Remand)
  Firms (Security Corps)
  Firms (Security Corps)
  Domestic Oil Heaters
  Domestic Oil Heaters
  Imprisoned Journalists (Resolution)
  Imprisoned Journalists (Resolution)
  Metropolitan Police District (Chigwell)
  Metropolitan Police District (Chigwell)
  Parking Meters
  Parking Meters
  Probation Committee, Newcastle (Report)
  Probation Committee, Newcastle (Report)
  Borstal Training (Releases)
  Borstal Training (Releases)
  Life Imprisonment
  Life Imprisonment
  Liverpool Prison (Inquiry)
  Liverpool Prison (Inquiry)
  Protection of Birds
  Protection of Birds
  Firemen (Waterproof Tunics)
  Firemen (Waterproof Tunics)
  General Elections
  General Elections
  Prison Standing Orders (Letters, Writs and Petitions)
  Prison Standing Orders (Letters, Writs and Petitions)
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Federal Review Conference
  Federal Review Conference
CENTRAL AFRICAN TERRITORIES
  Northern Rhodesia
  Northern Rhodesia
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Civil Defence (Evacuation)
  Civil Defence (Evacuation)
  Workmen's Clubs, Durham (Rates)
  Workmen's Clubs, Durham (Rates)
  Peterlee (Rates)
  Peterlee (Rates)
  Building Preservation Orders
  Building Preservation Orders
  BUILDING PRESERVATION ORDERS
    ENGLAND
    ENGLAND
    WALES
    WALES
  Rates (Committee of Inquiry)
  Rates (Committee of Inquiry)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Boots and Shoes (Tax)
  Boots and Shoes (Tax)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Civil Defence (Emergency Feeding)
  Civil Defence (Emergency Feeding)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Short Belfast and A.W.681
  Short Belfast and A.W.681
EDUCATION
  Teachers
  Teachers
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  War Disablement
  War Disablement
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
SCIENCE
  Nature Reserves (Hawksmoor and Coombs Valley)
  Nature Reserves (Hawksmoor and Coombs Valley)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  U.S.S.R. (Steel Pipes)
  U.S.S.R. (Steel Pipes)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool

MEAT PRICES
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
1[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the present cost of meat marketing and its aim of ensuring that the housewife enjoys cheap meat in return for high farm subsidies, they will make a statement showing how much of the present wholesale price cuts are being passed on to the shopper.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, since the beginning of this year the wholesale prices for British beef and pork have fallen on average by about 20 per cent. There is no official information about retail prices, but the weekly price-lists of three large chains of multiple butchers show that their retail prices for beef and for pork have fallen during this period by up to 18 per cent. according to the different cuts. The National Federation of Meat Traders, who have been collecting returns from some of their members, inform me that their returns show reductions of the same order.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, without wishing any discourtesy to the Minister, I do not really feel that the reply he has given gets a great deal further concerning the last part of my Question. I am wondering whether the Government would be prepared to state that the fall in the wholesale price of meat compensates the taxpayer for the additional cost arising from the price guarantees to home producers. Does the noble Earl feel that that is balancing out?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should be glad to go as far with the noble Lady as she likes, but this does seem to be a little outside the original Question. I think that, if she will look at the Answer given by the Minister in another place yesterday on a rather wider Question, she will find some observations relevant to it.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: No. With respect, I have read that. Is the Minister aware that there always seems to be difficulty in getting details of prices as they affect the shoppers? We never can get a straight answer from the Government on this particular matter. I wonder whether I might ask the noble Earl a question on this matter. Would the Government consider setting up a meat commission, on which consumers are represented, to co-ordinate imports and home-produced supplies? Would the noble Earl not agree that, if this were done, they would find out whether the benefits of lower prices were being passed on to the housewife?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I cannot say at Question Time whether it would be a good thing to have a meat commission. But I think the evidence which we have is as much as we could reasonably be expected to get in present circumstances. That showed that there have been, since the beginning of January, reductions of up to 20 per cent. in some of the cuts of beef, and of 15 per cent. in others. Of course, prices are not uniform in every butcher's shop. You cannot, therefore, guarantee that if there has been an overall reduction of a certain percentage in prices it will be reflected in every shop which you might happen to go into.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that farmers are just as worried about the present situation as we are, and with good reason? And is it not the case that the Government have no information on this subject, and should have information? For example, why is it that a forequarter of beef is ls. a lb. in Smithfield, and cuts from it are 4s. to 4s. 6d. a lb. in the shops? That is the kind of situation which the Government ought to

263
look into. It is no good paying £1 million a year in subsidies if in times of glut the consumer is not getting the benefit from it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord need not tell me anything about the worries of farmers in comparison with ours. I have my full share of them. I think that to get an official survey of average meat prices regularly month by month would be a very expensive operation, and very difficult administratively. I should not care to undertake to do anything like that without looking into it much more carefully.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether he is aware of the complete bewilderment of the public at present? They are being told that the price of beef has fallen enormously, which they do not find in the shops; they find only that they will have to pay in taxation for the prices that the Government are paying to the farmers.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the price of beef has fallen in the shops by about 20 per cent. in the last two months.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the real solution of this problem is not to be pottering about with detailed prices at the moment, but to do something substantial to prevent the chaos that we had last year and have this year,
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that is what my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is attempting and proposing to do.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: When?

PRISON VISITORS AS JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
2.41 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave 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, when appointing Justices of the Peace, they will give special consideration to the appointment as Jus-
264
tices, of persons who have experience as prison visitors.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, experience as a prison visitor is one of the qualifications to which I attach some importance when selecting persons for appointment to the Commissions of the Peace.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. May I hope that he will attach additional importance to this qualification, so that future magistrates may have a better idea of the conditions with which they are dealing?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, while I agree that some importance should be attached to this qualification, I could not, of course, accept the proposition that a good prison visitor would necessarily form the best magistrate in adjudicating the guilt or innocence of the accused.
LORD STONHAM: I assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I fully accept that. But, surely, among the qualities of a good magistrate is a considerable and varied experience in the matters on which he is adjudicating, and surely some knowledge of the kind of people on whom he is adjudicating would be a considerable help.

THE EASTER RECESS
2.42 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is hoped that the House will rise for the Easter Recess after the conclusion of Business on Wednesday, April 10, until Tuesday, April 23. If, however, it should be necessary to sit on Thursday, April 11, it is proposed that the House should meet at 11 o'clock in the morning.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BRITISH MUSEUM BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
2.44 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE) rose to move to resolve, That this House takes note of the Report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which appears on the Order Paper in my name. The Report of the Joint Committee was published last December, and I do not doubt has been the subject of close and careful study by your Lordships. The proposals in the Report, if accepted, will involve very considerable constitutional changes, the importance of which I wish neither to exaggerate nor to minimise. For two and a half centuries there have been constitutional provisions distinguishing between the rights of the holders of Scottish Peerages and those of Peers of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England. In the long history of this House hereditary Peeresses have not been admitted, and it has never been possible for a Peer to surrender his Peerage. I am sure your Lordships will agree that no changes should be made in the membership of either House without careful consideration, and the reason why I am moving this Motion is these terms is to enable your Lordships to express your views on these proposals and so enable Her Majesty's Government to have the benefit of knowing exactly what they are.
I am sure your Lordships would have thought it wrong if the Government had come forward now with proposals for legislation without your Lordships' first having the opportunity of expressing your views on the Joint Committee's proposals. It would be too much to expect complete unanimity among your Lordships, or, indeed, among the Members of another place, but I hope that our debates to-day in both Houses will reveal a broad measure of agreement: for this is not a subject on which one would like to see any real disagreement between the two Houses. Views in another place may differ, as no doubt they differ in your Lordships' House, but it certainly would not be, in my submission, in the public interest that this subject should become the source of conflict between the two Houses, or lead to one House seeking to impose its will upon the other, or for this subject to become the plaything of
266
Party politics. I hope and trust that such a broad measure of agreement will be revealed that it will be possible to legislate while avoiding these dangers.
I do not propose to remind your Lord, ships in any detail of the events that led up to the appointment of the Joint Committee, but your Lordships may recollect the debate in another place with regard to the position of Mr. Wedgwood Benn. I took part in that debate, and I then urged that his case should not be considered in isolation, and that if any consideration was to be given to the surrender of Peerages the position of Scottish Peers, of Irish Peers and of hereditary Peeresses should also be considered. That the Joint Committee have done, and I should like to express my admiration for the way the Committee tackled their task. It is evident that they proceeded with that care and attention to detail which we have all long associated with the Chairman, my noble friend Lord Kilmuir. I am sure that the House will join with me in expressing thanks to him, and also to his colleagues.
Your Lordships will recollect that the events which occurred before the Joint Committee were appointed showed that there was a widespread feeling, both in Parliament and throughout the country, that a man who wished to remain a commoner and to embark upon, or to continue, a political career in the House of Commons should not be debarred from doing so by the accident of birth solely by reason of the inheritance of a Peerage. I do not suggest that this view was held by all, either then or now, but I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships that it would be entirely wrong to ignore it. and also that little advantage in relation to the discharge of the Business of your Lordships' House is to be gained from the compulsory exclusion from membership of the House of Commons of those who, rightly or wrongly, desire to pursue a political career there rather than in your Lordships' House.
The Report of the Joint Select Committee shows that, while it may be easy to say that such a change should be made, there are various ways in which it could be made, and also that any such change involves consideration of a number of consequential matters. Perhaps the most important recommendations of the Committee deal with the

267
surrender of Peerages. If I may, I will follow the Committee in using the expression "surrender", even though some legal purists may take me to task; for the word "surrender" has a particular meaning in legal circles.
The Committee recommended, if I may remind your Lordships, first, that all hereditary Peers and Peeresses not of the first creation, other than holders of Irish Peerages, should be entitled at their sole discretion to surrender their Peerages for life. Secondly, such surrender should be subject to certain time limits: namely—one month from succession in the case of sitting Members of the House of Commons; six months from the change in the law in the case of those who have succeeded when that change takes place; and, twelve months from succession in all other cases. Thirdly, the surrender should be for life and should involve the acquisition of the status of a commoner, including eligibility for membership of the House of Commons and the right to vote at Parliamentary elections. It also involves giving up of any titles, including the courtesy titles of descendants. Fourthly, the Committee recommended that on the death of the surrendering Peer the Peerage should devolve on the next Peer in the ordinary way.
There is clearly room for differences of opinion about such matters as the period of surrender or time limits, or the loss of titles, or the applicability of the proposals to what I may call "sitting Peers"—if the use of that expression may not sound slightly unsporting to those of us who shoot. I can well imagine that on these questions many Members of this House may have preferred different solutions. But I do not propose to say too much about this at present because I want rather to hear what the House has to say than to express my own opinions.
I have referred to the recommendations on surrender as being the principal recommendations because I am sure that they will be the ones which will be of the greatest interest to the country; but there are other recommendations which will be of particular interest to this House and which I ought to mention. First, there is the recommendation that Scottish Peers should be on an equal footing with Peers
268
of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom in relation to membership of this House. In 1707 there were about as many Scottish as English Peers—some say the numbers were 165 to 161—so that the addition to the House of Lords of all the Peers of Scotland would have effected a most remarkable transformation. To-day, the Committee's proposals would mean that our numbers would be increased by only sixteen Peers and nine hereditary Peeresses of Scotland.
Secondly, the Committee have recommended that hereditary Peeresses should, in effect, be given the same Parliamentary status as hereditary Peers, and thus become entitled to membership of this House. Your Lordships will remember that this question has on more than one occasion been discussed in this House, and I think this House has on recent occasions expressed a decided view in favour of what the Committee have recommended. Again, the effect in terms of numbers would be small. Apart from the nine Scottish Peeresses, whom I have already mentioned, there are at present eight Peeresses of England and one Peeress of both Kingdoms who would become Members of this House. I have not forgotten the noble Baroness, Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston, who holds an hereditary Peerage and is happily among us in her capacity as a Baroness under the Life Peerages Act. To put the matter in perspective, although I am not sure it is entirely appropriate to refer to a percentage of Peers and Peeresses, the addition of the sixteen Scottish Peers and eighteen hereditary Peeresses would increase our membership by 3¾ per cent. —not a very large extension of the hereditary principle.
I ought also to refer to the recommendations affecting the Peerage of Ireland. I am aware that by recommending that the Peerage of Ireland should not be given any representation in this House the Committee will have caused great disappointment to many holders of Irish Peerages. While understanding that disappointment, I feel bound to say that, for my part, I see formidable difficulties in any other solution of the problem. This is a complicated and difficult question and I do not wish to go into it now, but I think it is clear from the Appendices to the Report that the Committee were left in no doubt about, although they

269
did not accept, the views of those who favoured such representation and the arguments in support of their contentions.
The House will appreciate that implementation of the Committee's recommendations will involve a number of ancillary changes. We should, for example, have to devise machinery for summoning Scottish Peers to the House and to regulate their precedence here. I and my successors would need advice when it came to deciding whether a claimant to a Scottish Peerage had established his succession sufficiently clearly. Consideration also would have to be given to the question of drafting the necessary legislation in a way which would effect the minimum amount of disturbance to existing Peerage Law. We should also have to safeguard property rights which devolved on the holder of a surrender Peerage. These, and other similar questions, would have to be dealt with; but I can tell the House that a good deal of consideration has already been given to them, and there is no need for me to go into details now.
I am sure that the noble Viscount who leads the House will be pleased to answer any specific questions which may be asked in the course of this debate. But I can tell the House this: if it becomes apparent that Parliament favours the Committee's proposals, creation of the necessary machinery and the preparation of the necessary legislation will present no insuperable difficulties. Legislation will be necessary if any single one of the Committee's main recommendations is adopted. To give effect to all the Committee's recommendations, I understand that a short and fairly simple Bill of the order of six or seven clauses would be required. But the Bill, though short, may be exceedingly controversial. I want to make it clear, on behalf of the Government, that we shall do our best to secure the passage of any legislation that may flow from the expressed resolve of Parliament. The House will not expect me to be precise on the question of timing, although it would clearly be difficult to fit such an important Bill into the timetable for this Session. If, however, such legislation were desirable, we would bring it forward in this Parliament so that it might be in operation for the coming General Election. The Government therefore intend, after giving most careful consideration to the views that will be expressed today in both Houses, to put
270
before Parliament a statement of our intentions some time between Easter and Whitsun, and this statement will cover the question of legislation.
I should like to refer in a little detail to the Committee's recommendations about Parliamentary elections, because I think they raise some difficulties. The House may remember that the Committee proposed, first, that a Peer standing for Parliament should be required to exhibit a copy of his instrument of surrender, and secondly, that nomination as a candidate should be deemed to imply an irrevocable undertaking to surrender any Peerage that the candidate might succeed to during the election.
May I deal with this second proposal first? I think it requires careful consideration. As it stands, it would mean this: that the heir to a Peerage, who stood for election at a time when it did not appear likely that he would succeed to the Peerage for many a year, would, as the result, say, of an accident causing the death of his father, be taken to have surrendered that Peerage at the time that he was nominated for Parliament, and taken to have done so without ever reaching a conclusion on that question himself. Personally, I do not think that this would be right. Surely it must be wrong. If the eldest son of a Peer should, by standing for Parliament when he has no reason to believe that he will succeed to the Peerage in the immediate future, run the risk of losing for ever the prospect of inheriting what may be a very old family honour. Surely, if his father dies suddenly, he should be given the same opportunity as anyone else to consider his position in the light of what has happened?
Again, one must remember that the candidate may be the nephew or a younger son, with little prospect of succeeding to a Peerage, but in these days a single motor accident or air crash may make an unlikely contingency turn into a reality. Is it right then, just because the accident happens during the election, that he should not have the same choice as he would have if the death occurred immediately after he had been elected? Speaking entirely for myself, I should not have thought that the Committee's proposals in this instance were entirely right. Succession to a Peerage while standing as a candidate for Parliament is not an event likely to occur frequently, but, should it

271
happen, I do not see why it should cause any great difficulty, even within the framework of the Committee's main recommendations. For example, it would be practicable, although it might not be very convenient, to empower the returning officer to cancel the election, as is done if a candidate dies.
Alternatively, and I think this might prove a better course, the Election could proceed and the candidate, if successful, be given a short period within which to make up his mind. After all, if the chance of succession was already more than a remote possibility, he would presumably not only have decided what to do, but told the electors and his supporters in no uncertain way what course he intends to take; and if it is an unexpected event, then, as a matter of justice, I think he should be given time to decide what he is to do.
My objection to the first proposal—namely, that the candidate should be required to exhibit a copy of the instrument of surrender—is of a somewhat different character. At the present time, the returning officer, if the nomination papers are in order, has no power to reject the nomination of a candidate, even though he be ineligible for election to the House of Commons. If a candidate who is known to be a Peer presents himself to that returning officer, it may be assumed (if the proposals of the Committee are implemented) that he would not have been adopted without his supporters first satisfying themselves that he has surrendered his Peerage. But cases may occur where the candidate at the time he attends upon the returning officer has become a Peer without his knowledge and cases where the candidate does not use his title. The returning officer has no machinery for investigating whether a candidate is in fact a Peer. Indeed, such investigation can take a considerable time and there would indeed be protests if the election was delayed on this account. I mention this because I think that some further consideration will be required to be given to this piece of machinery.
Before I conclude, there is one point which I feel I ought to emphasise. The minutes of the proceedings of the Committee make it plain that, while there was a general acceptance of the proposition that a Peer succeeding to an hereditary
272
Peerage should be enabled to surrender, there were conflicting views about the circumstances in which such a surrender should be possible and the consequences which it would entail.
I have no wish to prejudge the issue or to anticipate what may be said here or in another place, but my assessment of the position is that the recommendations of the Committee represent in substance a compromise on these difficult issues which has a reasonable chance of being acceptable as a compromise to the political Parties represented in the Committee and to both Houses. I doubt very much whether any course which involves a major departure from those recommendations would command that broad measure of support which most of us consider desirable if we are to make this change, or indeed any change, in our constitutional and Parliamentary traditions. While, therefore, I expect that a number of noble Lords will disagree with particular recommendations, I feel that we ought constantly throughout this debate to bear in mind that the main object of the Report may well not be achieved unless both noble Lords and Members of another place are prepared to make considerable concessions to those whose opinions differ from their own.
Moved to resolve, That this House takes note of the Report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.8 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I have first to apologise to the House for the absence of my noble leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who has been taken ill and is therefore unable to be present. I had not intended to follow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. That would have been the task of my noble leader. And I have been called in to speak at rather short notice.
I should like to express my own personal gratitude to the Lord Chancellor for the manner in which he has introduced this Report. I had hoped that he would have given us a rather stronger lead in this matter than he has done. I fully understand that he is desirous of collecting the views of Members of your Lordships' House (and, incidentally, the views of another place are being

273
taken at the same time), but it would probably have been helpful if he had given a stronger lead in showing what are the views of the Government on the matter, while being prepared to listen to any representations. But I regard this as being largely a matter of emphasis, because I think that in fact the noble and learned Lord has expressed the view that if it should be the wish of this House and of another place that the Report should be implemented broadly as it stands, the Government would find no difficulty, other than the technical ones to which he has referred, in implementing them.
I would join with the noble and learned Lord in the tribute he has paid to the Chairman of the Joint Committee. He was, I would say, a perfect Chairman, in the sense that everybody who had a view to express was able to express it. He was himself perfectly objective, and I think that he collected the views of the Committee in the most efficient way. Modesty forbids me to accept the tribute that he paid to the Joint Committee, because I was a member of it; but I can say that it was one of the best Committees of which I have ever been a member. Every member of that Joint Committee had a contribution to make, and not necessarily the same contribution. We had our differences, of course, but these were resolved after the fullest discussion and in the friendliest possible way.
The Report before the House to-day is a strictly limited one. There are, of course, varying views about the House of Lords. There are some—I believe a declining number—who think that there is no need for a Second Chamber. There are many more who think that there should be a Second Chamber, but that the composition of this Chamber is quite anomalous and that the hereditary system ought to go. There are those who think that the existence of what is in fact, though not in theory, a permanent majority of one Party is undesirable, and that some means should be found of ensuring that all Parties are adequately represented. This is not the case at present, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will agree. Certainly one of the Parties is not adequately represented; and I think that my own Party also is not.
274
There are many other difficulties which we might find in the composition, and even in the powers, of the House of Lords. But to-day we are not discussing that. We are discussing now a very limited aspect of the matter, and I hope that the House will be able broadly to come to an understanding of what should be done: because, whatever our views may be, I think that no Party desires to make the Constitution a constant issue. If we can settle this question in the near future, I hope that it will be settled for a long time to come. To have constant revisions of the powers and composition of the House of Lords is undesirable, and it is therefore essential that, whatever differences there may be among us, there should be a good deal of give and take in order to get the reforms which we need.
I do not want to go into the details of the recommendations of the Committee to any considerable extent, but I feel bound to refer to a number of them. First, there was complete agreement, I think, as to the desirability of enabling Peers who, for one reason or another, inherit a Peerage, and who are not willing to serve in the House of Lords, to renounce. I believe that on that point there was virtually no difference of opinion at all. The desire for renunciation, I understand, is mainly among those who would wish to have a Parliamentary career in another place. But that may not be the only reason; there are others, as we well know. After all, the normal attendance in this House (and to-day we have a somewhat abnormal attendance) is certainly not more than 100, or 150 at the most, out of a total membership of over 900.
There are many Peers who have never taken their seats in this House, and who do not intend to do so; and we have had, as a face-saving device, to establish the machinery of giving Peers the right to leave of absence. There are many Peers who are resident abroad, and whose interests are in the Commonwealth or in other places. It may be that Peers such as those would be anxious to renounce their Peerage if they had the opportunity, well knowing that they are not in a position to serve their country in the House of Lords. So it is not correct to say that this Report is concerned solely with Peers who wish to make a career in another place.

275
There was, however, a substantial difference of opinion as to the basis on which renunciation should take place. There were some who took the view that a Peerage, once renounced, should be a renunciation for all time. The majority took the view that it should be a renunciation for the lifetime of the particular Peer who renounced it. If I may express a purely personal view, it is that the difference is to some extent academic; because each Peer, as he succeeds, will have the right to renounce, and, therefore, if it should be the desire of future generations of Peers to renounce their Peerage, they would have no difficulty in doing so, provided that they did it within the terms of the provisions that were made. It seemed to me that it would be somewhat unfair for a Peer to be able to renounce and completely extinguish a Peerage which had been in existence for possibly hundreds of years. But it is only right to say that a different view was held by a substantial number of members of the Committee. The Committee, however, decided by a majority that it should be a life renunciation.
There was also some difference of opinion as to whether a Peer renouncing a Peerage should still be able to retain his title. The majority of the Committee took the view that if a Peerage was renounced, and particularly on the ground that the person renouncing wished to have a political career in another place, it would be wrong to give him such psychological advantages as may exist in elections, in his appearances before the public, and generally, by the retention of his title. After all, for what it is worth, a title does mean something to a great number of people in this country, and it would be thought to be of some advantage if a candidate appeared as Lord "So-and-So", rather than as plain Mr. "So-and-So". Of course, there is nothing in law to prevent such a person calling himself "Lord So-and-So", even though he will have no legal right to do so. However, the majority of the Committee took the view that if a man renounced his Peerage he should not have the legal right to use the title and honours of the Peerage, and that this should extend also to his wife and children.
We spent a good deal of time discussing the position of Scottish and Irish Peers,
276
and I am glad to say that there was no difference of opinion between us: we were able to agree unanimously upon that. The same applied (and I was particularly glad about this) with regard to Peeresses. It was felt that they should have the right to sit in this House. This was particularly welcome, because we had already accepted the principle in the case of Life Peerages, and we all felt that the House had benefited considerably from the presence of women here. These are broadly the main recommendations, and I do not think it is necessary for me to develop them. I am sure that every noble Lord who is interested in this subject will have read them.
I should like now to say a few words about the position of my own Party in this matter. It is well known that the majority of my noble friends are opposed to the hereditary system, and would desire to go very much further than this recommendation. Nevertheless, we are prepared broadly to accept these recommendations. Obviously, there may have to be some further consideration of the machinery, and particularly of the point (which I thought a valid one), made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the machinery in respect of candidates submitting themselves for election. There may be other points of that kind, and we should have to reserve our position and move Amendments when the legislation came. But we are prepared here and now to say that we would accept a measure broadly on the lines of this Report, provided that it was introduced early, and certainly within the lifetime of the present Parliament. What that lifetime is, I do not know, but the noble and learned Lord has given us some indication as to what it is likely to be. As I understand him (I do not know whether he intended us to accept that), it looks very much as if there will not be an Election before October. There are some who believe that it might be the case that there will be an Election before October. I would say this to the noble and learned Lord quite seriously. No one can really foresee when the Election might come. If it is going to be a date chosen by the Prime Minister, he may think that circumstances would justify a rather earlier Election than the noble and learned Lord forecast.
It seems to me that there should be no insuperable difficulty about introducing a

277
Bill in the present Session of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord has himself explained that, although there may be some difficulties in drafting, considerable progress has been made in anticipation. As he said, there has been a good deal of consideration and preparation. The Bill itself, as he explained, would be a matter of six or seven clauses, although admittedly they might be difficult clauses. But it seems to me that, having regard to all that, if the Government could speed up their decision on the matter so that we had it immediately after we come back at Whitsun, and a Bill as soon after then as possible, I can promise the Government, on behalf of my noble friends, that we would put no difficulties in the way of getting an early decision on that Bill so that it could be put into operation before the House rises for the Summer Recess. While I do not expect the noble Viscount who is to reply to give me a firm decision, I hope that that suggestion will be seriously considered.
May I say, in conclusion, that it would be very welcome and most desirable that, when we consider changes in our Constitution, they should be carried out in the most harmonious manner possible? I share entirely on that point the sentiments of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Here we have a great opportunity of achieving a substantial measure of justice and reform by substantial agreement, and I hope that the Government will take full advantage of it at the earliest possible moment.
3.26 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, if I may, I would start my comments with three personal matters. First, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the most objective and clear way in which he has introduced this interesting Motion. Secondly, may I express the regret of the whole House that the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is not with us to-day, and hope he will soon be restored to health; and, thirdly, I would welcome our excellent Chairman of that Joint Committee on which I also had the honour to sit, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, who is with us to-day, and who could not have been more clear and helpful in the way he took the Chair at the meetings of that Committee.
278
I think it rather important that in discussing this Report we should be clear that the title of the Joint Committee is really very misleading. Indeed, I will go much further, if I may do so without impropriety, and say that rather a serious mistake has been made in having allowed the words "House of Lords Reform" to be used in describing the objective of this Committee. The Committee, as your Lordships know, was directed to inquire into certain disabilities of the Peerage virtually in one direction only, and to suggest possible alterations in this direction only, with comments, of course, upon the actual or possible results of such alteration. It was not charged with making recommendations for the reformation or reconstitution of the House of Lords, either as regards its powers or as regards its basis of composition, except in a very limited degree.
As your Lordships know, for the last hundred years or so there have been various proposals for reform of the Second Chamber, and I would submit that, as a result of these proposals, the phrase "House of Lords reform" has really come to mean to all of us a comprehensive, basic and thorough project to investigate all aspects of the Second Chamber, and thereafter to alter such powers, privileges, disabilities and procedures as may be agreed and decided upon. But this Joint Committee had, of course, no such task. It was concerned, as I say, with one simple matter: to investigate certain restrictions of Peers and Peeresses in the present relationship between this House and another place, including, of course, the status of those Peers and Peeresses who do not sit in either Chamber; and to point out the implications of any recommended changes in that aspect alone. But this is not reform of the House of Lords; it is surely quite simply a matter of adaptation of a few matters of procedure and tradition; and your Lordships may, I hope, agree that we are this afternoon probably in some danger of going over ground which really is not covered by this Report.
May I try briefly to dismiss the wide general subject of House of Lords reform in its broad and accepted sense by reminding your Lordships that in that wider field we have not progressed beyond the findings of that very important conference of Party leaders, called

279
by the Speaker at the end of 1947, and which reported in 1948 in Command Paper 7380? Your Lordships may remember that that has been referred to in most discussions on reform of the Lords. Paragraph 5 of that interesting statement summarised nine points on which agreement was reached by all Parties in respect of the composition of your Lordships' House. It was on one detailed question of powers, and not of composition, that the Conference broke down; and we on these Benches, the Liberal Party, maintain as part of our political programme our strong support of all those nine points of composition, and we continue to wish to see them implemented. Probably the most controversial of them at the time was that which proposed to abolish the right to attend and vote in this House based solely and by itself on heredity. But I think as the years have passed, most Members of all Parties would now accept that abolition, and we on these Benches really rather fail to understand why there is such an impasse and on what pretext or justification both the larger Parties fail to make any move whatever towards the long overdue reform of the Second Chamber.
One has to be careful of course. A great deal of emphasis is now given to youthful opinion. Those who do not like it call it hysterical and iconoclastic, and those who do like it call it satirical and vital, but, of course, we must always remember that if we are going to change it and take something away, we should have something ready to put in its place; and I think that just to abolish the House without thinking very carefully of what is going to take the place of the Second Chamber, which all of us seem to think desirable, must be very carefully considered. We should, therefore, be getting on with some form of House of Lords reform measure.
I now come to the much narrower issue of the Report which we are discussing to-day. As a member of the Joint Committee, I subscribe in general to its findings, and I hope that your Lordships to-day, as the Lord Chancellor has asked, will take note of the Report in a favourable way. I should like, however, to record one or two small reservations and to comment upon what I call a few crosscurrents which were apparent to me during
280
the sittings of this Committee. I make so bold as to warn your Lordships, with respect, of the danger of confusing the limited task of the Committee with the much broader question of House of Lords reform in general; and that difficulty or danger showed itself to be present in the earliest stages of the Committee's deliberations.
Your Lordships who have read the Report will have noticed that the very first division arose from an amendment moved by Mr. Donald Wade, to the effect, if I may paraphrase his wording, that the Committee were put in an impossible position in proceeding with the limited Order of Reference unless they were allowed also to examine the whole great question of a comprehensive reform of the composition of the Second Chamber, on which, of course, the Order of Reference impinges but does not intrude. I think that many of us have a great sympathy with the view that it is difficult to pursue a part without taking some note of the whole, and it has much to commend it. And I would suggest that the Committee, indeed Parliament, is indebted to Mr. Wade for bringing up this difficulty so early and so clearly. But it was rejected very thoroughly by the Committee; and so, by implication, the Committee established two principles: first, that it must proceed within its limited brief and not on the wider field; and, secondly, that opinions, prejudices and beliefs relating to aspects of this House, other than those laid down in the directive, would of course be out of order and should not enter into the Committee's deliberations.
I am sorry to say that, in my opinion, this principle, which was achieved by the rejection of Mr. Wade's amendment at the start of our proceedings, was not strictly adhered to in the later stages, and that political opinions about your Lordships' House, particularly of course the hereditary question, which I do not think were within the real ambit of this Committee, were at times expressed in contexts where perhaps their absence would have been more desirable. It is understandable that if a man has a burning desire to abolish the hereditary principle it is very difficult not to slip it in and impinge it upon other matters where it is really not applicable.
I have in mind particularly the general matter of hereditary succession which, of course, until it is tackled by some specific

281
Measure—as many of us hope it may be—nevertheless remains part of our existing Constitution until it is replaced or modified. This hereditary system is with us now as part of our Parliamentary system, and it was not, I submit, the function of this particular Committee to throw its weight either way in that general field. Where this feeling arose particularly, I think, was in the matter of whether a Peerage should be surrendered for life or extinguished, and those who cannot bear the thought of hereditary Peerages find it difficult not to argue in favour of extinction. The Committee, however, settled the other way. And similarly in the case of the Scottish Peers and Peeresses who do not sit in this House and may be joining us. The constitutional position is that they are Peers suffering a disability and an unfairness, and although I am no supporter of the hereditary system in principle, I would allow 120 Scottish peers, if there were such a number, to come into this House rather than that they should continue to suffer a disability, whereas the number in question, as your Lordships know, is a small one of some twenty.
Then there is a small point about paragraph (o), on page 9, which, as it stands, and as passed by the Committee, lays it down that a person who has surrendered his Peerage may, at a later stage in his career, have conferred upon him a new Life Peerage, but not a new hereditary Peerage. As I say, I am no advocate of the hereditary system as such, but while that system obtains, as it does to-day, it seems to me improper and unfair that a Peer who has elected to become a commoner should be debarred from one sort of honour or recognition which is open to every other commoner in the country. That is a selective disability which I think draws an unfair distinction between an ordinary commoner and a commoner who is stigmatised through no fault of his own as having at one time inherited and surrendered a Peerage.
If I might give an illustration, let us imagine a young man, let us say of 23, who has inherited a Peerage, and he decides that he would prefer to pursue a career in the House of Commons and so surrenders his Peerage. That particular hypothetical young man does remarkably well and becomes Prime Minister of his country. When he gives up the reins of office, a tired but successful man, it
282
may be that Her Majesty would wish to confer upon him an Earldom, a Viscountcy, some hereditary Peerage. But this clause says that she may not do so, but can give him only a Life Peerage. Apart from the iniquity of singling out an ex-Peer for that particular disability, it seems to me improper that Parliament should dictate to the Monarch whom she can and whom she cannot make a Peer, and I personally would regard such a limitation as an affront to the Royal Prerogative.
There are two more points in the Report upon which I should like to touch briefly. One is in paragraph (i), which says that, in order to overcome possible difficulties in cases of disputed succession—whatever that may mean—a person who decides that he might be the successor to a Peerage can, so to speak, surrender that Peerage in advance, even during the lifetime of the current holder of the Peerage. This seems to me to have several disadvantages. In the first place it opens the door to spurious claimants, who may be actuated by motives purely of self-advertisement or exhibitionism, and thus it might well multiply, instead of overcome, the difficulties in cases of disputed succession.
Secondly, an heir to a Peerage might well have immature views as a young man which he might desire to change when actually faced with the position of taking up his Peerage; and as it is his later views which represent his final decision, I suggest that he should be protected and prevented from committing himself in advance to a course which he might regret. Thirdly, there seems to be an element of what I might call almost indecency, in disposing publically of an inheritance which is not yet, and may never be, in the hands of the claimant; and, additionally, during the life of a Peer who may for various reasons value the existence of his Peerage.
My third and last criticism relates to Irish Peers and Peeresses. Under the recommendations of this Committee, all Peers and Peeresses, except Irish Peers, will be required to surrender their titles before their nomination as candidates for election to the House of Commons. It seems to me curious that the Irish Peers and Peeresses should be exempted from this. Why should they have this exemption? We are, of course, well aware that

283
up to now Irish Peers have sat in the House of Commons while retaining their titles. But I consider that under these new proposals they should be aligned pari passu with all other Peers and Peeresses who enter the other House and should not continue their special privilege, which under these recommendations becomes obsolete. I have no antagonism whatever against the Irish Peerage, who are very pleasant people, but the matter is really rather out of balance and deserves attention.
Finally, my Lords, I would only say that these are comparatively small points, but I would remind your Lordships once more, if I may, that the matter with which we are dealing to-day is also comparatively small, although, of course, very important. We are not dealing with Reform of the House of Lords: we are dealing only with methods to enable certain people, hitherto disqualified, to sit in the House of Commons. I hope that your Lordships will approve this Report as a sound basis on which to build a new Act of Parliament; and I hope that if in due course such a Bill comes before Parliament, we shall modify it in several ways, including those which I have indicated to-day.
3.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: My Lords, may I first express my gratitude for the kind things that have been said about my chairmanship of this Committee. I really, sincerely feel it ought to be the other way, because the Committee showed an attention to their work, an open-mindedness of approach and a kindness to myself which was, I think, exemplary. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that we are considering relatively minor aspects of a great problem. But I do say that it is a rare thing to find that decisions on even fringe points connected with the reform of your Lordships' House are eventually agreed without a Division, as these were; and it is remarkable and hopeful, if I may use those adjectives, that the Report should have had the response from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on behalf of the Labour Party, which we have heard to-day.
I thought that it would be most useful if I took what appeared to me the principal aspects of the Report and very
284
briefly gave the reasons that influenced myself in coming to the conclusions. The first question which I think is a primary question in most of your Lordships' minds is whether there should be the right to surrender at all. I want to be quite frank with the House. I started with the viewpoint that there should not be. I have a natural inclination to people carrying out their duty where they are placed, and I also considered the potential loss to the House. But I changed that view. I came to the conclusion that it would be beneath the dignity of your Lordships' House to insist on unwilling conscripts being Members of the House. I also, as other speakers have indicated, felt that it was my duty to consider carefully the views which were so strongly held by my juniors.
There was another point which has not been mentioned but has its interest, and that is that the resignation of Peerages, although in each individual case you have to go into the facts in order to discover the reasons, is, of course, well known to the Peerage Law of Scotland before 1707. In fact, it is not without interest (if your Lordships will allow me one reference) that on page 52 of the Report, in the middle of the memorandum of my very learned friend, that great Scottish character the Lord Lyon King of Arms, he refers to the Winton Peerage case, and says:
"This is a case of a reigning peer denuding himself of his peerage in favour of his next brother, and shows how the principle of resignation in favorem without any re-grant (making the peer himself the first taker under the charter of resignation) was capable of being made the machinery for denuding the peer himself in favour of his next collatoral relative. Such a procedure is what might appeal to e.g. Lord Stansgate."
Those are the words of the Lord Lyon King of Arms, and I think it is worth bearing in mind that resignation is not something new but something which has an old, historical background.
Having come to the conclusion that there should be a right to surrender, I think that the next question which one has to consider is whether that should mean the extinction of the Peerage or surrender for life. I feel that it would be absolutely wrong for it to involve the extinction of the Peerage. The Peerage may well be part of the historical tradition of the country. It is certainly an honourable name, which in many cases

285
has been held for generations, and I do not think that a tenant for life should have the power either to extinguish part of our historical heritage or to extinguish for ever the name which is honoured by a family. Indeed, there is the other view, which anyone who has studied Peerage cases will see has to be taken into account, and that is that this might well be done out of spite or for the next person into the title. I think life surrender is the right way to deal with it. It means that there is complete freedom of action for each generation; the person who wants to may give it up, but he transmits the Peerage and leaves it to his successor to make up his mind in turn.
The next question which one has to consider is whether there should be a right to surrender only the Parliamentary status. That has the logical attraction that all it would mean would he that the Peer would not apply for the Writ and would not sit and vote, but he would maintain all the other concomitants of his Peerage; and it avoids the difficulty of changes of name, which might provide sonic difficulties locally, and it prevents any possibility of misunderstanding. I considered all those points, and again I came to the other conclusion. I came to the conclusion that, unless the titles and trappings are surrendered as well as the Parliamentary status, there will be a general feeling that the Peer in those circumstances is trying to have the best of both worlds.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask my noble and learned friend one point on that. Does that mean that anybody exercising this option would then have to give up all his subsidiary titles, baronetcies, Irish titles, and so forth?
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: If the Report is adopted, he would have the power to surrender only English, Great Britain, United Kingdom and Scottish Peerages. I hope that answers my friend's point. To continue the point on which I was arguing, I had already said that I feel to retain the titles would mean that he was getting the best of both worlds. I think, equally, to put it the other way, that if he is to become a statutory commoner and be given a new right to enter the House of Commons, then he should do so as a commoner in the full sense.
286
A number of my colleagues were worried about the question of the change of name in giving up the Peerage. I would remind your Lordships that the question of a change of name the other way is, of course, a commonplace. I need only look towards a noble Lord whom we all knew and admired for so long as Lord Pakenham, and have had no difficulty in knowing and admiring as Lord Longford. But, if I might give two examples from the holders of the office of Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool was known for years as Lord Hawkesbury; and Lord Salisbury, who was Prime Minister, was in the House of Commons both as Lord Robert Cecil and as Lord Cranborne before he succeeded and became Lord Salisbury. There are many other examples of the changes in that direction. In fact I am sure that your Lordships have been brought up on exactly the same good old, and often told, stories that have resulted from that in instances of which we are well aware.
The next question to which we must apply our minds is whether the right to surrender should apply to Peers who have applied for, and accepted, the Writ. My noble and learned friend the Leader of the House was kind enough to give us a memorandum on this point, and I accept the logic and force of what he said. But what worried me on this point (I am stating my own views quite openly to the House) was that in the case of someone who had not only adhered to your Lordships' House by applying for the Writ, but had become part of the House—perhaps by leading it, or by holding high office within it—there seemed a difference about his surrendering his position. However, the majority of my colleagues thought that equity and fairness demanded that a person who had applied for the Writ at a time when he could not surrender his Peerage should not be put in a more difficult position. I am quite ready to accept that position, and I do not wish to push further the views that I hold.
I should like, quite briefly, to deal with the remaining three points—because again I think your Lordships ought to know the reasons which have certainly influenced me. On the question of the Scottish Peers, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already demonstrated the great change in the position from the time of the Act of

287
Union in 1707. At that time there were roughly as many Scottish Peers as English Peers: something like 165 or 161, the figure which the Lord Chancellor gave—my noble friend Lord Wemyss said 170. Then there would have been a swamping of the English House. But the position to-day is that there are 76 Scottish Peers, 45 of them holding English or other Peerages which entitle them to sit in your Lordships' House. Of the 31 who are left, 16 must be elected under the Act of Union. So one is dealing with the remnant of 15 who at the present moment cannot sit in your Lordships' House, cannot stand for the House of Commons and cannot vote at a Parliamentary election. It seems to me that, if one studies the position, one should get rid of the anomaly by putting them in the position of being in your Lordships' House.
We studied the question of Irish Peerages most carefully and, as my noble and learned friend said, we are conscious that we must be disappointing the holders of Irish Peerages. But I think there are three undeniable facts with regard to the holders of Irish Peerages. The first is that some of them live in the Republic of Ireland; the second is that some of them are descendants of those Peers who composed the Upper House of the Irish Parliament, and, after all, in so far as what my noble friend Lord Rathcavan called the major part of Ireland, the present representative in the Republic of the old Houses of the Irish Parliament is the Dail and the Senate. The third category of Irish Peers is those who were made Irish Peers but had no connection with Ireland whatsoever; they were simply made Irish Peers because either they themselves or somebody else did not want them to sit in your Lordships' House. I want it known that we considered most carefully what my noble friend Lord Dunboyne put forward, that there should be representation of the Irish Peers as such and not as the people of Ireland, but I do not think that we can to-day ignore the fact that Ireland is a Republic, or ignore the development of history and take that step, with the possible consequences at the present day which Lord Hailsham states in his memorandum.
288
My noble friend Lord Rathcavan suggested rather a different approach—namely, that there should be a lesser number than the original 28 representing the Irish Peers, to represent the Peerage of the Irish Peers who come from Northern Ireland. My noble and learned friend the Leader of the House gave the answer to that in what I may term, merely in admiration, Chestertonian language, because on page 35, paragraph 9, he says:
"It would be weird if the title to sit in the House of Lords depended upon the location North or South of the Border of a territorial title conferred before there was a Border to be North or South of."
One comes to the conclusion that the Irish Peerage is such a cluster of anomalies that no guidance really comes out from the various points to show any lines on which reform can be made, and we felt that it had to be left as it was.
I come to the last of the serious problems as they appear to me, and that is the question of Peeresses in their own right. I think here the case is almost too strong to require any argument at all. I think that the exclusion of Peeresses in their own right from this House has been something of which almost all of us have been secretly ashamed. Forty years ago it may have been true that some of your Lordships thought that the position of women should be the church, the kitchen and the nursery. Five years ago when we were dealing with Life Peers there were very few who took that view. To-day I hope that there are none.
I feel that the real difficulty was, as one understood, that the Labour Party did not desire to extend in any way the hereditary principle. We were anxious when we passed the Life Peerages Act to have as much general support as we could get. Therefore this matter was left over; but it is an absolutely unwarrantable piece of sex disqualification. I hope that to-day noble Lords in all parts of the House will feel that this minute extension of the Peerage (the figures given in the Report are eight Scottish Peeresses, eight English Peeresses, and one who is a Peeress of both countries) will not be considered as an extension of the hereditary principle but as the removal of a stupid piece of sex disqualification which should have been removed a long time ago.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, would my noble and learned friend allow me to interrupt for a moment? While I agree that it would make a very small increase in the number of Peers or Peeresses, would my noble friend not agree that originally it was a perfectly logical decision, because the objective was to continue the Peerage through the female line to later generations?
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: My noble friend is describing the Barony by Writ in the English Peerage. He is certainly not describing the position in the Peerage in Scotland, where, as he knows, in most of the older Earldoms there is not merely a continuance of the Peerage, but an inheritance. There has been an inheritance by females for hundreds of years. I do not see that the old position was based on anything other than the fact that up until this century it was not thought fit that females should legislate in Parliament. I am very anxious that your Lordships should give the quietus to that idea and remove the disqualification on this point.
I remind your Lordships that there was no Division in the course of our Committee, and, so far as I can remember, no feeling contrary to that which I have expressed. I regret if I have detained your Lordships too long, but I thought that it would perhaps be helpful not only to see what we have done, but to hear the reasons why we have done it.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could he clarify still further the point which my noble friend Lord Gage made? Am I right in saying that if a Peer of the United Kingdom relinquishes his Peerage in order to become a Member of another place he cannot use any of his United Kingdom titles, even a baronetcy, but that he can sit in another place if he has an Irish title?
EARL KILMUIR: No, the baronetcy does not come into it at all; there is no question of his losing the baronetcy. As I said to my noble friend Lord Gage, the right to surrender applies to four classes of Peerage: English Peerages, Peerages of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom, and Scottish Peerages. There is no right to surrender an Irish Peerage. So that, to take my noble
290
friend's own case—I think he has both a United Kingdom and an Irish Peerage—he could surrender his United Kingdom Peerage. He would then be enabled as an Irish Peer to stand for the House of Commons. If a person had not an Irish Peerage, he would still be enabled as a commoner. That is the position.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I am very grateful.
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I have come all the way from the South of France to make this speech, and I am an old man. I hope your Lordships will not imagine that I am conceited enough to think the speech to be a good one, or, still less, that I have the senile illusion that it will have any effect on the situation. No one listens in this modern world to anything anybody says. It is a more interesting reason—to me, personally, at any rate—that has brought me back here, and that is that for the second time in a lifetime of 82 years I find myself having a difference of opinion with the Leader of the Liberal Party. I remember the first time very well. I could not help thinking that Mr. Gladstone was much too slow in going to the rescue of General Gordon in Khartoum. And this time I cannot help feeling that Mr. Grimond has much too low an opinion of your Lordships' House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT ESHER: No doubt much of the pomp and circumstance that used to surround the aristocratic life has gone with the wind. We all know—even the noble Duke who is sitting on the Front Bench knows—that
"The glories of our blood and state
Are shadows, not substantial things".
Nevertheless, in these unromantic, hardheaded days, in these practical times when we pride ourselves on our contact with reality, we preserve many marks of distinction, many ancient badges of inequality which, I observe, the democrats are not at all reluctant to accept, and which give one a pleasant feeling of importance in our short and trivial journey through the world.
As a matter of fact, the philosophic notion that all men are equal has been having rather a bad time. First of all, it

291
is not true; and, secondly, we do not want it to be true. Fortunately, we English are not a logical people, and we never carry our philosophies to their ultimate, uncomfortable conclusions. No doubt your Lordships cannot be logically defended. I should not care to maintain against all corners the aristocratic theory that I am the equal of the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House. I would not dare to suggest that for a moment. Because, we are wise enough to ignore the anomalies of our philosophy, no fundamental revolution has ever disturbed our national life, and no "wind of change"—to use that overburdened phrase of politicians—has ever tempted us to throw away the past. All we ever do is to tinker with our ancient institutions.
Take the new Life Peers. I thought their introduction was a very good idea and I had great expectations. But as I look around, I cannot help being reminded of an American lady who said to me:
"I married Tom Malcolm for his brains, and I have been sadly disappointed."
I expected to observe in the Life Peers a different degree of eloquence.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But the noble Viscount is never here to hear us. He is always in the South of France.
VISCOUNT ESHER: I read every word the noble Lady says.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That is entirely different.
VISCOUNT ESHER: I expected that we poor duffers, whose only qualifications are the blind forces of heredity, would be entirely eclipsed. Surely, I thought, a riper wisdom must dignify those who have been so long in close contact with the electorate. Not at all! I have felt none of that sense of inferiority that I anticipated. Indeed, it is impossible to tell which is which. Lady Violet Bonham Carter, with that mastery of scorn which she has, once said to me:
"If you put up a hundred Commoners and a hundred Peers you would not be able to tell the difference between them."
Surely, my Lords, that is a democratic mark favourable to your Lordships' House.
292
Drafting Constitutions is very great fun. Any semi-educated sixth-former, a product of our lop-sided educational system, could do it. I have drawn up a dozen or so myself; most of them have been complete failures. Political philosophers whom we so rightly distrust in this country, from Rousseau to Karl Marx, have tried their hands at it. Hitler arranged everything very nicely for a thousand years. As for those unfortunate Americans, Alexander Hamilton extracted from the glorious words of the Declaration of Independence one of the most frustrating Constitutions that has ever worried mankind.
Fortunately for us, no conceited and presumptuous politician has ever cast himself for the role of Moses and come down to us with the Tables of the Law. It is true that Cromwell came somewhere near it, and had an affinity to Moses; but how quickly we repudiated him and turned to the licentious laxity of Charles II! For our long political experience tells us that under every plan, Right or Left, inspired by God or dictated by Satan, someone is going to govern us and control. The problem is how to limit that power to a bearable minimum, to reduce the control of the politicians and of the officials who govern us, to make it ever more difficult for top people to entangle themselves with our private lives.
Because it is obvious that the House of Lords has influence without power, it is accepted by everybody who has ever examined the question, and tried to consider how to replace it, as the best Second Chamber in the world. We are fortunate to have inherited an institution which we certainly should never have had the intelligence to create. We might have been landed with something like the American Senate. And there are people who want to land us with something like the American Senate. Custom may have made us oblivious to such things, but your Lordships' House has some very ancient assets: for instance, the fact that a large proportion of Peers do not attend, which is a tremendous asset, but when they do attend they are usually experts on their own subjects; the fact that they are not paid and are therefore free to hold most of the important posts in the country; the fact that they have no power and therefore none of the obstructive qualities of the Senate of the United

293
States. Remove these assets and nothing can replace them except a replica of the House of Commons, or a nominated nuisance insisting on having the veto.
It is easy for those, who, by good fortune, have found themselves Members of the House of Commons, to pretend that the hereditary Upper House is composed of incompetent nitwits. Any of the Life Peers who believed such rubbish must have had a considerable surprise when they got here. There are some people, too, who in addition to looking upon your Lordships as antiquated fuddy-duddies of debased intellect, assume that we are unpopular. On the contrary, during the last thirty years I have always found the possession of a Peerage to be an asset, and not in the least a handicap. If Peers were unpopular, as Communists, for instance, are unpopular, people would sheer away from them; they would be reluctant to meet them in social life; they would not want their daughters to marry men not only obviously limited in intellect but with no future, either useful or ornamental.
Everybody knows that in fact the usual interesting variety of English life is just as conspicuous on the red Benches as it is on the green, and anybody who thinks anything else is the victim of a form of inverted snobbery. Therefore, it has seemed, and still seems, absurd fundamentally to alter an institution that you have not the faintest idea how to improve. Slight amendments such as Life Peers, yes Lord Stansgate, perhaps; but to make a continuous habit of snatching away from this place long-established Members of your Lordships' House the moment they show any political ability, or because chance has for some reason made it expedient, would, in my view, be fatal to the status, the reputation and the influence of this House as the Second Chamber.
The temptation to take this step is obvious. Your Lordships will remember how the Knights stood on the shore wailing for the birth of King Arthur. We are in a similar position, in that the Conservative Party is desperately in search of an heir. It is unfortunate that at a moment of this sort the rough waves of public life should have been so tactless, so illogical, as to have thrown up upon the shore an hereditary Peer. I am told by people that I ought not to welcome so
294
impossible an heir as this. Yet, for centuries, Prime Ministers have sat, and have only recently ceased to sit, in your Lordships' House. I think myself that in this overcrowded, modern world it is a very good thing that Cabinet Ministers should sit in the House of Lords. It seems possible that they might actually be improved by the leisure, the time between aeroplanes, provided by your Lordships' House. Moments for reflection are good, even for Cabinet Ministers. Max Beer-bohm said somewhere that their lives are so full that they have no time for thought, the highest energy of man.
But even if the House of Commons refuses to allow this obvious improvement in our national life—and, after all, the great success of the noble Earl, Lord Home, at the Foreign Office has shown that the fears which the democrats had about it were totally unwarranted—even if I fail in what I should like to do, which is to got the Prime Minister into your Lordships' House, then there are many other ways by which, on the very rare occasions when a Peer is candidate for the position of Prime Minister (and your Lordships will remember that the last time a Peer was discarded for that reason, when Lord Curzon was not allowed to become Prime Minister because he was a Peer, the alternative was not particularly successful), it could be brought about that, for that particular post alone, the candidate could be moved into the House of Commons. I think that, whatever we do, we ought never to change fundamentally an institution which was not created by clever politicians sitting round a table but which has grown, unpremeditated and unplanned, by reason of the natural structure of our national life.
There could not be a worse moment to copy some American or other foreign Constitution. The holders of power have made such a mess of the world that it is power itself, and not rank, which is unpopular with the people: national power, with its futile and disastrous wars; commercial power, with its expensive vulgarity; Civil Service power, with its ruthless and meticulous severity; trade union power, with its wasteful and unintelligent use of the strike weapon. This affluent and educated society does not really wish to have inflicted upon it all these obsolete attributes of power.

295
I am convinced that, as shown by the increase in the Liberal vote in every election, the various powers which are being used by the Conservative Party and which the Labour Party want to use are going to be taken away from them by this educated democracy. The House of Lords, from which we receive no form which has to be filled up, that never wants to know how many children we have, or whether we made a profit out of the sale of last year's overcoat, will remain because it is a popular institution, dignified by time and always ready to give unpaid and useful service to the community.
4.29 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am sure that the House is very grateful to the noble Viscount for having made a very long journey in order to bring us the delight which he has brought to us by his speech. Unlike the noble Viscount, whose political enthusiasms and embarrassments go back to the second Ministry of Mr. Gladstone, I am the first to intervene in this debate who is not a member of any political Party. I am indeed one of the Members of your Lordships' House to whom the proposals in the Report could not conceivably have application; and this perhaps gives me a certain detachment.
As I wish to keep within the terms of the Motion I am going to say nothing about the wider questions concerning the composition of the House, such as, for instance, the place of the Peers Spiritual. I hope that the proposals contained in the Report will be given legislative effect; I hope that that will happen soon, and with as great an approach to unanimity as is possible. If that is so, I think it will be because in the last few years there has been in the country a very considerable change of sentiment about the two Houses of Parliament and their relation to each other. We were long familiar with the strong feeling, not confined to the Right or to the Left, that the Peers and the Commons were two estates, somewhat rigidly separated, each with its particular opportunity of Parliamentary service and each with the limitations which went with it. With very different motives there was the desire to keep each in its place.
296
I believe that the rapid change in sentiment over this question has been helped by several causes. One is the keen public sympathy with Members of the House of Commons who have, with reluctance, been compelled to leave that House on succession to a Peerage. Another cause is the institution of Life Peerages. Yet another, I believe, is the increase in recent years of a prestige of your Lordships' House rather different in kind from its prestige in other times. Each of these reasons has tended to remove the sense of a rigid and impassable line and to increase the wish that men and women who have been serving the State in one form of Parliamentary existence should be eligible, in accordance with their talents and the urgent needs of the State, to serve it in another. I believe this is not only a matter of the desires of individuals to serve the State in the way they most wish to; nor is it only that Governments and political Parties need and want flexibility in which they can find the men and women eligible for office and particular service. It is also, I am sure, a widespread wish in the country. The country knows how gigantic are the problems which the State has to face and how scarce, as always, are people of gigantic stature. It wants to be sure that the Constitution does not prevent any man or woman from serving anywhere where he or she is most needed and is willing to serve.
I am sure that your Lordships share my view that we should be sorry to see the disappearance from our own number of any of those who sit in this Chamber and with whose presence and contributions we are so familiar. Yet we are convinced that no such sentiments of regret, however rooted in the past history of the Constitution, should hinder what may be the urgent needs of the State in these extraordinarily difficult times.
4.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Salisbury has asked me to say to the House how sorry he is that he is unable to be here today. He is in Africa at the present moment. He has asked me also (and this, I feel, is rather a responsibility) to speak for him as well as for myself to-day. I think I can do it with a clear

297
conscience however, because on this topic our views are, I believe, identical on all aspects that matter. I can be brief because the Report is clear and concise; and here I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his tribute to our Chairman, because the clarity and conciseness of the Report owe an enormous amount to him. I do not know whether we were indebted to him more for his clarity or for his tact. I am sure that nobody ever handled a "mixed pack"—and we were rather a "mixed pack" (and I do not refer to the Law Lords)—with more skill than he did.
The purpose of this debate is to find out whether those who did not sit on the Joint Committee accept the views which have been put before them. There have been criticisms that we did not do this and that; but, of course, our terms of reference were very limited. To describe this as a joint Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Lords is to give it a somewhat exaggerated title. As paragraph 2 of the Report shows, we had only a very limited subject referred to us. For myself—and I think my noble friend Lord Salisbury would agree—I should have been glad of a wider field, though I do not know that we should have come nearer to agreement with others than we did when we worked together on this matter in 1947.
There are only three points to which I would briefly refer, and on all of them my noble friend and I are in complete agreement. I think we all agree that a Peer who succeeds should be able to surrender his Peerage. The most reverend Primate said that the Bench of Bishops is the only body of Members of this House to whom this right cannot apply. Perhaps it would be agreeable to him if I were to say that suffragan bishops were able to surrender their bishoprics—and I hope that that might save him some disciplinary difficulties. However, my noble friend and I were clear that, though there should be a right to surrender, it should be a right to surrender for the life of the holder only. It would be utterly wrong that a Peer who succeeds and is, as it were, a "tenant for life" should be able to bar the Peerage to those who come after. A Peerage is not a chattel or a piece of real property. A Peerage is a privilege, an honour and a trust which derives from the Crown. It is conferred
298
on the Peer and his heirs; and to enable or compel a "tenant for life" to extinguish the Peerage and bar his successors would, in our view, be entirely unjust and very wrong. Your Lordships will observe, moreover, that that is wholly unnecessary to deal with the problem before us, which is whether a man who succeeds to a Peerage should have the right to surrender it for his lifetime and continue to sit in the House of Commons.
There is the question of what the man who surrenders his Peerage and goes on sitting should call himself. The majority of the Committee thought that he ought to become a commoner in name, as well as in fact; that he should not be allowed to continue the use of the courtesy title by which he has hitherto been known. I do not know that this is a very important point. It was said that it has some logic. But, thank goodness! we are not a logical people: that is perhaps why we work democracy so much better than the French do. But, of course, he is called only by a courtesy title; it is not his title at all. It is the title of his father or his grandfather and he is called that by courtesy. He is Mr. "So-and-so", commonly known as "Lord Somebody", but it is the name everybody knows him by; "Lord Somebody" is the name under which he has sat for years in the House of Commons.
To take just one example, there is Lord Dalkeith, who sits in the House of Commons. I suppose that the returning officer returned him as "John Montagu-Douglas-Scott, commonly known as Lord Dalkeith"; but everybody has called him Lord Dalkeith. Suppose that in the fullness of time (I hope that it will not be for a very long time) when my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry dies, full of riches and honour, and when that happens, Lord Dalkeith decides that he would like to continue to sit in the House of Commons, as he has sat for five-and twenty years, as Lord Dalkeith, is it really sensible that he should stop being called Lord Dalkeith and be called Mr. Scott? The returning officer may call him Mr. Scott, but I am perfectly certain that everybody else in Scotland will continue to call him Lord Dalkeith. I am certain that if Lord Hartington had been able to continue to sit in the House of Commons, nobody would have

299
called him anything except Lord Hartington. Nobody would have called him Mr. Cavendish. However, I do not think that this is of any great importance. I am bound to say that, logical as it may be, it does not seem to me that there is any significant grace which attaches to this rather odd form of baptismal regeneration.
The third question that I wish to consider is of a good deal more importance—that is, whether the option to surrender a Peerage should be confined to Peers who have succeeded but have not accepted the Writ of Summons in this House, or whether it should be extended to Peers who have in fact taken the Oath and are discharging their duties in this House. During our discussions in Committee, my noble friend Lord Salisbury and I felt that this was a very evenly balanced point. We were opposed, and are still opposed, in principle, to retrospective legislation; but in a sense any legislation on this matter is retrospective.
We all agree that if legislation is passed, Lord Stansgate, who has not accepted the Writ, should be able to stand again for Parliament. But that would be retrospective; because, whatever Lord Stansgate may call himself, he is, in fact and in law, at this moment Lord Stansgate. Therefore, it is not a very substantial extension to say that a Peer who has succeeded, accepted his Writ, taken the Oath and rendered good service here, should have the right to surrender his Peerage. It would be only once. He would have to do it within a very brief time (the Report proposes six months) and there would be nothing in the nature of a continuing option. My noble friend Lord Salisbury and I discussed this point during our deliberations, and we also discussed it at some length after the Report was published. He has authorised me to say that he shares my feeling, that there is a good deal of equity in giving to a Peer already sitting in this House the opportunity to decide once and once for all. And, if that be the general view of the House, neither he nor I would wish to oppose it.
There is one other matter which perhaps, out of courtesy, I ought to mention—the question of Irish Peers, and again I speak for my noble friend
300
Lord Salisbury, as well as for myself. We could not find—and we considered the matter very carefully—constitutionally or in history or in justice that in the circumstances of to-day, there was any case at all for reviving the principle of Representative Peers of Ireland. And the reasons for that view have been given to-day both by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir. We thought it right that there should not be a distinction in standing for Parliament at present, someone who is an Irish Peer cannot stand for a Northern Ireland constituency, though he can stand anywhere else. That seems an unreasonable distinction and we should like legislation to remove that.
May I point out to your Lordships that it is not as if an Irish Peer were precluded from coming to this House. If the Prime Minister of the day thinks that he would be a suitable Member—and a great deal of consultation takes place outside as to who should come—he can be appointed a Peer of the United Kingdom, as the late Lord Winterton was. He was my Under-Secretary—that was not the reason for his creation as a Peer of the United Kingdom, though it was as good a reason as a number of others. My noble friend Lord Rathcavan was also appointed a Peer of the United Kingdom. An Irish Peer can also be appointed a Life Peer. Therefore, if the Prime Minister so desires, there is nothing to prevent the appointment, to this House, of any number of Irish Peers.
I welcome most sincerely the speech—and the tone of the speech, if I may respectfully say so—by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on behalf of the Opposition, and the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on behalf of the Liberal Party. I hope that this Report will be accepted and that the legislation will go through. Then the Liberal Party will really have borne their share in a reform which has neither brooked delay nor has, in fact, been involved in delay.
4.49 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it may be thought inappropriate for a newcomer to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House in a debate on the reform of an institution of which he has so little experience. But I have chosen to speak to-day in this debate for three

301
reasons. First I, like all your Lordships, have a personal interest in the future of this House. Debates on the composition of the House, or on some aspect of it, are unique in that every Peer has an interest in the composition of the House. Therefore, I think that it will not surprise your Lordships if, for a few minutes, I speak more personally than I would do in any other circumstances.
My second reason is that, since this debate and the one going on simultaneously in another place are intended generally to sound out opinion, I think it will be agreed that it is important that these debates should include if possible an outside view, as it were, from somebody whose experience of Parliament is not coloured by any familiarity with the habits and traditions of either House.
My third reason is that I have recently had to decide whether I should apply for a Writ to come to your Lordships' House or whether I should continue as I was, hoping to secure at some time election to another place.
To-day, I calculated, it is not unreasonable to assume that quite soon Peers, or heirs to Peerages carrying the right to sit in Parliament will be allowed to surrender either the Peerage or the Parliamentary status attached to the Peerage at, or shortly after, the moment of succession, should they wish to do so. As it happens, in my own circumstances, I chose to apply for a Writ. But the important thing is that I had a choice. And the fact that I had a choice at all (as I hope many others similarly placed in the future will) is primarily due, in my opinion, to one man, Anthony Wedgwood Benn. I describe him in that way deliberately, since he has surely by his actions earned the right to be described by whichever part of his name he prefers.
I have no wish to go against tradition in a maiden speech, and stray into controversy over the methods that Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn used to make his protest. I am aware, as is the House, of the strong criticisms that have been made of his action. But I am sure your Lordships will accept from me my feeling of obligation towards Mr. Wedgwood Benn: in fact, I must say that I would find it difficult to speak in this debate without acknowledging that obligation. It is not an obligation based on
302
friendship, or even on self-interest; it is no more than a recognition that, but for his single-mindness and determination, the sequence of events which led up to the establishment of the Joint Select Committee and the debates to-day in your Lordships' House and another place would not have taken place. Underneath all the jargon of what is or is not constitutional, I think it is worth remembering that the Constitution is really not much more than what a majority of people at any given time thought was reasonable. The result of Mr. Wedgwood Benn's actions has been to show that most people no longer regard the situation in which he found himself as reasonable, and that the law is ripe for change as a result.
The new feature of to-day's debate is that agreement now seems very near on the narrowly defined area for reform that was considered by the Joint Select Committee. It is obviously of some importance (this point has been made once or twice already) that constitutional changes should, where possible, be by agreement. The proposals of the Joint Select Committee on Scottish and Irish Peerages and on hereditary Peeresses have been generally accepted, other than, understandably, by the Irish Peers themselves; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said when he opened the debate for the Opposition, these proposals did not divide the Joint Select Committee.
I do not think this is the occasion to go back over the familiar arguments on the composition of the House and the methods of selection. I am certain that to do so at this moment would be damaging to the prospects of getting a useful change on to the Statute Book, and that to pursue any of the wider schemes that have been proposed, even if those wider schemes as a consequence remove the necessity for any form of surrender, would be to jeopardise the chance of a small and modest reform. Your Lordships may remember in this connection the hard-headed proverb of 17th-century England which advised against changing a cottage in possession for a kingdom in reversion.
There are, I think, three real issues now left on which there is room for argument on the subject matter of the

303
Report. First, should surrender be for life or a shorter period, or should it involve permanent extinction? Second, should surrender be of the Parliamentary status of the Peerage only, allowing Peers who have surrendered to retain the use of their titles? Third, should hereditary Peers who have already accepted a Writ of Summons under the law as it was at the time be allowed to surrender? The arguments on each of these three points are (and the debate so far has, I think, illustrated this) very evenly balanced. In the absence of any overwhelming evidence either way, I am in favour in each case of the proposal of the Joint Select Committee, merely because it is the proposal of the Joint Select Committee, and the proposal on which most people can agree is, at the moment, the best proposal. Therefore, in my opinion, surrender should be of all rights for life, and the option should be extended to hereditary Peers who have accepted a Writ of Summons under the law as it was at the time.
In conclusion, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has remarked in connection with the 1948 Conference of Party Leaders on Lords Reform, there is a timing in these matters, and there is a tide that can be missed. What is needed now, before the tide goes out again, is Government action. This is the tercentenary year of the completion of Paradise Lost—a title which I hope will have no relevance to the present situation. It is not out of place, therefore, to look back to some lines written by Milton three centuries ago:
"When complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then it is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained."
No one can say to-day that the arguments have not been freely heard. The Report of the Joint Select Committee is evidence that they have been deeply considered. Let us now look forward to speedy reform.
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am filled with joy that it should fall to me to be the first on behalf of Peers on this side of the House, and I am sure Peers on all sides, to congratulate, with far more than conventional warmth, the noble Lord who has just spoken. All those who knew his father
304
well—and I as much as anybody—were deeply attached to him. Among his qualities were reckoned great physical and moral courage, and I am sure it would have pleased him that his son should have taken this opportunity of speaking so soon and, as he certainly did, in the most attractive way imaginable. I think I agree with everything the noble Lord said, but I should like to echo particularly his generous tribute to Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn. I think we must all know in our hearts that, without the efforts of that one man, this topic would not be before us this afternoon. I do not say that no one else has laboured for that cause, but he has been the man who brought it forward and made it a reality of the day.
As several noble Lords have said, the reform of the House of Lords is a far-reaching constitutional subject, and on that I, along with other noble Lords, have definite views which, if necessary, can be ascertained. But we are not concerned with those wider issues to-day. I agree, for example, with my noble friend Lord Silkin, but also with the particular language used by the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, when he said that this is a relatively minor aspect of an important question. That is what we are discussing to-day, but it does not make it less important that it is a relatively minor topic. Nothing that I say to-day, or that I might find myself saying later, will, I hope, have any effect in disturbing or delaying by an hour the passage of the legislation which is indicated as likely to eventuate. But, having said that, I should like, briefly and respectfully, but quite starkly, to raise my own case, which might be called a minimal aspect of a minor aspect of a great question, which grades it fairly low in the order of things.
We all know that no one is a good judge in his own case, but no one knows all about one's own case except oneself; therefore there is no chance of its being considered, even for a few fleeting moments, unless one chooses to lay it bare before one's friends and colleagues. The Report is chary of giving reasons for its conclusions. A good deal of its philosophy was set out more clearly by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, than by other speakers, but I do not think that even he gave a complete prospectus of all the Committee's reasoning. The basic conclusion appears

305
to be that no one in future should suffer an hereditary disqualification from sitting in the House of Commons. That seems to be the basic idea of the whole thing. It seems to be also recommended—certainly I agree with it, and everyone who has spoken has agreed with it—that those who have suffered this hereditary disqualification in past years should be given a chance of liberating themselves from this disqualification, if they are still with us.
I repeat that I entirely accept these conclusions. I am delighted that the great efforts of Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benin and, may I add, the efforts of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham—for example, in these powerful memoranda, written in a far more dispassionate way than I could have commanded in his situation—have got so near being crowned with success. My own case for liberation from these disqualifications is clearly nothing like so strong as that of Mr. Wedgwood Benn, apart from the fact that he has done all the work. My case is also distinctly less than that of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Yet I venture to think that a case exists in respect of myself, and I will not say more than that. In 1945, at the age of 39, I accepted a Peerage from the then Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee. So far as I can make out, I was the youngest man to be created a Peer—I mention that fact because the situation is a little exceptional—since Lord Beaverbrook (who is always a law unto himself), and he was created a Peer when he was 37, in 1916. There was one other Peer who was, strictly speaking, created a Peer younger, but he took over a Peerage which had been offered to his father, who died before he could carry it through.
At any rate, there I was. I accepted a Peerage and came on to the Front Bench in this House in 1945. Two years ago, I inherited an Irish Earldom and a United Kingdom Barony from my brother. I leave out the Irish Earldom to avoid further complication on that point. My heart is with the Irish Peers, although I cannot pretend that I am joining them in their struggle, because I would not go out of my way to increase the number of hereditary Peers anywhere. But my heart is with them, and if they feel I have betrayed them, it will not be the first time that Irish Peers have
306
been betrayed, and they are accustomed to taking it in good part.
When it is said that Peers who inherit titles should now be allowed to opt out, but that Peers who accept titles should not—which I think, strictly speaking, is the doctrine of the Report—one is entitled to ask: "What about Peers who are in both positions?" The Irish connection is nothing to do with this particular issue; it is not in any way be-devilled by Irish problems. So far as I can make out, the noble Lord. Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, formerly Lord Oaksey, and I, are alone in this.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: No; there is Lord Salisbury.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I have never found the Chief Whip mistaken before, but he is wrong here. It gives me enormous satisfaction. May I repeat the point: I am advised (and I apologise on my knees if the Chief Whip is right and I am wrong) that strictly speaking the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, who received a Peerage for much greater services than mine, and later inherited a title, and I are in the same boat. I do not see him in the House to-day and I have not wished to disturb him with this issue. I have no idea what his views may be. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was mentioned. He and the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, are in roughly the same position as one another. They were both raised to the Peerage in existing titles. I think it is rather an academic issue, but they are in a different position because they were raised to their Peerages while their fathers were still alive, but in existing titles. I hope the Chief Whip will allow me for once to put him right, with the utmost deference.
I am asking the Government to consider—I am not pressing anything; I certainly would not press anything at all if I thought it was going to hold up this Bill by even a few minutes—before they publish their Bill, whether it would not be reasonable to stretch the findings of the Committee or, if you like, to interpret them liberally, so as to cover this special case of mine and the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, if he is also interested. There is no sign—because I was not a member of the Committee—

307
that this double case was considered by the Committee. Certainly I did not submit any evidence before them. There are more ways than one in which a few unobtrusive words could do the trick, if inserted into the Bill.
Is it proper that this case should be covered? When I say "is it proper" I am not raising the question of right in the abstract. One might argue that in the abstract all Peers, whether of first creation or otherwise, should, during a transitional period, be given the chance of opting out. That was the submission of Garter King at Arms in Appendix 15, paragraph 3, so it is a possible point of view. I am not asking that now, because I am taking my stand on the general outlook of the Report, and the Report in fact rejects the idea that Peers of first creation should be allowed to opt out. I am asking whether my case could reasonably be covered by the general outlook of the Report. I am not going to argue it this afternoon—I think it would be rather undignified to do so—but if I did, I should start to do so along this line. I would point out, without attempting to argue the matter, of course, that the Report of the Committee is trying to get rid of a situation under which the inheritance of a title prevents a full career in the House of Commons. I say a full career, because it clearly does not prevent all career. Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, himself had already achieved distinguished careers in the House of Commons when they were cut short in mid-career. So what one objects to—I think all speakers this afternoon seemed to do so—is that careers should be cut short in that way.
Is my case in any way similar? It is not the same, but is there any similarity? When I accepted a Peerage, my brother had been married for 20 years. He had no children, and in the nature of things, assuming I survived him, it was extremely likely that I should one day find myself here. I will not now or at any time try to go on oath as to what was in my mind when I accepted the Peerage. Lord Attlee, then Mr. Attlee, asked me to accept a Peerage to play a small part in helping the Government, and I accepted it. But I am fairly certain, for various reasons, that I would never have found myself in
308
the House of Lords in 1945 at the age of 39, without experience of the House of Commons, if I had not been in effect the heir to a Peerage. I am only asking, therefore, that that point should be considered when the general matter is decided.
I must add one word, whether or not it seems to weaken any force there might lie in this appeal. I am submitting an argument on constitutional merits which applies just as much to Lord Trevethin and Oaksey as to myself, and I am submitting it without reference to the question of whether in fact I would myself take advantage of this option if it were extended. I hope that, if the option were extended, like any other Peer I should be guided by the view I formed of my respective opportunities of usefulness in the various directions that would be open to me. But, in practice, as a loyal member of the Labour Party, I should be largely governed in my attitude by that of the Leader of the Party. I have no doubt that I should also receive much wise counsel from my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, whose absence we so much regret to-day, and from my sagacious friends on these Benches.
There it is. I am grateful to the House for listening to the egocentric observations. It may be that in the next few months or years I shall find myself fighting another Election battle with the noble Viscount opposite, like Rudolf Rassendyll's second round with Rupert of Hentzau, or, should I say, Bulldog Drummond's second round with Carl Peterson. It is not for me to say which will be which in these various dramas. I shall be very happy if that is the result of all this. It may be that I shall find myself soldiering on, whether on a Front or Back Bench in this House, where I have made so many friends and been so happy for seventeen years. Whichever way it goes, I hope that I shall abandon myself with suitable gusto to Divine Providence, or that, if I may be allowed to put it in the more secular terms of Robert Louis Stevenson:
"I shall salute the romance of destiny".
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question on his personal position? Did he not succeed to the United Kingdom Barony of

309
Silchester? Does he sit in this House as Lord Pakenham or as Lord Silchester? If he succeeded to the United Kingdom Barony of Silchester, could he not surrender that?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That is the title which would have to be surrendered. It is Silchester, so to speak, that presents the problem. That is perfectly true and I do not deny that this is a problem, and it is the Barony of Silchester which creates it. If the noble Lord asks me which title I sit under here, as a matter of fact I have never been quite clear.
5.13 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I rise to support generally the proposals before the House, albeit a little sad at heart at some of the implications. But before I go on I should like, together with the noble Earl opposite, to offer my warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on an excellent and brief maiden speech. I very much hope we shall hear him again.
My Lords, if any noble Lord is really idiotic enough to wish to surrender his Peerage it is difficult, I suppose, in this changing world to find sufficiently valid reasons for opposing such a quixotic notion, always provided that extinction is ruled out and that he relinquishes his Peerage for his own life only and that it remains dormant and immediately available for his heir and successor. To me it is incomprehensible that any noble Lord should contemplate for a single moment such a wayward and capricious step. Except perhaps in the one case which we have been discussing so much this afternoon, of Members of another place succeeding to a Peerage and being understandably—at least, I suppose understandably—unwilling to give up their seat in the House of Commons.
One has to accept, inevitably, I am afraid, the melancholy fact in these latter days of a gradual submergence of tradition and an apparent decline in public esteem of the status of Peerage. A certain noble Lord of first creation, who shall be nameless, went so far as to refer in a book he wrote a few years ago to the fact of his "relegation" to the Peerage. A graceless and somewhat arrogant expression, your Lordships might think, from one who had willingly accepted the honour of a first-creation
310
Peerage. He tells us that he had (and I quote)
"stumbled into the House of Lords"
but that he had
"no intention whatever of being relegated to a dying House".
My Lords, that was in the days of the First World War, and your Lordships House seems to be taking an unconscionable time to die.
It is difficult to conceive of any Member of your Lordships' House who has once escaped from another place—and I do not mean to be controversial—contemplating for a single moment returning to that no doubt worthy but somewhat cantankerous milieu over the way; and one derives some comfort from hearing from time to time from noble Lords and noble Ladies who have found sanctuary here that under no conditions would they ever contemplate returning to their first love. I regard that as a pretty compliment to your Lordships' House, with all its anomalies and illogicalities, and a graceful recognition of this haven of refuge.
But then I am a House of Lords' man, and for many years now have looked upon this Chamber with love and reverence—in fact, almost as my spiritual home. Never having served a sentence of what seems to me to be hard labour in the House of Commons, I am, of course, quite unqualified to compare this gentle, dignified, peaceful, perhaps a little deliciously somnolent, and altogether charming atmosphere of your Lordships' House with the restless, tough, though I am sure wholly admirable, life that appears to be led by Members of another place. But I must not be led away into comparing virtues and into what might be thought to be controversial issues as between the two Houses. We are not debating any such thing.
I strongly support the admission as Members here of all Scottish Peers. And now that the die has been cast for feminine representation in your Lord-shins' House (very rightly, I now think, although I was somewhat doubtful and sceptical about such a proposition before we saw and heard the impressive part played by noble Ladies since their arrival here), I support very strongly the proposal that Peeresses in their own right should join this Assembly. I support the proposal to exclude Irish Peers from the House of Lords, and in this con-

311
nection I have always found it rather difficult to understand the justification for the situation in which these Irish Peers are eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons. Since this matter obviously stands outside the scope of this present debate I must not pursue it; but I am puzzled about it.
My Lords, I am afraid that my few remarks have been more in the nature of a soliloquy than a speech, pondering upon the strange and unpredictable ways of men. I can only hope that, if these proposals produce legislation to give effect to them, the number of surrendered Peerages will be infinitesimal; that there may be an end of derogatory remarks about the hereditary Chamber and criticisms of the Peerage; that a little more publicity may perhaps be given in the future to the activities of your Lordships' House, than which I believe there is no better debating Chamber in the world; that membership of your Lordships' House may be recognised as an honourable privilege, and that no more may be heard of a dying House and an outmoded anachronism.
5.20 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot go as far as the noble Lord who has just sat down regarding the effect that possible changes may have on your Lordships' House. I think it will still remain peaceful and dignified, in spite of the changes now before us. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the title of the Joint Select Committee is really misleading, but perhaps in view of that title we shall be allowed to stray a little from their recommendations. I personally am quite prepared to accept the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, which will certainly correct a large number of anomalies, but I much regret that the issue which we are debating is so near to us. It is, of course, a further effort to reform the House by piecemeal legislation, and I suggest that the various difficulties would be much more easily surmounted by a more thorough reform plan.
I cannot help feeling that Her Majesty's Government will be making a great mistake if they do not seize the nettle now and put forward a more drastic reform of the composition of your Lordships' House. It would, of course, have to be a measure apart from
312
what we are considering to-day, but I hope it will not be very long delayed. I suggest that the reform might well be based on the lines proposed by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, a few years ago, but I do not propose to go into the details of that to-day. I cannot help feeling that in the long run the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee which are before us to-day will have the effect of gradually weakening the House, which I think would not be unwelcome in some quarters. On the other hand, a reform of the composition of the House on a more extensive scale would undoubtedly strengthen it, and perhaps remove the gibes which are often thrown at this House.
I mentioned the possible weakening of the House if the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee become law. In the first place, vigorous young Peers with Parliamentary and ministerial ambitions will be tempted to leave this House for another place. Also, we shall lose those of another place who wish to stay in that Chamber and not take up their inheritance in this House; I would take this opportunity of reminding your Lordships that that is a duty and not a privilege. But, on the whole, I am prepared to accept the recommendations which are before us to-day, in the hope that a more realistic reform of the composition of the House will follow before long.
I am one of those who have felt for many years that something should be done to bring the active membership of this House within reasonable proportions. I believe that with the advent of Life Peers we shall very soon reach the high figure of 1,000 Members. Apart, of course, from the Life Peers, only a comparatively small proportion attend the House from time to time. I feel sure the time must come when some form of limitation must be devised, and I only wish the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee had been drawn so that this question could have been looked at as well.
I also feel that Peers will one day have to receive proper remuneration; and again, of course, this cannot be considered or carried out unless the composition of the House is limited to those who intend to be active Members and who are actively working in the House. There is no doubt that the absence of proper remuneration is one of the factors which prevent many Peers on both sides of the

313
House from attending to their duties here, because they have in many cases to earn their living. Whatever we may do in the future, I am sure that we must be most careful to encourage the attendance of young men to do what I would say is the donkey work of the House, attending Committees, putting down Amendments and so on.
It is true that it is difficult to defend logically the hereditary principle in these days, but the fact is—unless, of course, we have an elected House, and I do not think any of your Lordships would want to have that—it is the only way we can obtain the services of comparatively young men. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, for this reason alone, a reformed House must be based predominantly on the hereditary system. I think it is true to say that Life Peers tend to be elderly, as they are people who have distinguished themselves in other walks of life before they come to your Lordships' House. It is only by the hereditary system that we can get these young men to come along and give us good service. I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who said a year or two ago that in his opinion there seemed to be no reason why the Crown should not, on the advice of both Houses of Parliament, take steps to limit the number of Peers who take an active part in the House, and I hope Her Majesty's Government, in considering the adoption of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, will proceed further in a more radical reform of the composition of the House in the near future.
5.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I have been in your Lordships' House for about ten years, and I recall that during those ten years legislation for the reform of the House has been proposed on three occasions—this being the third. Ordinarily speaking, it would seem to me that the reason for reform is that something is not working well. So far as I am concerned, the House at this present time is working very well; indeed, I should have thought it was working better to-day than for a long time. So it seems to me that it is probably a mistake to bring in yet a further reform within the ten years. It may be argued that this is only a very small reform; that it is only to meet the wishes of a few individuals.
314
To that I would say that I do not believe the wishes of a few individuals should necessarily govern something which is far more important—namely, the good working of the House.
Let us consider for a moment what might have been the case if this legislation had existed in the ten years that I have been here. During those ten years we have had the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, as one of our Leaders. He was followed by the noble Earl, Lord Home; and now we have as Leader of the House the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I think it is quite probable that if the reform now urged had already been law not one of those Leaders would have been in the House. That is the sort of thing that can happen as a result of making some minor change, apparently to meet the wishes of an individual. In fact, it surely would have very seriously weakened the House. I think it very probable that in this time, none of the last three Leaders—either the present Leader or his other predecessors—would have helped us in any kind of way; and quite clearly the House would have been weaker.
Perhaps I may now turn for a moment to the question of the Scottish Representative Peers. In a sense, I am very grateful to the Select Committee for suggesting that we can do away with our elections; that we should be as everybody else. I do not want to be as everybody else. I do not want to see the abolition of the Scottish Representative Peers. I do not want it—for historical reasons, for reasons of tradition, for reasons of the ceremony that takes place every time at the general election at Holyrood, when we do not have anything such as a secret ballot but an election in which everybody knows who is for him and who is against him.
But, more seriously, I think it would be a great pity if we were to do away with this representative system, because, for me (here I speak personally), to be a Representative Peer for Scotland really means something. It means that I am representing certain of my constituents; I am representing Scotland, and I know that I had better behave properly and work for Scotland, otherwise at the next election I may be turned out. I do not want that. Therefore, what do we find? We find that the Scottish Representative Peers are a pretty weighty body in this

315
House. They come down when there are any Scottish questions; they take part in the debates. One might almost say that there was a Scottish lobby. At all events, the fact of having these Scottish Representative Peers really means something. If we are, as it were, to become as everybody else, then I am not at all sure that something which we have been able to do for Scotland will not disappear and our value be less. That is how human nature goes.
There is one small but important recommendation of the Report which seems to me to be entirely natural and logical—that is, that Peeresses in their own right should be Members of this House. I would apply that as much to the Scottish Representative Peerage system as to the other. So I am afraid that I am one of the few who feel that this reform should not go forward. I think it will weaken the House, and I do not think it will be a good thing for Scotland either.
5.32 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, the matter under debate to-day has been considered on previous occasions in your Lordships' House, by Committees appointed by your Lordships to consider different aspects of this complex situation, on which much has been said, and also by the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which has done vital work. It would be fair to say that every aspect has its advocates. On this occasion my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who leads your Lordships' House, has stressed the need for brevity, and so, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to confine my few remarks to those affecting Scottish Representative Peers, knowing that the various other aspects have been, or will be, fully dealt with by your Lordships.
My principal recommendation relates to support for what the noble Earl who has just spoken said about the continuation of the election of Scots Representative Peers in accordance with the Treaty of Union of 1707. Having been an elected representative for over 30 years, I may modestly claim to have some experience of the system. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House and another place has recommended that all Scots Peers should be admitted to the House in the same manner as Peers of
316
England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. With this I say, with respect, but most firmly, that I am in complete disagreement, though I am completely in agreement with the suggestion that the Peeresses of Scotland, at present nine in number, should be given the same rights as the Peers of Scotland under the electoral provisions of the Treaty of Union of 1707, making the number who could submit their names for election 40 instead of 31.
I would urge your Lordships most strongly, and would particularly appeal to fellow Scottish Representative Peers, to give support to this suggestion of the Select Committee regarding the Peeresses of Scotland, but otherwise and in no circumstances to allow the interesting and historic Treaty of Union to be disturbed. In form it is unique and one of the most interesting constitutional procedures in the history of Western Europe to-day. I am convinced that Scotland should strive by all means to retain this remarkable instrument.
5.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I find myself in considerable agreement with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Teynham, who said that this was a piecemeal procedure which we are now carrying out. Unfortunately, to my mind, not only is it a piecemeal procedure, but they are the wrong pieces. There is only one piece I agree with in these proposals, and that is the proposal that Members of this House should be entitled, if they wish, to leave their Peerages aside and serve in another place if the electorate calls upon them to do so. As for the rest, I cannot support it because I cannot support any increase in the hereditary principle. I have always opposed the hereditary principle; indeed, I sometimes find difficulty in seeing why I myself should sit upon these Benches. The only reason that I can find why I should sit upon these Benches is that too large a number of noble Lords sit on the Benches opposite; and if noble Lords in the same position as myself will retire from the opposite Benches I will with a shout of glee leave these Benches.
In some ways I find myself in a position of great sorrow at opposing one particular proposal—namely, that relating to the hereditary Peeresses. As your Lordships recall, there was before

317
this House some years ago a Motion that the hereditary Peeresses should be allowed in. I opposed that Motion, admitting that I was ungallant in so doing because the ladies whose entry I was opposing included my mother and my aunt.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That seems a good reason for opposing it.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The position is now still worse in my family. My aunt having died and her three titles being scattered, I am now opposing the entry of my mother and three of my girl first cousins. I only hope that all these ladies will forgive me. Really, in these days, when heredity is universally regarded as such a poor reason for sitting in such an Assembly as this, how can we agree to extend it at all? I agree that there is apparently a sex discrimination in this matter between the men and the ladies; but I should have thought that, if the matter was to be put right, the men should be liberated to join the Commons rather than that the ladies should be elevated to join the Lords.
5.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is not in his place at the moment, because I, too, should like to congratulate him on his superb maiden speech. I was a great personal friend of his father who, when I came to your Lordships' House, tried to persuade me to sit on the Liberal Benches with him. Unfortunately I could not comply with that wish, and I notice that his son has now come to join us on these Benches. I do not quite know what to make of that, but it seems to me a good thing.
I, too, agree with this Report, yet I also have certain misgivings, on the lines of what my noble friend Lord Perth said about ministerial representation, and particularly the leadership of this House. He put it far better than I could possibly do, so I will not repeat it.
I cannot say that I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, about heredity. How else shall we get youth in this House as it stands at present? How, too, can we get military service representation? Certainly, no Government since the war has decided to elevate any chiefs of the military staff to your Lordships' House, to help us in our
318
debates on the subject of war in general, and the Services in particular, though I notice that the chief of staff of the Foreign Office, quite rightly, comes here pretty regularly as he retires. I commend that, and think that it is a good thing for your Lordships' House. I only wish that the Government would do the same in regard to the Services, because we are rapidly running out of Service representation.
There are two points in the actual Report which I should like to mention. The first is on the question of minors. At the moment they are given a year from the time of the cessation of their minority to make up their minds. If by the age of 22 they have not decided to relinquish their title, or have decided to succeed to their title, then at the age of 25, when they are far more likely to be in a better position to make a decision, it will be impossible for them to change their minds and go to another place. I think it is a pity the Committee turned down an Amendment which was put suggesting that, instead of the age at which a succeeding Peer should make up his mind being 21, it should be 25. The other point—which I think the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned—is this: why, when a Peer has given up his Peerage, and finally, it may be, is given another Peerage to return to your Lordships' House from another place, should it be confined to a Life Peerage?
My main theme was to have been the Irish Peerage, but the real opening batsman on this subject, whom I was going to follow and upon whom I had intended to rely for my evidence, has, for some reason, decided to stay in the pavilion. Therefore, I feel rather like the chap who has come out to bat against Trueman without any pads on. I myself, as your Lordships have heard, am in possession of an Irish Peerage, and therefore feel that I ought to try to defend my colleagues who are unlucky enough not also to have an English Peerage. We are trying, it seems to me, to put a little logicality into a quite illogical proceeding, and I cannot understand the logic of the Committee (I do not know whether it was towards the end of the proceedings, and that perhaps they felt they had had enough) in doing something for everybody else, but leaving out the Irish Peers. It is only because the body

319
which elected Irish Peers to your Lordships' House happened, as I understand it, to sit in Dublin at the time Eire became a separate Irish Republic, and not in Belfast, that there are no Irish Peers elected to come to your Lordships' House.
Had this body sat in Belfast, I am sure that there would be Irish Peers elected, possibly from the Northern Irish Peerage alone, to be here. What have they done to be excluded from your Lordships' House? If none had ever been elected to this House in the past, there would be no argument whatsoever; but Irish Peers have been elected to your Lordships' House. Why, then, are they prevented from electing those of their members whom they wish to come here? It seems completely and utterly illogical. The fact that they may be on a particular side of the Border may be a reason for saying that those Peers who live in Eire and who have become Irish citizens should not be allowed to come here. But what about those of us who live North of the Border? Why should we be excluded from your Lordships' House when in the past our predecessors have been allowed to come here?
My Lords, that is the only thing I want to say. I am afraid that I have not said it with a great deal of logic, though I have said it with some vehemence. As I said, my opening batsman failed to turn up to produce the argument for me. I would ask the Government to think again about this point.
5.45 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I certainly approve of the proposals which have been put forward to enable hereditary Peers to surrender their Peerages for life. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said a short time ago, this reform, if it comes about, will be mainly due to the efforts of Lord Stansgate, formerly Anthony Wedgwood Benn. He will presumably have a place in history as having been the means of bringing about a reform of this kind. I also agree that the entry of Peeresses in their own right into this House is obviously long overdue, and any attempt to keep alive sex disqualification of that kind is obviously quite out of date.
320
The Joint Committee, in suggesting the abolition of Scottish Representative Peers and the admission to this House of the whole body of Scottish Peers, have certainly given to Scottish Peers all they have expected, and more. I think, therefore, that the Scottish Peers certainly have nothing to complain of in the Report of the Joint Committee. But when we come to the Irish Peers, there is a very different story to tell, and, in my view, the Joint Committee have given them a very raw deal. All they are recommended to have is the right to sit in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom for a Northern Ireland constituency—they already have the right to sit in the House of Commons for a British constituency—and the right to vote at Parliamentary elections. Several memoranda on the position of the Irish Peers were submitted to the Joint Committee, one by the noble Viscount, Lord Vaughan, on behalf of the unrepresented Irish Peers, of whom there are as many as 70, and one by Lord Dunboyne, who helped in drafting Lord Vaughan's memorandum. Both of these memoranda proceeded on the assumption that the Act of Union of 1800 had never been repealed, that the right of the Irish Peers to representation in your Lordships' House still existed in law, and that it was irrelevant that part of Ireland had gone out of the United Kingdom.
I myself also submitted a memorandum, because I felt that, whatever the strict legal position might be, one had to take a practical view of the situation and face the facts as they are to-day. After all, the Irish Peers came into the House of Lords of the United Kingdom when Ireland was united with Great Britain. Could they claim the same right when that union was dissolved? I felt that they could not. The position, however, does not rest there because Northern Ireland still remains in the United Kingdom and sends members to the United Kingdom House of Commons. I therefore put forward the suggestion in my memorandum that an obviously smaller number of Irish Peers should be enabled to sit in this House by some process of election. If Scottish Peers were to sit here, because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, then in fairness I cannot see why some Irish Peers should not sit here when part of Ireland is in the United Kingdom. From every point of view, I

321
cannot help feeling that that argument is very difficult to ignore.
However, as the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, has said this afternoon, the Joint Committee thought otherwise. The only clue in their Report to their having considered the Northern Ireland position is in the sentence which reads:
"It should be noted that there is no peerage of Northern Ireland as such."
Frankly, I cannot quite see the relevance of this. I cannot help feeling that the real reason why the Joint Committee turned down the claim of the Irish Peers is contained in paragraph 9 of the memorandum submitted on May 25 last by the noble Viscount who is now the Leader of the House, in which he said this:
"I sympathise, but do not agree, with the desire of Irish peers to be again formally represented in the House of Lords. There is no Common Law right, and, on balance, I believe their presence would tend to spoil our relations with the Republic of Ireland."
That idea of spoiling relations with the Republic of Ireland has been so often the cause of British policy regarding Ireland in recent years. I do not believe that in this particular case it applies at all.
I think that is also the reason why, to take another example, the ancient and great Order of Knighthood of St. Patrick has now been allowed practically to disappear. I think there is only one Knight of St. Patrick remaining, and that is His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester. After his time I suppose the Order will disappear—a great Order which has always been considered on a par with the Garter and the Thistle. The reason why it is disappearing, I believe, is that there is a sort of feeling that, if it were to be kept in existence, it would be not acceptable to the authorities in the Irish Republic.
I should like now, my Lords, to read the second half of this same paragraph in the memorandum of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which deals perhaps rather more specially with the point that I am raising. He says:
"I am, of course, aware that some Irish peers derive their titles from places in Northern Ireland, but it would be weird if the title to sit in the House of Lords depended upon the location north, or south of the Border of a territorial title conferred before there was a Border to be north or south of. If such peers exist aid are wanted in the House of Lords the correct method of getting them there
322
would surely be by the conferment of an United Kingdom peerage—life, or hereditary—in the ordinary way."
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
6.0 p.m.

ROYAL COMMISSION
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2),

Purchase Tax,

Drainage Rates.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
Debate resumed.
6.13 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, when the Business of the House was interrupted I was just saying that in these, memoranda to the Joint Committee, dated May 25, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said that if Peers from Northern Ireland were wanted in the House of Lords the correct method of getting them there would be to confer upon them United Kingdom Peerages. If this represents, or possibly will represent, Government policy, I hope that the noble Viscount, when he comes to reply, will be able to say something about it. I feel that if this could be done, then United Kingdom Peerages should be given to Irish Peers resident in the United Kingdom, with preference to those resident in Northern Ireland. But I should also like to see one or two from among the main body of Irish Peers, not now represented at all, given United Kingdom Peerages. If this suggestion, which was put forward by the noble Viscount in his memorandum, could possibly be implemented, it would, I think, go some way towards overcoming the great disappointment of the Irish Peers with the conclusions of the Joint Committee.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I could apologise to him for giving him an incorrect answer to a question he put to me at the end of my speech. He asked me a question about my title of Silchester, and I said that Silchester was the problem; but there I was of course at fault. It is not my hereditary title which seems likely to be a difficulty but the title of Pakenham, which I accepted from the present Lord Attlee, or, rather, from the Crown on the recommendation of Lord Attlee. I say this merely to put the record right.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, on that point, may I say that if the noble Earl has two United Kingdom Peerages, one which he obtained by reason of creation and the other to which he succeeded, then I believe he sits in this House as Lord Pakenham. Could he not arrange to sit as Lord Silchester, in which case he could presumably surrender the Peerage of Silchester and be available for membership of the House of Commons?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's offer of help. This would seem to be another occasion when the South of Ireland has every reason to be indebted to the North.
6.15 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I feel that this is a good Report, and I hope that both Houses will be disposed to approve it en bloc, without too much fiddling around over matters which can be improved upon in the Committee stage of the legislation which will stem from this debate.
When this House first came into being it was obviously expedient that the hereditary principle should be untarnished in any respect. Peers in the late Middle Ages possessed a great deal of land and they were also capable of putting a great many soldiers in the field. It was obviously a good thing—to put it mildly—that they should meet from time to time and co-ordinate their actions in order not to put soldiers in the field for conflicting purposes. However, few of your Lordships now have very broad acres, and none, I think, exercises the right (I doubt whether many have it) of putting soldiers in the field. The abso-
324
lute necessity of knowing, therefore, who was the son of whom, and what powers and rights devolved upon the eldest son of a sitting Peer, appears less absolute than it did in the days when this House was one of the main centres of power in the country. Lands and soldiers can with certainty be transmitted from father to son. Wisdom cannot. Some Members of our House are, in my view, extremely wise, and some of us are less wise. It is a piece of good luck that the wiser among us normally finish up on the Front Benches. We cannot be certain that it will continue like this. There is a continuing risk in this respect.
Of the innumerable Committees which have reported on the question of hereditary Peerages and whether it is possible to get out of them and stand for election to the House of Commons, I notice that the Committee of Privileges in 1961, reporting on the Wedgwood Benn case, quoted for its first authority the first of many opinions on what is a Peerage, a judgment of a seventeenth century judge called Doddridge who, in 1626, said of a Peerage:
"It is a personal dignity annexed to the posterity and fixed in the blood."
At that time, this necessity of transmitting lands and military power from father to son expressed itself in the belief that the actual physical substance of blood carried rights, carried duties and carried responsibilities. We now see the phenomenon of heredity as something rather different. There are few among us who see a picture in our subconscious mind of each one of the twenty-four paternal chromosomes wearing little coronets, matching each one of the twenty-four maternal chromosomes which do not have little coronets except in rather rare and special Peerages.
A NOBLE LORD: Twenty-three.
LORD KENNET: I thank the noble Lord for his correction, and remember his Christmas card, which said twenty-four, making 48 all told, and which aroused some interest at the time in genetic circles. I think there is little opinion in the country and little in Parliament which believes that at this moment in this Parliament we should tackle the whole question of heredity as a basis of political power. I hope that it will be so tackled in future. But, for

325
the moment, let us get on with this very reasonable partial measure proposed by the Joint Committee.
I do not share the reservations of my noble friend Lord St. Davids about hereditary Peeresses. I think it is far less important to keep people out of this House than to enable those who want to get out of it and go back to another place to do so. In point of fact, there is a lot to be said for tidying up both illogicalities which presented themselves to the Committee when they commenced their deliberations: first, the little ways in which the hereditary principle was not applied. Until we can reform the House completely, let us have a uniform standard of logical application of hereditary principles. Let us have my noble friend's mother and three cousins in—and I hope they will sit on this side, like him—but let us allow Mr. Wedgwood Benn, and anybody else who wants, out and let them stand for Parliament.
It seems to me that the main argument for the adoption of the recommendation of the Committee has received singularly little attention in the national debate at the moment—that is, quite simply, the wish of the electors, whether they are in Bristol or anywhere else. They choose the man they want and everything goes swimmingly for a few years; then, in the course of nature, his father dies and they can no longer have the man they want. What restrictions should we admit on the right of the electors to choose precisely the man they want for the House of Commons and no other? I find it difficult to think of any restriction. If a man is a criminal, a traitor, an undischarged bankrupt or a minor, it seems to me that the electors can well be left to make up their own minds, and, generally speaking, they do not elect such candidates. If he is a Peer, they are not allowed to make up their own minds. I am sometimes surprised that we do not regard it as a derogation from our cherished dignities to be bracketed with undischarged bankrupts, traitors and the others, in being disbarred from the choice of the electorate.
Either we are a democracy or we are not. We are talking about a very small matter—about three or four or six men who would like to stand for the House of Commons. I submit to your Lordships that it is distasteful that we should take Our stand so firmly on this principle of a
326
freely elected, democratic Parliament and should go to such lengths to defend it against suggested inroads from the Right or the from the Left, and yet, century after century, we should so blandly tolerate this small infringement of it. It is a small infringement, but it is an infringement. If we are a democracy, let us be so even in the corners.
I was very heartened to hear the opening speech from the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. It seemed to me that he spoke like a man who means business, and I hope he spoke on behalf of a Government which means business in this matter. It is always good when we hear the little anomalies seriously discussed. It is an auspice and an indication that Government action is coming. I thought that the noble and learned Lord made a good case about the unfortunate lot of the elder son of a Peer whose father was struck by a thunderbolt during an election campaign.
I think that other things could be cleared up in any Bill which may come out of this Committee's Report. On this side, we may have one or two things of comparative weight and importance to clear up on Committee stage. But, with these reservations, I hope that both Houses of Parliament will accept this as a compromise, which has been worked out by the representatives of all Parties for that very purpose, and that we shall act swiftly, without prejudicing the chances of a more fundamental reform in the next Parliament.
6.25 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Windlesham upon his magnificent maiden speech to your Lordships this afternoon? Whatever may be said about the hereditary system, there is no doubt that if it did not exist, no Second Chamber in the world, let alone your Lordships' House, would have the advantage of hearing such speeches from a newly joined hereditary member. I hope that in future we shall hear words of knowledge and wisdom from my noble friend on those subjects on which he is an expert.
I welcome the findings of this Committee. For a change, I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord opposite, Lord Kennet. I think that we can both

327
congratulate ourselves because, after hearing so many magnificent speeches this evening, the noble Lord and I are the first to mention the wishes of the electorate. I am glad that the Committee have seen fit to press Parliament and the Government to take note of the wishes of the electorate in one constituency. That happens seldom enough in these days. I wish the electorate of Bristol, South-East and Mr. Wedgwood Benn the best of good fortune in the future. This is a new constituency, but in the past both my father and my mother represented some part of it in another place.
I am glad that in future, if these proposals are adopted, no other candidate will have to suffer the embarrassment that the Member for Bristol South-East has had to suffer. There can be no worse feeling than to sit in the House of Commons, with all the great responsibilities that that entails, knowing that there is a 32,000 majority against one's views. I think that one of the greatest services of the Committee has been to recommend removal of that embarrassment.
I am also glad that the Committee have seen fit to argue that a title should not be extinguished should a Peer take the course that Mr. Wedgwood Benn has decided to take. It would be a great tragedy if a name that is a synonym of tradition of service to the country should be struck off the Roll of Parliament for good. I hope I may be spared long enough to see another Lord Stansgate sitting on the Benches opposite in your Lordships' House, or possibly on the Cross Benches, or even, possibly—who can tell?—upon these Benches. I would take it as a great honour if I were able to tell a grandson of the late Lord Stansgate how much your Lordships loved and revered his grandfather. He was a wonderful man. We shall always remember those sallies between him and my noble friend Lord Salisbury. There could have been no kinder or wiser adviser to a young man in your Lordships' House than he, and we shall not forget his great heroism in the First World War, when he was one of the first to fight from an aeroplane in action. It is a great privilege to be able to remember such a fine Member of your Lordships' House.
Finally, I am glad that this Report is an agreed Report. I think it is great
328
credit to the members of the Committee who sit on the Benches opposite, and to their colleagues in another place, that they have seen fit to issue this Report of the Joint Committee under the chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir. I am pleased that they did not decide to tinker with the corn-position of the House or with its powers. Should there have been any tinkering with that, there could only have been some anew form of Peers of Parliament, call them what you will—no doubt it would have been logical and tidy—and had that been done, had there been any restriction upon the membership of your Lordships' House, it could only have meant that some Peers of the Realm would have forgone the right to come into your Lordships' House and to address your Lordships on whatever matter they might wish. Had that right been forgone, I believe that a serious blow should have been struck against the freedom and liberty, and the protection, too, of Her Majesty's subjects. I welcome the Committee's Report, and I wish its proposals Godspeed through both Houses of Parliament and on to the Statute Book.
6.31 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, in welcoming this Report I may say that I have certain reservations about some of the details, but I think it is a step in the right direction, and possibly we cannot expect everything at once. This is a measure which has a general application. In Parliament it is not usual to legislate for individuals. We all have in mind the special case of Mr. Wedgwood Benn, as I believe he likes to be known. I have the pleasure of knowing him personally, and I know what a great asset he was to the other place and what a great loss he is to this House. Still, he feels strongly about the matter, and I think we are all glad that he will be enabled, as one hopes, to represent his electors again in the other place after this long period of retirement. I wish to apologise to the House for not having been able to come earlier to this debate, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who, I understand, made such an excellent maiden speech, which I shall look forward with pleasure to reading in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.

329
One of the contradictions in this Report, in my view, is the question of hereditary Peeresses. We on this side of the House cannot accept any extension of the hereditary principle. We accept that, like many things in this country, it may be indefensible in theory but it works in practice; but the fact is that as we move further and further into the twentieth century it becomes less and less defensible, although I realise that it has certain advantages. Therefore, we cannot accept the extension of the hereditary Peerages to include Peerages which are held by ladies. But if we are going to allow the hereditary Peeresses to sit in Parliament, I feel that the whole question of the co-heirs should be examined. Possibly it has been examined, and the noble Viscount who leads the House will have something to say about it in his reply.
I should like to declare an interest here, because I am the holder of a Peerage by Writ and have two nieces who are co-heiresses. I hasten to say that I do not approve, in general, of the admission of hereditary Peeresses. But in these days of the equality of the sexes there is surely no justification for continuing this idea which debars the elder of two sisters, if there is no son, from succeeding to a Peerage and puts the title into abeyance for some while. If you are going to allow the hereditary Peeresses to sit, why not let the eldest daughter succeed to a title that is in abeyance? In this way one could at least say that one was treating the sexes fairly, and so showing the spirit of equality which women are enjoying, and fully deserve, in every walk of life.
But, more important than this, I have a greater objection, and that is to the question of the surrender of a title for life. I think there has been far too much concentration in this Report on the use of titles. It is not really the question of titles or hereditary titles that is important; it is the matter of a hereditary title combined with the right to sit in Parliament and to legislate. The whole question of the hereditary Peerage will no doubt he tackled in the years to come, but this is a private matter for each individual. Some Peers use their titles all the time; some do not use them professionally, but use them in private life; and others choose not to use them at all. It seems to me, if I may say so with
330
respect, to be unnecessarily petty to say to a Peer: "If you want to sit in the other place you have to give up your title for life." This seems to be quite unnecessary. He need not use it if he does not wish to, like Lord Stansgate, who prefers to be known as Mr. Wedgwood Benn. I think one of the effects will be that some Peers who might wish to sit in the other place will decide not to do so, because they may have an old and distinguished title of which they are particularly proud, and they may feel that they will be letting down their family if they give it up. For my part, I think this clause in the Report is quite unnecessary.
It is often said—I think it has been said in many debates that we have had in this House—that it is necessary to have an hereditary Peerage as a support to the Crown. I think that this does a great disservice to the Monarchy. The Crown, in the person of our gracious Sovereign, is sufficiently loved by all her subjects not to need the prop of an hereditary Peerage, which does not have the same reverence that it had, and I think it is perfectly possible to have an hereditary Monarchy without an hereditary Peerage to support it: in fact, any suggestion which says that an hereditary Peerage is necessary to support the Monarchy I would regard as a gross impertinence.
To conclude, I would say that we as a Party welcome this Report. We regard it as a good Report in itself, except for these small reservations that I have personally, and a step in the right direction. We realise that we cannot have everything at once, but there will have to come a time when the hereditary Peerage is no longer permitted to sit in a Legislative Chamber. It obviously has less and less justification in these democratic times. But that time, maybe, will come. For the moment, however, these proposals will enable people who do not wish to sit in this House but to go to the other place to make their own choice in the matter. On this side of the House we consider that on a long-term basis an hereditary Peerage has no justification, and for my part I think it would be perfectly possible to have a workable House of Lords composed of Peers of the first creation and Life Peers who could possibly be found from some of the existing hereditary Peers. In that way, when

331
you have a sufficient number of Life Peers and Peers of the first creation, you have a working House, and it would then be possible to extinguish the hereditary Peerage altogether.
6.41 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we have had a very good debate on the Report of the Joint Committee on the Reform of the House of Lords. I expected that there might be some disagreements; but substantially speaking there has been little disagreement among the various noble Lords who have spoken. We were glad that the Lord Chancellor, in opening the debate, gave a general blessing to the Report, though quite rightly leaving the door open on some matters, in case the Government met unexpected trouble, either within or without. That is not unreasonable. The noble and learned Lord was followed by my noble friend Lord Silkin, who gave an able exposition of the problem and made beneficent reference to the Report which registered the support of noble Lords who sit on this side.
We were glad that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, spoke. He was a very good Chairman of the Joint Committee, and every member felt indebted for the great ability and patience with which he presided over our proceedings. The other speeches which followed have generally blessed the Report. My noble friend Lord Silkin referred to the fact that there were 900 Peers eligible to attend the House of Lords, and, quite rightly, was grateful for the fact that most of them do not come. That is very true. But we have had a very good attendance to-day, which I must say frightened me a little at the beginning, in case any mischief was meant by this rather abnormally large attendance. But it has turned out all right.
About the question of the title and the possible drowning of the Peerage, I take this view of it. I am sorry, but I do not wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. If a man succeeding to a Peerage decides that he does not wish to accept the Peerage in the sense of sitting in this House of Parliament, I want him to take this decision very seriously. I do not want it to be easy for him not to sit here and to be able to walk
332
about with the title and the trappings, if I may so refer to them, of a Peerage. It is not desirable to make it too easy. It is not desirable in the interests of this House as part of the Legislature, and he ought to think seriously about it before he takes that step. Therefore, it would be anomalous if a Peer succeeded to a Peerage but declined to take it, and was then able to go about using the title of that Peerage. I think it is anomalous because he would not be a Member of the House of Lords. He would not be eligible to sit, having made the declaration repudiating the Peerage, and it would be something in the nature of an alias for him not to sit here but to go about with the title as if he did.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: That was not the point I was on. I agree that he should not go about with the title of the Peerage he has surrendered. If the Duke of Buccleuch does not want to be the Duke of Buccleuch, obviously he must not call himself that. My point is that for 20 years he sat in the House of Commons as Lord Dalkeith, which is merely a courtesy title, one of his father's titles. It seems to be to be rather silly to tell him that in future, instead of calling himself Lord Dalkeith, which everybody has called him as a Member of the House of Commons, he is to call himself Mr. Scott.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: If, when he sat in the Commons, that was his proper name as a commoner—which I presume from the noble Earl was the case—then I do not know that I would quarrel about it. The noble Earl has raised a fair point, which I must say had not occurred to me. But if he succeeds to a Peerage and then repudiates his noble status, if I may so put it, then I think he must do without the title.
The EARL OF SWINTON: I quite agree.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The other point is the drowning, on which we were not able to agree. My noble friends and I took the point—again on the same argument—that if a man is going to give up his succession to a Peerage, the consequences ought to be sufficiently serious to make him think twice or three times whether he does it. We thought that when he set

333
the Peerage aside it must be dropped for all time, for his descendants as well as for himself. The Committee did not agree with us about that. I am not disposed to make it a "die in the last ditch" issue as to whether or not we should accept the Report, though personally I think it right that if a Peer drops the title he must drop it for his descendants as well. Because, apart from the fact that it affects the dignity of this House, I do not like the principle of people coming in and out of the Chamber—not the same man. The inheritor of the title might refuse to come in, reject the title, and reject the Parliamentary status and what goes with it. His son might come in, and some other son might go out. I do not think that would be good for the dignity of the Chamber. But it is not a point on which we should necessarily part company.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, questioned the title of this Report, "House of Lords Reform." I agree with him. This is quite a limited point, and it is not worthy of the name of reform. I am not complaining about this, but it is such a limited area that to call it reform almost tempts one to recall the Liberal Government of 1910, which brought in the great Parliament Act of that year, and, in a Preamble declared that it would reform the Second Chamber—and the jolly old Second Chamber has been going strong ever since, except by further amendment of the Parliament Act, which the Labour Government introduced in 1949. So that promise has not been kept. If the Liberal Government had been able to go on with reform, I think it would have been reform of substance. But it is a mistake to call this a reform.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, made a useful speech. I must say that the noble Viscount, Lord Esher (whom we are glad to see after some time of absence), made a witty and humorous speech which we all thoroughly enjoyed, at any rate until the last five minutes. It was a very good speech, and very enjoyable, and cheered the House up no end. I was glad that the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury supported in general the proposals in the Report, and it was a comfort and blessing to know that he was on the side
334
of the recommendations in the Report. I also join with those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on his maiden speech, which we enjoyed.
My noble friend Lord Longford made a very interesting speech, during which he stated with great clarity, and almost persuasively, the case of his own position, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. I will not say any more about it, except to congratulate him on the ability with which he stated the case, which I am sure will have been noted by noble Lords and probably considered in the right quarter. But I always think that if my noble friend Lord Longford states a case he does so with great ability, and if sometimes it is a bit of a difficult case he states it with more ability than usual, as he did on this occasion. It was a pleasure to listen to him. However, I am not going to get in his way. If he can get away with this proposition, good luck to him! I promise not to obstruct his efforts.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, who I well know comes from Northern Ireland, raised the point of the Scots and the Irish, which was quite reasonable because in Northern Ireland there are Scots as well as Irish. But he pointed out that the Scots were possibly going to get all the Scottish Peers admitted as Members of the House of Lords. I opposed this in the Committee on the principle that I do not want more hereditary Peers admitted to this House. Indeed, I put down an amendment to the Report, but unfortunately on the day the amendment came up I had a cold and my wife flatly refused to let me get out of bed, so I could not move it. As nobody else moved it for me, it "went West." But I do not like the idea of additional hereditary Peers being made.
However, the case for it was that this bother of the election of sixteen Representative Peers from Scotland, which the Scots are entitled to under the Act of Union, is a bit of a labour, and that the other Peers, the non-representative Peers, who can take part in the election of the Representative Peers although they cannot sit in this Chamber and have not got a Parliamentary vote, are not eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons. I admit that, on those

335
grounds, the Scottish non-representative Peers were having a raw deal. I must say, nevertheless, that I do not like the idea of additional hereditary Peers being admitted, but the Committee thought it was best. As the number is about an additional fifteen, it will not be fatal, especially as it is uncertain whether they will all turn up. That we shall see.
With regard to Ireland, the noble Lord opposite has an understandable grievance about the Irish Peers from that most distressful country. But what can we do? The greater part of Ireland is Eire, the Irish Republic, and one does not know what sort of Peers these Irish Peers are if they are republicans.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There are about seventy of them.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The noble Viscount the Leader of the House says there are about seventy, which is quite a number. That would be more serious than the position of the Scots, and I do not know how you can easily draw Peers from a Republic, because I understand that Republics do not recognise Peers, or any titles; and we do not know what sort of gentlemen they are. I am afraid, although I have some sympathy with them and I think it is a bit rough for them, they are victims of the fact that Southern Ireland has become the Irish Republic. But the noble Lord himself is a distinguished citizen of Northern Ireland, for which part of the United Kingdom I have a great affection, though I wish to goodness it would vote a bit differently at Westminster Parliamentary Elections. It would be very good for Northern Ireland if they did. I have told them that over there, but it did not make much difference.
They now have a new Prime Minister. I am sorry that Lord Brookeborough has felt it necessary to resign. He and I were good friends and I like him very much. But, after all, the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, himself is a citizen of Northern Ireland as well as of the United Kingdom and he is here; and there is nothing to prevent the Prime Minister of to-day, or one in the future, from making United Kingdom Peers from Northern Ireland, as, indeed, he has, Lord Brookeborough and others, including, I
336
believe, another Minister in the Northern Ireland Government, Lord Glenconner, whom I know very well.
Therefore, it does not say in this Report that there shall never be Peers from Ireland; it says only that the Irish Republic is in such a tangle that we cannot very well admit Peers who are from that part of the country, or indeed from Northern Ireland; the tangle is complicated and difficult. So while one sympathises with the noble Lord in what he said, I think it cannot be helped. Let him congratulate himself that he is here and not left outside over the other side of the Irish Sea.
My noble friend Lord Kennet hopes that this Report will be implemented, and I agree with him. He is quite right that the electors ought to be remembered in this business. The electors of South-East Bristol had a rich grievance and they played a real part in inciting the Government and the Parliament of the country to go ahead and see what they could do about the problem. Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, having been refused permission to take his seat in another place, stood for Parliament and won by a handsome majority, and his opponent had the rather humiliating experience of being thoroughly defeated. Nevertheless, by a decision of the Electoral Court the loser took the seat instead of the one who in the ordinary way was the duly-elected candidate. So the electors of South-East Bristol have played an important part in our reaching the position which we have reached. I am glad the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, supported the Report and gave us that help which was desirable.
I should like briefly to refer to the principles which are embodied in the Report. It is recommended that a successor to a Peerage who does not wish to succeed can, by a simple process, refuse to succeed. That makes him eligible for election to another place and gives him the vote at Parliamentary elections for the House of Commons; and surely this is reasonable. I am not in love with the hereditary principle, as your Lordships may have noticed, but I think perhaps one of the worst forms of that principle is that a son should be compelled to sit in this place when he does not want to. After all, none of us chose our own parents, and it is a bit rough

337
if a young man, especially if he happens to be in politics, does not wish to come here but nevertheless is pitchforked here, as the saying is, because his father was a Peer. That applied to Anthony Wedgwood Benn and it applied also to the present Leader of your Lordships' House, with whom I have very great sympathy. The Government of which I was a member did not pick his case up, though the grounds on which he asked for action to be taken were a little different from those of Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn. I do not want to make too much point of that. The noble Viscount deserves sympathetic consideration; and looking back on it, I am sorry that we did not do something to help him.
I support in this Report not only the possibility that new heirs to Peerages will be able to set aside the succession, but also the retrospective aspect, to the extent that it would cover the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House and anybody in a similar position. It will still, I think, cover the case of Lord Sandwich, if he wished to take advantage of it. I gather from the fact that he has sat in this House that he probably does not wish to do so; but he could still do so if he wished. Therefore I wanted them both covered; I think that is both right and fair. So the position now is that this state of affairs need not go on.
I do not like the hereditary principle. I do not want to make a song and dance about it, because this is not the day to make songs and dances; we want to get this Report through. It cuts both ways. Not only do I not like the idea of a man or a woman, who may be fitted to be a legislator or not, becoming a legislator merely because he or she is the descendant of a certain person, but I equally object to the hereditary principle on the other ground that a man is forced into the House of Lords against his will merely because he is the son of his father. To that extent this Report removes and alters that situation, and the Peerage can be surrendered for life on the part of anybody who is so minded.
On the question of Peeresses, there was some doubt in some quarters, I gather, whether Peeresses in their own right should be admitted. I think they should. I agree with the noble Earl,
338
Lord Kilmuir. I think we should be hopelessly out of date if they were not admitted; especially as we have now women Life Peers who have really justified themselves in this House, as have, if I may say so without undue conceit, Life Peers generally. Certainly women Life Peers have justified their existence in this House since they were created. I cannot see why in the case of this Parliamentary institution we should say we are going to be different from every other assembly in the country, local authority or otherwise, and that women are not to be admitted. That is utterly unreasonable.
I say that, as one who takes pride in the fact that I have had a hand in creating many first women of something or other: the first woman Chairman of the London County Council; the Metropolitan Water Board (a lot of males there could not understand what water had to do with women; but they drink it and cook with it); the first woman member of the Electricity Authority (and there was the same prejudice); the first woman prison governor; and the first woman stipendiary magistrate—which was not popular at the time in the profession to which the Leader of the House belongs, although I cannot say I had any trouble with him that I recall. I take pride in having taken this part in promoting women to various things. I think it would he a terrible thing if Peeresses in their own right were not admitted to this place. It will be interesting to see them if they turn up. We shall be looking to see what sort of people they are. How many will turn up we do not know.
It is pleasing that after all the troubles and adventures, the comings and goings, about this problem we should now have arrived at the situation where there appears to be substantial agreement between the various Members of this House, and I hope that another place is in the same position. I would therefore urge on the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, that he should try to persuade the Cabinet to bring in this Bill as soon as possible. Let us pass it with expedition. It does not look as if it will be troublesome. It will not be too much of a burden on the Government's legislative programme. Having reached this stage of substantial agreement in this House, which I hope will be true also

339
of the other House—the sooner it is true the better—then the sooner it is done the better. There would be more trouble about it if it were to be left over.
I hope the Government will expeditiously legislate on this very useful Report, on which a Committee of very mixed people were able to agree. We were able to do the work together and although we did not always reach agreement, because there were votes on the Committee, we were friendly and courteous to each other. That being the spirit in which the Committee did their work and in which they have reported, it would be a tragedy if Her Majesty's Government did not carry that spirit on to the expeditious preparation of the Parliamentary Bill. Let us not talk too much about it; let us put it through. It is the way in which the British do things. The House has been sticky about all these things for a very long time, but there is one thing about it: the House sooner or later comes to the right conclusion. It is doing it to-day. I hope the legislation will be passed expeditiously, so that the world may say, as Sir Alan Herbert said in his play Big Ben (I have quoted this before):
"There's a lot to be said for the Lords, the Lords,
There's a lot to be said for the Lords."
7.7 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, before I proceed on to the merits of this debate, I should like first of all to say how very sorry we were on this side of the House that the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, was unable to be with us to-day. I understand that it is only a slight indisposition which is keeping him away, but none the less we wish him a very speedy and complete recovery. I should also like to take the opportunity of congratulating my noble friend Lord Windlesham on what was one of the most successful maiden speeches which have been recently made. He is particularly welcome, both as the son of his father, whom we all remember with affection, and as a notable addition to our debating strength.
I am only too conscious that I am now speaking upon a subject upon
340
which I have already expressed my opinions a very great number of times. I even inflicted upon the Committee whose Report we are discussing two memoranda of evidence. The House will realise, of course, that from my own personal point of view some of the recommendations were exactly in accord with my own beliefs, and others were less so. But my function this evening is not to expatiate on my own personal opinions but to try to sum up the debate. This I will try to do.
We are, of course, in this House, as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, reminded us, a traditional institution, and in dealing with it and in altering its forms and ceremonies, compositions and powers, one has to be governed by this consideration: that a traditional institution, provided that it works effectively and does not involve injustice, is not judged probably by the same criteria as an institution which one is creating for the first time. The second thing which I think we must all bear in mind, and which leads me very much to the conclusion which I shall state, is that in really quite a long time now devoted to considering this subject I have never known any two adult human beings who hold precisely the same opinions on all the possible permutations and combinations which are open to discussion. I therefore reach the conclusion that approaching, as clearly we must be, the moment of truth in this matter, on the whole the broad principles must be passed as a package, every man conscious of the fact that the whole package will contain parts which for him, at any rate, are not wholly acceptable. I do not believe it is practicable to approach this problem in any other way. If we seek perfection we shall not achieve action.
What I think we have achieved as a result of this evening's debate is a most satisfactory measure of unanimity. Both the official speakers from the Labour Party Front Bench; the noble Lord, Lord Rea; the most reverend Primate; the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir (whose chairmanship of the Committee was universally commented upon with praise); my noble friend Lord Swinton, who spoke with his own unrivalled experience, and with the added authority of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who could not be with us, have all in

341
principle accepted the broad lines of the Report; and a host of speakers from every quarter of the House have done the same.
Among the only profound dissentients that I thought I detected was the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, from the Liberal Benches, who appears some considerable number of years ago, on his own confession, to have stood somewhat to the right of Mr. Gladstone, and to have been moving steadily in the same direction ever since, and whom only a profound and steadfast conservatism retains upon the Liberal Benches at all. I thought he was the only profound dissentient, except perhaps my noble friend Lord Perth, who, I thought, based his disagreement with the principal recommendation of the Report with regard to surrender (if, like my noble friend, I may use the word) on a false premise. He said in clear terms, I understand (I was not in the Chamber at the time, but he was reported to me as saying), that of the last three Leaders of the House, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, my noble friend Lord Home, and myself, not one would have remained a Member of the House had these proposals been accepted. I am quite sure that he is wrong. Although I have not the authority of my noble friend Lord Swinton to speak for Lord Salisbury, I cannot conceive of his not having served in this House and taken the title, even had these proposals been accepted at the time.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I think I can assure my noble friend that nothing would induce the noble Marquess to go back to the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have often heard the noble Marquess say that he far prefers sitting in this House to membership of the House of Commons. Although have never asked my noble friend the Foreign Secretary what he would have done, had these proposals been in force when he succeeded to the Earldom and the English or United Kingdom title by which he sits here, I have myself no doubt that he would be here just the same. What I would have done is probably well known to your Lordships.
Therefore, I think the convenient course would be perhaps to look at some of the specific recommendations of the
342
Committee and see whether the debate has really made any dent in them. Starting, therefore, with the question of surrender, I think that with the two distinguished exceptions that I have mentioned, there has been virtual unanimity in favour of the principle. A certain amount of difference has been expressed as to whether the surrender should be for life or should involve the extinction of the Peerage. I did not hear any noble Lord support the view which I myself hold, that a distinction should be made between a Lordship of Parliament and a Peerage. Therefore, one assumes that if the package is to go through there would have to be a surrender at least for the life of the tenant.
I thought there was a substantial agreement, too, that the extinction of the whole title would be a wrong solution, although there were two or three noble Lords who spoke up in favour of it. My own view is that the arguments against it are overwhelming. There are Peerages which are part of our national heritage, and which I think most of us would be sorry to see extinguished because it happened that the tenant for the time being of that Peerage wished to pursue a political career, or for any other reason did not wish to serve in the House of Lords. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who said that there may be several other reasons why he might not wish to do so. It was also pointed out (I think by my noble friend Lord Swinton) that it is not by any means always the immediate descendant of the present holder of the title who can succeed to the title. He might, by an act of caprice or spite, seek to defeat the claims of a brother or a cousin, or even of a remoter collateral. All these factors have to be taken into consideration in considering whether or not to extinguish a title.
Then there is the question, of course, of the name by which a Peer is called if he does exercise the option. I appreciate the force of the arguments that have been presented. I think there was a strong preponderance of opinion that the exercise of the option should involve the loss of the title. That is not, in fact, the view which I expressed. I have always thought that what you were called, or what other people called you, is a peculiarly delicate matter and is not suitable for legislation. Indeed, exactly what

343
would happen if now a Peer should exercise the option just to call himself Lord Something or other is something that the Select Committee do not seem to have considered. But, at any rate, the opinion of the House, as of the Committee, appears to be that the title cannot be retained.
I was glad to notice that my noble friend Lord Swinton, and indeed my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir, and by proxy the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, had in the end declared their willingness to abide by the majority of the Committee that sitting Peers can exercise the option. I personally think again that that is a matter of a package, and the reasons which I submitted to the Select Committee I still think valid.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, wrung our hearts with his personal and complicated story; he was as three persons in one Peer. But I will, of course, report to my colleagues what he said on the subject, because it would be an ungenerous and churlish act on my part did I not do so, especially as I was, I fear, the innocent occasion of his accepting the first of the three titles, since I beat him in the 1945 Election for the constituency of the City of Oxford; otherwise he would have sat happily in the House of Commons until he was translated here by the present law.
On the other hand, I must tell him that I see certain difficulties in the way of his case. I think it would be difficult. He did, after all, accept a Peerage in the ordinary way of accepting a first creation. He may have done so in the belief that he was the heir-presumptive, although not the heir-apparent, to a title of another kind. But he did, in fact, accept a Peerage of his own, and held high and distinguished offices in the Labour Government on the strength of it. I think it would be most difficult to differentiate between him and any other Peer of first creation, and the mere fact that he added to his lustre by the two distinguished titles which he holds in addition, I think would not make it too easy to distinguish the case.
I turn now to the Scots. My noble friends Lord Perth and Lord Sempill still desire to retain the Scottish elections, and, by implication, to exclude the non-Representative Scottish Peers. I can
344
understand the reasons, although I do not think either of them was explained. I am told that the elections at the beginning of a Parliament to the Representative Scottish Peerage are very pleasant social occasions indeed, and that those who have attended them would never wish to forgo the repeated pleasure from time to time. I think it is fair to say that some of those who are excluded feel their absence from this House and would like to come. Indeed, I gather from some of my honourable friends, and from some of the memoranda submitted to the Committee, that that was the general wish of the Scottish Peerage. I myself thought, apart from these two distinguished exceptions, that the House would have welcomed the Report of the Select Committee on this, and, as I said in my memorandum of evidence, would endorse it.
I now come to the sadder case of the Irish Peers, again a body of persons for whom I have nothing but sympathy. On the other hand, I think it is quite difficult to see how the case for them can be put. I notice that one of the distinguished members of that body submitted a memorandum of evidence to the Committee in which he claimed—and I believe it is generally claimed on behalf of the Irish Peers—that they were elected to represent the Peerage of Ireland, and not to represent Ireland. Indeed, this is the way in which their claim is put, the Act of Union not having been repealed, although the machinery by which they can be elected has unfortunately lapsed—for a variety of reasons which may or may not be technical. I do not find that my copy of the Act of Union corresponds with the memorandum of evidence as submitted. Article Four of the Treaty of Union (which is embodied and ratified by Section 1 of the Act) provides that the
"four lords spiritual of Ireland by rotation of sessions, and twenty-eight lords temporal of Ireland elected for life by peers of Ireland, shall be the number to sit and vote on the part of Ireland in the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom"—
not as representing the Peerage of Ireland, but—
"on the part of Ireland".
This is exactly the same phrase which is used in connection with Members of the Lower House in the United Kingdom under the same Act.

345
Although my noble friend Lord Rathcavan says that it would not impair our relations with the Republic if, after a long lapse of years, new elections were held for the election of 28 new representatives, I am not sure that that is the case. If they are to represent, under the terms of a Treaty and an Act of Parliament, a country the greater part of which has dissociated itself altogether from the sovereignty of the Crown and Commonwealth, I think that they might well feel this was an exercise of sovereignty over that country which they might resent. After all, if we started to re-summon the Peers of the Duchy of Normandy I imagine that it would create some comment across the Channel.
Again, I would be sympathetic with the plea that part of Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom; and this, of course, is true. As a loyal descendant of Ulstermen myself I am very proud to recognise the fact. But the Peerage was not a Peerage of Northern Ireland but a Peerage of Ireland, and there seems to me to be no justification for creating a new Peerage—that is to say for those whose titles happen to be in the North—and then electing from them Representative Peers. This is something for which the Treaty of Union never provided, and something which was not even contemplated at the time. It would be a purely historical anomaly created by Statute for the first time now.
I therefore cannot see any legal case for this proposal, although I will convey to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister my noble friend's suggestion that he endorses what I said in my memorandum that suitable citizens of Northern Ireland, or citizens of the United Kingdom resident in Northern Ireland, should from time to time be proposed to Her Majesty for the conferment of an ordinary Peerage. I think that constitutionally that would be a far superior device.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, thought that Peers of Ireland should be compelled to opt like Peers of England. I think that that is too savage. If we are going to deny them all title to sit in this House, it would surely be anomalous and wrong for us to deprive them of the names by which they are known before they sit in the House of Commons—which they have
346
always up to now been able to do without loss of dignity. I think they have had a fair deal. My noble friend Lord Rathcavan called the deal a raw one. If we were to impose upon them an additional disability, they would have every cause to complain.
I come now, at last, to the Peeresses. Here I thought that, on the whole, the Peeresses in their own right were welcomed by the House as potential Members—with the exception of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who trembled at the thought of four female relatives sitting around him in this House, a situation which, I am bound to say, would intimidate any man. I had, as the House may remember, considerable doubts at an earlier stage about this. There is a complicated and just legal argument which can be presented against them, but it is too complicated to explain, as I found when I came into conflict with my noble friend Lord Salisbury on an earlier occasion. This serious defeat for myself taught me a lesson, which I think I have learned.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked about coparceners. I do not think I can offer them any hope at all. A Peerage is not held by the eldest of the coparceners, but is held in equal and indivisible parts by them all. The choice, therefore, is not in favour of allowing one to represent the whole; it is all of them or none. The coparceners need not be sisters, but can be as many as 125 in respect of any Peerage of this kind, although they seldom reach this very large number. The prospect of large numbers of coparceners all having to speak with one voice because collectively they hold only one Peerage, and of their all descending upon your Lordships and being introduced into this House, is not one which I think I can contemplate.
I think the answer is that this House would endorse these proposals as a broad whole if, when, after Easter, the Government have considered the matter, the Government decide that legislation is the right course. I shall—I hope correctly—convey that message to my colleagues. My own feeling is that the time has come when we must make up our minds, and that the House of Lords—and we shall see from our papers to-morrow whether another place does so—endorses

347
the proposals of the Select Committee. I should like to add my thanks to that Committee.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down there is one point I would raise. Is there any chance of re-thinking about the son of a Peer succeeding in a minority: that he would be forced to make a choice one way or the other at 22, rather than at 26? I cannot see how at 22 he knows what he is going to do.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords I am sorry I did not answer that in the course of my speech. But obviously this is a matter which will be studied with other matters which have been stated in the debate. If I may just state the trouble in a sentence, it is that he may want to stand for the House of Commons at 21, and it is difficult, if you are going to carry through an operation with this kind of option, to make the date of option different from the date at which you can vote for the House of Commons and stand for the House of Commons.
On Question, Resolution agreed to.

PORT OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
B.P. REFINERY (KWINANA) BILL
Reported, without amendment.
  PRISON SENTENCES FOR DRUNKENNESS
  PRISON SENTENCES FOR DRUNKENNESS